Sitting of 5 June 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Parliamentary Voters Lists (Ire-

1159
land)* [280]; Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) (1877) Amendment* [281]; Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act (1875) Amendment* [282].
First Reading—Law of Distress Amendment* [283].
Committee—Distress for Rent (Duldin) [159]—R.P.
Withdrawn—Steam Boilers* [160].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 7)* [272]; Local Government (No. 8)* [271].
Considered as amended—Pier and Harbour* [221]; Water* [227].
Third Reading—Metropolitan Police* [212]; Public Health (Scotland) (Denny and Dunipace Water)* [229], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  VALUATION ROLL (SCOTLAND)—"IN- HABITANT OCCUPIERS," OR "TENANTS."
  MR. PRESTON BRUCEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the fact that the names of householders who are workmen occupying houses belonging to their employers on a tenancy determinable with their employment, but paying rent in the shape of a periodical deduction from their wages, are in Mid Lothian and Fife inserted in the "Inhabitant Occupier" column of the Valuation Roll, whereas in Lanarkshire they are inserted in the "Tenant" column; in how many counties the former, and in how many the latter, system obtains; whether both systems are legal; and, if so, with whom lies the discretion of deciding in each case which system shall be adopted; and, whether on the adoption of the one or the other depends the having or not having of school board and municipal votes by a very large number of householders, especially in the industrial and mining districts?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I apologize for not being in my place when the Question was first asked. I was under examination upstairs before a Select Committee, and I assure my hon. Friend I would much rather have been here. I answer the first paragraph in the affirmative; 13 counties follow the first practice, and three the second; and in three counties the practice varies according to the mode in which the master holds the property. If he is proprietor, the occupiers are entered as tenants; if
  1160
  he rents the property in which his employés live, they are entered as inhabitant occupiers. The remaining counties have no cases falling under the Question. In answer to the third paragraph, I have to say that both systems cannot be legal, and the Registration Court is the proper tribunal to say which should be followed. I answer the fourth paragraph in the affirmative. It is certainly desirable that this matter should be brought to the test of legal decision, as the present position of matters is anomalous and unsatisfactory.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887— CLAUSE 24—THE WATERFORD ESTATE, CO. DERRY.
  MR. MULHOLLANDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the purchasers of the Waterford estate, in County Derry, have applied to the Board of Works for a reduction in their annual payments, in accordance with the provisions of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," Clause 24; and, what reply (if any) has been made to their application?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): This is a Question for the Treasury. I do not see my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary here at preent; but, no doubt, he will answer the Question subsequently.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL BILL—LETTERS AND CORRESPONDENCE.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the President of the Board of Trade, If, prior to the second reading of the Channel Tunnel Bill, he will obtain and place in the Library, for the perusal of Members, a copy of a letter (which has been read by the present Secretary to the Board of Trade, and is in the possession of Lord Rothschild), from the late Earl of Derby to the late Earl of Beaconsfield, expressing opinions in favour of the construction of a tunnel to connect England and France; and also a copy of a letter from the Earl of Beaconsfield to the late Baron Lionel de Rothschild, enclosing, and concurring in, the foregoing letter?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I know nothing whatever of this matter, and the Secretary to the Board of Trade informs me that he is not aware that he

  1161
  ever read the letter referred to in the Question of the hon. Baronet. If the hon. Baronet thinks that a correspondence so antiquated is of material importance to his case, it is his duty rather than mine to provide for its publication.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, he should raise the question in another form.

  INDIA (BENGAL)—NAWAB ZAIGHUM- UD-DOWLAH.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any, and what, arrangement has been made by the Indian Government to send Nawab Zaighumud-Dowlah to this country; at whose cost, for what term, in what capacity, and at what salary; whether the same person was formerly appointed Rural Sub-Registrar in Bengal, and at what salary; whether he afterwards ceased to hold such appointment; and, whether the Government can state the reasons for such cessation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Secretary of State is not aware that Nawab Zaighum-ud-Dowlah is being sent to England at all in any capacity. The Bengal Civil Lists for January and April, 1888, show that this gentleman was on the 1st of those months a Special Sub-Registrar in the Durbhanga District; he was a probationer for six months; his salary was 75 rupees a month, and he enjoyed certain fees under the Registration Law. Beyond these entries in the Bengal Civil List, the Secretary of State knows nothing about this gentleman.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—ISSUE OF LIME JUICE—THE "KILLEENA."
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has received complaints of cruelty practised towards the officers and crew of the British barque Killeena, Captain Blake, and whether any, and what, action has been taken thereon; whether the complaints included the allegation of the non-issue of lime juice for 42 days on a voyage between foreign ports, and whether the present law is insufficient to meet this; and, whether such complaints also include the illegal imprisonment of two
  1162
  men, Smith and Malmberg, at Talcahuano, and what, if any, action has been taken thereon?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Complaints of harsh treatment at sea and in foreign ports were received from certain members of the crew of the Killeena. The Board obtained statements from all witnesses whose whereabouts could be traced. These statements do not contain allegations of gross misconduct, drunkenness, or tyranny on the part of the master such as would, under the statute, have justified the Board of Trade in sending the case to a Local Marine Board for investigation, with a view to the suspension of the master's certificate; but the Board called the attention of the owner of the Killeena to the complaints. The complaints included the allegation of the non-issue of lime juice. The present law does not cover cases of British vessels which do not begin their voyage in the United Kingdom. The Killeena was on a passage from one foreign port to another on the occasion referred to; but I find that, as the voyage commenced in the United Kingdom originally, the law is strong enough to meet such a case, and it will be enforced in the event of any future cases being reported. The complaints included the allegation of imprisonment. This has been investigated by direction of the Foreign Office; and Her Majesty's Consul at Valparaiso has taken steps with a view to prevent the imprisonment of any British seamen at Talcahuano without an order from the British Vice Consul at that port.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—SECTION 46—HIGH- WAYS IN SOUTH WALES.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the 46th section of the Local Government Bill will transfer to each of the Rural District Councils in each of the six counties of South Wales, in respect of the highways situate within the district, all the powers, duties, and liabilities of a Highway Board; and, if so, whether these powers, duties, and liabilities will be the powers, duties, and liabilities created by the various Acts specially relating to the highways in South Wales?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): It is intended by Clause 46 of the Local Government Bill to transfer to the Rural District Councils in South Wales the powers, duties, and liabilities which now devolve on the Highways Boards under the South Wales Highway Acts.

  CRIMINAL LAW (UNITED KINGDOM)— WILFUL MURDER.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing all cases in England and Wales and Ireland respectively, during each of the two years 1880 and 1886, in which a verdict of wilful murder was returned by a Coroner's Jury, but in which no one has subsequently been convicted of the crime, giving similar information as respects Scotland in cases where the Procurator Fiscal has reported to the Crown Agent that a murder appears to have been committed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, if the hon. Gentleman moved for such a Return, there could be no objection to granting it.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)— WEEKLY SHERIFF COURT, TOBER MORY.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the Memorial addressed to the Secretary for Scotland by the Procurators practising at Tobermory protesting against the abolition of the weekly Sheriff Court there; whether it is true that the Sheriff Clerk Depute has been removed from Tobermory to Oban, with all papers and documents connected with crofter applications and cases depending or to be brought before the Crofters' Commission; whether he is aware that the removal of the Court from Tobermory to Oban will involve much trouble and expense to litigants in many of the Western Islands; and, whether he would consider the advisability of deferring the proposed change at least till the Crofter Commission has dealt with the district of which Tobermory forms the centre?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): My attention has been called to the Memorial referred to. There have hitherto always been Sheriff Clerk Deputes both at Tobermory and Oban, and there is no intention to alter this practice. I am not aware that the alteration will involve trouble and expense to litigants. So far as I can ascertain, this will not be so, but rather the reverse. As at present advised, I cannot adopt the suggestion in the fourth paragraph of the Question. The Courts are already being carried on under the new Order; and, with the exception of the Memorial referred to by the hon. Member, no representations have been made to me against the recent Order.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— BURNING A BARN.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the Presentment Sessions held at Dungarvan on May 19, a police sergeant admitted that, although he believed the burning of a barn belonging to a Mr. Samuel Hood was an accident, he reported it as an "outrage;" and, whether his excuse for this was that, being bound to report the occurrence, he had no forms but such as were headed for "outrages?"
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Deputy Inspector General of Constabulary states that the sergeant did not report this case as an outrage, but as being an outrage in the opinion of Mr. Hood—an opinion from which the sergeant himself dissented. It was never recorded as an outrage.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Is it correct that there were no other forms available?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand the matter, the police have only to report upon cases where outrages are alleged, and there is no objection to an allegation of an outrage being put on the form. It does not follow, however, that the case will find its way into the official statistics of outrages.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Who decides that?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The person who is responsible for the statistics—the Inspector General.

  LUNACY ACT—DISTRICT BOARD OF LUNACY.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Lord Advocate, Whether District Boards of Lunacy who have, under the Lunacy Act, contracted with chartered asylums for the maintenance of pauper lunatics, are entitled, under reasonable regulations, to visit such lunatics?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I am not aware of any statutory right under which District Boards of Lunacy are entitled to visit lunatics for whom they pay in chartered asylums. They have a power under the Act of 1857 to appoint medical men as District Inspectors to visit such lunatics. I am informed that there is only one case in which any question has arisen ont his subject—namely, in Forfarshire; and in this case, though the Directors of the asylum declined to allow visitation as a matter of right, they stated that, as a matter of courtesy, they would welcome a visit from the District Board at any time.

  SWITZERLAND-ENGLISH MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that certain legally qualified English medical practitioners have lately been fined and threatened with imprisonment by some of the authorities for practising among invalids visiting Swiss health resorts; and, whether, in the interests of such invalids and of members of the English Medical Profession, he will make representations to the Swiss Government on the subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The statement in the first paragraph is true. The laws of Switzerland do not permit foreign doctors to practise there without the Federal authorization. Her Majesty's Government have for some time been endeavouring to arrange with the Swiss Government reciprocal privileges for the Medical Profession in either country; but as yet without success.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is the intention of the Government to provide a permanent home for the National Portrait Gallery?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): This matter is under the consideration of the Government; but they are not prepared at present to make any proposal on the subject.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— SALUTING.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a police inquiry was held in Newmarket, County Cork, on the 2nd and 3rd of May last, at which Constable Oldfield was accused of not saluting Mr. Langley, J.P., and local bank manager, and Mrs. Langley; what was the nature of the evidence for the prosecution; what was the result of the inquiry; if he can state the approximate cost of this inquiry, which lasted two days, and which necessitated the presence of District Inspector Meehan of Charleville and Inspector Lanyon of Mallow; and, if Mr. Langley would be required to defray all or any portion of the expense of the proceedings in the event of the charge not being sustained?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Inspector General reports that it is the case that the local Justice of the Peace referred to charged the constable with treating him with disrespect. The constable was acquitted. The approximate cost was something over £3. It will be a departmental charge.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—SUN- DAY BAND AT TRALEE.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the police authorities in Tralee have prevented the members of a fife and drum band in that town from playing through the streets and adjacent roads on Sunday, as was their wont

  1167
  hitherto for their own amusement and that of the public?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): On one occasion only has the band referred to been prevented from playing through the streets of Tralee; and on that occasion the reason for preventing them was that the police believed the collection of a crowd would lead to a disturbance.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked, whether there was a meeting being held on that day, or what was the reason that a disturbance was feared?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the day in question was the day before the trial of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. T. C. Harrington), and the hon. Member was expected to arrive in the town.

  FIRES (METROPOLIS)—FATAL FIRE IN THE EDGWARE ROAD.
  MR. SEAGER HUNTasked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether there was undue delay in the arrival of fire-escapes at the premises of Messrs. Garrould (in the Edgware Road) on the morning of Wednesday, May 30; and, if so, will he be good enough to state the cause of the delay?
  MR. WEBSTER(for Mr. TATTON EGERTON) (Cheshire, Knutsford): In answer to the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that the fire in the Edgware Road on Wednesday morning broke out just after the hour when the men on night watch with the fire-escapes went off duty. The firemen in charge of the fire-escape at Connaught Place had just lowered it and secured it for the day, when they were informed by a police-constable where the fire was. They should immediately have turned back, and taken the escape to the fire; but it seems that they neglected to do so, and for their neglect they have been suspended by the chief officer. It does not appear that if they had taken the escape on immediately they could have saved any of the lives; but, nevertheless, it was their duty to take it. All the engines reached the fire without accident or delay, and the water supply was prompt and ample. The conduct of the men in charge of the fire-escape is being investigated by the chief officer; and I may add that the whole of the
  1168
  circumstances connected with the fire will be thoroughly inquired into at the next meeting of the Fire Brigade Committee.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—THE "VANCOUVER."
  MR. R. W. DUFFasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the case of the British Ship Vancouver, which sailed from St. John's, N.B., on March 18; when three days at sea the crew considered the ship unseaworthy, and insisted on her being put back to port; whether he is aware that on being surveyed at St. John's the Vancouver was declared seaworthy; the crew were imprisoned for eight days, and were only released on undertaking again to go to sea in her; and that on the subsequent voyage from St. John's to Belfast the Vancouver sprung a leak, the cargo had to be thrown overboard to save the ship, which only reached Belfast in a perilous condition; and, whether he will cause an inquiry into the nature of the survey held at St. John's, and also into the treatment of the crew?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Until the hon. Member put his Notice of the Question on the Paper the attention of the Board of Trade had not been called to the case of the survey of the Vancouver in St. John's, New Brunswick. A letter has been addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies with a view to obtaining such information as can be procured respecting the case, including the nature of the survey held at St. John's.

  POLICE SUPERANNUATION—LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  MR. T. ROBINSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the practice in the County of Gloucester and other counties in England to deduct 2½ per cent from the salaries and wages of every member of the County Police Force for the purpose of establishing a superannuation fund for the benefit of every member of the Force after 30 years' service; and, whether this superannuation fund is secured to them in the Local Government Bill now before

  1169
  Parliament; and, if not, whether he will undertake to introduce a clause for that purpose when the Bill is in Committee?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): Whatever powers with regard to the superannuation of the police were possessed by the Justices in Quarter Sessions will, under Clause 7 of the Bill, be transferred to the Joint Committee of the Quarter Sessions and County Council; and the funds in hand for superannuation purposes will be transferred to the County Council under Clause 63 (1), by whom they will be held for the same purposes and subject to the same conditions as they would have been held by the Justices if the Bill had not passed.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS— PAYMENT OF COUNSEL'S FEES.
  MR. HOWELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Metropolitan Board of Works, at their sitting on Friday last, voted the sum of £440 out of the rates for the payment of counsel's fees on the present Board of Works inquiry; and, whether, as the Act upon which the Board rely as their authority for this charge upon the public was "prepared and brought in by the Home Secretary," he is able to state whether or not it was the intention of the Government to give the Board this power?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; I have observed that such a sum was voted by the Board to pay for counsel's fees. The Government had no expressed intention of giving the Board the power of paying counsel's fees out of the rates, or they would have inserted a clause to that effect in the Act. They thought it, however, impossible to withhold from the Board, against whom grave charges were made, the right of appearing by counsel before the Commissioners; and they accordingly inserted in the Act a clause to that effect, leaving it to a Court of Law to determine, in the event of dispute, whether that clause carried with it a right to pay counsel's fees.
  MR. HOWELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury Auditor, when auditing the Accounts of
  1170
  the Metropolitan Board of Works, will allow, or will be justified in allowing, the cost of counsel employed before the Board of Works Inquiry Commission to be charged upon London rates?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, he thought the hon. Member would see, on reflection, that he could not answer his Question. Nor did he think it would be proper for him to inquire from the Auditor what course of action he might take with regard to certain accounts which were not yet before him.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—CASE OF MR. AND MRS. CLINTON AT, ASSINEE.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether James Clarke Clinton, a British subject, has been expelled by the French authorities from Assinee, on the West Coast of Africa, and whether the business carried on there by Adeline Clinton, also a British subject, the widow of his late brother, has been closed by order of the same authorities; whether the said James Clarke Clinton, having taken his residence in neutral territory adjoining Assinee, has been expelled from there by the same authorities; whether the French Resident at Assinee is one Verdier, a partner in the firm of Verdier and Company trading there, and rivals in business to the said James Clarke Clinton and Adeline Clinton; whether the steps so taken by the French authorities have been initiated and carried out by Treich la Pleine, one of the employés of the said Verdier and Company; whether the said firm of Verdier and Company are collecting and appropriating from the natives around Assinee the produce which such natives owe to the said James Clarke Clinton and Adeline Clinton; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are taking any steps for the protection of the said James Clarke Clinton and Adeline Clinton personally and for the protection of their property?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): It is the fact that Mr. Clinton was expelled from Assinee. All the circumstances of the case are the subject of discussion with the French Government; and I am not in a position at present to express an opinion upon them.

  INDIA—MR. TAYLER, LATE COMMIS- SIONER OF PATNA.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any record in the India Office of a letter from the late Earl of Iddesleigh (then Sir Stafford Northcote) to Mr. Commissioner Tayler, of Patna, dated December 7, 1868, in which it was stated that Mr. Tayler's appeal had not up to that date gone before the Committee of the Indian Council, and the promise was given that the case should be looked into "fairly and fully?"
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): There is no record of any such letter.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether, if I hand him such a letter, which I hold in my hand, he will undertake that it will be entered in the archives of the India Office?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I think I ought to have Notice of that Question.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AT SOUTHAMPTON.
  MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn) (for Mr. SUMMERS)asked Mr. Solicitor General, Whether he is correctly reported as having said at Southampton that, under the Licensing Clauses of the Local Government Bill, "no new tax was imposed upon the ratepayers at all," and "no new burden imposed on the people?" He also wished, before the hon. and learned Gentleman answered the Question, to ask him a Question of which he had given him private Notice, Whether, in the same speech, he (the Solicitor General) did not also say that where licences were forfeited for reasons for which they were forfeited now, not 1s. would be paid; but if, in the exercise of their absolute discretion, the Licensing Committee chose to take the licence away without alleging any ground, and without trying any question which the Justices were bound to try, then compensation would be paid, but paid out of the fund to be created by the extra Licence Duty of 20 per cent imposed on the licence holders?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): As to the
  1172
  statements mentioned in the first Question, I did make them in the terms stated. As to the latter Question, I do not think the quotation exactly represents the words I used; but it represents with substantial accuracy what I said, and I shall be quite prepared in Committee to defend the statements which I made on that occasion.
  MR. ANDERSONasked, if the hon. and learned Gentleman gave the House to understand that he was speaking of the Bill as it stood?
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he was speaking of the Bill as it stood; but in the same speech he referred to matters in reference to which the President of the Local Government Board had already made some suggestions.

  WAR OFFICE—THE VICTORIA JUBILEE HOSPITAL, FOLKESTONE.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would state to the House the grounds upon which he refuses to perform the contract made in June, 1887, by him with the Committee of the proposed Victoria Jubilee Hospital at Folkestone for the sale of the site of the now dismantled battery at the "Bayle" as a site for such hospital; and, further, the grounds upon which he refuses to perform a subsequent contract made in July, 1887, by him with the Earl of Radnor for the sale of this battery site for the same purpose; and, whether it is true he has now decided to offer such last-mentioned site for sale by auction; and, if so, when and where the auction will take place?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): There was no contract with the Committee of the Victoria Jubilee Hospital. The negotiations for the sale of the site to the Earl of Radnor have been suspended with his Lordship's consent. No decision has been come to to offer the site for sale by auction.

  INDIA STORE DEPOT—SALARY OF THE SUPERINTENDENT,
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is correct, as stated in the Home Accounts of the Government of India (just issued), page 59, that the salary of the present Super-

  1173
  intendent of the Branch of the Store Department at the India Store Depôt is £900, whereas the maximum salary of that office is stated as £800; and, if so, what is the explanation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The explanation is given in a foot-note to the Accounts. The present Superintendent, who was appointed in 1855, was granted a personal allowance of £100 per annum from May 9, 1882.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES)BILL—THE LICENCE DUTIES.
  MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn) (for Mr. SUMMERS)asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the sum of £300,000 per annum, estimated as the amount that would be received from the 20 per cent increase of the Licence Duties, is calculated on the total proceeds of such duties, not only in England and Wales, but also in Scotland and Ireland; and, whether the above Estimate includes any, and, if so, what allowance for the diminution in the duties that will take place wherever County Councils exercise the power of closing public-houses on Sundays?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): My estimate in round numbers of £300,000 was based on the estimated revenue from the duties to be transferred to and collected by the County Councils in England and Wales, exclusive of Scotland and Ireland. The amount, of course, varies from year to year. No reduction was made in respect of any diminution of duty which would result from the County Councils exercising the power of closing public-houses on Sundays.

  INDIA STORE DEPARTMENT—PRICES OF WARLIKE STORES.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the following paragraph in the Report of the Auditor for Indian Home Accounts for the year 1885–6, dated May, 1887:—
  "4. As regards…the prices charged by the War Office for warlike stores, I have to report that a Committee has been appointed, and is now sitting, for the consideration of this subject; so that the difficulties which have hitherto attended it may now be considered as in a fair way of solution;"
  1174
  and also with reference to the following paragraph in the Report of the same official for the year 1886–7, dated May, 1888:—
  "The question referred to in my last Report, relative to the prices charged by the War Office for warlike stores, still remains open;"
  what Committee is referred to by the auditor; has this Committee reported on the question to which he refers; and, when is it likely that the Government will come to a decision in the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Committee to which the Auditor refers is one on which the Treasury, the War Office, and the India Office are represented, appointed in April, 1887, to investigate the prices charged by the War Department for stores supplied to the Indian Government. The Committee has not yet reported. Until the Committee shall have reported it is impossible to say when the Government will pass a decision on the matter.

  ST. GILES-IN-THE-FIELDS—VESTRY ELECTIONS.
  MR. M'CARTAN(for Mr. CONYBEARE) (Cornwall, Camborne) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Mr. Robinson, the Vestry Clerk of the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, had received notice from both Mr. Lee and Mr. Fowler that, as they had been duly elected, they should attend and take their seats as Vestrymen at the meeting of the Vestry on May 31; and, whether the clerk has alleged that or any other reason as the grounds for his application to have a force of police secreted in the church of the said parish?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; I am informed that the Vestry Clerk had received such notice. The clerk informs me that he applied for the assistance of the police on the ground that he had received letters which led him to anticipate that an attempt would be made to disturb the proceedings of the Vestry.
  MR. M'CARTAN(for Mr. CONYBEARE) (Cornwall, Camborne) asked the President of the Local Government Board, Upon what grounds were eight ballot papers disallowed at the recent Vestry election in the parish of St. Giles-

  1175
  in-the-Fields on May 17; whether it is the fact that, in consequence of such rejection of votes, Mr. Cooper, of 1A, Church Passage, and Mr. Gardiner, of 110, Great Russell Street, were allowed to take their seats and vote at a meeting of the Vestry held on May 31; and, whether it is not the fact that, but for such rejection, Mr. Lee, of 25, New Compton Street, and Mr. Fowler, of 58, High Street, would have been elected by a majority of at least three over the first-mentioned gentleman?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The Local Government Board have no jurisdiction whatever with regard to the election of Vestrymen in parishes in the Metropolis, and they have no information on the subject of the disallowance of the votes alluded to. If there is any ground for questioning the legality of the proceedings in the case in question, I presume that those aggrieved would have their remedy in a Court of Law.

  IRELAND—THE NEWTOWNARDS FARMERS' ASSOCIATION.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the meeting of farmers recently addressed by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) at Newtownards, If he can now state whether the hon. Member was closely followed by a detective in a car from Belfast to Newtownards and back; whether District Inspector Ward called with the hotel proprietor who owned the hall where the meeting was to have been held, and caused her to refuse the hall for the meeting; whether he is aware that Mr. M'Master, P.L.G., who engaged the hall, is the Honorary Secretary of the Newtownards Farmers' Association, which holds its meetings regularly in the same hall; whether several constables were placed at the door of the premises in which the meeting was held, and whether these constables endeavoured to intimidate the people by staring into the face of every man as he left the meeting; and, whether the hon. Member for East Mayo was followed by three policemen wherever he went, on that evening, through the town of Newtownards?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Sir, I have already answered one or two Questions on this point. I am sorry to
  1176
  say that I cannot give the further information asked for without a detailed Report from the locality. I have asked for the Report, and I hope I shall be able to give the information asked for on Thursday next.

  TORQUAY DISTRICT HARBOUR BILL, 1886—REPORT OF THE HOME OFFICE.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Home Office on the Torquay District and Harbour Bill, 1886?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; I shall be happy to lay this Report on the Table of the House.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— THE LAW COURTS—OATHS OF PRESBY- TERIANS.
  MR. SINCLAIR (&c.)asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is the custom that when a Presbyterian desires to swear by the uplifted hand, in accordance with his legal rights, he is almost invariably asked in the Irish Courts of Law—"Do you believe that form of oath is binding on your conscience;" whether such a question is asked in virtue of any statutable requirement; and, if so, can he indicate where this statutable requirement is to be found; and, whether, as this inquiry is looked upon as an insult by many of those to whom it is asked, he will consider how best to put a stop to this or similar questions being asked in future?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): As the result of the inquiries which I have made into this matter, I have ascertained that a diversity of practice exists in the mode of administering an oath under the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member. Some Judges consider themselves bound to put the question referred to, having regard to the terms of the statute, which enacts that in all cases in which an oath has been administered to any person—
  "Such person is bound by the oath administered, provided the same shall have been administered in such form and with such ceremonies as such person may declare to be binding."

  1177
  This, however, is not the view taken by all tribunals; and any witness who may object to being asked the question is entitled to have the matter decided by the Judge as a question of law. In reply to the third paragraph of the Question, I have to say that the matter is one which must be left to the decision of each individual tribunal.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Arising out of the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I have further to ask him if he would consider the subject of legislation in this matter, whereby it would not be necessary for the future to ask questions of this kind, which are considered as insults by those to whom they are put?
  MR. MADDEN: I shall be very happy to consider the subject; but I must say that the putting of the question can hardly, in fairness, be considered anything of an insult, inasmuch as, whenever it is put, the Judge acts under the belief that he is bound to do so by the terms of an Act of Parliament. I have always understood that that Act was introduced into Parliament by a Member of the Irish Bar, who was himself a Presbyterian, in the year 1838.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is not the real question whether the persons to whom the question is addressed consider it an insult?
  [No reply.]

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)— OATHS.
  MR. SINCLAIR (&c.)asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is not the common practice in Scotland to administer oaths by the method of the uplifted hand; and, whether such practice is based on any statutory enactment, or on the Common Law of Scotland, or through immemorial custom?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): It is the invariable practice in Scotland to call upon any person taking an oath to do so with his right arm uplifted, and persons of all religious beliefs are generally willing to be thus sworn. But any foreigner who, for religious reasons, might prefer to be sworn according to the form in use in his own country, or by his co-religionists, would be permitted to be so sworn. I am not aware that the Scottish form is
  1178
  based on any known Statute. It has come down from time immemorial.
  MR. SINCLAIRasked, whether it was the custom in Scotland to ask a person taking the oath whether he believed it to be binding upon his conscience?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he had never heard of any such question being asked.

  NEW GUINEA—COST OF TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What was the cost of the telegraphic message sent from the Colonial Office to the Governor of Adelaide, dated December 3, 1886, on the subject of New Guinea?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I presume that the hon. Member means the Governor of South Australia. No telegram was sent to the Governor of South Australia on the date mentioned by the hon. Member. One was sent to the Governor of Queensland at Brisbane, and its cost was £86 5s. 9d.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES)—TRANSFERRED LICENCES AND LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked the President of the Local Government Board, When the Return of the amounts paid in the counties in respect of transferred licences and local taxation licences will be presented?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE), in reply, said, the Government were making every effort to complete the Return as quickly as possible, and he hoped it would be ready in about a fortnight. He might point out that the Return would not embrace the Horse and Wheel Tax.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND)—POL- LUTION OF LOCH LONG AND LOCH GOIL.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is aware that between 11.30 and 12.30 on Whit Monday, three Glasgow barges discharged several hundred tons of filth

  1179
  in Loch Long, and that discharges are daily occurring; whether the Secretary for Scotland has recently received four Memorials from the Local Authority of Cove and Kilcreggan, from feuars, residents, and fishermen, inhabitants of the shores of Loch Long and Loch Goil, in relation to the constant and continuing pollution of the waters of the Lochs; whether he has received a communication from the Chief Magistrate of Cove and Kilcreggan suggesting that, pending the final decision of the Government, the "Clyde Trust" should be forthwith compelled to deposit these dredgings in deeper water and in a swifter running channel, from Wemyss Bay down towards the Garroch Head, for which service their dredgers are quite suited as to seaworthiness in ordinary weather; and, whether he can now state what course the Government intend to pursue in the matter?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The facts are as stated. The Secretary for Scotland has received several Memorials and letters from parties interested in this matter, containing various suggestions about it. Of the six sources of pollution indicated by Mr. Fletcher, in his Report laid before the House, only one—namely, the deposit of alkali wash—is within the control of the Scotch Office, and that ceased altogether on the 27th of February. I will be obliged to the hon. Member if he will postpone the latter part of his Question.

  LIBEL LAW AMENDMENT BILL— SECURITY FOR COSTS.
  MR. WATTasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is prepared to introduce a Bill adopting the principle contained in the Libel Law Amendment Bill, whereby every plaintiff, upon commencing proceedings, can be compelled to find security for costs?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): In reply to the hon. Member, I am not prepared to introduce a Bill adopting the principle that every plaintiff upon commencing proceedings can be compelled to find security for costs, as, in my opinion, such provision would work great hardship upon poor plaintiffs who may have suffered great wrong.

  WORKMEN'S WAGES—MESSRS. LION BROTHERS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to a case heard in the Shoreditch County Court on May 15, from the report of which it appears that Messrs. Lion Brothers, boot manufacturers, of Phipps Street, Finsbury, compel their workmen in the slack season to sign an agreement, which is, in substance, as follows:—
  "We, the lasters and finishers, agree to deposit 2s. 6d. a-week, to be deducted from our wages weekly from this date, for 12 months, and, should we leave before that time, we forfeit that money to Lion Brothers;"
  and, whether such a contract is legal; and, if so, whether the Government will consider the advisability of amending the law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): My attention had not been called to the case until the Question appeared on the Paper this morning; and I have not been able in the time to obtain information as to the accuracy of the statements therein contained. The question whether a contract embodying the terms referred to is legal depends upon the circumstances under which it was made. But it by no means follows that under such a contract the master would have the right of obtaining the total amount, as in some cases his remedy might be for damages only. As at present advised, I do not consider that any alteration of the law is necessary.

  HORSE BREEDING—FIRST REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the First Report of the Royal Commission on Horse Breeding has been presented to Her Majesty; and, whether he will cause it to be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Report has been presented to Her Majesty, and will be laid on the Table to-night.

  THE TITHE QUESTION—LEGISLATION.
  MR. SWETENHAM (&c.)asked the First Lord of the Treasury,

  1181
  Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any Bill or Bills into this House during the present Session dealing with the tithe question; and, if so, when; and, whether, considering the grave importance of the subject to many parts of England and Wales, the Government will allocate to its consideration such and so many days as will reasonably insure such Bills becoming law before the Recess?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Two Bills dealing with this question have been sent down from the other House, and, when opportunity offers, will be proceeded with.

  DEPARTMENT FOR AGRICULTURE— LEGISLATION.
  MR. GRAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Bill for the creation of an Agricultural Department, which was promised by the Government on the 20th of February, is prepared; and, if so, when it is proposed to introduce it; and, if not, whether, having regard to his promises on the subject, he is able to say what is the cause of the delay?
  MR. BROOKFIELDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, How soon Her Majesty's Government will introduce their measure for the establishment of a Department for Agriculture?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Bill has been prepared, and will be introduced as soon as the state of Business permits. There are, however, one or two questions that remain to be solved, and they are receiving very careful attention.

  ARMY (INDIA)—CANTONMENT BAZAARS—CAMP FOLLOWERS.
  In reply to Mr. H. J. WILSON (York, W.R., Holmfirth),
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)said, a "regimental bazaar" means the shops and trading establishments with which the military population of any particular regiment in a cantonment deal. All other bazaars in the cantonment, of which the chief customers are the civil population, are culled "cantonment bazaars," and the
  1182
  chief of these would be called the "sudder bazaar."

  SOUTH AFRICA—REPORTED DIS- TURBANCES IN ZULULAND.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he could give the House any information as to the reported disturbances in Zululand?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): In answer to my hon. Friend, I will read to the House a telegram which was received last night at the Colonial Office, and which is the latest information we have—
  "Dinizulu and Undabuko having collected armed Native followers at Keeza, made raids upon and stole cattle of friendly peaceful Usutus. Warrants of arrest of Dinizulu and other ringleaders on charge of cattle stealing were issued 2nd June. Police, rifles, troops went to Keeza to execute warrants; were successfully resisted and compelled to retreat. Two men reported killed and two wounded. Levy of Basutos, under M'Kean, and reinforcements of troops proceed immediately to support authority."
  It will be seen from this that the telegram which appeared in yesterday evening's and some of this morning's papers, to the effect that Dinizulu had attacked and routed Usibepu, is incorrect.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE BOTTLED WINE DUTIES.
  MR. CHILDERSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he would be able now to state the result of the arrangement which had been come to with reference to the Wine Duties?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): With the indulgence of the House, I should like to make a statement on the subject. The House will remember the main principles on which I founded my proposals with regard to the Bottled Wine Duty. I regarded it as a rough way of reaching the higher class wines, and I looked to derive a revenue of £125,000 from the tax. I was aware that it would not reach all the expensive clarets, and on the other hand, that it would ftall heavil on some cheap wines, which could noy

  1183
  like the bulk of cheap wines, be imported in casks instead of in bottles. This consideration led me to accept the suggestion to modify, and, as it were, correct the inequalities of the tax by introducing a limit of value, provided the examination, which I undertook to make, should prove that it was possible to find a workable plan for giving effect to such a limit. I have now concluded my investigations, and they have proved the following points:—(1) That the total amount of wine imported in bottles is far more considerable than from the best calculations we were previously able to make it was possible to discover. (2) That of this wine imported in bottles by far the greater part is sparkling wine. The increase in the consumption of champagne of late years has greatly modified both the proportion of the amount of bottled wine to wine in cask, and of still bottled wine to sparkling bottled wine. It is this increase in the consumption of champagne which necessitates a great modification of the statistics based on the state of things existing when the old Bottled Wine Duty was in force. (3) The third fact which I have ascertained is that the proportion of high-priced still wine imported in bottle to low-priced still wine imported in bottle is very much smaller than that of high-class champagnes to cheap sparkling wines. The result of these facts is as follows:—As more wine is imported in bottle than previous statistics led me to expect, the total revenue which I should derive from the tax, as it stands, would be very much larger than that which I assumed it would be in the first instance. The second result is that only a small portion of this revenue would be derived from still wines, and a very small portion indeed—in fact, a quite inconsiderable sum—if the lower-priced still wines were exempted. It must be remembered that all still wines, even the highest qualities, can be imported in cask, and they come in cask even now. If the duty were to be maintained, the amount of high-class still wines imported in bottle, which is already small, would become absolutely insignificant. I may here say that I have received the strongest possible representations from the English wine trade with regard to the difficulty which an attempt to draw a limit between high and low-class wines would
  1184
  entail. I do not for one moment accept the statement that there would be such a degree of fraud and misrepresentation as is declared to be inevitable. But I am anxious to confine the difficulties of the limit of value to the smallest possible area. To return to still wines, the facts which I have explained seem to indicate that, with a limit of value, there would be a prospect of a minimum revenue and a maximum difficulty in collecting that revenue. With regard to sparkling wines the case is different. A far greater proportion of these are wines of high value, and there are far greater facilities for determining the value. I propose, therefore, to bring in a Bill whereby the additional duty of 5s. a dozen shall be limited to sparkling wines; while, in order to meet the case of Saumur and other cheap sparkling wines, power will be taken to reduce the duty to 2s. a dozen where the wine can be proved to be less than 30 s. a-dozen in value on its arrival in England—that is to say, there will be the original tax of 5s. a-dozen on sparkling wine above 30 s. in value, and a tax of 2s. a-dozen on sparkling wine below 30 s. a dozen in value, in addition, of course, to the duty on the alcoholic scale previously existing for all wines. The duty on this basis will give me at least £100,000, and probably the full £125,000 originally estimated. I do not propose a total exemption of the cheaper class of sparkling wines for two reasons. In the first place, I think that cheap sparkling wine can fairly bear the additional tax of 2s. a-dozen, which is 2d. a-bottle. In the next place, the fact that even the cheaper wines pay something will largely diminish both the temptation to and the possibility of fraudulent representations as to the value of sparkling wines. In order to forestall any possible inquiries, I may state at once that I do not propose to return the extra duty paid since March 27 on the kinds of wine which will in future be exempted. It would be impossible in many cases to discriminate as to who would be entitled to such a return, as the additional tax has been paid partly by the importers and partly by the consumers. I have only still to add that the duty will be levied, according to the universal desire of the trade, on the gallon, and will not vary according to the size of the bottles—that is to say, the duty will be 2s. 6d. a-gallon on

  1185
  sparkling wines above 15 s. a gallon in value; and 1s. on sparkling wines under 15 s. a gallon in value.
  MR. CHILDERS: It has been somewhat difficult to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer through his long statement. May we take this as a summary—That no additional duty whatever will be imposed on bottled still or non-sparkling wines, however valuable, though there will be ditties of 2s. 6d. and 1s. 3d. a gallon respectively on the dearer and cheaper classes of sparkling wines? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, considering the novelty of the proposal, whether he has any Papers of any kind on the subject to lay on the Table?
  MR. GOSCHEN: There is no great novelty in the proposal, for a proposition to tax bottled wines was made in 1880 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and modified by him after a certain time. A tax upon bottled wines also existed for five years in this country under the financial auspices of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. I will see what Papers can be laid on the Table. There are none in my mind at present, but if there are any I will produce them. It would be easy for me to embody the result of my investigations in a Statistical Report, which I should certainly feel it my duty to lay before the House if it were desired. The right hon. Gentleman has correctly described the effect of my proposals; there will be no duty on still wines, and there will be a duty on sparkling wines of 5s. on the higher class and 2s. on the lower.

  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS).
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the despatch of the Secretary of State to the Government of India on the subject of the Contagious Diseases Acts was assented to by the majority of the Council of India; and, if not, what Members of the Council dissented; and, further, whether there was any objection to the production of any opinions that might have been recorded by the dissenting Members?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST), in reply, said, that of 13 Members of the Council, present on the occasion,
  1186
  nine voted against the despatch. Of these nine, six had recorded their dissent under the provisions of the Act of Parliament. The names of those who so recorded their dissent were—Sir Peter Lumsden, General Foster, Sir A. Arbuthnot, Sir John Strachey, General Strachey, and Sir Owen Burne. He believed it would be in accordance with precedent that the Minute of their dissent should be laid on the Table.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEasked, whether he would be in Order if he now moved for the production of the Minute of the dissenting Members of Council?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet can give Notice of the Motion which I understand that he now wishes to do.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. HAMILTON, R.M.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention had been called to a statement in The Daily News of that day, that Mr. Hamilton, R.M., held a private Crimes Act inquiry in the house of a landlord named Olpherts contrary to the statute, which provided that the inquiry should be held in the place where the Petty Sessions of the district in which the offence was committed was usually held; and, also, whether the inquiry in question was held in relation to the rents of Mr. Olpherts?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have not seen The Daily News; but I have reason to believe there is no foundation for the statement. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will put the Question on the Paper I will make inquiries.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As the matter is of importance, will the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to the Question appearing on the Paper tomorrow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I will endeavour to have the information by to-morrow.

  CRIMINAL CASES (IRELAND)—(IN- CREASE OF SENTENCES ON APPEAL)
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Return moved for by the hon. Member

  1187
  for Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) in relation to the increases of sentences on appeal in Ireland, would be in the hands of hon. Members?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. A. BALFOUR), in reply, said, additional information on the subject had been asked for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) and there was no delay in the preparation of the Return.

MOTIONS.

  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS).—RESOLUTION.
  MR. M'LAREN, in rising to call attention to the existence and working of the Contagious Diseases Act and of the Cantonments Acts in India, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, any mere suspension of measures for the compulsory examination of women, and for licensing and regulating prostitution in India, is insufficient, and the legislation which enjoins, authorizes, or permits such measures ought to be repealed,"
  said, in dealing with this question, he disclaimed any intention of speaking in a Party spirit; indeed, he should be exceedingly sorry to endeavour to make Party capital out of it. The demand of those whose spokesman he was on the present occasion was a very simple demand; it was for the total and immediate repeal of every vestige of the Contagious Diseases Act and of the Cantonments Acts in India, as well as of every vestige of the regulations under those Acts. They entirely repudiated any compromise in the matter. He instanced cases where threatening letters were sent in order to compel compliance with the Act, and, having given a description of the regulations in force, he said the whole system in India was for licensing vice, putting it under control, and raising revenue out of it. He regretted to be compelled to bring before the notice of the House details so horrible and revolting and so discreditable to English civilization as were contained in the documents which it was his painful duty to refer to. The Act was in force in 74 Cantonments in India, of which 54 were in Bengal, seven in Madras, and nine in the Bombay Presidency. Major General Chapman's
  1188
  Memorandum based on the Act, which had been disowned and repudiated by the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cross), proceeded on the assumption that immorality must be licensed, and that prostitution was a normal condition of the human race. He ventured to say that this was a doctrine which the House would emphatically repudiate. The Natives deeply resented the system, and in 1879, when the Act was brought into operation in Bombay, the Bishop and 60 influential British and Native residents petitioned against it, and their Petition would be found in Return 200, f. 1,883. The reply of the authorities was that every care would be taken to prevent annoyance to respectable persons, the "respectable persons" being explained to mean in a later passage "mistresses of wealthy persons and kept women." These were the people whose susceptibilities were not to be wounded, while the unhappy poor were to run the risk of fine and imprisonment. The Municipality of Bombay resisted the enforcement of the Act, and were only induced to accept it by the stoppage of 15,000 rupees from their allowance. Lord Ripon, in a despatch of June 16th, 1882, strongly advocated the repeal of the Act, which he described as extremely distasteful to the Municipalities and the Native population generally, and the object of general denunciation by the Native Press. The whole religious community were in arms against the Act, and a Memorial requesting its repeal had been signed in the present year by 300 missionaries and representatives of 40 societies. The same view was taken by the Army chaplains, but the only reply of Lord Cross was that the protection of the health and efficiency of the British garrisons was the paramount duty of the Government. It had, however, been proved that in a sanitary point of view the result had been the exact contrary of that which the Act was intended to produce. If Lord Ripon's wishes could have been realized, the Act would have been repealed in 1882, but he was over-ruled by the noble Lord the Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington), who was then Secretary for India. He imputed no blame to that noble Lord, whose objection to the repeal of the Act was based mainly on the fact that the English Acts

  1189
  were still in force, and it was not till a considerably later date that the House had decisively condemned those Acts. The operation of the Act in India had been a complete failure. Vice had increased, and the promise of immunity from the consequences of vice had not been fulfilled. The remedy was said to be that the provisions of the Act should be enforced with enthusiasm. But he had in his hand a most painful return—namely, a fac-similie of the 13th annual report of the working of the Lock Hospitals in the North-West Provinces and in Oude, for the year ending December 31, 1886. Why was that Return not laid on the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST): It is not in the possession of the India Office.
  MR. M'LARENhoped, then, that the Government of India would inquire why that was so, and also why Major General Chapman's Memorandum was not at the India Office. That Report contained the most painful details of the state of things which had been brought about by the operation of the Act, especially in and about Lucknow. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to make a severe attack on Major General Chapman, who, he said, although he was the author of the Memorandum of June, 1886, which had been so often referred to in the House, in reply to a telegram from Lord Cross in August, 1887, declared that neither the Government nor its officers had, directly or indirectly, encouraged prostitution. Referring to the case of the Memorandum issued in connection with the 2nd Battalion of the Cheshire Regiment, he protested as a Cheshire Member against the name of that regiment being dragged through the mire in such an infamous way. It was said that the Government of India were going to alter the regulations under the Contagious Diseases Acts and the Cantonments Acts. That was altogether unsatisfactory to him. If he and his hon. Friends did not get what they demanded that night, they would carry on the agitation until they did. Lord Cross said there was in future to be no compulsory system; but if compulsion were done away with the whole system would break down, and, therefore, what was the use of keeping the Acts on the Statute Book?
  1190
  Lord Cross very properly declared that he would not tolerate any regulation that assumed the appearance of encouragement of vice. If that determination was to be carried out literally the Government would be compelled to abolish the Acts, for it was an impossibility to preserve a shred or vestige of the Acts which did not assume the appearance of encouragement of vice. But apart from all other grounds for his Motion, there was the high ground of morality and the inherent wickedness of the Acts. Even if it were proved to him that the preservation of the Acts had been successful and would altogether abolish disease—and they had been, on the contrary, unsuccessful at every point—he and those who would vote for this Motion would not mitigate their opposition to them, but would still oppose them on the higher grounds that what was morally wrong could not be politically or physically right. Had the House no pity for these poor Indian women? Every one of them was as valuable as the daughter of any Member of the House, and their security and welfare should be as carefully guarded by the House. He was glad to see that a feeling of indignation was arising in this country. Rarely, indeed, had any question excited the same warmth of feeling and indignation. Those who felt that renewed agitation on this question was evil and undesirable should vote for the immediate abolition of the system, for by not doing so they were but opening the flood-gates of agitation. The women of England upon every platform would so denounce this system that every man and woman in the country should know of it, for they were persuaded that it only required to be dragged into the light of day to be universally condemned. They asked the Government, therefore, to save them from the necessity for such agitation by following in India what had been already done in England, and what, to his honour, had been done by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Lord Knutsford), so that this accursed system, the foulest that had ever been brought to the knowledge of the House of Commons, might be finally swept away. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Motion of which he had given Notice.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLER, in seconding the Motion, said, that he did not go into the question whether these Acts were good for health or not. He opposed the system simply on the ground that what was morally wrong could not be politically right, On that ground he voted against the English Acts when they were brought before the House, and he now appealed to hon. Members to do for India what they had already done for England. It had been argued that Parliament had no right to interfere with the Government of India; but he could not admit that Parliament was justified in sitting still and allowing the Indian Government to administer an unjust and immoral law. It might be said that the conditions of India were different to those of England, but every argument that applied to England applied with equal force to India; and, moreover, the existing system had been universally condemned by the missionaries of all societies as opposed to the spread of the Gospel, and they had been unanimous in asking the House to abolish the system. As Members of the great Christian community, the House of Commons ought not to disregard such an expression of opinion. Because he believed these Acts to give encouragement to vice, and that whatever gave encouragement to vice ought at any risk to be swept away, and because he believed that these Acts were a difficulty in the way of those who were devoting their lives to spreading the Gospel in India, he gave a cordial and earnest support to the Motion which he had the honour to second.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, any mere suspension of measures for the compulsory examination of women, and for licensing and regulating prostitution in India, is insufficient, and the legislation which enjoins, authorises, or permits such measures ought to be repealed."—(Mr. Walter M'Laren.)
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, who had placed on the Paper an Amendment to the effect that—
  "Considering the large and alarming increase of venereal disease in the Army and Navy on the Home Stations since the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act, this House is of opinion that it is inexpedient to repeal the Acts now in force in India,"
  said, he should oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Crewe. He con-
  1192
  sidered it his duty to take the position he did, because he was one of the few surviving Members of the Committee which sat some years ago to consider all the charges made against the administration of these Acts in England. The speeches he had now heard reminded him of those formerly made against the English Acts—the arguments were precisely the same. As a Member of the Committee which investigated the working of the Acts, he could assert that the inquiry proved that the Acts worked admirably in practice. With reference to the statement made by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) on a former occasion, that he knew nothing about these Acts, and that they had been passed sub silentio, he might call the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, spoke in favour of the second reading of the Bill of 1866, and afterwards moved that it should be referred to a Select Committee. The Acts were in force for 16 years, and their opponents, though repeatedly challenged to do so, had not been able to adduce a single case in all that time where a respectable woman had been taken up by the police and subjected to an indignity. He contended that the compulsory medical examination had produced most beneficial results. If evidence of this were required, it might be found in the following letters which he had received on the subject:—
  Chatham,
  June 1, 1888.
  Dear Sir,
  "I beg to state that as Chairman of the Chatham Board of Health, and of the Medway Guardians, I am able to testify to the deplorable results of the abrogation of the C. D. Acts, which is regretted by all public men here. Disease is rampant amongst the more numerous class of young girls now given to prostitution than formerly, and although we have opened Lock wards in the Union House, we have no powers of detention, so that, however diseased girls may be, they from time to time take their discharge for a few days, during which they are doubtless disseminating the complaint, and then return to the Workhouse as a port in a storm.
  However, the most deplorable result of the C. D. Acts is seen in the lewdness and general immorality of young girls in the streets in consequence of the absence of those restraints furnished by the Acts; so that hundreds of young girls are now ruined body and soul, who would have been preserved, but for the senseless clamour of those prurient purists who would insist on describing the late Acts 'as a legalization of vice,' instead of regarding them as 'measures to minimize the evils of vice,' which

  1193
  they accomplished to a large extent. A terrible responsibility, it seems to me, rests upon Mr. Stansfield and his friends for the undoubted spread of disease and immorality, resulting from their action, involving as it does the ruin of so many very young girls.
  Yours truly,
  (Signed) ADAM STIGANT."
  "Lock Hospital,
  Westbourne Green, W.,
  May 28, 1888.
  Re' C. D. Acts.
  Dear Sir,
  We receive, of course, far fewer patients than we did formerly.
  Having no power whatever to keep them in the hospital, patients on the least provocation will 'take their discharge,' and go out, with the disease upon them, to infect the Metropolis.
  We have many younger patients now in our wards than formerly, girls frequently of 14 and 15 years of age.—I am,
  Yours faithfully,
  (Signed) ALGERNON C. P. COOTE, Secretary."
  To say, therefore, that the Acts had not done good was the very reverse of the truth. Both the Army and Navy had suffered in consequence of their repeal. The ratio of cases had increased since 1882, the last year in which the Acts were in force, from 27 in the 1,000 to 42, while the admissions had increased from 78 in 1882 to 125 in 1887. In the Navy the admissions had increased from 845 in 1882 to 1,512 in 1886. According to the statement of the Inspector General of Hospitals the admissions at Haslar had increased from 1,169 in 1882 to 2,686 in 1887. He believed that these Acts, if properly carried out, were as necessary, and would be as beneficial in India as in this country, and he entirely repudiated the idea that in any respect they had been used in any manner which required, or in fact would justify, their repeal. He admitted that some of the cantonment regulations in India were open to objection, and ought to be abrogated. Those regulations were not, however, connected with the Contagious Diseases Acts, and their existence could afford no reason for declining to protect the health of our Army in India against infection. He would not move the Amendment which stood in his name, as, since it had been put on the Paper, another had appeared in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Worcestershire (Sir Richard Temple) which might, perhaps, be more acceptable to the Government than his own.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)said, he hoped the House would come to an early decision on the subject, because it seemed to him that the Resolution was calculated to support the policy of the Government rather than to express any censure upon them. In the discussion there were three separate points involved which in reality ought to be kept distinct, but which, he feared, it had been almost impossible to avoid confusing. These three points were—first, what was known as the regimental system; secondly, the question of the Contagious Diseases Act; and, thirdly, what ought to be done about the Cantonments Acts. He would endeavour to treat these three subjects, as far as possible, separately. He did not wish to blame hon. Members opposite for having, to some extent, confounded the three subjects, because they had recently been part of one system, and there had been a mistake, or an error of judgment, or worse, made with regard to one of these subjects. He thought that, in considering this subject, the House should remember the principle upon which the Government of India was conducted. It was conducted not by a Government in this country, but in India itself; and what the Secretary of State and Parliament in this country exercised was merely a control over a Government carried on elsewhere. Thus, the Executive Government of India was not in itself immediately responsible to the House in the same way as the Government in this country. The House could only act on the Indian Executive Government through the Secretary of State, who was himself, no doubt, responsible to the House, but only, so far as legislation was concerned as controlling the acts of the Government of India in the manner prescribed by the Statute. Parliament had created in India a Legislature deriving its authority by statute, and that Legislature alone had the ordinary power of making laws and regulations for India. He did not say that that House was not perfectly competent to establish any law in India, but it must be by Act of Parliament. With regard to the question of what was known as the regimental system, the telegrams and extracts from despatches which had passed between the Secretary of State and the Indian Government

  1195
  showed that Her Majesty's Government had taken active steps in the matter long before attention had been called to it in Parliament. In a telegram dated July 9, 1887, the Secretary of State had called the attention of the Viceroy to the regimental system, which had been referred to by the Bishop of Lichfield in the House of Lords. That telegram went on to say—
  "I apprehend system is indefensible and must be condemned; meanwhile, please prepare full report in your Military Department, and send home with copies of all orders and regulations in your department bearing on this subject as distinct from the Indian Contagious Diseases Act, against which also very strong representations are being made throughout the country."
  On December 7, 1887, a further telegram had been despatched to the Viceroy asking when the Report might be expected. He submitted, indeed, that there was nothing the Secretary of State could have done more than he had done. The Council had received front India official reports which were certainly calculated to lull their vigilance to sleep, with an intimation at the same time that the Government of India were making further inquiries, and that the result of those further inquiries would be communicated to the Secretary of State. On the 9th of March, shortly after the question was raised in the House of Commons in connection with the statements of Mr. Dyer, an advance copy of a despatch, dated in the Blue Book March 29, was sent to India, with a peremptory declaration that if anything like the practices alleged in Mr. Dyer's letter prevailed in India, they should be stopped forthwith. Here, again, he must ask the House to acknowledge that there was a full and complete compliance with the pledge which he was instructed by the Secretary of State on the 25th of February to give to the House. Indeed, from the time the Bishop of Lichfield's Question was asked in the House of Lords, in July last, down to the present day, the policy of the Secretary of State and the Government had never varied. The Government had said all along that if such practices existed they must be stopped, and they had only hesitated because they were officially informed in the beginning of the present year, on the authority of the reports received from the Government of India, that practices of
  1196
  the kind complained of did not exist in India. He hoped he had satisfied the House that the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cross) and the Government had acted in this matter with clearness, promptitude, and efficiency. With reference to the celebrated Memorandum of June 17, 1886, the hon. Member was generous enough to say that he did not make the present Government responsible for it. In point of fact, the present Government were not in Office at the date of that Memorandum, and, when its existence was brought to the notice of the Secretary of State, he condemned it in the clearest and strongest terms. It was ungenerous to charge Major General Chapman with anything in the nature of an offence. General Chapman was, he believed, an officer as distinguished for his piety as for his military ability. Men had before committed errors of judgment through excess of zeal, and that General Chapman had been guilty of more than an error of judgment he refused to admit.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.)asked whether the responsibility for the action to which objection was taken rested wholly upon General Chapman, or whether he was only the agent of a higher authority?
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, that he was not well enough acquainted with the details of military organization in India to apportion responsibility with exactitude in a case of this kind, and that he would treat the Circular as a Circular issued by the Military Authorities; and as such he deeply deplored it. The Secretary of State had himself expressed his deep regret that any such document should ever have been issued. The conduct of the Secretary of State in this matter, instead of deserving censure, ought to earn the thanks of the House and of all moral and religious people who were interested in this subject. He came now to the next point under consideration—namely, the operation of the Act for the prevention of disease. The Government of India, recognizing that the law in India must be administered on the whole in accordance with the moral and religious sentiments prevailing in this country, had taken steps to suspend the operation of the Act without waiting for the instructions of the Secretary of State. The supension, however, had since been approved

  1197
  by the noble Lord. Hon. Members opposite complained that the Act ought not to be suspended only, maintaining that it ought to be repealed; but they ought to remember that even in this country this legislation was suspended for several years before it was repealed. In the Crown Colonies also it was suspended before it was repealed, and in some of the self-governing Colonies, Victoria, Tasmania, New Zealand, and Queensland, there had been no interference with the operation of the Act. If the Government of India were to repeal the Act at once they would be taking an extraordinary course. He did not himself wish either to support or oppose this legislation, but he felt it his duty to say that in his constituency, to which the Acts for the prevention of disease had applied, public opinion had never to his knowledge pronounced against those measures. He had, of course, at various times visited members of all classes of the community, rich and poor, and he had never heard a single complaint about the operation of the Acts. The Guardians of the poor and other Local Authorities were unanimous in favour of the Acts. [Dissent.] Well, in his constituency he did not know who had protested against the Acts. He knew that the generality of the public deeply regretted the repeal of the Acts. Something had been said about the feeling of the women; but Miss Webb, who was second to none in her services for the reclamation of fallen women, lamented the suspension of the operation of the Acts because it interfered with her rescue work, to which she had devoted her life. He hoped, therefore, that the House would excuse any want of enthusiasm on his part for the repeal of the Acts; but, at the same time, he should be very illogical if he set up his judgment against that of the Council of the Governor General of India, and he was instructed by his noble Friend the Secretary of State to say that if the Council of the Governor General thought fit to repeal the Contagious Diseases Acts altogether he should assent to that repeal. If he might give advice to the House, he would advise it not to attempt to coerce a body like the Government of India, which had not shown any unwillingness to conform to the sentiments of the people of this country. He would appeal to the House not to interfere
  1198
  with the legislative independence of the Governor General. If they brought the people of India to regard that Council as a mere instrument of Parliament, and not as possessing any legislative dignity or independence of its own, they would greatly weaken its position. He passed now to the last head—what was to be done with the Cantonments Act? The House was aware that the cantonment was not a mere barracks; it was an extent of country. The Cantonments Act dealt with the preservation of the general health of the district, and from beginning to end of it there were only a few lines which had anything whatever to do with the subject they were discussing. He was sure the House would not desire that the Cantonments Act should be repealed. That Act provided, among other things, for the maintenance generally of the Cantonments in a proper sanitary condition; and, with reference to the sanitary question, the despatch of the 17th of May laid down the following principles:—
  "The prevention and cure of ordinary disease (mentioned in the 6th section of the 7th clause of the Act) and the preventing the spread of other disease (mentioned in the 7th section) are equally matters of the highest importance, and all infectious disease ought to be dealt with as a question of police. No examination should be imposed compulsorily; but, on the other hand, no person who is reasonably suspected of being in a condition likely to spread the infection of any, dangerous disease whatever ought to be allowed within the cantonment except in hospital, and no one who is so suspected and who objects to such medical treatment as may be necessary ought to be allowed to remain within the cantonment at all."
  Then the despatch proceeded—
  "The rules which have been framed under Clauses 7–31 of Section 27 of Act III. of 1880 appear to me to require careful revision; and in such revision the principle should be steadily borne in mind that the efforts to control prostitution and to mitigate its attendant evils should not be developed into anything that can assume the appearance of an encouragement of vice by the Government and its officers. There should be no regulations which can be justly construed into a legalization of prostitution. Since I received your last despatch a paper has been placed in my hands purporting to be a copy of a Circular Memorandum issued from Army Headquarters in India, and I learn from your telegram of the 8th instant that such Circular is authentic. I have no reason to doubt that the copy placed in my hands is correct; and although it has already been withdrawn, I feel bound to express my deep regret, in which I know your Excellency shares, that any such document should ever have been issued, nor can I in any way reconcile its contents with

  1199
  the report made to you in Quartermaster General's letter, No. 3,713 B, of the 2nd of August, 1887, and contained in the enclosures to your despatch of the 24th of January, 1888."
  These were the regulations, and it was not for him to interfere with the Government of India. He would entreat the Members of that House to put a little more trust not only in the good intentions of Her Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State, but also in the good intentions of those valuable public servants who had administered the government of India. He was horrified when he heard the worst motive attributed to them for the conduct which they thought it their duty to pursue. He heard an hon. Member opposite denounce what he called the atrocity of the Contagious Diseases Act, but did that hon. Gentleman remember who was Viceroy of India when that Act was passed? The Act was passed during the Government of Lord Lawrence, than whom no man would carry down to posterity a higher character for morality and religious teaching. He did not mean to say that grievous errors had not been committed in the administration of the government of India; but what he did claim was that the men who administered the affairs of India were guided in their conduct by the purest and the most patriotic motives; and anyone in that House or in the country who attempted to traduce the honour or the morality of the Government of India was guilty of a gross slander against a body of valuable public servants who were carrying on what he held to be, on the whole, one of the purest and one of the best Governments which the history of the world had ever seen.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, that he did not gather from the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Government meant to oppose the Resolution or not. What they on that side wanted to know, and they wished to know it soon, was whether the Members of the Government were going into the Division Lobby against the Resolution. There was no answer as yet to that question.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I think I stated in the clearest terms that we do not regard the Motion as one brought forward with the intention of embarrassing the Government.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, that might be so; but he wanted to know whether on a Division the hon. and learned Member and the Government would vote in favour of the Resolution or not. It was quite clear that there were some of the followers of the Government who would vote against it, and they intended to give those hon. Gentlemen the opportunity of doing so. Was he right in understanding the Under Secretary of State for India to maintain the position which he took up when, in reply to a Question in that House, he said that—
  "The Government had no intention to interfere, nor had they the power to interfere, with the discretion of the Indian Legislature in making, repealing, or amending laws,"
  and, further—
  "that it would be highly unbecoming of Her Majesty's Government to interfere."
  Did the hon. and learned Gentleman adhere to that statement? He did not make it clear in his statement whether he adhered to it or not. His hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. M'Laren) had pointed out that the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) had interfered to prevent Lord Ripon repealing the Contagious Diseases Act in 1882. The hon. and learned Gentleman might say that the noble Lord interfered to exercise the veto of the Crown which existed to prevent some piece of legislation being carried out. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had maintained something different from that, for in the reply to a Question to which he had referred, he stated that the Secretary of State had no right to interfere with the initiative of legislation. He contended that the hon. and learned Gentleman in making that statement, and in the position which he had taken up, had shown that he did not know his own business. When Lord Salisbury was Secretary of State for India he wrote a remarkable despatch on the 11th of November, 1875, in which the Secretary of State's power to order legislation was clearly laid down, while the details were left to the Indian Government; and Lord Salisbury added that he deprecated any attempt to prescribe to the Viceroy the mode in which the policy adopted by the Government should be carried out, and he proceeded to remind the Governor General that the cotton duties,

  1201
  in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, should be repealed as being protective in their nature, and thus inconsistent with the policy which Parliament had sanctioned and which the Government on that account could not allow to be set aside in any part of the Empire under their direct control. They now called upon the India Office to act upon that dictum of Lord Salisbury's. Sir Henry Maine, however, strongly supported the position, and, grounding himself on Sir Henry Maine's Memorandum, Lord Salisbury insisted upon the doctrine that Her Majesty's Government was as responsible to Parliament for the Government of India as for that of any Crown Colony in Her Majesty's Dominions. He wished the Government now to act upon the principle laid down by Lord Salisbury in 1875, and which was acted upon then. If the Government did not repeal the system in India, they would be divided against themselves. Lord Knutsford had throughout the Colonies, with, he believed, the single exception of Fiji, ordered the total repeal of Acts of this character. He had ordered their suspension in Ceylon while the Repeal Bill was being prepared. This was very different from their proposed suspension in India, where it was done, not to secure repeal, but to secure that if the Government was dissatisfied with the result the Acts might be again enforced. That was not satisfactory to the opponents of the principle of these Acts. Not only must the Contagious Diseases Act be repealed as, by its 4th clause, violating the principle laid down in the despatch of Lord Cross, that no regulations licensing prostitution should be made, but the 7th section of the 19th clause of the Cantonments Act should be repealed, for under it the condemned regulations had been made, and therefore could be made again. He read extracts from the Reports of Indian Lock Hospitals in support of the contention that the Quartermaster General's Memorandum was a fair sample of the system; and he pointed out that the cure proposed for the failure of the system was practically that the state should obtain a monopoly of brothel-keeping. Was the House prepared to endorse that proposal? He did not blame the Government, who, he believed, desired to act rightly in this matter, so much as the wirepullers
  1202
  in the India Office and in India, who kept the Government very badly informed. The reports from the Lock Hospitals in India showed that this legislation bad failed in India, as it had done elsewhere, and had been utterly worthless so far as checking disease among our troops was concerned. He quite agreed that if that legislation, which had been in force for 17 years, were to be suddenly repealed, we must not look for an immediate benefit, because it would take some time before a moral system could have its effect in checking immorality. He referred to what he called the pièce de résistance in the whole of the statistics—namely, the report by Surgeon-Major Barclay relating to the averages of disease at different stations, and said that, incredible though it seemed, there was not one single average in the whole report but was taken wrongly. Any conclusion, therefore, which the Government founded upon it, and they had founded conclusions upon it, was worthless and misleading, and it was a disgrace to any man who dared to come forward to interpret statistics to the Indian Government and the British public that he should be guilty of mistakes for which a schoolboy would get a sound thrashing. The general position, then, was this—those who supported the Motion had by a slow educative process carried on throughout England got the House of Commons to pronounce a clear judgment, formed after a long and elaborate period of investigation. They claimed that that which was now the settled policy of England should be extended through the responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown to every portion of Her Majesty's dominions over which they had direct control. The Government had to decide whether they would or would not aid them in carrying out those views. The flimsy pretext was cut from under their feet that they had no right to interfere, and they stood face to face with the question whether they would that night get rid of or maintain a system which was founded on vice, built up of injustice and cruelty, and bolstered and buttressed by fraud.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid, that, as a Member of that House who had had some connection with the work of Indian Adminis-

  1203
  tration, he rose for the purpose of expressing the disgust and, he might say, the horror with which he read the disgraceful circular to which reference had been made so often in this debate, and also the disgust which he felt at the details of the so-called regimental system which had come under their review. That regimental system and that circular seemed to him to justify all that had ever been said with regard to the pernicious results of any attempt at the State regulation of vice. If Her Majesty's Government, or the Government of India, or the Indian Military Authorities had defended or oven excused or palliated that circular and that system, he for one would this evening have recorded a most emphatic vote against them. From a personal acquaintance with Sir Frederick Roberts, Sir Charles Arbuthnot, General Chesney, and many others among the highest military authorities in India, he would take upon himself to assure the House and the country at large that there were no men, whether in that House or elsewhere, who could feel more acutely the disgrace of these proceedings. He did not know personally General Chapman, whose responsibility for that most unfortunate circular had been dwelt on somewhat severely from the opposite Benches, but he knew him well by reputation, and he had been glad to hear the remarks which had fallen from the Under Secretary of State for India in defence of that officer, though not in defence of that miserable circular, for which no possible excuse could be alleged. He could only suppose that General Chapman had signed it as a matter of official routine, without being aware of the contents of the document. General Chapman was well known in India as one of the leaders in every good and religious work in that country, and he believed that he was one of the most active and prominent members of a most estimable and self-denying religious body, the Plymouth Brethren. He was glad to find that not only the Secretary of State, but also the Government of India and all the military authorities and the Quartermaster General's Department itself, entirely repudiated that circular, and denied that any such system as that which had been described that evening really existed in any force in India. They had pledged themselves
  1204
  that if it was existing anywhere it should cease to exist in the future. Since the Authorities had done so much he felt very great difficulty in taking upon himself to vote for any Resolution that would tend to coerce the Legislative Council of the Viceroy. There was no sign whatever to indicate that the Council had not entirely recognized their responsibility in this matter, and if the House passed such a Resolution as that suggested to it by the hon. Member for Crewe, it seemed to him that they would be taking upon themselves a most terrible responsibility, especially when it could not be denied that most Members would be voting with an imperfect knowledge of the peculiar sanitary conditions of India, and the effects of the climate in that country upon the propagation of disease, and, in fact, of all the conditions of the question which it was now proposed so summarily to decide. He would much prefer to see the ultimate decision as to the repeal of the Acts, which were at present suspended, left to the arbitrament of those distinguished men who represented public opinion, both English and Native, in the Viceroy's Legislative Council. It must be remembered that the Viceroy had around him the most authoritative body of experts in all such subjects as these in that Indian Medical Service which would always be the pride of our Indian Empire, distinguished as they were, not only for their skill in dealing with all such matters as this, but also for their high feeling of honour and integrity and devotedness to the well-being of those with whom they had to do. In consideration, therefore, of the many peculiar sanitary conditions, and the terrible nature of the subject before them, he would venture to urge the House to beware before it coerced the action of such men as these.
  MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, he did not wonder that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down felt it his duty to endeavour to defend the character of some of those members of that service in India of which he had himself been a member. No more severe condemnation was ever penned by a Secretary of State than that passed upon Major General Chapman.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid, he expressly stated that he in no way defended Major General Chapman's action

  1205
  in signing the infamous document referred to in the despatch. All he stated was that he believed that Major General Chapman's signature was obtained by a stamp signature, or in some way by which he had not full knowledge of the contents.
  MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman thought by such an explanation he could do his friend any service, he should be sorry to stand in his way; but if that defence was to be received, then that let some light into the extraordinary manner in which Indian official documents were signed, and it only added one more to the matters which needed inquiry by Viscount Cross. But it was not in respect to the contents of the document that the severest censure was passed. Viscount Cross added—
  "Nor can I in any way reconcile its contents with the report made by you in the Quartermaster General's report of August 2, 1887."
  The fact of Major General Chapman being a man of deep religious character only added to the gravity of the situation. Had it come to this, that an officer of the highest religious character could, by the suppression of details in the report, draw forth such words of condemnation? This was why he and those who acted with him could not have that very high confidence in Indian officials which had been expressed by the Under Secretary and the hon. Member who had just sat down. Nor were they satisfied when it was stated by the Government of India that the operation of the Act had been suspended. The Under Secretary read a despatch from Lord Dufferin, dated March 27, 1888, stating that he had decided to suspend the operation of the Act in the localities mentioned, but there was absolute information that operations under the Act were in full swing in the middle of May, so that it would appear that certain officials had not received, or did not carry out, the suspension orders. The information upon which he stated this was contained in a letter from Mr. A. S. Dyer, who stated that he, in company with Mr. Gladwin, found on May 16 that the doors of the Lock Hospital were crowded, and the medical authorities had heard nothing of the suspension. There were 60 women in the hospital and 500 on the register. The acting police commissioner had heard nothing of the suspension, and examinations were proceeding. He
  1206
  could not, therefore, have confidence in the Indian officials. The supporters of the Resolution were determined to stand by its terms, that the legislation ought to be repealed, and they would be content with nothing less.
  MR. H. J. WILSONsaid, it was important to keep clear the fact that this was no question of objection to certain details of the Acts; it was an objection based on a principle of the broadest kind against any method of establishing harlotry in India or elsewhere, and against any recognition of it, except for the purpose of repression. It was extraordinary to hear the ignorance expressed by the India Office of what was known as the "regimental system." It was in existence in 1853, and he could not say how much earlier. In 1870 and 1871 there was a Royal Commission, which, among other evidence, took that of Lieutenant General Lord Sandhurst, and he stated, in the most explicit manner, that the regimental system was in full operation when he was in India in 1853. So to talk of it as a system established a few years ago was an extraordinary delusion, and he was sorry the Under Secretary of State (Sir John Gorst) should be under it. More than that, there was other evidence given before the Royal Commission, showing that the system was in operation before any legislation authorized it. That the House should understand, for, although the Resolution spoke of the repeal of legislation, there would still be attempts to work some system or other in the same direction as a substitute. Dr. Ross, in his evidence before the Commission, said the principle of the Act was carried out long before it was extended to India, and his evidence went almost as far back as the date already given. Much information was contained in the 13th annual Report of the working of the Lock Hospitals in the North-West Provinces and Oude for 1886; but the remarkable thing about that Report was, that it contained very little about the working of the hospitals in the sense usually understood, but it contained much about the building and furnishing military brothels, their sanitary arrangements, and staffing them with suitable persons. There was no disguising the facts, and in one instance the institution was referred to as the "regimental

  1207
  brothel." It really amounted to the same thing as was referred to by the religious Major General, who appeared to allow his signature to be attached to documents not knowing their contents. He (Mr. Wilson) was the last man to speak with contempt of genuine piety, but he could not have a high regard for the piety of a man whose signature was attached to such a document. The evidence showed every possible recommendation had been made except that soldiers should behave like decent men. If it was suggested that Europeans could not so behave in India, that was the severest condemnation against having a European Army in India at all. Now that all other plans had failed, let morality be tried. Give the men reasonable occupation and recreation. He implored the Government not to go on in defiance of public opinion and the voice of the country, which, he believed, in this case at all events, was the voice of God.
  MR. H. S. WRIGHTsaid, he could not see what object was to be gained by prolonging the discussion on a subject on which the House was agreed almost to a man. Nothing could be clearer than the speech they had listened to from the Under Secretary of State for India, in which he said that the licensing of this vice was not going to be countenanced any longer, though he pressed that the House should leave it to the Indian Government to take the initiative rather than take the initiative themselves in an unconstitutional way. He thought that by the manner in which it had been shown that the Indian Government was recognizing the opinion of this country on the subject hon. Members need not be in fear that the old policy would be continued. If the Indian Government did not intend to carry out what they had commenced, the speeches which had been made that night would be an incentive to them to carry out more resolutely and speedily the abatement of the intolerable system. It was necessary that some sort of restriction should be imposed on the entry of these women into the cantonments where our soldiers were. They did not want to place temptation in the way of the soldiers; but if the women insisted in going voluntarily into the cantonments they should be subject to police restrictions in the same way as persons suffering from small-pox,
  1208
  or fever, or other contagious disease. That was the sort of restriction, he believed, it was intended to enforce, and that kind of restriction, he believed, everyone would agree with most cordially. He only wished to say he was perfectly satisfied himself and delighted with the very plain and eloquent speech of the Under Secretary for India, which he felt sure would meet with the approval of the country, as he was sure it would of the constituency which he represented.
  SIR JOHN SIMONsaid, he thought the hon. Member who had brought forward this matter had done a great public service, for he had enabled the House of Commons to pronounce upon and condemn this system. We were in the habit of justifying our presence in India on the ground that we were a civilizing Power there, but this law was an insult to civilization. It struck at the root of the first principles of morality, and legalized a vice which all Biblical religion condemned. He preferred the moral argument to the constitutional which had been advanced. We heard nothing of the constitutional argument when we pressed the Indian Government for the repeal of the duty on cotton goods. If the matter went to a division, the issue would be morality versus vice. He hoped that the Government would see to the repeal of this legislation, and so rescue the British name from the dishonour which now rested upon it in consequence of this legislation.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE, who had on the Paper the following Amendment:—
  "That this House, while approving the recent action of the Government of India regarding the suspension of certain portions of the Contagious Diseases Acts in that Country, yet deems it unconstitutional to interfere by Resolution with that initiative in legislation which has been assigned to the Government of India by Act of Parliament,"
  said, it was certainly true that, under the operation of the Acts in question, a certain class of diseases had not decreased as much as had been hoped for; but, nevertheless, it was impossible to doubt that the effect of that legislation had been beneficial in a physical point of view. The statistics and the medical evidence taken as a whole were conclusive on this point. If indeed at some stations a slight increase had been per-

  1209
  ceptible, that, he feared, was owing to certain causes which were arising in England, and to which he would not further allude. Though he denied that India owed the introduction of these diseases to England, still we were bound to take all the precautions we could to prevent them from spreading among the Natives. Passing to the moral aspect of the question, he desired to pay a tribute of respect to the motives that actuated hon. Members opposite in the course which they had taken in demanding the repeal of this legislation. He must, however, enter his protest against the unintentional exaggerations and misrepresentations into which an excess of zeal led hon. Members opposite, whose pictures were drawn somewhat after the Rembrandt or Salvator Rosa schools. He might say at once that he was not prepared in the slightest degree to defend or to countenance anything that could be regarded as immoral. He knew that the Government of India had never intended to contravene the principles of morality, and had never done so conciously. He could assure the House that the Army officers in India did all they could to promote the welfare of their men, while the medical officers, in the discharge of their delicate duties, showed the most humane consideration for the miserable class of persons with whom they were brought into professional contact. Hon. Members opposite, however, should remember that there was such a thing as a choice of evils. It did not follow that evils which had to be regulated were at all approved. Nor did it follow that the recognition of inevitable facts at all involved their authorization. He was afraid that the sudden repeal of these Acts would lead to an aggravation in India of vice and of human degradation, the very evils which hon. Members opposite were laudably striving to lesson. The recent despatch of the Secretary of State addressed to the Government of India was most satisfactory, as it carried out the promises which had been made by the Under Secretary for India. It was clearly understood that there was not to be any more compulsory examination of certain classes, and that there was to be nothing which could bear even the semblance of the authorization of immorality or vice. He was sure that those promises were to be relied upon. He
  1210
  acknowledged the utter indefensibility of certain despatches which had been disowned by the Government and condemned in that House. Admittedly the authorities in India had in one respect gone too far, and had unwittingly infringed sound principles at some points. But the Executive orders which had been embodied in the despatch of the Secretary of State went further than even such a measure as the repeal of these Acts. In fact, the Government had granted more than was asked for in the Resolution now before the House. While admitting, of course, that the British Parliament was the paramount authority in the Empire, he might point out that to interfere with the Legislative Council of India was a very serious matter; in fact, it was unconstitutional. Parliament might be omnipotent practically, still even its powers were limited by Acts passed by itself. For 50 years it had been the object of this Parliament to extend legislative powers to India; and to interfere with these powers, conferred by Parliament itself, was a very different matter from interfering with the Government in its executive capacity. To virtually direct that Legislature to repeal such and such Acts was tantamount to interference. The Indian Councils Act, passed by Parliament in 1861, expressly assigned full powers of law-making to that Legislature by Section 22. A veto was reserved to the English Government by Section 22, whereby a full control was maintained. These two sections were so explicit that, while providing this veto, they left the initiative to a Legislature consisting of the Governor General and his Councillors, aided by a certain number of non-official Members both European and Native. He could give instances where this Legislature had asserted its right of initiation even as against the English Government. Of course, the supreme power must ever reside in England. Certainly, if England insisted on having a measure passed, it could recall the Governor General and the Members of his Council, if they objected; but that would be an unusual course. The proper plan would be to leave the initiative in this case to the Government of India, who would act officially, and would not take an opportunity of running counter to the general observations they might re-

  1211
  ceive from Her Majesty's Government. He submitted that an authoritative suggestion, such as would be comprised in or implied by a Resolution of that House, would be tantamount to an order, and would be also equivalent to taking the initiative which had been assigned by Parliament to the Government of India. He did not for a moment suppose that a Resolution of that House could be treated as a brutum fulmen, as it was really a most serious practical matter. He submitted that the proper plan was to allow the Government of India to have the initiative in this and in all other cases. They would take note of the sentiments expressed in that House, and would in due time act faithfully and loyally in accordance therewith. In dealing with these particular Acts the Government of India would have much to think of. The Acts were various, extending from 1864 to 1880. They touched on many topics besides the diseases now under consideration. If parts of them had to be repealed, parts would have to be retained or reenacted. While studiously preventing any practices condemned by public opinion or prohibited by Parliament, the authorities must yet repress open vice, preserve public decency in the military stations, expel persons from military limits who were known to be dangerously diseased. Among the measures to be kept up was the maintenance of hospitals. He hoped that the charity and humanity of hon. Members would not object to Lock Hospitals being maintained for those who voluntarily resorted to them or who applied for relief. We ought generously to offer them relief when they sought it. We did not refuse medical aid to a man suffering from delirium tremens on the ground that he had brought it upon himself, or on the ground that when he came out of the hospital he would relapse into his fault. When cured in the Lock Hospitals, these poor people would have a chance of returning to an honest life, whereas if uncured they would never emerge from a state of misery, and they would die a most wretched death. In conclusion, he duly noted the argument which had been used by several speakers opposite to the effect that some remedy for this evil ought to be found as affecting our soldiers in the East. He admitted that there might be physical
  1212
  mitigation, but there could be no final remedy even if the law were administered with the greatest stringency. He entreated hon. Members as humane and sensible men to reflect upon the many disadvantages which beset the life of the soldier in India. The soldier was carried out to a foreign land with no family, separated from all his friends, and shut up for many months of the year from morning to evening in hot barracks, which were darkened in order to exclude the rays of the burning sun. Perhaps he was allowed one or two hours' liberty in the cool of the evening. Could not hon. Members imagine what were the temptations to which he was exposed in such circumstances? Despite all these temptations there had been such improvements in his lot and his surroundings, in his character, his conduct, and his habits as to encourage him (Sir Richard Temple) to hope enthusiastically for the future of the soldiery in India. There was only one perfect remedy for the state of things that existed in India, and that was that the men should be enabled to take their wives and families with them to India; but the House well knew that this was practically impossible. For the limited number of families that were taken out to India married quarters were provided, where the women could live happily and comfortably with all the best associations of an English home. It was said by hon. Members opposite that the men should not be allowed to be idle and so get drawn into temptation. That had been considered, and soldiers' gardens and workshops had been provided, and military industry was encouraged. Means of recreation, swimming baths, shady parks, and playgrounds, had been provided. There were also facilities for education. The men were encouraged to circulate books and to hang pictures on their barrack-walls. Well-lighted and properly furnished reading-rooms were constituted to allure men towards better things and away from low places of amusement. In fact, everything was provided that was calculated to raise the lives of the soldiers—physically, mentally, and morally. No matter was of more Imperial importance than this, because the precious reserve of European strength must be maintained intact and unimpaired, however much the Natives of

  1213
  India might be disposed to venerate our pure administration of the law. Native loyalty had been conspicuous happily. Still, behind it all there must ever be "the thin red line" and the central power on the spot. For the sake of sustaining that line and that power, he had spoken to the Amendment, though, under the circumstances of the moment, he would refrain from actually moving it.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, he hoped that after the discussion of that night they would have heard the last of these horrible Acts in India. On his side of the House they had to consider not merely the independence of the Indian Legislature, but also the character of the English nation. The Medical Profession at one time was strongly in favour of the extension of these Acts, actuated by the wish to do good to the community because of the terrible results which followed from these diseases; but the horrors of the system and of the methods necessary for the suppression of the disease were found to be such as to outweigh, from a moral point of view, any benefits to be derived from the stamping out of the disease. It was now desired by the carrying of the Resolution before the House to express an opinion which would be an indication to the Council of India of the feeling entertained in England on this question. These Acts had failed in England, but they had in an especial manner failed in India. Looking at the statistics on the matter, he found that the number of cases of disease had been increasing year by year, and especially in the last two or three years. Whilst the number of cases in 1876 was 189 per 1,000, they had risen in 1880 to 249; in 1883 to 270; and in 1885 to 342 per 1,000, so that while the Acts had been in force, the disease, instead of being suppressed, had actually largely increased. The argument on the other side from the experiment made at certain stations, was based on unscientific methods and unscientific comparisons, single years being compared with the average of series of years, instead of single years or groups of years being compared with each other. It was said that the increase was due to the shutting up of the hospitals; but no one ever asked that the hospitals should be shut up, or that there should be no places open for the treat-
  1214
  ment of disease. He found, on examining the matter more closely, that this argument entirely failed, for at those stations where the system was allowed to continue in force the increase went on the same as in stations where the system had been suspended. In Cawnpore, for instance, where the experiment of doing away with hospitals had been tried, the number of cases reported per 1,000 in 1884 was 166, whereas in 1885 the number rose to 309, which increase was stated to be due to the abandonment of the hospital system, and of the regulations with regard to the suppression of the disease; but, in reply to this argument, he would take the station of Agra, where the regulations remained in full force. At Agra he found that there were no fewer than 223 cases reported in 1884, and that in 1885, when a diminution ought to have been shown to bear out this argument, so far from there being a diminution, the number of cases reported had actually increased to 416 per 1,000, so that here with all the advantages, or supposed advantages, of the system which was advocated by hon. Members opposite, the increase was about as great as it was in the station where the system had been abandoned, so that the argument based on the ground of the experiment of doing away with the hospitals failed altogether. He commended the result to the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite. As a member of the Medical Profession, to which were allotted the objectionable duties which the Resolution of the hon. Member condemned, he protested against any of his fellow practitioners being called upon to act in the manner they had now to act in India. They ought not to be asked to carry out what was a vile duty in the so-called interests of the Army of the Empire; and, on this ground, to say nothing of the immorality of the question, he would support the Motion of his hon. Friend. He would like to ask hon. Members what they would think of a medical practitioner who would perform the same duties in London for private individuals? It would be impossible that they could respect such a medical man. And yet this was the system which was allowed and systematized by the Government of a Christian country. What they ought to do was to find recreation for the men of the Army, mental, educa-

  1215
  tional and physical, and turn the Service for the poorer classes into what the Universities were for the wealthier classes. If they did this there would be no complaints that the men were kept in idleness. It was said that the men had long hours in dull barracks, and that they were entitled to two hours' recreation every evening. He was willing to concede that they shall have recreation of a moral kind; but in the interests of the morality, the courage, and the self-respect of the soldiers, the system in use in India ought to be put down, as it had been put down in England.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he rose, not to continue the discussion, but to suggest that it should now be brought to a close. The whole course of the debate, and the attitude and statements of the Government, had been of such a character, that he must congratulate himself and his Friends on the result of the discussion. The House had also every reason to congratulate itself upon the character of the statement made by the Under Secretary of State for India, and he did not in the least doubt what the effect of that statement would be. He would not enter into the Constitutional question raised by the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Richard Temple), for there was really no difference of opinion on the subject. The Indian Government, he agreed with the Under Secretary, ought to be treated with respect and in a courteous manner. No one, however, could dispute that Parliament had the power to legislate over the head of the Indian Government, and to direct the action of the Viceroy and his Council. The only practical question was, as to the manner in which the power of this House should be brought to bear, and he had no doubt but that the expression of opinion in the course of this discussion would result in the Indian Government honourably, and without delay, bringing their legislation and practice into accord with the views of the House of Commons. He desired to express his acknowledgments to Her Majesty's Government for the manner in which they had met the Resolution, and that was especially gratifying to him because the subject under discussion that evening he regarded as only the continuation and corollary of a long and painful struggle in which he had borne a laborious part. He had never
  1216
  desired to make it a Party question, and as some time ago the House repealed the Contagious Diseases Act, nemine contradicente, he hoped that it would now with similar unanimity adopt the Resolution of his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Laren).
  The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. Speaker stated that he thought the Ayes had it. But his decision was challenged, and it appearing to Mr. Speaker that the Division was frivolously claimed, he directed the Noes to stand up in their places, and no Member having stood up, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, any mere suspension of measures for the compulsory examination of women, and for licensing and regulating prostitution in India, is insufficient, and the legislation which enjoins, authorises, or permits such measures ought to be repealed.

  REGINA v. HARKINS AND CALLAN.

    RESOLUTION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That there be laid before this House Copies of a Statement made to Mr. Cuffe, Assistant Solicitor to the Treasury, by Mr. Joseph Nolan, M.P., on the 11th day of January, 1888, with reference to the case of Regina v. Harkins and Callan:
    And, of a Transcript of the Shorthand Writer's Notes of the Evidence given by Mr. Joseph Nolan, M.P., at the trial of the case of Regina v. Harkins and Callan at the Central Criminal Court."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Sir, I beg in the first place, to call your attention in regard to this Motion, to the fact that the Rule of the House, which provides that the name of an hon. Member shall appear in connection with the constituency which he represents, has been infringed. That, I understand, has been the practice laid down from the Chair on previous occasions; and I think, Sir, if that ruling is to be adhered to in one case and not in another, it would be extremely desirable that we should know that that is to be the practice henceforward. However, perhaps we shall have some detailed or precise Rule upon that point, so that we may exactly know how we stand. With regard to the other matter, I am surprised that the noble Viscount (Viscount Ebrington), who, I understand, is in his place, who gave notice of this Motion, never said anything in support of it. I understand that the noble Viscount was the Chairman of the Committee that sat,

    1217
    and made some foolish recommendations with regard to the Strangers' Gallery. Well, the noble Viscount put down the Motion, apparently at the instigation of Her Majesty's Government some two or three months ago. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY (Mr. W. H. Smith) (Strand, Westminster) dissented.] Well, I will develop my reasons presently. The noble Viscount, as a Liberal Unionist and supporter of the Government, put down the Motion in conjunction with some Gentlemen on the Government Bench. I observe that the Home Secretary is apparently uneasy. At any rate, the noble Viscount put it down in conjunction with Her Majesty's Government, as I submit. When the Committee met, its exact investigations were defined; but instead of their being devoted to the general question which was understood to be the original ground upon which the Committee was formed—the exclusion of Strangers—the Committee devoted itself to one object—namely, to besmirch the character of an individual Member of this House. I am sorry to see that when, on another occasion, the Attorney General had a full opportunity of cross-examining in the course of a trial where an oath was administered, and where he would have all the latitude afforded him at the Old Bailey, he passed over any question which could have affected the character of this hon. Gentleman, and instead of that the Government granted a Committee, for which the Home Secretary could apparently snatch a moment of his time from looking after Trafalgar Square and devote himself to the unusual duty of acting as a Member of this Committee, and the Home Secretary gave his great assistance, both as a statesman and a lawyer and as a Home Secretary, to the Committee, and the noble Viscount, in the endeavour by some means, if possible, to carry out the object I have stated, and, from what I can gather, the noble Viscount puts down the Motion which can only have one other object—that is, to assist The Times in the forthcoming libel trial. The Attorney General is the Gentleman whose services were offered to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) by the First Lord of the Treasury, so that the Attorney General might conduct a libel action for him acting on behalf of the Government against
    1218
    The Times. We detect the bona fides of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this very important question, when we find the first Law Officer of the Crown, who was proffered to us as our shield and buckler on the occasion of the action in respect of the forged letter, now leading counsel for The Times. We find the noble Viscount acting in collusion with the Government and with the Attorney General, who is also acting as leading counsel for The Times, in getting out matters for which a full opportunity was afforded to the Attorney General when he had my hon. Friend the Member for North Louth (Mr. J. Nolan) upon the table at the Old Bailey, and he had not then any desire for cross-examination with reference to these matters. I denounce this attempt as one of the basest manŔuvres to which a responsible Government ever descended. The position is this. You deny to prisoners in Ireland under the inquisitorial clauses of the Crimes Act, the opportunity of getting a sworn deposition, and you now propose to produce, for the first time, a Home Office document, that has been a secret document regarding matters contained in it which has hitherto been supposed to be in confidence between the Home Office and those who supplied them with the information; and I say that that is conniving at a well-regulated breach of official etiquette, and it is a surrender of the confidence of the Home Office in order to assist a Party manŔuvre. Where is the noble Viscount who moved the Motion? Sir, you have proposed the Motion from the Chair, and I ask where is the noble Viscount? It seems to me that in addition to having granted this Return this Motion must have been made for the Treasury Bench, because I cannot assume that you would propose the Motion from the Chair——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Motion was moved in the usual way from the Treasury Bench.
    An hon. MEMBER: Now we have it.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having given the House the information, and I take it that the Under Secretary of State to the Home Office was about getting on his legs in order to make that open confession which is so good for the soul.

    1219
    Therefore, when the First Lord of the Treasury a few moments ago shook his head and said that he had not connived at it, he was throwing over his Colleague then. That he had not connived at the granting of this Return or the granting of a Select Committee, but that—I will not say his understrapper, because that would be an un-Parliamentary expression—but a minor official, a very minor official, takes it upon himself. I believe the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) is a Member of the Bar and a Colleague of the hon. and learned Attorney General, and for anything I know, perhaps like the ex-Judge Advocate General, also counsel for The Times, and he takes it upon himself to grant this Return and to surrender what has hitherto been supposed to be a secret matter—namely, the confidences which any person is willing to give in the interests of justice to the Treasury and the Home Office. I always understood that a statement to a solicitor was privileged under the circumstances, and especially a statement made to the Representative of a high Minister of State with regard to a matter affecting the Queen and her Crown and dignity; and yet this Gentleman, representing the Home Office, of course without the consent of the First Lord of the Treasury, and equally, I assume, without the consent of the hero of Trafalgar Square, his senior Colleague—he takes it upon himself to issue a proclamation to the noble Viscount granting the Return. It would have passed through without a word in the turmoil of the moment after the excitement of an opposed Division had it not been summarily stopped by me. I would say to the Government, if they want to give these Returns, let them put them down frankly themselves. If the Under Secretary of State wants to give the statement of what is called Mr. Joseph Nolan, M.P., let them present it as a Crown document, but let them not usurp the name of the noble Viscount. Let them attempt to fight without the Liberal Unionist crutch. Let them not attempt by any side wind of this kind to throw dirty water on a Member of the House. If, however, that occupation be congenial to any of them, let it be frankly performed, and let the garden hose from the main tank—I will not say of Downing Street, but shall say of the Central Criminal
    1220
    Court—be turned on by themselves. I would say that a matter of this kind requires to be disposed of by some better explanation than that conveyed to the House by the Jove-like nod of the Under Secretary of State to the Home Office. Perhaps we shall have from him, or from the leading counsel of The Times on the Treasury Bench, some further explanation with regard to this important question. I think I have discharged a function of a useful character in exposing what I conclude to be the true intention and objects of this Motion. I do not know what Mr. Joseph Nolan, M.P. may have said to Mr. Cuffe, the Assistant Solicitor to the Treasury, or what the same Gentleman may have said anywhere else; but what we do want to know is this—that the stratagems available in the hands of the Government which are placed at the hand of the leading journal supporting their policy should be fired and fused by those who are chiefly concerned in the policy of defamation against the Irish Members. Let those Gentlemen in their places in the House of Commons get on their legs and stand to their guns. The noble Viscount in whose name the Motion stands has appropriately gone out. I congratulate him upon that performance much more than upon his allowing himself to be made a bonnet for the Government, to use the memorable expression of the late Sir Stafford Northcote. Apparently, to some extent, he has withdrawn, and perhaps now some Representative of the Treasury Bench will give us some better explanation of this matter than we have yet been vouchsafed.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)said, that what was done in the present instance had been customary since he had been in the House—namely, that when a Return was asked for by an hon. Member, with the assent of the Government, the Motion in his absence was made by a Member of the Government. So far as the documents in question were concerned his Office was purely Ministerial. The first of these documents was one the authenticity of which was disputed, and the authenticity of which it was thought desirable to prove, and the other was the accord of a matter of notoriety which

    1221
    was given in evidence before one of the tribunals of the country. That was the substance of the Return, and if the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. T. M. Healy) wished to oppose it, no doubt the Forms of the House would enable him to do so; but all he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) could say was that it was a matter of ordinary practice to move for Returns in this way.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, he should like to add a few words to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State upon a matter of which the hon. Gentleman personally knew nothing, but which had been in his (Mr. Matthews's) knowledge as he had been a Member of the Committee to which reference had been made. He was bound to say that he had seldom witnessed the ingenuity and imagination of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) exercised with more effect, and more to the astonishment of the House, than on the present occasion. What took place on the Committee was this; when on the last day it sat certain evidence was given by a certain witness. That witness, amongst other things, touched upon a statement of an hon. Gentleman written for the Government as a brief for the Solicitor to the Treasury, but he did not produce that original, and the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar) called upon him to produce that original. The witness had not got it with him, only possessing a copy, whereupon the right hon. Member for West Cavan objected, with perfect propriety, that the copy should not be accepted, and that the original should be produced. The Committee decided not to wait for the original then and there, but asked the witness to read the copy and to produce the original later on. The witness complied, but unfortunately that was the last day on which the Committee sat. All the Members dispersed, the Report was settled, and he (Mr. Matthews) himself had left before the close of the proceedings. A technical difficulty in the way of the production of the document read by the witness then arose, for the Clerk to the Committee could not obtain it and put it in the evidence, neither could the Committee, as it no longer sat as a body,
    1222
    The noble Viscount (Viscount Ebrington), who was responsible for the proceedings of the Committee—inasmuch as he had been its Chairman—suggested how this little difficulty could be got over, and how the very proper objection of the hon. Member for West Cavan could be met. He suggested how the original in place of the copy could be put in evidence—how the verification of the copy could be effected. He was not quite sure whether the suggestion came from the noble Viscount, or was primarily his (Mr. Matthews's) own. It was that the original should be moved for, so that the House could see whether the copy placed before the Committee in evidence was correct or not. That was the whole of this story of which the hon. and learned Member for North Longford had made so much. The whole of his tremendous charge against the Government vanished into thin air. This Motion was simply a means to enable the hon. Member for West Cavan and his Friends to do that which, owing to the dispersion of the Committee and the closing of its period of sitting, could no longer be done regularly, either by the Members of the Committee, or the Committee Clerk. The evidence was at an end. The Committee had decided to read the copy, and not to wait for the production of the original, then and there finishing their task before the original could be produced. If the Motion for the production of the original was now agreed to, everyone would be able to compare it with the copy, and to see whether or not the copy was accurate. The other document, the Armstrong paper, was precisely in the same position. The witness before the Committee stated his recollection of certain evidence which he had heard. He (Mr. Matthews) was not sure whether the objection to the admission of that statement in evidence before the Committee was taken by the hon. Member for West Cavan; but, at any rate, some Member of the Committee objected, declaring that they ought to have the shorthand notes of the evidence in question, which would be a fuller, more complete, and more satisfactory account of the evidence given by the witness at the Central Criminal Court. It was impossible, however, to bring their shorthand notes before the Committee, as this was the

    1223
    last day of its sitting; therefore, this Motion was made in order that the House might see whether there was anything in the notes which would qualify or alter the statement made before the Committee, which hon. Members would see printed in the evidence. The wonderful discovery which the hon. and learned Member for North Longford had made therefore vanished into thin air. He failed to see what the matter could have to do with the Attorney General, or anyone else in the world. All that was about to be done was to furnish those interested in the proceedings of the Committee with the originals in place of the copies of the evidence given before the Committee.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)here rose.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Oh, oh! Three of them!
    VISCOUNT EBRINGTONalso rose, and was called upon by Mr. Speaker. He begged to apologize to the House for not having been in his place to move for this Return when it was moved for by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State (Mr. Stuart-Wortley). He was sorry that the matter had caused so much excitement, but the explanation of the whole thing was very simple. Copies of the paper in question had been submitted to the Committee, of which he (Viscount Ebrington) had been Chairman, by a witness. One of them was objected to by an hon. Gentleman, a Member of the Committee, as only being an office copy in the possession of a subordinate, and not being a certified copy of the original. The Committee, however, decided to accept them, and they were put in for what they were worth—and he had given a verbal assurance to the hon. Member who had raised the objection that he would take steps to get the copies verified. The Committee, however, did not meet again, so that it was not possible to get the originals put in. The originals were not, therefore, produced; and, under the circumstances, he had thought that the best course would be to move that these originals should be laid upon the Table of the House, in order that the House might be able to have the documents verified on Ministerial responsibility rather than on the responsibility of a subor-
    1224
    dinate. That was the whole history of the matter. He was sorry he had not been in his place to explain the matter at the time the Motion was made; but he thought the hon. and learned Member who had initiated this debate would probably be satisfied with this explanation.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he should not have intervened but for two direct deliberate charges made against him in a most unwarrantable manner by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). The hon. and learned Gentleman had first stated that the Motion before the House had been made with his (Sir Richard Webster's) knowledge—collusively in relation to some proceedings with which he (Sir Richard Webster) was connected. Of course, he could not say whether the hon. and learned Member for North Longford would accept his word or not; but there were many in that House who would. He could only assure the House that he had not the slightest knowledge, direct or indirect, that this Return had ever been asked for, had ever been moved for, or that the Motion in any form was to come before the House on this or any other occasion. He was in absolute ignorance, either that the papers were required, or that the Motion was going to be made. So much for the allegation that these papers were moved for in collusion with one who was said to be the counsel for The Times. The other charge made against him he was surprised to hear proceeding from a member of the Bar whom he could scarcely think wholly ignorant of the proceedings which had taken place. The hon, and learned Gentleman had said that he (Sir Richard Webster) was willing that this Return should be moved for, having, when he had had an opportunity of cross-examining the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Nolan) at the Central Criminal Court, deliberately elected not to do so.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I said on these points.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: There was not a particle of foundation for such a suggestion. He would not use any discourteous expression. At the Central Criminal Court it was necessary to prove that a dynamiter named Melville—against whom a war-

    1225
    rant was out—had been to the House of Commons in company with one of the prisoners—either Callan or Harkins. To prove that this man had come to the House the hon. Member for Louth was called as a witness for the prosecution—was called as a witness for the Crown—was called by him (Sir Richard Webster), and examined by him. He had simply asked the hon. Member a question as to a matter of fact, as to Melville having been the name of the man introduced to him. The order for admission into the House was produced with Melville's name on it; and the hon. Member for Louth admitted that the name of the introducing Member was in his handwriting. Now, the hon. and learned Member for North Longford was a member of the Bar, and was perfectly well aware that no one calling a witness to prove a fact could cross-examine him at all. There was no opportunity to cross-examine the hon. Member; and he (Sir Richard Webster) had simply put a question to him which was answered. On the hon. Member for Louth stating that he had signed the order his evidence was at an end. He (Sir Richard Webster) had called him to prove a fact which he had thought it necessary to prove. The House, therefore, would judge as to how much truth there was in the charges brought by the hon. and learned Member for Longford against himself or the Government.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, he rose to say two or three words on this subject, because he had been a Member of the Committee to which so much reference had been made. He must frankly own that when he saw the Notice of Motion on the Paper to-day that he was as much surprised as he had ever been in the House, because it seemed to be a revival of about as unfortunate a course of conduct as ever was pursued in a Parliamentary Committee—a course of conduct which was, as he thought, with the general consent of the Committee, desisted from. This was a Return now moved for in cold blood, some three or four weeks after the Committee had brought in its Report. The Return, as it appeared on the Paper of the House, evidently cast serious imputations upon a Member of the House. Such a Return
    1226
    would never be placed upon the Paper of the House unless some serious use was going to be made of it. Now, the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Under Secretary of State for the Home Office said that these two documents were accurate and authentic documents, of which copies were laid before the Committee. That was not the case. The first of them—the brief which, he supposed, was a statement made by the Assistant Solicitor to the Treasury—was at a late stage of the proceedings laid before the Committee; but by that time the Committee was conducting its business in a much more reasonable manner than it had been doing earlier, as he would explain to the House; and a legal objection—because by that time they had begun to regard themselves as to a certain extent under legal responsibility—was taken that the original, and not a copy, should be brought forward. The original could not be produced, and, consequently, the copy was not laid before the Committee. The copy was never before the Committee, and, in spite of what had just been said, was not printed in the Blue Book. If it were produced now, in response to the present appeal, it would be the first time it had ever been before the House of Commons or a section of the House of Commons. And now let him say a word why, under the circumstances, even if the copy had been laid before the Committee, he should not vote for this Motion—indeed, should vote against it. The Committee, to which so much reference had been made, appeared to have been assembled for a double purpose. One purpose—and a most legitimate purpose—was in order to discover whether the regulations for admitting Strangers were so defective that dangerous Strangers might be admitted; and secondly—and this was likewise a most legitimate purpose—in order to discover whether there was any method of allotting the seats in the Gallery which Mr. Speaker could approve and which the majority of the House would agree to, and which would be more convenient to hon. Members than the method of admitting Strangers lately in practice. But on the top of these two most proper objects there was engrafted a third, which was to bring a charge against a Member of this House. [An hon. Member; Monstrous thing!] He heard an

    1227
    hon. Member say "Monstrous thing!" Well, he would explain to him what he thought a monstrous thing. What was the charge which it was sought to bring against a Member of the House?—but he would not say whether it was a true one or a false one. ["Hear, hear!" from the Government Benches.] No; he did not say whether it was a true one or a false one—that had nothing to do with his argument. It was a charge of knowingly admitting into the Gallery of that House men who were prepared to commit a crime—to commit a murderous outrage upon this House. If an hon. Member had been guilty of that, he would have been guilty of high treason, he supposed. He would have brought himself within the compass of an Act by which he could have received 21 years' penal servitude; and did any hon. Member—an hon. Member had called it a "monstrous thing"—did any hon. Member think that Parliament was the proper place to try anyone on such a charge, whether a Member or not, and whether it was true or not? He was obliged to be rather frank with the House in one point—namely, that on the first of these important days he was absent in the North of England, and did not sit upon the Committee. When he got back, he found that a good deal of evidence bad been given before the Committee which ought not to have been given; and the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. J. Nolan), whose conduct was in question, had not heard the evidence, though it was admitted that he was invited to be present when it would be given, so that he might come forward to make the best reply he could. But after that evidence had been given he came forward and made the best reply he could, not to that evidence, but to the questions which were put to him by Members who had heard that evidence. The next day he (Sir George Trevelyan) was present. His method of cross-examination was carried to a still further point. It actually came to this—that Members of the Committee questioned this hon. Member as to the topics on which he had been discussing at a private interview which he had had with one of these inculpated persons; and when it came to that point, he (Sir George Trevelyan), as hon. Members who looked at the Book would find, moved that the room should be cleared,
    1228
    and that they should discuss the course that they were then taking. He persuaded the Committee that they were in the wrong in allowing that method of cross-examination to be pursued; and it was not a breach of confidence to say that the Home Secretary—he did not say that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that they had been in the wrong up to that point; but the Home Secretary thought that they could not go any further in that direction, and so that method of cross-examination came to an end. It had been during that course of examination, which was, as it were, condemned and disowned by the Committee, that allusion had been made to this statement made to the Assistant Solicitor to the Treasury which they now asked should be brought before the House of Commons. He did not think it ought to have been brought before the Committee, and he did not think it ought now to be brought before the House of Commons. He did not find it in the Book.
    VISCOUNT EBRINGTONasked the right hon. Gentleman to look at Question 778 in the Report.
    SIR GEORGETREVELYANsaid, the Question to which the noble Lord wished him to turn was as follows:—
    "With reference to this statement made to the Treasury Solicitor, which you, wish to put in, will you read it?"—"It is as follows:—'No doubt, the statement I made to an officer last summer was correct, if I said it at the time. It does not, however, recall the circumstances to me, and I can add nothing to it; I might recognize the man; I do not know Mr. Stock's writing, nor do I know in whose writing the entry is in the Speaker's Register. I cannot recall the circumstances of the visit, nor do I know what name the other man gave. I repeat that I do not know what name the other man gave. I do not remember having had any letter of introduction from anyone coming from America. I should give people tickets on their own representation of themselves. I do not recollect the circumstances at all, at present.—(Signed) JOSEPH NOLAN."
    Then, in that case, he (Sir George Trevelyan) fell back upon what he said earlier, and that was that this Notice of Motion of the noble Lord was the sanction of one of the most improper proceedings that ever took place in a Committee. On that ground, if on no other, he should vote against the Motion. He considered that the only business of the Committee was to ask the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. J. Nolan) what the circumstances were

    1229
    under which he introduced these gentlemen, and to take his statement of the case. That was only what was necessary for the purpose for which the Committee was appointed, which was to see whether or not improper characters could be introduced into the House under the existing circumstances. The hon. Member for Louth made a perfectly consistent and, he (Sir George Trevelyan) believed, a perfectly true statement. In all the cross-examination which ensued, that statement was not shaken in any particular, and he absolutely refused to vote for this Motion, and thereby sanction a course of conduct which he thought was wrong in itself, a course of conduct pursued very far, and which threw a slight upon the hon. Member for North Louth which he was quite certain was undeserved.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET)said, that as he was one of the Members of the Committee, perhaps the House would indulge him for a few moments while he stated what, in his view, were the real circumstances of this case. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Sir George Trevelyan) had very severely condemned the proceedings of the Committee, and had taken upon himself to impugn the motives with which that Committee was asked for, and with which the examination of the witnesses appearing before that Committee was conducted. As far as he (Mr. Plunket) was concerned, he was not present, any more than the right hon. Gentleman, on the first day that the hon. Member for North Louth was cross-examined. He might say, also, that he had not refreshed his memory as to the exact details of the proceedings of the Committee, because he had not observed that that Notice was on the Paper at all. As to what really happened on the first day when the hon. Member for North Louth was called before the Committee, he (Mr. Plunket) could only judge from the evidence as printed. One of the police authorities (Mr. Munro), to whom to a great extent was entrusted the protection of the House, came before the Committee and gave certain evidence. The main feature of that evidence was, that one of the difficulties he had in securing the protection of the House was that dangerous characters obtained admission to the House
    1230
    on orders given by the hon. Member, and as he (Mr. Plunket) recollected, in support of that statement, the proceedings which had been made public in the trial of the dynamitards were brought before the Committee. The hon. Member for North Louth, receiving notice that that kind of examination was likely to be entered upon, appeared before the Committee and gave such evidence as he desired on the subject. On a subsequent day, when he (Mr. Plunket) was present, the examination on the subject was resumed, and at one stage of the proceedings the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), who, up to that time, had not taken the smallest exception to anything that had been stated or done by the Committee——
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I was not there on the first day, as I explained to the House.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he knew that the right hon. Gentleman was not there on the first day; but he said that on the second day the right hon. Gentleman took no exception up to a certain time. As soon as the right hon. Gentleman took exception to the course of the proceedings the room was cleared, and the Committee deliberated upon the objection of the right hon. Gentleman, and, in accordance with his opinion, the line of examination which was being observed was not pressed further. He maintained that, under these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman was not justified in the attack he had made on the proceedings of the Committee. The whole of the proceedings of the Committee, both before and after the room was cleared, were perfectly harmonious. The right hon. Gentleman now said he would not support the Motion, because he considered that it was a most unfair endeavour to renew and revive proceedings which had been dropped. The House might think it was right or not that the Return should be granted. So far as he was concerned, he was not aware that it was going to be asked for. He was bound to say, however, that the attack just made on the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division was wholly groundless and unwarrantable, an d that the statement by the noble Viscount (Viscount Ebrington) was a perfectly right and fair statement,

    1231
    and in accordance with the promise he gave at the time, that he would take steps, as far as possible, to confirm, by the production of the original document, the evidence which the Committee were obliged to take at second hand. The Motion, as he understood, was for a copy of a document which was given in evidence before the Committee.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: You want the original.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, that the Chairman asked Mr. Munro as to these documents—
    "For what purpose do you wish to put them in? "
    The reply was—
    "Because I said there was some doubt about the handwriting."
    In answer to Question 567, he said—
    "We were in some doubt, because, when Mr. Nolan was examined by the Treasury Solicitor, he said it was not like his handwriting, but he seemed to admit that it might be at the trial, and we thought it right to have as much inquiry upon that point as possible."
    And in answer to the Chairman's Question, 659—
    "He was quoting the statement which you made on the subject to the police?"
    Mr. Nolan said—
    "I simply said that I could not swear to the writing as being mine, but that it had a general resemblance. It is more with reference to my own statement, in which I said that we had not a doubt about it, that I wished to put in the statement before the Treasury Solicitor."
    This was a reason why this evidence was given. Mr. Nolan said to the witness, "Is that the original?" Mr. Nolan—being the person objecting to that way of giving evidence, asked—" Is that the original?" The witness replied, "This is a copy," whereupon Mr. Nolan said—
    "We had better have the original, and have it put in by the Treasury Solicitor."
    That was the very document which, if this Motion were granted, would necessarily be placed before the House, because if the House said a copy of the original was to be printed, of course the original would have to be forthcoming. He did not know whether the hon. Member who interrupted him suggested that the authorities would give some false copy. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: No!] Then he did not see the force of the objection. It was only fair to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. J. Nolan) himself that what
    1232
    he had said should be judged by the original.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was quite plain there had been a good deal of misconception on both sides of the House in this matter due to the unfortunate incident that the noble Viscount (Viscount Ebrington) was not able to be present to explain the reason why this Return was moved for. Had the noble Lord been present a good deal of the heat arising out of this misconception would, no doubt, have been prevented. As he understood the noble Lord, the object of the Return was merely to verify certain documents which were put in before the Committee. These documents would give no new information, according to the noble Lord's statement. It was a remarkable fact that in their Report the Committee took no notice of the fact to which this Return referred, and consequently they did not regard it as a material part of their inquiry. Let them see whether it would be wise or advantageous to make this formal Return. The Return was asked for to supplement, as he understood, defective evidence or documents before the Committee. He did not think it was a convenient precedent to set in any case that when a Committee had reported and concluded its transactions they should set to work by independent Motion to introduce something which should be supplementary to the Business which had been closed. But that was not all. How was the situation improved? A responsible officer, as he understood—namely, Mr. Munro—produced a copy of a document, and the objection—a good legal objection—was taken that they should see the original. But they did not improve the matter by moving for another copy.
    VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, excuse him for interrupting him. He had a further reason for moving for the Return; for the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. J. Nolan), in conversation afterwards, gave him to understand—he spoke to him in the presence of the hon. Member for South Fermanagh (Mr. H. Campbell), who would correct him if he was wrong—that upon the original document there was more writing than appeared on the copy put in by Mr. Munro. He (Viscount Ebrington) had had to leave town the

    1233
    next morning to do duty with the Yeomanry, and he was away from London until a very few days before the House adjourned for the Whitsuntide Holidays, and that was the reason why he did not take action earlier.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would understand that he meant no reflection on him for the course which had been taken. All that he was doing was considering whether it was wise for the House of Commons to grant the Return which had been moved for. He was trying to state the reasons quite apart from the circumstances of this particular case why this Return should not be granted. Though he perfectly admitted the noble Lord had made this Motion, as he believed, for the advantage of the hon. Member for Louth, he did not think it was a wise thing that this Return should be made. This was a Motion to lay on the Table of the House a copy of the brief supplied to the Solicitor to the Treasury. If he (Sir William Harcourt) had been on the Committee, he should have said that such a document ought never to have——
    It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that this was a matter of great importance, and he wished to know whether, as the Orders of the Day had not been entered upon, and it was now past 12 o'clock, he would be in Order in moving that the House do now adjourn for the purpose of making some observations by way of supplement to what had taken place? This was a matter of vital importance not only to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth himself, but to his Colleagues, who wished that there should be the amplest and fullest inquiry. They were most anxious that everything affecting this matter should be sifted to the very bottom; and what he submitted was that the Government should either re-open this Committee, which evidently had done its business in a most unfortunate and unusual manner——
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member will not be in Order in making the Motion. I am now about to proceed with the Orders of the Day.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that perhaps he might have the indulgence of the
    1234
    House for one moment. This was a matter affecting the personal honour of a Member of the House, who was charged with one of the most infamous crimes that an hon. Member could be charged with. Besides that, the honour of a Party consisting of nearly one-eighth of the House was affected, and therefore the House could scarcely deny him (Mr. T. M. Healy) the opportunity of making a few personal observations.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the debate has gone on until midnight, and therefore stands, ipso facto, adjourned.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that when the Secretary to the Treasury moved formally "That the House do adjourn," he should claim leave to revert to this matter.
    MR. SPEAKER: By the Rules of the House the debate is adjourned until to-morrow.
    Mr. T. M. HEALYsaid, that what he meant to convey was, that at the conclusion of this day's Business, and when the Motion was made "That the House do now adjourn," he should respectfully claim leave, with the Speaker's permission, to revert to the present matter.
    MR. SPEAKER: That would not be in Order. The debate is adjourned by the Rules of the House, and remarks as to that Motion would anticipate the discussion on the subject which might arise when the debate is resumed.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRE- LAND BILL.— [BILL 201.]
  (Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr, A. J. Balfour, Mr. Jackson.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 14 th May.]
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move that this Order be discharged.
  MR. SPEAKER: Such a Motion is not consistent with the Rules of Debate.
  Committee deferred till Tuesday next.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) (LAND COM- MISSION) BILL.— [BILL 199.]
  (Mr. A. J. Balfour, The Solicitor General for Ireland, Colonel King-Harman.)
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) (LAND COM- MISSION) BILL.— [BILL 199.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee be deferred till To-morrow."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he would respectfully submit that it was highly irregular on the part of the Government to pretend to use private Members' days for measures of this kind. The Government should set down their Bills for a Government day. He objected to the setting the Bill down for a day when there was no hope of it being taken—it was a mere farce.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he did not care when the Bill was put down for, but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government did or did not seriously intend to proceed with it?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Longford seemed to be to the Bill altogether. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: No.] The hon. and learned Member had just moved that the Order be discharged. [Cries of "No!"]
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, it was the King-Harman Bill he referred to.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the complaint of the hon. and learned Member was that the Government proposed to set down the Bill for a private Members' day.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: After the contradiction he had given, would it not be only decent to withdraw the remark about the discharge of the Bill?
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he quite admitted his mistake. As to the Government acting improperly in putting down Bills for private Members' nights, as the House was well aware, the rights of precedence for the Business promoted by private Members on certain days were well defined; but the Government had a perfect right, a right which had been exercised by every Government, of putting down their Bills after the other Orders, and, by so doing, there could be no conceivable interference with the rights of private Members. He was,
    1236
    therefore, at a loss to understand the objection of the hon. and learned Member. He could assure the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) that he was extremely anxious to proceed with all the Irish Government Bills, but the hon. Member must know the circumstances that had prevented their being proceeded with. In putting it down for to-morrow he was actuated by a desire not to lose any possible chance of advancing the Bill.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS LISTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Chance, Bill to amend the Law relating to the preparation of Lists of Parliamentary Voters in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chance and Mr. Maurice Healy.
  Bill presented, and read the first time, [Bill 280.]

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND) (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Chance, Bill to amend "The Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chance, Mr. T. M. Healy, and Mr. Maurice Healy.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 281.]

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Chance, Bill to amend "The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chance, Sir Walter Foster, and Mr. Maurice Healy.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 282.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Lord St. John of Bletso, after the death of his brother.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Municipal Franchise Extension (Ireland) (80), negatived.
Committee—Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, Amendment (91–131).
Committee—Report—Re-committed—Universities (Scotland) (47–128).
Third Reading—Glebe Lands* (119), and passed.

AFRICA (SOUTH)—TREATY WITH THE AMANDEBELE CHIEF—ZULULAND.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it was true that an important agreement had been entered into with the Chief of the Amandebele country, and whether the Treaty would secure for our South African Colonies free access into the interior of Africa? He also asked whether any recent intelligence had been received as to the state of affairs in Zululand?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): I am glad to inform the noble Earl that we have concluded a Treaty with the Chief of the Amandebele tribe, and I think that the best course for me to take will be to read its terms. The Treaty runs as follows:—
  "The Chief Lo Bengula, ruler of the tribe known as the Amandebele, together with the Mashuna and Makakalaka, tributaries of the same, hereby agrees to the following articles and conditions—that peace and amity shall continue for ever between Her Britannic Majesty, her subjects, and the Amandebele people; and the contracting Chief Lo Bengula engages to use his utmost endeavours to prevent any rupture of the same, to cause the strict observance of this Treaty, and so to carry out the spirit of the treaty of friendship which was entered into between his late father, the Chief Umsiligoas, with the then Governor of the Cape of Good Hope in the year of Our Lord 1836. It is hereby further agreed by Lo Bengula, Chief in and over the Amandebele country, with its dependencies as aforesaid, on behalf of himself and people, that he will refrain from entering into any correspondence or treaty with any foreign State or Power to sell, alienate, or cede, or permit, or countenance any sale, alienation, or cession of the whole or any part of the said Amandebele country under his chieftainship or upon any other subject without the previous knowledge and sanction of Her Majesty's High Commissioner for South Africa."
  I am strongly of opinion that a Treaty of this kind will be of great advantage

  1151
  as securing free access and trading facilities for our Colonies, and also as securing the Chief himself against unwary concessions of land to individuals or to foreign nations. I am obliged to the noble Lord, also, for giving me an opportunity of reading the last telegram from the Governor of Natal with respect to the very much to be regretted outbreak in Zululand. The telegram, which is dated Juno 4, runs as follows:—
  "Dinizulu and Undabuko, having collected armed native followers at Ceeza, made raids upon and stole cattle of friendly peaceful Usutus. Warrants of arrest of Dinizulu and other ringleaders on charge of cattle stealing were issued 2nd June. Police, rifles, troops, went to Ceeza to execute warrants; were successfully resisted and compelled to retreat, Two men reported killed and two wounded. Levy of Basutos under M'Keen, and reinforcements of troops proceed immediately to support authority."
  It will be seen from the above that the report which appears in the telegram in some of this morning papers that Dinizulu had attacked and routed Usibepu, is incorrect. I may add that I have telegraphed to-day to Sir Arthur Havelock to say that all means are to be taken to put down this insurrection as speedily as possible.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Marquess of Lothian.)
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  (NO. 47.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that he wished to address a few words to the noble Marquess with reference to a very important question of principle contained in the Bill. He referred to the question of affiliation and incorporation. He thought it was more convenient to raise the question at this point than to wait until the Bill reached Committee, because the question of incorporation and affiliation ran through many of the clauses, and it would be very difficult to adequately discuss it on any single clause. At the same time, it would be to the advantage of the House if they knew distinctly what the intentions of the Government were on this point before they went into Committee.
  1152
  This question of affiliation and incorporation was the most important point in the whole Bill. It had excited very great interest in the Universities and Colleges affected, and, moreover, however great might be the amount of confidence which they felt in the Commission, this point was too important for Parliament to hand it over to the Commission without giving very distinct and clear instructions to the Commission thereupon. As the Bill originally stood, in the 11th clause distinct instructions were given to the Commissioners. They were to have power to affiliate and incorporate or unite to any University Colleges duly incorporated and endowed and to admit the teaching of such Colleges as qualifying for graduation in the Universities. That clause recognized no less than four different kinds of incorporation or affiliation. But when they saw the Amendments of the noble Marquess they found that that clause had been struck out, and in lieu thereof there appeared two different forms of expression by which he intended to explain what the powers of the Commissioners were. As they stood now in the Amendments a College might either be added to or it might form part of a University. The appearance of that Amendment excited a good deal of interest and some apprehension on the part of some of the Universities, and when he read it himself he read it in this sense, that it was intended as a limitation of the powers of the Commissioners and that there was a preference on the part of the Government, rather implied than expressed, that the Commissioners should apply themselves rather to the policy of incorporation than to the policy of affiliation. He hoped the Government would leave the largest powers and the greatest possible latitude to the Commissioners on this point. He did not think it could be their intention to limit the powers of the Commissioners in the way he had stated; but it would be very satisfactory to the Universities and Colleges and to the House if they were to hear from the noble Marquess what his intentions were. The noble Marquess might make some alterations in one or two ways. He might either re-insert his old clause and define the words "incorporation" and "affiliation," or if there was an objection to

  1153
  that—and he believed there were objections in defining these words adequately—he hoped the noble Marquess would adopt some very clear language by which it might be made plain what the powers to be given to the Commissioners were. He would suggest to the noble Marquess that he should insert in lieu of the clause struck out another clause empowering the Commissioners to unite Colleges duly incorporated and endowed, either wholly or partially, with any University; and, secondly, to admit the teaching of the College or of the individual teacher as qualifying for graduation in any University. If the noble Marquess would explain clearly to the House and to the satisfaction of the Universities what course he proposed to take on this point he would greatly facilitate the progress of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that before the noble Marquess rose to reply he should like to say that, in his own view, and in the view of all with whom he had spoken on the matter, the suggested words "added to" instead of "affiliated to" did not meet the requirements of the case, and were, in themselves, somewhat bald. He had always held with regard to this question that the simplest way would be to stick to the original word in the Bill, the word "affiliated." If they defined affiliation in the Interpretation Clause the noble Marquess would get out of an enormous number of difficulties which he had plunged into by the later Amendments he had placed on the Paper. He quite admitted, if he raised this objection, that he was bound to produce his definition, and he would do so. With regard to the word "incorporation," that was a word which must be defined by a lawyer, having regard to the exact meaning of the word in Scotland, a meaning which he did not think was quite kept in view by the framers of the Bill when they first laid it on the Table. He would propose to the noble Marquess the adoption of these words—
  "Affiliation for the purposes of this Act shall mean such a connection between an existing University and a College as shall be entered into by their mutual consent, under conditions approved by the Commissioners, or, on the termination of their powers, by the Scotch University Committee and the Privy Council."
  He believed that would cover the whole ground contemplated by the Bill, and
  1154
  would enormously simplify the clause. He threw this out for the consideration of the noble Marquess. If the noble Marquess did accept the Amendment, he was convinced that the difficulties would be simplified. It was to be a condition of mutual consent. He knew it might be said that the Universities would not consent to affiliation readily. He very much doubted that; but as the Government were going to put into the Bill clauses to the effect that at any moment, by the wish of either party, the connection might be terminated, it was clear that it must be entered into by the consent of both parties. That was the only explanation he had to offer on the point. He had one or two other Amendments which he proposed to put down that night. One of these Amendments would give the Commissioners power, or rather would insist upon the Commissioners seeing that the Governing Body of the University was adequately represented on the Governing Body of any affiliated College. That was a rule to which, he believed, there was no exception in the English Universities. It seemed to be fair in itself, and he did not think it would meet with any objection from the Government. The last point he had to touch on was this. His noble Friend who spoke last said truly that they ought not to tie too strictly the hands of the Commissioners. They would have much more confidence in the Commissioners if the noble Marquess would tell the House who they were to be. The announcement of the names would be exceedingly welcome to the Universities and to the public.
  LORD WATSONsaid, that the suggestions of the noble Earl were well worthy of consideration. The difficulty which he felt in common with many others with regard to the terms of the original Bill arose from the circumstance that the words "affiliation," "union," and "incorporation" were inserted without any definition whatever, and without any direction to guide the Commissioners, or, after the Commission had terminated, to guide the authorities of the Universities as to the terms on which they were to be permitted to associate themselves with bodies outside the Universities. The principle which ran through the Amendments proposed by the noble Marquess was this—that

  1155
  the Universities and institutions which were devoted to instruction in the higher branches of learning should be at liberty to form a connection with each other on such terms as they might mutually agree upon, provided only that those terms met with the assent of the Commissioners, and, after the expiry of their powers, with the assent of the Universities Committee of the Privy Council. The words suggested by the noble Earl seemed to him to carry out that principle, and they got rid of a great deal of verbiage which was necessary in using the words "added to" or "connected with." When the clauses of the Bill were explained, the provision that "affiliation" was to consist in admitting those outside bodies to the Universities upon terms which they themselves assented to, and which met with the approval of the University authorities for the time being, there could be no risk of misconstruction. He, therefore, appealed to the noble Marquess whether he would not accept that simpler form of definition. It appeared to him that there ought to be some limit to the representation of outside institutions in the University Court. As the Bill stood, it made it imperative that the Commission should admit to the University Court the Principals of those institutions, and such members of the Governing Body as might be selected, according to the regulations to be laid down by the Commission. What would be the effect of that provision in swelling the already too bulky University Court; and what would be its effect upon the interests of the teaching body of the University and its representatives? Take, by way of illustration, the University of Edinburgh. The Senatus consisted of 40 members, and in the Court they had four representatives, or one in 10. The institutions with which it was proposed the University in future should connect itself were small bodies, not containing a large number of teachers. If they were going to give three, or four, or five, or six teachers from such institutions one or two representatives, as the Bill proposed, the result would be that 15 or 20 teachers from those outside institutions might have 10 or even 12 representatives in the University Court; whilst a teaching body of 40, as in the case of Edinburgh, might only have
  1156
  four representatives. It appeared to him that, on the ground even of reciprocity, that would be most unfair. Would it not be better to leave it to the Commissioners to determine what should be the limit of the representation to be given to the outside institutions, and as to how the representatives should be selected?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, that the question put by the noble Earl opposite was one which, as the noble Earl said, touched one of the main principles of the Bill—namely, the manner in which Colleges should be added to the Universities. The Amendments which he proposed to lay on the Table were framed in deference to the opinion expressed by all who took part in the discussion on the second reading—namely, that the words in the Bill as it now stood were not sufficiently defined, and therefore did not make it clear to the Commissioners and the public in what way the other Colleges should be added or affiliated to the Universities. He attempted afterwards to give effect to the opinion so expressed by giving a more accurate definition of the terms "affiliation," "incorporation," or other form of union; but he found the difficulties that surrounded such a definition to be very great, and he therefore thought it better, instead of using words which might be open to different meanings, to leave the question as open as possible by omitting "affiliated" and "incorporated," and inserting the words "added to." He quite agreed with the noble Earl that those words were in themselves bald and meagre; but there was some advantage in having words which did not attempt to express too much. The whole object of the Government was that they should as much as possible leave it for the Commissioners to decide in what manner the union might take place in every possible instance. There was no possible doubt that the circumstances of different cases must vary very much. There was the case of the University College of Dundee, fully equipped in every manner, and the case of the Colleges at the other end, which admitted of the affiliation of individual teachers. The great object was to admit every possible form of union which might be within these two limits. He would certainly take into

  1157
  consideration the suggestion made by the noble Earl who had spoken first, and the definition which had been proposed by the noble Earl who followed would also be considered. The Government could not, of course, pledge themselves at once on the subject; but if they could see any definition that would not have the effect of hampering or tying the hands of the Commissioners in any way in reference to that question, and which would be distinctly understood by the public of Scotland as giving power to the Commissioners to admit any College to any form of affiliation to an existing University, he should be happy to consider it. He was afraid what he had said might not meet the views of the noble Earl—namely, that he should give an accurate definition of what was the meaning of "added to;" but he thought he had said enough to show that the object of the Government in this matter was simply to leave the hands of the Commissioners as free and untied as possible. With reference to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Watson) as to the representation of the University Court, that had been a very difficult point, and he agreed there was great force in what his noble and learned Friend had said. If the Bill was recommitted and reprinted he would consider that question. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee pro formâ, and if that were done he might be able to announce the names of the Commissioners before the rising of the House.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported without Amendment: Amendments made: Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 128.)

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE EXTENSION (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 80.)
(The Lord Denman.)
MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE EXTENSION (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 80.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD DENMAN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to extend the municipal franchise to women throughout Ireland. He would not appoint a day for Committee until many Petitions had been presented for the Bill,
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Denman.)
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)said, he must oppose the Bill, which proposed to give the municipal franchise to women throughout Ireland, without altering the franchise in other respects, as was done in the case of the Belfast Municipal Franchise Bill of last year. He moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, that the measure was a very simple one, which could do no harm, and he hoped that their Lordships would not refuse to pass it. The confining of the Bill to voters who had a £10 occupation, as was done in the Belfast Act, and as was proposed by the Local Government Bill—which might never be carried—would be unfortunate.
  On Question, Whether the word ("now") shall stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

THE SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION.—STATEMENT.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTMAN)said, he was now able to state to their Lordships the names of the Gentlemen he proposed to act as Commissioners under the Scottish Universities Act. They were—Lord Kinnear, Chairman of the Commissioners; the Dean of Faculty, the Earl of Crawford, Lord Watson, the Marquess of Bute, Mr. A. B. M'Grigor, Sir Charles Dalrymple, Mr. Craig-Sellar, Mr. Donald Crawford, Mr. James A. Campbell, Sir James Crichton Browne, and Mr. Vary Campbell. The Secretary he was not able to name just yet.
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock till Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.