Sitting of 28 February 1890

QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLDreported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
"I have received with satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address.
I am confident that the matters which I have recommended to your consideration will receive your earnest attention, and you may rely on My co-operation in your endeavours to promote the well-being and happiness of my people."

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (RE-ARRANGEMENT OF VOTES.)
Copy ordered [February 27]—
"Of Statement showing Arrangement of Votes in the Estimates for 1890–91, as compared with that in the Estimates for 1889–90.—(Mr. Jackson.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 73.]

SHIPS (UNITED KINGDOM),
Return ordered—
"Of ships arriving at Ports in the United Kingdom from Foreign Ports in the years 1888 and 1889 with live cattle onboard, showing the names of the vessels, ports of departure, and the loss of human and animal life from such vessels."—(Mr. Howard Vincent.)

QUESTIONS.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether an elementary school which takes English and geography as class subjects can present children for examination in history and elementary science as special subjects?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HAKT DIKE,: There is nothing to prevent to such a plan, as that indicated in the question, being carried out, provided that a graduated scheme of teaching History and Elementary Science, as specific subjects, be submitted to and approved by the Inspector.

  THE NEW MAGAZINE RIFLF.
  GENERAL SIR WILLIAM CROSSMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he would state to the House who is the inventor of the new Magazine Rifle now being issued to the Army; what reward has he received, or is he to receive; is the invention patented; what is the nature of the cartridge and powder now used with this rifle; who is the inventor; what reward has he received, or is he to receive; and, is the invention patented?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: The Magazine Ride is a composite weapon, portions of which are due to different inventors, and the same remark applies to the cartridge. Patent rights are claimed as regards some of the parts, and they will be fully and carefully investigated before the question of reward is decided. Up to this time no rewards have been paid.

  IRELAND-CASE OF MR. J. E. O'MAHONY.
  MR. CONDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  1490
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that Mr. J. E. O'Mahony, editor of the Tipperary Nationalist, now undergoing a sentence of six weeks' imprisonment under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, has been removed to Tullamore Gaol from Clonmel Gaol, where he had been in consultation with his solicitors, Messrs. Burke and Crean, of Clonmel, regarding his defence in cases of libel brought against him by Colonel Caddell, R.M., and R.Power, bailiff, for publications in his paper; whether he is aware that Mr. O'Mahony's removal deprives him of the opportunity of holding necessary consultations with his solicitors; whether he will order Mr. O'Mahony's re-transference to Clonmel Gaol, so as to be near his solicitors; whether he is aware that, although Drs. Crean and Flynn certified that Mr. O'Mahony had been suffering immediately before his imprisonment from a severe attack of influenza, from which he had not fully recovered, he was placed on prison diet in Clonmel Gaol, and that Alderman Cantwell, Visiting Justice, protested against Mr. O'Mahony's treatment; what is Mr. O'Mahony's condition of health at present; and what steps have been taken to give effect to the recommendations of Drs. Crean and Flynn, that Mr. O'Mahony required "very careful treatment and a nourishing régime"?
  MR. FLYNN: I have also to ask the Chief Secretary, in reference to this case, whether the General Prisons Board have received any Report as to the condition and treatment of Mr. O'Mahony, editor of the Tipperary Nationalist, in Clonmel Gaol; if lie has seen the statement made by Alderman Cantwell, a Visiting Justice, that he found Mr. O'Mahony in a "very weak condition," and that Mr. O'Mahony, whilst suffering from a bad attack, was left on a plank bed and on prison diet, with nothing to drink but cold water, the result being "complete prostration and utter loss of appetite"; and if he will direct the Prisons Board to order an inquiry into the facts of this case? I also desire to know if it is true that Mr. O'Mahony, editor of the Tipperary Nationalist, has been removed from Clonmel Gaol to Tullamore Gaol; what is the reason for transfer; and what is the approximate cost of the removal?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: With the permission of the House, I shall now also reply to the two questions of the hon. Member for North Cork on the same subject. The General Prisons Board report that the prisoner mentioned has been transferred from Clonmel to Tullamore Prison. He is afforded the usual facilities for communicating with his solicitor in the latter prison, and has been in communication with one there. The Board have no information as to the alleged certificate of the doctors named. It is not the case that Alderman Cantwell made any entry in the visitor's book. He stated that he did not consider it necessary. The prisoner doss not sleep on a plank bed. He also receives a special diet. The cost of transfer has not yet come before the Board.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I should be glad to learn what are the special facilities afforded to Mr. O'Mahony for consulting with his solicitors, who reside in Clonmel? I also wish to know whether the circumstances of the case were placed in the hands of the District Inspector and sent to Tullamore Prison?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer these questions without notice.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it the fact that this gentleman is detained in a prison at Tullamore, and that he cannot consult his solicitors in Clonmel in reference to legal proceedings which have been commenced against him? I may call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that a different course was adopted in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien.)
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that Mr. O'Mahony shall be at once transferred from Tullamore to Clonmel?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will cause an inquiry to be made of the Prisons Board as to the circumstances of the case.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second paragraph of my question as to the condition in which Mr. O'Mahony now is?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information on the subject.

  THE FISHERIES OF DONEGAL.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a pier and harbour at Dunalt Glencolumbkill, in the County of Donegal, would give accommodation for fishing-purposes to a district occupied by 200 famili s, and that if the work was so planned that trading vessels could call alongside, 500 families could get their goods direct by sea and save the expense of carriage over 30 miles of mountain-roads; has his attention been drawn to the various memorials from time to time addressed to the authorities setting forth the advantages likely to arise from the proposed pier and harbour, and to the favourable Report of Sir William Brady, Inspector of Fisheries, as to the site and the necessity of this work; did Mr. Nicolls, Local Government Board Inspector, who was in 1889 specially sent to investigate the causes of the distress in this part of Donegal, urge, in his Report, the necessity of constructing such a pier and harbour; would he have any objection to lay this Report upon the Table of the House; and will he be able to take any steps to forward a scheme so-conducive to the material prosperity of the people?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The construction of a harbour at Glencolumbkill, County Donegal, does not appear to have been under consideration. The making of a pier at that place for the use of the fishermen was suggested by the Local Government Board Inspector, and the Inspectors of Fisheries agreed that it would certainly be of use to the fishermen if funds were available. The, Reports also deal with other matters, in addition to that now in question. They are Departmental documents, and it would be unusual to lay them upon the Table. However desirable the scheme may be, it must, of course, be considered in connection with many similar claims, from other portions of Ireland.

  CAPE COAST—RIOTS AT MOREE.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any action has been taken to prevent the recurrence of disturbances in the Moree district of the Cape Coast, consequent on the

  1493
  suppression of native authority and the failure of the Gold Coast Government to replace it by other arrangements, as instanced especially in the riots of February, 1889, where about 38 natives were killed and many others were mortally wounded; and, if any action has been taken whether he will inform the House as to its nature?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,: No special action has been taken with reference to the Moree district, in which the authority for the maintenance of order is the same as in other parts of the Colony. The circumstances of the riots referred to were fully stated by me in reply to the hon. Member for Battersea on 4th July last, and do not bear out the assumption in the question that they were consequent on the suppression of native authority and the failure of the Gold Coast Government to replace it by other arrangements. The District Com missioner who was in charge of the District of Cape Coast at the time of the Moree riots is no longer in the service of the Colony.

  FLOGGING OF NATIVES.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government has received a Report as to the trial of Mr. C. E. Akers, of the Gold Coast Constabulary, held at Accra in August last, for administering 72 lashes apiece to more than 20 Krepis in the Gold Coast Territory, who were suspected of stealing a sheep, and of whom four died from the effects of the flogging; whether it is the case that Mr. Akers was indicted for murder; that that accusation was withdrawn, and a charge of assault with intent to inflict bodily injury substituted; and that he was convicted and fined £5, by way of punishment; whether he is still in the service of the Gold Coast Government; whether it is true that Mr. Charles Graves Ferguson, who was a witness for the Crown in a trial for murder held in November, 1888, has been dismissed from the service of the Gold Coast Government; and what was the reason of his dismissal?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The Report has been received. There was no sufficient evidence that any of the men died from the flogging, and Mr. Akers was not indicted for murder. The indictment was for assault, occasioning actual bodily harm. Mr. Akers was convicted, and was sentenced by the Acting Chief Justice to pay a fine of £5, and to enter into his own recognisances to keep the peace for six months. He is no longer in the service of the Gold Coast Government. Nothing is known at the Colonial Office of the circumstances referred to in the last paragraph of the question, nor of the person whose name is mentioned; but inquiry will be made.
  MR. PICTON: Are moans taken, or will means be taken, to preserve order?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Yes, Sir; certainly.

  THE ROYAL BARRACKS, DUBLIN.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary State for War whether it is-true that Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, Sir Redvers Buller, and a large staff of experts, inspected the Royal Barracks, Dublin, on Monday last, and condemned, in the most emphatic terms, the system of sewerage in these barracks; and whether, having regard to the fact that several men of the 4th Hussars, the only regiment at present stationed in these barracks, have, within the last few days, been attacked with typhoid fever, which has in one instance proved fatal, he will give an assurance that this regiment will be instantly removed?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It is quite true that the officers named did inspect the Royal Barracks this week'; but I have not heard that any such expressions were used as those mentioned. The work of improving the drainage of the Royal Barracks is not yet complete; and while it is going on I am anxious to move the 4th Hussars to some other quarters, but also, if possible, to do it in the manner which will cause the least inconvenience to the married men of the regiment.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman mention any limit of time beyond which these men will not be left in the barracks? Will they be kept in the Royal Barracks for an indefinite time?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; certainly not. When the work is commenced in earnest they will be removed.

  LONDON SEWAGE.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, before any scheme for the disposal of London sewage is adopted, a Government Inquiry would be held, at which the inhabitants of South-East Essex would have the opportunity of expressing their views, and giving evidence?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I am informed that the London County Council have no definite scheme for the disposal of London sewage under their consideration; but they have instructed the Main Drainage Committee to secure the services of an eminent civil engineer to join the engineer of the Council in a thorough examination of the whole sewage system of the Metropolis. As no definite scheme is at present before the County Council I am not in a position to say what opportunity can be afforded to the inhabitants of South-East Essex of expressing their views and giving evidence.
  MAJOR RASCH: If the London County Council have the disposal of the sewage and decide upon getting rid of it at Candy Island, will the Local Government Board be in a position to protect the inhabitants of Southend from a nuisance?
  MR. RITCHIE: It would not necessarily come before the Local Government Board. It is proposed, I believe, to make some alteration in the existing arrangements in reference to the London County Council finance, and if these proposals are assented to by Parliament the present position might be affected.

  CARRIAGE OF RUSSIAN PETROLEUM.
  SIR EDWARD REED: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British ships trading to the Port of Batoum on the Black Sea, and engaged in the carriage of Russian petroleum to the markets of Europe, are subjected to considerable danger at that port owing to the very contracted limits of the deep water space within the port, and to the unequal depth of water alongside the
  1496
  loading quays; whether he is aware that the danger is increased by the publication of notices in the Russian Press which represent the depth of water in Batoum to be greater than it is; and whether any communication has been, or will be, made to the Russian Government upon this subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: The attention of the Russian Government has been called by Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg to the difficulties owing to want of space in the harbour of Batoum. Important works have been undertaken there, and are, I believe, still being carried on. Hitherto there have been no loading quays available for foreign vessels to lie alongside, and all discharging of cargo has been done by barges. I believe that a quay will, however, shortly be completed. I have never heard of any notices having been published in the Russian Press concerning the depth of water in Russian harbours.

  THE BERLIN LABOUR CONFERENCE.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is to be understood that the British delegates at the Berlin Conference will be debarred from discussing the International limitation of the hours of labour (adult), while the representatives of Foreign Powers will be empowered to do so?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I do not admit any such understanding as the hon. Member supposes. I stated, in reply to the hon. Member for West Nottingham, the terms in which Her Majesty's Government replied to the preliminary proposal of the German Government. The detailed programme has now been received, and as soon as it has been considered by Her Majesty's Government the whole of the correspondence will be laid upon the Table.

  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary for War whether it is yet the duty of any Government official, of the War Office or otherwise, to see that the Factory Clause, when

  1497
  inserted in War Office contracts, is duly observed; and whether the due observance of that clause, as one security against sweating, is also provided for by pecuniary penalties in all, or in what proportion of cases?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,: Factories where Army clothing is made are inspected from time to time to ascertain that the Factory Clause is observed, and in a recent instance a penalty was inflicted for its neglect. The insertion of the Factory Clause with penalty is insisted on where practicable, and in the majority of cases.

  ARMY MEDICAL STORES.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary for War what is the reason for "the considerable difference in price between the supplies for Army and Navy Services" in the case of medical stores, as commented upon by the Auditor General; and why the Director of Contracts has decided not to adopt the system of competition which prevails in the Navy for similar stores, and to ignore the recommendation of the Auditor General "to take steps for ascertaining by public tender whether the supply of these stores for the use of the Army could not be more economically obtained?"
  MR. BRODRICK: The question of obtaining medical stores for the Army by public competition has been very carefully considered, and as the paramount consideration is to obtain medicines of the best quality for the use of the troops the supply has been for some years intrusted to two firms of high standing. As the packing and distribution of the stores is undertaken by the contractors for the Army, which is not the case in the Navy, this must be taken into account in estimating the difference between the price paid by the Army and Navy respectively. My hon. Friend will therefore see that the question cannot be decided solely on the question of the price of the article, and further information will be afforded when the question comes before the Public Accounts Committee. If that Committee is not satisfied with the explanation, the matter will be reconsidered.

  IRELAND—PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE STATUTE OF EDWARD III.
  MR. WILLIAM CORBET: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he will give as a Return the revised edition of the Statute of 34 Edward III., c. 1, passed in the year 1360–61, for the appointment of Justices of the Peace, and defining their powers and jurisdiction?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: I will make inquiry whether it would be in accordance with precedent; but I have no objection to give the Return asked for.

  AFFRAY AT KILLALOE.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to a report in the Standard of the 26th instant, that on Sunday last, in Killaloe, County Clare,
  "A patrol of police fell in with three men, and that, on their refusing to give their names and declining to be arrested, a constable discharged five shots from his revolver; that a policeman thereupon drew his sword and stabbed one of the persons in question;"
  and if he will direct an inquiry into this occurrence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the facts are not as stated in the newspaper report mentioned. Two policemen had under arrest a man who had given a false name and address when found upon licensed premises during prohibited hours. His two companions endeavoured to rescue him, and were with difficulty kept back by the second constable. The prisoner subsequently violently assaulted the other constable, knocking him down, mid escaped. The constable pursued the prisoner, and, after calling upon him to stand, fired shots into the air to frighten him, but the prisoner got away, and was not re-arrested until the next day. No person was stabbed. The matter is being further looked into.

  THE CORK UNION.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen the report of a public meeting held in Cork on the 24th instant, on the subject of outdoor relief, in the Cork Union, and which was presided

  1499
  over by the Mayor and attended by the High Sheriff and a large number of prominent citizens, and at which a resolution was passed condemning the practice of compelling old people to go into the workhouse as contrary to the practice which prevails in England; and whether, in view of the strong remonstrance of that meeting, the Local Government Board will direct the Vice Guardians at Cork to treat the question of outdoor relief on a more liberal basis?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that a meeting on the subject mentioned has been held. As, however, I have already stated, the grave abuse which existed in the administration of the outdoor relief rendered it imperative for the Guardians to take action to check it. The Local Government Board have no evidence before them nor reason to suppose that the Vice Guardians have proceeded in a harsh or illiberal manner.
  In answer to a further question by Mr. FLYNN,
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the statistics he had referred to the other day showed an enormous increase in outdoor relief in the Cork Union between 1879 and 1889. He had not got the figures by him now.
  MR. FLYNN: Has not the increase of outdoor relief been accompanied by a diminution of the general expenditure of the Union?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask for notice of that question.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman get the Vice Guardians to consult with the late Board on the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no reason to believe that the Vice Guardians are either harsh or indifferent in their administration of the Poor Law.
  MR. FLYNN: May I ask the Chief Secretary if he can state what is the cost to the Union per head (including establishment charges) of the pauper inmates of the Cork Workhouse; and what is the saving to the rates which the Vice Guardians hope t;) effect by forcing James Madden (recently afflicted with blindness), and his family, to enter the Cork Workhouse?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: From the last available accounts of the Cork Union the weekly cost of the maintenance and
  1500
  clothing of a pauper in the workhouse is about 3s. 2¼d., and the proportion of the salaries of the staff about 10½d., making a total of about 4s. 0¾d. per week. As regards the case of James Madden, I have already explained that the Vice Guardians did not make the order for his admission into the workhouse with a view to effect a saving to the rates, but in order that he might be taken into the workhouse hospital, as, from information before them, they believed it would be to his advantage to remain in the hospital for some time to have his eye affection suitably treated. It does not appear that the reception of this man into the workhouse would have precluded his family from receiving outdoor relief if they were found to be destitute. It would have been the duty of the relieving officer to see to their condition.
  MR. FLYNN: I must press the right hon. Gentleman to make further inquiry. I believe that the amount of outdoor relief comes to 4s. 0¾d. per head, which for a family of six is a little over £1 4s. per week. Is it not more economical in such a case to give outdoor relief than to require these people to enter the workhouse?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no wish to enter into a general discussion of the question of outdoor relief. It has been found wise, in certain circumstances, not to grant outdoor relief.

  CHARGE AGAINST AN EMERGENCY MAN, M'KEEVER.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a ca e heard at Woodford Petty Sessions on the 24th inst. before Messrs. Hickson, R.N., and Burke, J.P., in which an emergency man named M'Keever was summoned by Constable Sheehan on a charge of being "drunk in the streets of Woodford on the 14th inst., and having a loaded revolver in his possession;" if it is true that a few hours after his arrest he was brought before Mr. Burke, J.P., by whom he was discharged, and who added that no further action should be taken; has his attention been called to the report of the trial, from which it appears that it was proved by Constable Sheehan that M'Keever, on being arrested, threatened

  1501
  to shoot him; that Mr. Burke, notwithstanding the protest of the presiding magistrate, persisted is cross-examining the policeman, and finally called him a "blackguard;" and that after M'Keever had been fined £2 and costs, and had paid that sum, Mr. Burke stood up in Court, advised M'Keever to appeal, and ordered the money to be handed back; and if the above facts are correctly stated, whether the Lord Chancellor will make inquiry into the action of this magistrate?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not been able to obtain a Report upon this matter, and I must ask the hon. Member to repeat the question.

  MR. JOHN SLATTERY.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he has yet received any information as to whether Mr. John Slattery, of Cork, has had an appeal lodged against the sentence of six months' imprisonment, in default of giving bail to be of good behaviour; and if an application to have a case stated is made in the Superior Court, will the Irish Law Officers undertake not to oppose the application?
  MR. MADDEN: I have just received information that proceedings in the case referred to are being taken in the shape of an application for habeas corpus.

  THE CLONGOREY ARRESTS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the charges of unlawful assembly against a number of Clongorey workmen were yesterday dismissed by the Court at Newbridge on the ground that the precept, disobedience to which was the foundation of the charge, had not been served according to Law; and whether, as Father Kinsella and 17 workmen are now in prison for the same act, in respect to which the charges were yesterday dismissed, their release will be ordered?
  MR. CAREW: I wish also to ask the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that at Newbridge Petty Sessions yesterday, the cases against the several persons who were charged with disobeying the precept issued by Colonel Forbes, R.M., ordering them to desist from committing waste on Mrs. Kelly's farm at Clongorey, were dismissed by Messrs. Bowlby and McSheehy, on the
  1502
  ground that the precept was not legally served; and whether, as Father Kinsella, and 17 other persons, are now in Kilkenny Gaol for unlawfully assembling to disobey the said precept, which is now found not to have been at any time of valid force, he will at once order their release?
  MR. MADDEN: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer these questions. The charges of unlawful assembly were not dismissed; the hearing was commenced yesterday, and is still proceeding. The case against the persons charged with aiding and abetting in the disobedience of the precept was dismissed without prejudice on the ground that the precept was not legally served, on which point, however, the magistrates have agreed to state a case.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask, under these circumstances, as all these men were proceeded against for precisely the same act, and as one body of workmen charged with disobedience to the precept are not to suffer punishment —the magistrates having dismissed the case on the ground that the precept was not legally served, as I contended in this House a few nights ago—whether Father Kinsella and the 17 workmen who are now in gaol will be discharged from custody, as the other two bodies of men apprehended for precisely the same charge have been released?
  MR. MADDEN: The question will be carefully considered by the Government; but the incident only occurred this day. It has evidently been communicated to the hon. Member by telegram; it has not yet reached the Irish Office.
  MR. SEXTON: But the question is one of the imprisonment of these persons. I will therefore ask the Chief Secretary whether, as the whole of the proceedings against the three bodies of men have been founded on the precept, he will not treat them all alike, and order the third batch of men to be released, or at any rate suspend the imprisonment until the Superior Court before which the case will ultimately come has given a decision?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Member will see that a telegraphic communication to him is scarcely a sufficient ground for me to give a pledge to the House on the spur of the moment as to what course the Government will adopt.
  MR. SEXTON: Then I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the matter on the Vote on Account, and press the question whether the third body of persons are not entitled to have the punishment suspended until the decision of the Superior Court has been given.

  THE CORK POST OFFICE.
  MR. LANE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the fact that an inexperienced telegraphist from a country railway station, who is not only unable to manipulate, but has never seen several of the instruments used in the Cork office, has been appointed this week to fill one of the vacancies in Cork, over the heads of skilled learners, who have been waiting over four years for this position; whether others have been recently appointed in a similar manner to the Cork office, who knew nothing whatever of the Wheatstone, quadruplex, or duplex working, and had to learn those instruments after appointment; and will he, in future appointments, consider the claims of learners trained at Cork, who are thoroughly acquainted with the various instruments in use, and with every description of public work?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: No telegraphist, experienced or otherwise, has this week been appointed to the Cork Office; but a telegraphist has been recommended for transfer from a country railway station to Cork. This telegraphist is an expert manipulator, and, though he is stated to be at present unacquainted with some of the apparatus in use in a large office, would probably soon supply the defect. The same remark applies to other telegraphists who have been recently transferred to Cork. The learners at Cork have no claim to appointment, it being a condition of their becoming learners that they sign an understanding to that effect. I shall, however, in making appointments, always be glad to consider the learners as eligible candidates when they have made satisfactory progress.

  WELSH EMIGRANTS.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if in future Emigration Returns he will cause to be stated
  1504
  separately the number and destinations of passengers of Welsh nationality leaving the United Kingdom for places out of Europe in each year, as is at present done in the case of Irish and Scotch emigrants?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: The Acts under which the Returns are obtained do not confer power for effecting the modifications suggested by the hon. Member.

  PICKETS IN TRADE DISPUTES.
  MR. NORRIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can define the law as relating to pickets in trade disputes between employers and employed; if men subjected to intimidation, inquiry, or demand, either within or without the dock gates, or other places, as to whether they belong-to Unions or not, and refusing to be interrogated, will receive the protection of the police; if the apparent unsatisfactory state of the law relating to combinations, Trade Societies, and Unions, is receiving the attention of the Government with reference to the rights of free labour, so as to ensure and safeguard such legitimate rights; and whether it is proposed to legislate on the matter during the present Session?
  MR. C. GRAHAM: May I ask whether such an unsatisfactory state of the law as is alleged in the second paragraph of the question really exists?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I cannot define the law relating to pickets otherwise than by referring my hon. Friend to the third and seventh sections of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875. The police are instructed to give protection to all persons against violence, intimidation, and the other forms of coercion and annoyance which are made punishable offences by Statute, or are punishable by law. The state of the law on the subject referred to has received, and is receiving, the careful attention of the Government. It has not yet been made apparent by judicial decision or otherwise that the Statute and Common Law taken together are insufficient to insure and safeguard the legitimate rights of free labour. Until it has been

  1505
  shown that the law falls short of what is necessary for that purpose the Government think it is premature to consider fresh legislation.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Has the right hon. Gentleman received information which leads him to the conclusion that the authorities have not yet power enough for dealing with the whole questions arising out of the dock strike?
  MR. MATTHEWS: During the dock strike complaints were received from persons who stated that they had been intimidated.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Is there not sufficient power under the existing law to deal with undue intimidation?
  MR.MATTHEWS: No.

  THE DELHI-UMBALLA-KALKA RAILWAY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I bag to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if he can lay Papers upon the Table showing by whom and on what terms the railway direct from Delhi to Umballa and Kalka, at the foot of the hills, has been taken up; whether the use of any part of the Grand Trunk and Bridges has been conceded to the undertakers; and whether anything has been arranged for carrying the rail on into the hills?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE TOE INDIA (Sir J. GUEST,: Papers containing the contract with the Delhi and Kalka Railway were presented to Parliament on the 28th of May, 1889. I believe that the hon. Member will find the Papers in the Library. As to the second paragraph of the question, no use of any part of the Grand Trunk and Bridges has been conceded to the undertakers, so far as the Secretary of State is informed. In regard to the third paragraph, no arrangement has been made for carrying the rail on into the hills.

  THE BUCKINGHAM RURAL SANITARY AUTHORITY.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the Report presented this month to the Buckingham Rural Sanitary Authority by their Medical Officer of Health, Dr. George H. De Ath, in which he states that a cottage at Charndon,
  1506
  which about 18 months ago was condemned as unfit for human habitation, is still occupied by the same family, namely, man and wife and four children, one over 20 years of age; that this cottage has only one sleeping room, which is in the roof, and has no closet and no drains; that the defective water supply and drainage of Water Stratford has been frequently brought before the authority, and nothing has been done, although in heavy rains the water runs in at the back doors and out of the front doors of some of the cottages; that a new public house called the "Crown" has been built at Twyford, and occupied under "The Public Health Act, 1878," notwithstanding that the nearest supply of water is a quarter of a mile away; that the Inspector of Nuisances has reported of Padbury, the scene lately of diarrhœa epidemic, that the general drainage is bad and the water supply unsatisfactory, and that no steps are being taken to deal with these grievous defects; and whether the Local Government Board propose to take any, and, if so, what steps to compel the authority to deal with these cases?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,: The Local Government Board have within the last few days received a copy of the Annual Report for 1889 made to the Rural Sanitary Authority of the Buckingham Union by their Medical Officer of Health, and it contains statements to the effect of those mentioned in the question. As regards some of these matters the Board have no control over the Sanitary Authority; but with respect to sewerage and water supply, I may refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the question which he put to me yesterday, and I may repeat that if a complaint were made to the Board under Section 299 of the Public Health Act that the Sanitary Authority had made default in these matters, it would receive prompt attention.

  SUCCESSION DUTY IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the case that personalty (including heritable bonds and sums secured over realty by bond or mortgage) pay a Probate Duty of 3 per cent., one-half where of goes to the relief

  1507
  of local taxation; whether feu duties and ground annuals pay no local taxes, and pay only a Succession Duty of 1½ per cent., no part of which goes to the relief of local taxation; whether any, and what, good reason exists why feu duties and ground annuals should not contribute towards local taxation; whether personalty (including as aforesaid) pays the full Probate Duty (3 per cant.) on the capital value, cash down, whilst feu duties and ground annuals pay the Succession Duty (1½ per cent.) only on the life interest of the party succeeding, and that by eight half-yearly instalments, the undue instalments being cancelled in the event of the predecease of the successor; and whether any, and what, good reason exists for this exceptional treatment of feu duties and ground annuals as compared with personalty?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: It is impossible to deal with all the points raised by the hon. Member within the limit of an answer. His question opens up the whole relation between personality and reality, between Imperial Taxation and Local Taxation, and between taxes on the living and taxes on the dead. The hon. Membor's question is further complicated by a point in connection with permanent ground rents, which I believe to be the same as ground annuals in the phraseology of Scotch Law. But this is a subject which will possibly come within the proper investigations of the Select Committee on Town Holdings.

  THE TURKISH COURTS AT ALEPPO.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Correspondence that has taken place with regard to the case of Mrs. Barker; and, if he is unable to do this, whether he will cause a Copy of the Correspondence, and especially of the Report and Letters of Consul Henderson, to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I do not think that it would be justifiable to print this voluminous correspondence which relates solely to the legal proceedings of a single British subject in a foreign country. We have had no discussion in regard to it with the Turkish Government, and
  1508
  we have no ground beyond Mrs. Barker's assertions for believing that there has been any failure of justice in the tribunals. If the hon. Member desires to peruse the correspondence I shall be happy to enable him to do so at the Foreign Office.

  H.M.S. VICTORIA—THE 110-TON GUNS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the contracts for the two 110-ton guns for H.M.S. Victoria were entered into by the War Office; whether in the case of one, at least, the form of contract was that generally used for the purchase of ordinary stores; whether it did, in fact, contain provisions quite inapplicable for the supply of such an article as a 110-ton gun; whether, on the other hand, neither the contract itself, nor the schedule attached to it, contained any provisions as to the materials to be used in the construction of the gun; whether it contained no details as to the proof the gun was to undergo before its final acceptance by Her Majesty's Government; whether he will lay a copy of this contract (omitting, if necessary, the cost) upon the Table of the House; and by whom, when, and how, was each of these guns tested; upon whose certificate were they passed; and when, in each case, was payment for them made to the contractors?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The contracts for the two 110-ton guns for Her Majesty's ship Victoria were entered into by the War Office in 1886. The same form of contract was used for both; in fact, we have only one form of contract for all store and clothing contracts, and the general provisions are applicable to guns, but any special provisions should appear in the schedule. The Audit Office has raised the point that the form of contract is not applicable to guns, because of the provision in Clause 2 that a contractor should replace rejections in 10 days, altogether ignoring the proviso "after he is required by notice to do so." The contract did not specify the material to be used, or the tests to be applied, as there was a resident Inspector at Elswick, and there were authorised tests for steel in which the Elswick Company had already concurred. A representative of the Elswick Company is summoned on important occasions to sit with

  1509
  the Ordnance Committee. The contract did provide for proof and also for rejection of inferior supplies, but gave no details as to proof. Since that time provision has been made for inserting in the schedule to the contract full details as to all these matters. The question now raised refers to a contract made four years ago. For the examination and proof of these and all other guns the Director of Artillery is responsible. One of these guns was paid for in 1888–9; the other is not yet finally paid for.
  MR. HANBURY: What I want to know from my right hon. Friend is, whether in regard to the guns the test they were to undergo was merely the result of a verbal understanding between the War Office and the contractors, or was there any contract in existence requiring the contractors to accept the test?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: it was certainly not a verbal understanding. It was, however, a deliberate understanding entered into with the contractors at the sitting of the Ordnance Committee.
  MR. HANBURY: Did it in any way constitute a contract between the War Office and the contractors?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Most undoubtedly; and the Elswick Company knew that if they broke their faith they would never be employed by the War Office again.

  EXPLOSION OF TORPEDOES IN THE RIVER MEDWAY.
  MR. EDWARD KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the fact that, by reason of frequent explosions of torpedoes in the River Medway, the fish are destroyed in large quantities, and that the results of the trade of the freemen fishermen, secured to them by Act of Parliament, are seriously damaged; and if steps can be taken to remedy this?
  MR. STANHOPE(who replied) said: The attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty had not been drawn to any extensive destruction of fish by torpedo explosions in the Medway.

  DISTRICT COUNCILS.
  MR. TOLLEMACHE: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the statement in his speech, on Thursday 20th instant, as to the
  "Inconvenience which resulted in many cases from the want of District Councils to relieve County Councils the care of the highways,"
  is to be taken as indicating an intention on the part of the Government, in any future legislation, to place main roads under the control of District Councils?
  MR. LONG: No, Sir; certainly not. The words quoted by my hon. Friend referred merely to the difficulties under which County Councils labour in reference to the maintenance of highways, not main roads.

  BISLEY COMMON.
  MR. HANKEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the case that during several months past troops have been brought from Portsmouth and Aldershot to Bisley Common, to work there for the National Rifle Association; whether he will state the amount of the daily wage paid to each man for the work thus done; and whether in view of the hardship which the use of military labour, as above-mentioned, has entailed upon the local labouring population, by depriving them of the employment which they would otherwise have obtained, he will forthwith direct that such a diminution in the number of soldiers now daily sent to Bisley Common should be made as will admit of employment being found at once for the local labouring population?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The first paragraph of my hon. Friend's question must be answered in the affirmative. The endeavour is always made to carry out military works by military labour; and during the winter months, when drill is largely suspended, such labour is found to be of great physical benefit to the soldier. Having this in view, soldiers have been employed at Bisley in preparing butts which will not merely supply the needs of the National Rifle Association, but will also be of great use for the shooting of the Army and, under regulations, for the Volunteers of the Metropolis and the Southern Coun-

  1511
  ties. We have always rendered assistance of a similar character at Wimbledon. The working pay of the men is 9d. a day, and the National Rifle Association has benefited by the cheapness of the labour. But it is only fair to remember that, on the other hand, the establishment of the camp at Bisley will hereafter be a source of considerable financial advantage to the neighbourhood.

  LETTERS TO THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state what quantities of letters were received from and despatched to the Australian Colonies during the year 1889 respectively by the direct sea route at the rate of 4d. per letter, and by the overland route (viâ Brindisi and Naples) at the rate of 6d. per letter?
  MR. RAIKES: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is as follows:—Weight of letters viâ Brindisi or Naples, postage 6d. — despatched to Australasia, 59,000 lb.; received from Australasia, 52,000 1b. Weight of letters sent by all sea route, postage 4d.—despatched to Australasia, 3,9001b.; received from Australasia, 3,800 1b.

  POST OFFICE AUXILIARY SORTERS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether auxiliary sorters employed in the Post Office are paid as low as 1s. 6d. for from four to four and a half hours' work; and, if so, how many such sorters are employed in London at that wage; and whether any increased rate of pay is allowed to auxiliaries for night duty?
  MR. RAIKES: I am not aware that there are any auxiliary sorters paid as low as 1s. 6d. for from four to four and a half hours' work. When such temporary assistance becomes necessary in times of pressure the rule is to offer 2s. for the job, with a higher rate per hour for night duty.

  POSTAL EMPLOYÉS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in cases where deductions are made from the wages of postal employés,
  1512
  they are nevertheless compelled to sign a receipt for the full wage; and whether this is the general practice; and, if not, whether any cases have come under his notice of Postmasters compelling men to sign a receipt for more money than they actually received?
  MR. RAIKES: The practice, the invariable practice of the Post Office is to require its servants to sign for the amount of salary or wages which is actually chargeable to the Vote, the deductions, where deductions are made—as, for instance, for Income Tax—being shown in the form of receipt. But perhaps the hon. Member is referring to payments made by local Postmasters to those who are their own servants, and not the servants of the Department. Here a certain laxity of practice has, in some comparatively few instances, been found to prevail. Postmasters not infrequently receive a specific allowance for a specific purpose, and it has occasionally happened that from such purpose a part of the allowance has been diverted. Wherever this has been found to be so the Department has adopted very stringent measures.

  COUNTY COURTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Attorney General, with reference to the Amendments which were proposed to the County Courts Consolidation Bill to secure that appeals from the County Courts in equity matters should be heard in the Chancery Division, and withdrawn on the understanding that the end would be secured by rules of Court, whether the Judges have framed such rules; and, if not, will he press the matter on their attention?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I stated when before the Grand Committee, as is the fact, that arrangements for providing that appeals from County Courts in equity matters should be heard in the Chancery Division could be made by rules of the High Court of Justice. The Judges, have, I believe, not at present framed such rules; and having regard to the condition of business in the Chancery Division, I think that any change of the kind might tend to delay

  1513
  and embarrassment. I will, however, bring the matter to the attention of the Rule Committee.

  MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRUST MONEY.
  MR. H. S. WRIGHT: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been directed to the bankruptcy of Messrs. Towle and Gilbert, Solicitors, Nottingham, and to the misappropriation by them to their own use of considerable trust moneys, and of large sums of money belonging to and received from or on behalf of clients chiefly for investment on mortgage, thus causing serious loss and deprivation to numbers of persons; whether it is the intention of the Treasury to prosecute the delinquents; and if the present Law does not meet the case of such delinquencies, whether the Government will consider the desirability of introducing some amendment of the Law?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: My attention has been called to this matter. I am aware great injury was inflicted on many poor persons. I am in hopes that evidence will be forthcoming to enable proceedings to be taken to bring the parties to justice. It is not, I think, desirable that I should say more upon this subject. The law does not, in my opinion, require amendment. The question is one of obtaining the necessary evidence.

  INCOMPETENT CLERGYMEN.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce this Session any measure providing for the exercise of more effective disciplinary power over clergymen who are unfit occupants of their livings, having regard to the statements made by the Prime Minister two years ago that some such measure ought to be passed by Parliament without loss of time; that it was a matter of much interest in Wales; and that the cost of putting the present Law into operation was "practically prohibitive?"
  THE FIRST LORD OF the TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: A Bill dealing with Church discipline was passed through the House of Lords in the Session of 1888; but it was not proceeded with in this House, as there appeared to be little probability
  1514
  that it could be passed into law without an amount of time which was not then at the disposal of the Government; but if I am to understand from the hon. Gentleman's question that there would be a disposition on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to assist in passing such a measure, I will communicate with my friends in another place, and I have no doubt the desired opportunity will be afforded.

  CARDIFF TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  SIR EDWARD REED: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that certain telegraph clerks of Cardiff, who were interrogated as to certain newspaper letters, and called upon to find out who had written them, were, failing to do this, summarily ordered away, at a few hours' notice, to other towns as a punishment; whether his attention has been called to a speech of the Postmaster General, reported in the newspapers of 14th February, in which he said that—
  "If his conduct in connection with this matter was questioned in Parliament, he should be quite prepared to justify it:"
  and whether, in view of these facts, he will afford facilities for this subject, which is greatly disturbing the members of the Telegraph Service throughout the country, being brought promptly under the consideration of the House of Commons?
  MR. W. H, SMITH: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General that the question of the hon. Member does not accurately represent the facts of the case; but I would suggest that there will be a better opportunity of raising the question when the Telegraph Vote comes up for consideration, and I do not think the delay will injuriously affect the Telegraph Service.

  TERRITORIAL STANDING COMMITTEES.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he yet intends to propose any Territorial Standing Committees, and especially one to deal with such Bills as may be referred to it regarding that northern part of Britain which has such distinctive institutions, laws, and nomenclature as are not understood by the

  1515
  more southern branches of the Anglian and Celtic races?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is not the intention of the Government to establish Territorial Standing Committees, and lean hardly think that the hon. Member can seriously propose such a course.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to give notice that I shall take a further opportunity of proposing to the House that there shall be a Standing Committee for dealing with that part of the country commonly, but erroneously, called Scotland.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the last competitive examination was held for admission to Class I. of the Home Civil Service; how many vacancies in the Home Civil Service were filled up by open competitive examination during the years 1880 to 1886, inclusive, and how many candidates submitted themselves for examination; whether he can state about the percentage of those in the Civil Service who are entitled to retire upon pensions, but who continue to draw full salaries, without doing the full work; whether, since the discontinuance of these examinations, Treasury clerks have been selected for lucrative appointments in other offices, so that there has been unusual rapidity of promotion at the Treasury, and a block of promotion at other offices, and that clerks have been transferred from one office to another in which the work is totally different; can he state in approximately how many cases, public servants who obtained their appointments by competitive examination have had "selected" men from other offices, who have not been examined, put over their heads; whether he is aware that many parents with small incomes have spent substantial amounts upon a special education, with a view to their children entering for the competitive examination, and that in many cases, in consequence of a system of patronage being substituted for examination, they have been obliged, at a critical time of life, to change their plans; and whether it is intended to return to the system of open competitive examinations; and, if so, when?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The question of the hon. Gentleman having only been put down last night did not come to my knowledge until this morning, and I am unable to give all the details for which he asks. The last open competition for Class I. of the Upper Division was held in December, 1886. During the time that the present Government have been in office they have been reducing the number of the higher and more largely-paid Establishments, and they have been able to supply vacancies by transfer thereto of redundant clerks, and in this way several vacancies at the Treasury, among other offices, have been filled up. This reduction of the Higher Establishment is fully endorsed by the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments. We are not, therefore, able to agree with the hon. Member, who would urge us to hold competitive examinations for posts that are not required in order to provide for youths who would, no doubt, for sufficient reason, prefer the Public Service to open professions, and it is not our intention to hold open competitive examinations for Class I. as long as it is practicable to fill vacancies by transfers. As far as I am aware, three appointments have been made from the Treasury to Staff posts. In the filling of such posts we are responsible, and are ready, when necessary, to explain our acts.

  THE SMALL HOLDINGS COMMITTEE.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Government will be prepared to re-appoint the Small Holdings Committee?
  MR. COBB: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to the question may I ask him whether, if the Committee are able to make an early Report, there is any chance of legislation on the subject this Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Cobb) will be able to form his own judgment upon that matter, having regard to the various measures which are to be brought before the House. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Collings), I have to say when I have ascertained that it is the general wish of Members of this House I will be prepared to take the necessary steps.

  GRANTS TO SCOTCH SCHOOLS.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, in the accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1889, Class IV., Vote 10, that—
  "During the year 1888–9 Grants amounting altogether to £2,876 5s. were paid to Hillhead, Hamilton Crescent, and Bellahouston Schools, Govan, and to Harris Academy, Dundee, although the average fee from each scholar exceeded 9d. per week. Similar payments were reported last year, the Department pleading in justification the terms of the Code of 1887. The Code, however, in that respect was admittedly in opposition to the terms of section 3 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, and, consequently, inoperative; but, under the circumstances, the Treasury sanctioned the payments, on the understanding that they were not to be continued beyond the year 1887–8. As stated in my last Report, the payments have been continued in the year 1888–9, in opposition both to the Act and to the Amended Code of 1888;"
  whether these schools are still on the list of State-aided schools entitled to Government grant; and whether the Treasury intend taking any steps in the matter?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The question raised in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General turns upon certain differences in the interpretation placed upon the latter of the Treasury. The Comptroller and Auditor General refers to the explanation given by the Accounting Officer, but states that he is unable to accept the responsibility of passing the grants without noticing them in his Report. The question will now come under the review of the Committee on Public Accounts, and the Treasury will await the judgment of that Committee. The schools referred to have not been removed from the list of schools conditionally entitled to State aid, but they will not continue to receive Government grants should the average fee be found to exceed 9d a week.

  CONDUCT OF BUSINESS—THE ESTIMATES—ARRANGEMENT OF THE VOTES.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any precedent for asking a Vote from the House on account of Estimates not yet in the hands of Members?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that in 1869–70 the Estimates were delivered on April 13, the first Vote on Account having been taken on April 9. There are other precedents for Votes on Account being taken practically simultaneously with the delivery of the Estimates. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that passing a Vote on Account does not bind the House to the approval of any new expenditure, and I would refer him to the statement on this point made by the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh in 1866. The course taken by the Government is in order to suit the convenience of the House, as next week, when the time would have been available for Supply, has been devoted to other purposes.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Estimates in the Vote on Account are not presented in a new form, reducing the number of Votes from 137 to 106; whether this change has been approved by the Public Accounts Committee: and whether the House will have an opportunity of examining any scheme for the re-arrangement of the Estimates, and pronouncing upon it, in conformity with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates Procedure in 1888, and of the Public Accounts Committee of the same year?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes, Sir; the Estimates covered by the Vote on Account have been presented in a form showing a reduction in the number of separate Votes to 106. The change has not yet been approved by the Public Accounts Committee, but it is proposed to invite the assistance of that Committee and to ask them to consider, and, I hope, to approve of the change. Any suggestions or alterations which that Committee may recommend will, I am sure, receive the careful consideration of the House and of the Government, with a view to giving effect to them; and it is clearly understood that in giving the Vote on Account the House does not commit itself to approval of the new orm of the Estimates. In 1860–61 the Civil Service Votes numbered 198; in 1861–62 they were reduced to 183; in 1865–66 they were 182; in 1866–67 they were 169; in 1867–68 they were 168;

  1519
  and in 1868–69 they were 146. In I reducing the number of Votes we are only, therefore, following precedent. The Government were so impressed with the necessity of making some change in the form of the Estimates which would reduce the number of Votes and insure their being better grouped that they did not like to delay making their proposals for another year. Accordingly, we determined that the Estimates should be prepared and presented in the new form, and in so doing we believed that the House and the Committee of Public Accounts would, without committing themselves to accepting the form for more than one year, be better able to judge of the change with a view to its future adoption. The Estimates when in the hands of Members will show that the means of comparison are preserved.
  MR. J. MORLEY: May I ask whether it is true that the Government first of all adopted the change in the form of the Estimates, and then, last night at a late hour put on the Paper the proposal to refer the matter to the Public Accounts Committee. I would further ask whether, in the case of all the precedents the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, the change had not been first submitted to the Public Accounts Committee, and whether that Committee had not in 1888 I almost ordered that before any change was made in the form of the Estimates they, as well as the House, should first have an opportunity of considering the matter?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In answer to the first question of the right hon. Gentleman, I may say that I am under the impression that the Committee could not deal with the question unless it was referred to them by the House. With regard to the second question, the right hon. Gentleman will find that none of the changes to which I have referred had been submitted to the previous approval of the Committee of Public Accounts. In answer to the third question, I admit that the Committee did express a desire chat changes generally should be submitted to them for approval.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I only want to know whether we are to-night going to consider a Vote on Account, cast in a form which has never been approved by, or submitted to, the Committee of Public Accounts?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The House will not in the slightest degree commit itself to the form in which the demand is submitted. There is no change in the method of accounts, and there is no change whatever in the services to be provided for. The fact is, that certain Votes have been put together.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Is it not the case that the Civil Service Estimates have been printed in a changed form, which has afterwards to be approved of?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have stated that they are undoubtedly presented in a changed form, as they were presented in a changed form in 1860, 1861, 1865, and 1866–78.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is it not a fact that the Estimates Procedure Committee of 1888 reported that a scheme of grouping should receive the attention of the Treasury and be submitted to the House. Was not this Resolution substantially adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Government, when he said that no large alteration would be made of so serious a character as to need the approval of the House?
  MR, W. H. SMITH: It is perfectly true that the Committee did desire and did instruct the Treasury to group the Estimates more carefully together, and the Treasury, having followed their instructions, have only been wanting in one thing—namely, that they have not submitted a scheme to the House for consideration in any other form than in the concentrated form of the Estimates themselves. The only way in which the Instruction of the Committee of 1888 could be carried out was in the way now submitted to the House in the Estimates of the year.
  MR JENNINGS: May I ask whether, by this new system of classifying Votes, it is no longer the case that there will be a separate Vote for the maintenance of the Houses of Parliament, the maintenance of the British Museum, and the Metropolitan Police Courts: and whether these changes are not calculated to lessen the power of criticism possessed by the House over these Estimates?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Even if these Votes were not submitted as separate and substantive Votes, they would all

  1521
  appear as so many sub-heads, and the House would possess the same control.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLE WORTH: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the precedent of 1867, and said that changes were in that year made in the Civil Service Estimates without submitting them first to the Public Accounts Committee. But is it not the fact that the changes were submitted to, and approved by, the Public Accounts Committee in that year and also in 1881?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will make inquiry.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, if we pass this Vote on Account, it will not commit us to the change proposed, or, at any rate, preclude us from re-opening the question this Session?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is for the House to judge whether it will preclude any question from being raised again; it is not a question of order.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the putting of one question from the Chair for a number of Services will not place at the disposal of the Government the balances unexpended on all those separate Services as if it were one Vote, instead of two or three?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If the House attaches any importance to the point which has been raised, there will be no hesitation on the part of Her Majesty's Government in giving an assurance that the surplus under one subhead shall not be expended in the Services under another sub-head.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House whether the assurance he has just given applies to the sub-heads generally, or whether it is only intended to apply to those which it is suggested to alter?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: That, I think, is a question rather for the Public Accounts Committee to consider, and I may say that any suggestions which may be made in this Committee will certainly receive the most careful and respectful consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg, Sir, to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to a matter of urgent
  1522
  public importance, namely, to the con duct of Her Majesty's Government in introducing large alterations in the mode of submitting the Estimates to this House without having previously submitted them to the approval of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. Member that that is a question which would come better at a subsequent period on Committee of Supply.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Am I to under stand, Sir, that I should be in order in moving to report Progress on a Vote of Account in order to call attention to this subject in Committee?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman's Motion could be made when the House is in Committee. The hon. Member would then be in order in raising the question as to the form in which the Votes are to be taken in this House.
  MR, A. O'CONNOR: I wish, Sir, to ask a question on a point of order. The Government have intimated that they propose to have the subject of the new form of taking the Estimates referred to the Public Accounts Committee. The functions of the Committee are laid down on the Standing Orders, and they are not concerned in any way with the mode of putting the Votes from the Chair in this House, or, indeed, with the question of procedure in this House. The reference of such a question as is now suggested to the Public Accounts Committee would be really an extension of the province and powers of that Committee. I therefore ask you, Sir, as a point of order, whether such a proposal can be adopted without the passing of a Standing Order upon the subject.
  MR, SPEAKER: I think that if the existing powers of the Committee should be exceeded then an instruction would be required to enable the Committee to consider the special question to be referred to it.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the last paragraph of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee which has just been made, and which has reference to the point now raised. The Committee state that they do not desire to deal with

  1523
  any question relating to the voting of the Estimates in Committee of Supply. I would point out that the Public Accounts Committee is an exceptional Committee acting under a Standing Order of this House, and it would be highly inconvenient to submit to them such a question as has now been raised. [Cries of "Order, order!"] I am only elucidating the question I desire to put to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, as I think it would be highly inconvenient to mix up these technical matters, as to the accounts and control over moneys that have been voted, with the question of procedure in the voting of the Estimates in this House.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: My attention has been called to the paragraph referred to by the hon. Gentleman, which seems to negative the power of the Public Accounts Committee to entertain the question as to the form in which the Votes are to be submitted to the House, and to suggest that the responsibility should rest upon the Government themselves. The Government has accepted that responsibility; but they desire to obtain the assistance of the Committee on Public Accounts in order that that Committee may satisfy themselves that the form in which the Votes are submitted to the House is satisfactory.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: Did I understand you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that the question submitted by my hon. Friend (Mr. Buchanan) was not a matter of urgent public importance?
  MR. SPEAKER: No; I suggested that it would more properly arise at a later stage, when the House is in Committee.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

    VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,725.103, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, viz:—

    CIVIL SERVICES.

    CLASS I.

    £

    Royal Palaces and Marlborough House

    5,000

    Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    12,000

    Public Buildings, Great Britain

    30,000

    Admiralty, Extension of Buildings

    4,000

    Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

    8,000

    Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

    6,000

    Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

    7,000

    Revenue Department Buildings

    56,000

    Surveys of the United Kingdom

    40,000

    Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade, and Lighthouses abroad

    3,000

    Peterhead Harbour

    6,000

    Caledonian Canal

    1,000

    Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland)

    83,000

    Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

    60,000

    CLASS II.

    United Kingdom and England:—

    House of Lords, Offices

    6,000

    House of Commons, Offices

    6,000

    Treasury and Subordinates Departments

    15,000

    Home Office and Subordinate Departments

    15,000

    Foreign Office

    10,000

    Colonial Office

    6,000

    Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

    2,500

    Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

    27,000

    Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

    3

    Board of Agriculture

    6,000

    Charity Commission

    6,000

    Civil Service Commission

    7,000

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    10,000

    Friendly Societies, Registry

    1,500

    Local Government Board

    27,000

    Lunacy Commission

    2,000

    Mercantile Marine Funds Grant in Aid

    — —

    Mint (including Coinage)

    20,000

    National Debt Office

    2,600

    Public Works Loan Commission

    1,500

    Record Office

    4,000

    Registrar General's Office

    8,000

    Stationery Office and Printing

    70,000

    Woods, Forests, &c, Office of

    6,000

    Works and Public Buildings, Office of

    8,000

    Secret Service

    6,000

    Scotland:—

    Secretary for Scotland

    2,000

    Fishery Board

    4,000

    Lunacy Commission

    1,200

    Registrar General's Office

    1,000

    Board of Supervision

    1,500

    Ireland:—

    Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary

    8,000

    Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

    400

    Local Government Board

    15,000

    Public Works Office

    10,000

    Record Office

    1,000

    Registrar General's Office

    3,000

    Valuation and Boundary Survey

    6,000

    CLASS III.

    United Kingdom and England:—

    Law Charges

    12,000

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    8,000

    Supreme Court of Judicature and Land Registry

    65,000

    County Courts

    20,000

    Police Courts (London and Sheerness)

    3,000

    Police, England and Wales

    10,000

    Prisons, England and the Colonies

    110,000

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

    80,000

    Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    6,000

    Scotland:—

    Lord Advocate, and Law Charges and Courts of Law

    10,000

    Register House

    6,000

    Crofters' Commission

    1,500

    Prisons, Scotland

    15,000

    Ireland:—

    Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

    15,000

    Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

    20,000

    Land Commission

    20,000

    County Court Officers, &c.

    18,000

    Dublin Metropolitan Police, &c.

    20,000

    Constabulary

    300,000

    Prisons, Ireland

    20,000

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools

    30,000

    Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    1,500

    CLASS IV.

    United Kingdom and England:—

    Public Education, England and Wales

    800,000

    Science and Art Department, United Kingdom

    45,000

    British Museum

    27,000

    National Gallery

    3,000

    National Portrait Gallery

    600

    Learned Societies, United Kingdom

    7,000

    Universities and Colleges, Great Britain

    10,000

    London University

    3,000

    Scotland:—

    Public Education

    160,000

    National Gallery

    400

    Ireland:—

    Public Education

    200,000

    Endowed Schools Commissioners

    200

    National Gallery

    300

    Queen's Colleges

    500

    CLASS V.

    Diplomatic Services and Consular Services

    100,000

    Slave Trade Services

    8,500

    Colonial Services, including South Africa

    28,000

    Cyprus, Grant in Aid

    — —

    Subsidies to Telegraph Companies, &c.

    16,000

    CLASS VI.

    Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    120,000

    Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.

    1,000

    Friendly Societies Deficiency

    — —

    Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

    500

    Pauper Lunatics, Ireland

    70,000

    Hospitals and Charities, Ireland.

    4,000

    CLASS VII.

    Temporary Commissions

    9,000

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    4,000

    Total for Civil Services

    £3,055,103

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

    Customs

    100,000

    Inland Revenue

    100,000

    Post Office

    100,000

    Post Office Packet Service

    20,000

    Post Office Telegraphs

    350,000

    Total for Revenue Departments

    £670,000

    Grand Total

    £3,725,103

    MR. BUCHANAN: I desire, Sir, to raise the question which I attempted to bring before the House before the Speaker left the Chair. I should like to state very shortly what has actually taken place with regard to this matter, and what the proposals of the Government, and the action they desire to take, really amount to. The whole subject originated in the Estimates Procedure Committee, 1888, which considered the possibility of grouping the Votes in Supply, and a scheme was submitted to them, which was by no means identical in essence or detail with the scheme or which the Estimates now before the Committee is based. The recommendation of the Procedure Committee is that the scheme should be submitted to the consideration of the Treasury with a view to a scheme being submitted to the House. In the autumn of 1888 a different scheme was sent to the Public Accounts Committee, and the scheme upon which the arrangement of the present Estimates is based is a modification of the scheme of the Public Accounts Committee. That scheme should have received the approval of the House before being applied to the Estimates. On April 30, 1889, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it could only be with the full assent of the House that the Government would take any steps to limit discussion on the Votes. The subject is not merely a technical or financial one. It is closely

    1527
    connected with the efficient conduct of the business of the House. The discussions in Committee of Supply are upon questions of administration, and as such they are highly valued by hon. Members on both sides of the House. No doubt questions of administration are sometimes discussed in Committee at undue length; but that is comparatively a small evil, for it is by the discussion of those questions that the way is paved for substantial reforms. Discussions in Supply are very highly valued by hon. Members on both sides of this House save, perhaps, those who sit on the two Front Benches. The financial value of the discussion, of course, has often been considered and often minimised. Discussions on questions of administration are often doubtless continued at very great length and go into minute details; but, taking them all round, they are essentially of very great value for legislation and the effective discharge of their duties by Members of this House. Speaking particularly on behalf of Scotland and a body of Members who form a small minority in this House, I may say that these discussions in Committee of Supply afford us practically the only opportunity we have of bringing forward subjects in which we are interested and which cannot otherwise gain the general attention of the House. I urge upon independent Members of this House not to allow any substantial limitations of their opportunities for discussion until they have a fuller knowledge of what the limitations are and have had the chance of debating the proposals in detail before agreeing to them. We are practically, however, excluded from a due consideration of them—at any rate, for this Session—and we are required to act upon the proposals and vote estimates in accordance with them. In the short time that has been at disposal it is very difficult for a Member of this House to gather the extent of the alteration which has been made by the scheme now submitted. First of all, large and important Votes on which discussions took place in former years are being put together. The Diplomatic and Consular Votes are no longer taken separately—Votes which last Session formed almost the only opportunity we had of discussing Foreign Affairs. The Colonial and South African
    1528
    Votes, too, are no longer capable of being discussed as separate Votes; they are to be taken as a single Vote. Undoubtedly, we have hitherto debated these Votes separately, not as to financial detail, but in regard to our colonial administration, which is interesting not merely to Members of this House, but to the public. Then the Votes of the Chief Secretary and of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland are taken as a single Vote. Everyone is aware that these two Votes form the subject of discussions in this House. Similarly, with regard to subordinate Departments, large numbers of which, hitherto separate, have been put together. Take the Scottish Votes. This scheme does not include under one Vote all discussion of Scotch matters as did the scheme submitted to the Public Accounts Committee, but it considerably minimises our opportunities. The Vote for the Registrar General for Scotland and another Vote under Class II. have disappeared from the list. Then the Exchequer Vote for Scotland; that has also disappeared, and I think it has been distributed among several Votes. I cannot find it, but amongst the payments connected with the Treasury under the new scheme is the "Exchequer (Scotland)— Salaries only." The Exchequer (Scotland) Vote has disappeared.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. W. L. JACKSON,: It is in Class VII.
    MR. BUCHANAN: That makes it still more confusing than I imagined it to be, and it only illustrates the very great difficulty we shall have in the future in knowing exactly what we are voting. Take, for example, the Diplomatic and Consular Buildings Vote. We spent £26,000 last year (the estimate for this year is £40,000), and a Vote of £7,000 on account is asked for to-night. I am quite at a loss to understand this Vote, and we are left perfectly in the dark by the Government as to whether this is a large and substantial increase in the expenses, or whether it is due to the new scheme now being adopted. No doubt when we have the Memorandum of the changes submitted to us, we will be able to understand it. It is essentially the duty of Her Majesty's Government, before they insert in the Estimates alterations of this sort, to lay a statement before the House and Committee that we may see

    1529
    with what we are dealing. The Public Accounts Committee had a scheme submitted to them in 1888, and they reported. According to two letters addressed to the Chairman of the Committee by the Secretary to the Treasury — the Treasury, not the Government—found it desirable, comparing the Estimates of 1890–91, to effect some rearrangement of the Votes, the result being a reduction of the number of Votes. As I understand, a statement explanatory of that was not submitted at the same time.
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: A statement was submitted at the time. Unfortunately, it has not been printed.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Of course it is not printed. I am sorry I fell into the error. But it was only laid on the Table last night without notice being put upon the Paper. Had proper notice been given, probably it would have saved a great deal of discussion. I understand that part of the scheme before the Procedure Committee, but not included here, was that the Votes should go before a Select Committee, who should make certain of the Votes the subject of several large Resolutions. That has all fallen out. I think such a substantial alteration in the financial procedure of the country as that now proposed ought certainly to be considered by the Government before submitting it to the House. I earnestly call the attention of hon. Members to the subject as one which vitally affects their interests not only in respect of their financial control, but as regards the effective discharge of their duty in discussing the conduct of the Administration. Though no doubt a little of the diminution of the number of Votes is due to the Local Government Act and other causes, yet this is an alteration of a very different character, and one of such importance that it ought to have been submitted to this House. I beg, Sir, to move to report Progress, and that you ask leave to sit again.
    Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Buchanan).
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: I am sorry that the hon. Member takes so serious a view of
    1530
    the situation. The Government believe that, in submitting the accounts in the present form, they are carrying out the recommendation of the Committee which sat on the question. If the method of presenting the accounts had been brought before the House endless debate would have arisen almost on every group of Votes. The hon. Member, and perhaps some others, have somewhat magnified the importance of the changes which have been made. It is said that Votes have been grouped together, each of which deserve the fullest discussion. But I can assure the Committee that there is no single Vote or sub-head of a Vote which, under the new system, cannot be discussed as amply as under the old, though fewer Votes will be presented. I may appeal to the Members of the Committee on Public Accounts, certainly to those who were on the previous Committee whether they do not think the system of grouping advantageous. The hon. Member himself doubted the value of a system of grouping, and opposed that system on the Committee. But it was distinctly recommended by the Committee, who said that some convenience and probably some economy of time would result from the adoption of a system of grouping two or more Votes which were now separately submitted to the Committee of Supply. It will be remembered that it was the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) who started the idea, that the proceedings of Supply might be simplified by grouping and presenting fewer Votes to the House. It may be that though each Vote may be discussed as amply as before, there will be less temptation, if I may say so, to frequent, discussion. The grouping system has commended itself to the majority of the House. It might have been better to have referred the matter to the Committee on Public Accounts, rather than to put the Votes in the amended form at once before the House, but I shall be surprised if any Member of that Committee objects to the scheme of the Government as a whole.
    An hon. MEMBER: It should have been referred to the House.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I thought the complaint was that we had not referred it to the Committee on Public Accounts.
    SIR U.KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: To make it clear, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the complaint of the Public Accounts Committee is that, instead of submitting a scheme of the proposed changes first to the House, and through the House to the Committee, the Government first made the changes in the mode of submitting the Estimates, and then came to the Public Accounts Committee with the changes already adopted, and asked them to criticise or adopt those changes. The changes were already made before the Committee were consulted. That is not the plan which the Procedure Committee recommended. The Government have not consulted either the House or the Public Accounts Committee.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I thought the complaint was that we had not submitted the changes to the Public Accounts Committee, but I now find that the Committee do not make a complaint.
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not understand me. It is, in one sense, a complaint because the change has been made before either the House or the Public Accounts Committee had an opportunity of considering the scheme. The Committee do complain of the way in which they have been treated.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Member interrupted me too soon. If the House had been consulted, the reform proposed would have been delayed for another Session. If the House studies the accounts in this new form, as it cannot fail to do in the practical working of the scheme, they will find it more convenient than the old. As to the complaint that we are only referring the change to the Public Accounts Committee rafter it has been effected, I can assure the hon. Member that we only propose to refer the matter to the Committee, because, from what we have learnt, we believe it to be their desire to have the Matter before them. But I am quite willing even now to adopt any course which the right hon. Gentleman, on consultation with the Government, may desire for bringing the matter before the Public Accounts Committee. Although there will be undoubtedly some economy
    1532
    of time, I think the importance of the change has been unduly magnified.
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH: The right hon. Gentleman has disarmed criticism by the extremely courteous way in which he expresses it to be his desire to treat the Committee over which I have the honour to preside, and in which he endeavours to make amends for any mistake he may have made. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to admit that a different course should have been pursued, and to say that he regrets what has been done. Speaking as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, and not as belonging to either Party in the House, I desire to say that the Committee on Public Accounts are always unanimous, and by an old and invariable tradition are absolutely free from Party influences. And I hope that so long as I am connected with the Committee it will always be free from Party influences. What was done last Wednesday—and the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) will bear me out in this—was done with perfect unanimity, and no one objected to a word in the Report we presented to the House. There was a word which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to which I wish to draw attention for a moment. He said that, in introducing these changes on the responsibility of the Government, he was acting according to the principle laid down in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. That is not the view of the Committee, because they think it is too great a power to leave in the hands of Departments for them to present their accounts in any form they please—for instance, to reduce considerably the number of the Votes. From the public accounts point of view, we do not enter into the question of the effect the changes may have upon the mode in which money is voted in Parliament. We look to the clearness and continuity of the accounts and the efficiency of Parliamentary control over the money voted. If the number of Votes is diminished, it will be easier to transfer money voted for one service to the use of another. For example, in one Vote for Public Buildings in Great Britain money is to be voted for the Office of Works, and in place of the three existing familiar Votes there

    1533
    are three heads of the Vote—one for the Houses of Parliament, another for other public buildings, and a third for furniture for public offices. The Office of Works may spend money voted for one of these purposes on another. Under the present system of three separate Votes that could not be done, because it is impossible to transfer money voted, say, for the Houses of Parliament to other public buildings without a Resolution of the House; but, supposing this change is adopted without such a safeguard as that to-day suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, the money could be transferred, and there would be no sufficient Parliamentary control over the expenditure. The object of Parliamentary control would be defeated.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: It would be stated in the Appropriation Account.
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Yes, but it would not be necessary to come to the House to sanction the transfer from one Vote to another. This, I think, shows the danger of the change, and this is the justification of the view which has been repeatedly taken by the Public Accounts Committee, and which was stated in 1888—that important changes in the Estimates should not be effected at the sweet will of any Department of the Government, but should be submitted first for consideration to this House and the Public Accounts Committee. I have no doubt, on mature consideration, the Members of the Government will take exactly the same view as the Parliamentary Accounts Committee. All that I wish and claim is this: that we shall be perfectly free to consider this change as if it had not been made—as if all that had been done had been to submit a scheme for the re-arrangement of the Estimates, applying not only to these, but to the Army and Navy Estimates also. We should be in no way committed by the unfortunate fact that the Estimates have been re-cast in this form without consultation with the House and the Public Accounts Committee. As to the point I alluded to some time ago in putting a question, I hope I may be allowed to say that as to the matter of voting money in Committee of Supply, to which the
    1534
    hon. Member for Edinburgh alluded, I think it would be a very proper subject for the consideration of a Special Committee. I would deprecate the throwing of that matter on to the Public Accounts Committee, as it is not at all germane to their functions.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    (5.20.) Original Question again proposed.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise, Sir, to move the reduction of the Vote, and I base the Motion upon the fact that certain official persons, whose salaries are included in it, have conspired together to defeat the course of justice.
    MR. MACLURE: I rise to a point of order. I wish to call attention to the fact that strangers are present.
    Notice taken, that strangers were present.
    Whereupon Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw," put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I was saying that practically my charge is that certain official persons confederated together to defeat the course of justice by interfering to prevent their friends being put on trial for a crime in regard to which two persona were tried and convicted. Before stating the facts, I wish to call attention to the present position of the law in these matters. There is no doubt that of late years a certain offence—I will not give it a name—has become more rife than it ever was before. Before 1885 the law was insufficient to deal with it, because the offence had to be proved by an accessory, and many other offences very much of the same nature were not regarded as crimes at all. In 1885, when the Criminal Law Amendment Bill was before a Committee of the House, Mr. Stead—who, it will be remembered, took a very active part in urging that Bill on the attention of the House —sent me a report with reference to this offence, giving particulars and evidence which went to show the extent of its prevalence. I was requested to read this report to the House, but I did not think it desirable to do so,

    1535
    although I thought the case was pretty well proved. I proposed the addition to the Bill of a special clause which I took from the French Code, and this clause was submitted to the Attorney; General and Lord Cross, and, with some verbal alterations, accepted and incorporated in the Bill, and is now the law of the land. Therefore, in 1885, Parliament armed the guardians of public morality with full powers to deal with this offence. In doing so, they recognised that the offence was on the increase, and they expressed their desire that it should be stamped out; and, presumably, it was I intended that the law should be used equally against high and low. I will now state the facts of this case. It is very likely that I may fall into slight errors of detail, but I think I shall be able to submit enough to establish a primâ facie case that there has been a gross scandal, and that there is ground for investigation into the conduct of those who are responsible for it. In the beginning of last July a boy in the Post Office was found to be in possession of much larger sums of money than it was likely he would have obtained in a legitimate way. On the 4th of July the boy was sent for by Mr. Phillips, an official of the Post Office, and Constable Hanks, attached to the Post Office, and the boy confessed that he had received the money for a certain offence committed in a house in Cleveland Street, occupied by one Hammond, and that other boys in the Post Office were equally guilty. These other boys were examined, and they also confessed, all stating that they had been induced to go to the house by a certain Newlove, a clerk in the Post Office. Newlove was interrogated and confessed to the charge. Newlove was arrested on the 7th of July, taken before the magistrate on the 8th, and by successive remands detained until the 20th of August. On that day a man named Veck was arrested. He was associated with Hammond in this house. Newlove and Veck were charged together; on the 11th of September they were committed for trial; and on the 18th were tried at the Old Bailey. Veck was indicted for felony and for misdemeanour; and Newlove was indicted alone for misdemeanour. Both pleaded guilty to misdemeanour and were sentenced, Veck to nine months' and Newlove to four months'
    1536
    imprisonment. The sentence on Veck was scandalously inadequate. Veck, who was called "The Rev. — something — Veck" — I do not know whether he was in holy orders, but he went about dressed as a clergyman — had not only committed these offences himself with the boys, but was the associate and partner of Hammond, and induced boys to go to Cleveland Street for money, and in order to serve his private ends. If ever a man deserved the full sentence of the law this man Veck did. The Committee will remember how if a poor man, urged by primary necessity steals some small thing, he is sent to prison often for more than nine months, and how in Ireland men are sent to prison for longer periods for offences which assuredly even no Gentleman on the opposite side of the House will assert are in the least to be compared with that of this man Veck. Whether this inadequate sentence was a condition of these men pleading guilty, or whether, as they did plead guilty, it happened that the depositions at the Police Court were not shown to the Recorder, and he did not know how monstrous the case was, I do not know. But I think it is pretty clear that the real object was to stop all further disclosures, hush the matter up, and get these men out of the way. I believe that Newlove and Veck would never have been prosecuted had it not been for the action of the Postmaster General and the secretary of the Post Office. The matter occurred in the Post Office, and they—I honour and respect them for it —insisted that action should be taken in the matter. The Solicitor to the Treasury, who is, I believe, under the orders of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and the Treasury—and I dare say the Home Secretary also—knew perfectly well by this time that certain persons had frequented this house in Cleveland Street; they knew that the police had got certain clues; they knew certain names had been mentioned; and they determined, so far as they were concerned, that if they were obliged to prosecute these two men the case should go no farther if they could prevent it. Having thus arranged matters in regard to these two men, what, the House will wonder, had become of Hammond,the proprietor of the house? If Hammond had been arrested, he would no doubt

    1537
    have been able to make revelations. These wretches live not only by this particular offence, but by a system of levying blackmail; and it is incredible to suppose that Hammond did not himself know the names of many of the persons who had frequented the house. I stated that on the 4th of July these matters were investigated at the Post Office by Mr. Phillips, with Constable Hanks, and that Newlove and the other boys told what they knew about Hammond. Hammond was not watched on the 4th of July; far from it. It may be reasonably supposed that information of what was passing was conveyed by Newlove to Hammond, who, not being watched, fled the country. When he had got well away, on the 6th of July, a warrant was obtained against him. The Treasury were informed by Mr. Monro that Hammond was not present, but the police, unlike the Treasury, were perfectly in earliest in this matter. The Postal Authorities wrote at the same time to ask that, if possible, Hammond should be secured and brought back to England. On the 25th of July the Treasury forwarded to the police a letter from Lord Salisbury saying that the Government could not ask that Hammond should be extradited from France. By this time the Post Office, who were still anxious to pursue Hammond, had sent Mr. Phillips over to Paris, and on the 7th of August a telegram was received from him asking that someone should be sent over to complete arrangements for the expulsion of Hammond from France. On the 8th of August Inspector Abberline was sent over; but he did not stay long, and he was succeeded by Inspector Lowe. I do not know exactly what was being done with the French Government, but nothing came of it, and Hammond remained in France for about a month. On the 12th of September Hammond, whether expelled or not, went over the Belgian frontier, and Inspector Lowe followed him and reported to Scotland Yard that Hammond was at a town in Belgium. Mr. Phillips also went to Belgium on the 12th of September, and it appears that on the 14th he was already in communication with the Belgian police, for he telegraphed that the moment an assurance could be given that demand for extradition would be made, the
    1538
    Belgian police would arrest Hammond. On this the English police applied to the Treasury. The reply was that an answer should be sent as soon as possible, but that the question was not free from difficulty. On September 16, the secretary to the Post Office, who was also in earnest, wrote to the police urging that immediate steps should be taken to secure Hammond's arrest. On September 17, Inspector Greenham was sent to Belgium and reported himself at Brussels. On the same day the Treasury wrote to the police that there was no evidence before them of an extraditable offence, and therefore they could not ask for Hammond's extradition. On October 6 a strong letter was written by Mr. Monro to the Treasury, drawing attention to the stigma which would rest on the English police if Hammond were allowed to escape. On that day he did escape. Remember, this man was surrounded by English police. He was being watched by the Belgian police, but he went to Antwerp and embarked on board a ship called The Pennland, which was bound for the United States. During the time Hammond had been in Belgium, the Belgian police reported that he was accompanied by an English boy. This boy had been abstracted from his parents presumably for vile purposes. Now, whilst Hammond was in Belgium, whilst the English and Belgian police were surrounding him, Mr. Newton was with the solicitor to Lord Arthur Somerset and also to Veck and Newlove, either went to Belgium himself or sent someone there. This Mr. Newton, or this other person, gave Hammond a large sum of money, and also paid for the ticket not only of Hammond, but also of the boy who had fallen into such a terrible position. Any one can find that out by going to Cook's office.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: Who obtained the tickets?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Newton or his representative. I cannot help thinking that if the Government had been in earnest, they might have obtained the extradition of Hammond, because our Extradition Treaties, both with France and Belgium, cover such charges as those of indecent assault, either by the principal or by accessories. It was put in evidence before the magistrate, and I

    1539
    do not think it was questioned, that Hammond induced boys to come to his house, that he took them into a room and handed them over to the creature who was going to assault them. I should say that that was being an accessory to an indecent assault, but I admit the point admits of a good deal of discussion. As this, however, was not a political offence, and as both the French Government and the Belgian Government and everybody in, either country would have been glad to have had the men turned out of their country, I think they would in all probability have stretched a point if the matter had been fairly put before them. But there is another course. There is such a thing as expelling men from a country. I remember when I was in the Diplomatic Service being engaged in a case of expulsion. You can always get a Government, when it is going to expel, to expel on the frontier nearest to your own frontier, and I have no doubt we could have induced the French or the Belgian Government to have expelled Hammond by putting him on a British ship which would have brought him to this country. Certainly, in the opinion of the police and the Postal Authorities, something might have been done, but nothing was done by the Treasury or the Foreign Office; or, if anything was done, it was done in a perfunctory manner, so that no result should be achieved. If it had not been intended to extradite Hammond, if the Government had no plan by which they intended to get hold of him, what was their object in hunting this man from France to Belgium and from Belgium to America, and then leaving him alone? I think the object is pretty obvious. They wanted to send him away as far as possible from this country. Their object, in fact, was much the same as that of Mr. Newton, who gave him money and paid his passage, and also that of the boy with him, to America. Both of them, each for different reasons, wanted him not to turn up in England. The Government did not wish for revelations; they wished to hush up the matter. Now, Cleveland Street was frequented by a considerable number of persons. They were persons who used these boys, and most unquestionably it was desirable to get at them. I shall not trouble the Committee with more
    1540
    than one extract. I am going to read an extract which I think will surprise the Members of the Committee. It is from the evidence given by a constable named Sladden, who was put to watch the house to see who came to the house after Hammond had fled. This is his evidence:—
    "I have been engaged in watching the house No. 19, Cleveland Street. I commenced on July 9th. On that day I saw at 5.10 p.m.—"
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Will the hon. Gentleman say from what he is reading?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Depositions.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: There are no depositions of Sladden as far as I know.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I think I can convince the hon. and learned Gentleman. They may not have been published, and perhaps I am wrong in using-the word depositions.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The hon. Gentleman says he is reading from depositions; I accept his word.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I am reading the evidence of Constable Sladden at the Marlborough Police Court. I will produce the official copy. Sladden said, "I commenced on July 9th—" I can understand why the hon. Gentleman does not want this evidence read.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not rise for my own personal protection; but I venture to submit, for the honour of this House, it is not right that such observations should be made respecting one who, in the discharge of his public duties, is watching to see what is being put before the House.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton must see that that observation is a most offensive one, which ought not to be made across the floor of this House.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I will withdraw it, but perhaps I may be allowed to explain that my case is that the Government wish to hush this matter up. I put the matter in a general way and not in reference to the hon. and learned Gentleman in particular. Sladden said—
    "I commenced on July 9th. On that day I saw at 5.10 p.m. a corporal of the 2nd Life Guards arrive at the house. A gentleman arrived at 4.50 p.m. knocked at the door, and was answered from the door, He and the corporal shook hands, talked for about five minutes, and walked away without entering the house. On

    1541
    July 13th I saw the same men call again. The house was empty, and they went away. On that same day a great many gentlemen called at the house. On July 14th a gentleman and a Royal Artilleryman called. On July 30th I saw other gentlemen come, and finding the house empty went away."
    Now, I think I have proved my case. The house is in no obscure thoroughfare, but nearly opposite the Middlesex Hospital. Surely it must have been known to the police, and if it was not known to them it ought to have been. In no other city in the world are such abominations openly carried on. Parliament has done its best to put down houses of ill-fame, but compared with this place a house of ill-fame is respectable. If it were desired to make an example of the offenders, why was not a policeman stationed at the house to follow the persons who came there? The obvious answer is that it was not desired to follow them up and punish them. One person guessed the police were on his track. I do not wish to mention any names except those which have already been made public, but I will give the name of this person because a warrant is out for his arrest. It is Lord Arthur Somerset. A warrant is out for his arrest and he has fled. I am not certain whether the police got on his track by seeing him come to the house or whether his name was given by one of the boys, or by Veck or Newlove, but in any case on the 23rd of July several of the boys were taken to Knightsbridge Barracks, where Lord Arthur Somerset was quartered, and the boys identified him as a person who had been with them in the house. I know that evidence of informers is generally tainted, but the evidence of the boys is not near so tainted as would have been the evidence of one of these professional wretches. These boys were employed at the Post Office. They have been more sinned against than sinning, and it is not likely that they would have identified Lord Arthur Somerset unless they honestly believed he was the man who tempted them. On the 23rd of August, further evidence was obtained against Lord Arthur Somerset. A boy named Allies said he had received money from him in post-office orders. The boy lived at Sudbury, and on going to the post office there, the police found two post-office orders signed by Allies. The orders had also come from the Knightsbridge District Office. This, at
    1542
    least, was confirmatory of the statement of Allies. On the 24th of July, these boys were taken to identify Lord Arthur Somerset, and on the 27th of July Mr. Monro reported to the Treasury the evidence of the boys. On the 24th of August he further reported the evidence of Allies. The Treasury gave no sort of instructions, but after these Reports were made, the police were enjoined to take no further action until they heard again from the Treasury. The object of the Treasury was to hush up the matter, not to have prosecutions. The matter was referred to the Law Officers of the Crown. The Law Officers of the Crown, I need not say—
    SIR R. WEBSTER: What date is the hon. Gentleman referring to?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not know at what date, but I need not say the Law Officers did not advise a prosecution. Let me ask the Attorney General whether all the evidence was before the Law Officers? [Sir R. WEBSTER assented.] May I ask whether the questions that were put to the boys at Marlborongh-street were arranged, in any sort of way, by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, or by any of his subordinates? [The ATTORNEY GENERAL made no reply.] The hon and learned Gentleman will not answer that.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The hon. Gentleman must not say that. I prefer to answer when I make my statement.
    MR LABOUCHERE: I know that the cross-examination was so conducted as not to bring in Lord Arthur Somerset or others, because Mr. Newton was solicitor to Lord Arthur Somerset, and also solicitor to the prisoners Veck and Newlove. I have the evidence that was submitted at Marlborough Street, and not one-half of the statements of the boys to the police were brought out, and it was only stated in cross-examination that they had made statements at the Treasury, the obvious intention being to limit the prosecutions to Veck and Newlove. On August 3rd the police were watching Lord Arthur Somerset. Two constables saw him at the Knightsbridge barracks when he was on his way to take part in the review on the 7th of August, on the occasion of the German Emperor's visit to this country. On the 22nd of August a constable again saw him at the barracks. On the 11th

    1543
    of September he called at the barracks and was informed that Lord Arthur Somerset had obtained four months' leave of absence and had gone abroad. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: That is not quite correct.] Anyhow he did go abroad; I do not know when. On the 8th of October the funeral of the Dowager Duchess of Beaufort took place at Badminton. A constable was sent down by Mr. Monro because it was thought Lord Arthur Somerset would come there. I suppose it was thought desirable to give the Treasury one more opportunity of acting. ["Oh!"] An hon. Gentleman seems to question my facts. The constable reported—
    "I beg to report that, in accordance with instructions, I attended the funeral of the late Dowager Duchess of Beaufort, and saw bold Arthur Somerset was present at the obsequies."
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Will the hon. Gentleman give the name of the constable?
    MR LABOUCHERE: Luke Hanks, of the General Post Office. The Report Hanks made was sent to the Treasury, and no doubt the Home Secretary has a copy of it. I believe that a, suggesting was made that action should be taken. The reply of the Treasury took the form of a direction to at once withdraw the constable. Finding no action was taken. Lord Arthur Somerset remained in England, and want to his clubs as if nothing had occurred. During this time inquiries had been made of the police and the Treasury by the commanding officer of Lord Arthur Somerset's regiment, and by a gentleman connected with the Household of the Prince of Wales, Lord Arthur Somerset himself being a member of that Household. The police refused to give any information in the matter, and about the middle of October the gentleman representing the Household of the Prince of Wales telegraphed to Lord Salisbury, asking fur an interview with him.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Will the hon. Member give the gentleman's name?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir Dighton Probyn. On the 18th of October this gentleman had an interview with Lord Salisbury. At the end of the conversation, Lord Salisbury said—I am not perfectly certain of the words—that a warrant would be obtained to-morrow or a warrant should be obtained immediately.
    1544
    I think this fact was communicated to the commanding officer of Lord Arthur Somerset's regiment, and Lord Arthur Somerset then fled the country. I am not in the least complaining of the gentleman connected with the Household of the Prince of Wales nor of the commanding officer of Lord Arthur Somerset's regiment. In view of their position I can well understand the course they adopted. Probably they know the family of Lord A. Somerset, and they can hardly be blamed for desiring that his lordship should get out of the country to avoid a trial. I am not quite certain that if I had been in the same position as they were I should not have done as they did; but their position is very different from that of Lord Salisbury. The importance of the point here is why did Lord Salisbury interfere in the matter? What right had he to interfere? Was it the business of a Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary to mix himself up in such matters? But if he did intend, or know that a warrant was about to be issued, surely the last thing a man in his official position should have done was to communicate the fact to a friend of Lord A. Somerset's. The object, however, is perfectly clear. Lord Salisbury had had his hands forced. Public attention had been drawn to the matter; it became necessary to issue a warrant, and it was intended that a hint should be conveyed to Lord A Somerset to get out of the jurisdiction of the law before the warrant could be served on him. But this is not all. Let us admit this to have been a mere indiscretion on the part of Lord Salisbury; but was any time lost in the issue of the writ? Was it issued immediately? No; the conversation with Lord Salisbury took place on the 18th of October, and the warrant was not issued until the 12th of November, in order that it might be absolutely certain that Lord A. Somerset had received the information that a warrant was going to be issued and to give him time to get out of the country. So palpable was this that when the warrant was issued it was perfectly well-known that he was out of the country. It was a mere brutum fulmen, and the police so regarded it. They took no trouble to look after Lord A. Somerset, because they knew he was out of England. I would ask in regard to the warrant what further evidence there

    1545
    was on the 18th October than there was when Lord A. Somerset was in England? What further evidence was there on the 12th November than was known on October 18? We know there was no farther evidence. Why was not the warrant issued as soon as Lord Salisbury stated it was to be issued on October 18, and when Lord A. Somerset was in the country? Why was it put off until November 12? Perhaps the Attorney General when he speaks will tell us that. For my part, I think the reason is pretty clear. If the Committee are somewhat surprised at these transactions in which Lord Salisbury is concerned, they will be still more surprised when they learn what occurred. Lord A. Somerset was a major in one of her Majesty's regiments of Guards, and on the 9th of November it was announced in the Gazette that his resignation had been accepted. Now, this form of resignation is an honour-able discharge. If an officer in the Army is not considered worthy of an honourable discharge, it is inserted in the Gazette that his services are dispensed with. Can anyone think that, if the man had been a mere Lieutenant Jones or a Captain Smith, this would have occurred? It is an insult to every officer in the Army and to every man in the country who is anxious that the Army should remain an honoured and an honourable profession. This is not all. It will be found on investigation that Lord A. Somerset, who is a fugitive from justice, is still a magistrate for two counties. He went to Constantinople, and showing, as he was able to do, that he had been allowed to honourably resign his position in the Army, and that he was a magistrate for two counties in England, he asked for some official position in the Court of the Sultan. By this time, public attention had been drawn to a certain extent to what was going on, and Ministers began to think they were getting into a mess. They were a little frightened at what might happen, and so they looked around for a Jonah, and they found him in the person of Mr. Newton, solicitor to Lord A. Somerset, and they prosecuted him for getting witnesses out of the way. I do not blame Mr. Newton; so far as I know, he only aided Lord Salisbury in defeating justice, but it seems to me that if Mr. Newton is prosecuted, Lord
    1546
    Salisbury and several other gentlemen ought also to be prosecuted and charged under the same indictment. I can well understand that there might be an indisposition to bring scandals of this kind before the public, but it must be borne in mind that Ministers have no dispensing powers with regard to the English law, and I hold that they were utterly false to duty when they did not make every effort to bring to justice a man whom they had reasonable ground to believe was guilty of such an offence. It must net be forgotten what has taken place in regard to this case. Two men have been sent to prison, but they are poor. Their confidant was left alone. Their confidant had Attorney General, Solicitor General, and Heaven knows what at his back to take his part and to give him information and advice to get away as fast as he could. Hon. Members may remember that one of the charges brought against my hon. Friend the Member for Cork before the Special Commission was that he gave money to Byrne to aid him to escape from justice, and I should like to ask what difference there is between giving money to a man to escape and giving him information which enabled him to do so. But entirely apart from what I hold to be the criminality of Lord Salisbury there can be no doubt that Lord Salisbury at least acted very foolishly in the matter. He aggravated the scandal. Foreign newspapers took notice of the case, and they have represented this country as a nation of hypocrites, and made very strong and, I believe, in many cases unjust reflections on persons in high stations. It is the common talk in the workshops of this country respecting the case that the law is not fairly administered as between the rich man and the poor man, that justice is not fairly meted out between man and man, regardless of rank and social position, and thus great harm has been done by the course which has been adopted. We have heard a good deal lately about criminal conspiracy. What is this case but a criminal conspiracy by the very guardians of public morality and law, with the Prime Minister at their head, to defeat the ends of justice? Neither the upper classes nor the Treasury have any reason to thank Lord Salisbury for his action in the matter, for

    1547
    both have been considerable sufferers by it. Is it not a fact that during the time the matter was before the public the name of many a gentleman was insidiously and unjustly whispered about as being concerned in the scandals? I myself heard the names of several persons in high position hinted at and whispered about in connection with the case, and after what has occurred I feel it my duty to say that, so far as I know—and as the result of close inquiry I know as much about the case as any man—not one of those gentlemen whose names have been mentioned abroad and at the clubs was directly or indirectly in any sort of way connected with the scandals. In short, no name was spared, however high the position of the man who held it. I have seen the name of a gentleman of very high position mentioned in foreign newspapers in connection with the case, but having, as I have just said, looked very narrowly into the whole matter, I am absolutely certain that there is no justification for the calumny. In connection with this I may add that I know that a still more eminent gentleman, closely connected with the gentleman to whom I have alluded, has used all his efforts to have the fullest publicity given. I think that it is due to that eminent gentleman that the Government have at last been forced into the qualified action which has been taken against Lord A. Somerset. I think that this ought to be known. As I think all know, I myself took strong views upon the matter of Royal Grants, but I expressed my views openly, and I protest against the good name of any man, be he prince or peasant, being whispered and hinted away, I honour and respect the eminent gentleman to whom I have alluded for his action in this matter. I consider it wise and noble, and worthy of the great position he holds. However, I only allude to this in order to show how incalculable are the evils that might have arisen from this system which the Government has adopted of hushing up these matters. But the action of the Government, the guardians of public morality, docs not affect individuals alone; it encourages persons of any social station to think that they may commit this sort of offence with absolute impunity. The statement of Constable Sladden is perfectly astounding, but I do not think it can be contradicted.
    1548
    I think the Home Secretary can bear me out. A considerable number of years, ago Sir E. Henderson sent a Report complaining of inaction, and no action was taken because the law made it almost impossible to convict. The Home Secretary will bear me out when I say that this offence has been on the increase of late, but every constable or inspector takes care not to arrest any cognate person, because they believe that by doing so they would make themselves marked men and be sent out to the suburbs. In the streets, in the music halls, you have these wretched creatures openly pursuing their avocation. They are known to the police, yet the police do nothing to stop this sort of thing. It is scandalous that such a state of things should exist in London. There is no capital where it exists more openly. This was not the case 10 years ago, and I ascribe the increase entirely to the immunity granted to the criminals. I quite agree that it is most undesirable on many accounts to parade these scandals in the public Press, but I maintain that it is far more undesirable that poor persons should be prosecuted, and cognate persons allowed impunity when they happen to be wealthy. These poor and wretched creatures live to minister to the vices of those in a superior station. Is there any man who will not feel indignant that boys employed in one of our public offices should be tempted into indecencies more gross than were ever committed under Louis XV.? Instead of making every effort to punish offences, as far as I can see every effort has been made to hush up the matter. I do not know what the defence of the Government may be, but I venture to advise them not to put up any lawyer with a brief in his hand, who will by special pleading and evasive chicanery defend this charge. [Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"] Very well, then, I will say not by the same tactics as those pursued with regard to the Special Commission—that means the same thing to us on this side of the House. My first charge is that Lord Salisbury and others entered into a criminal conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice. I ask for a Committee to investigate this charge and allegation, and if it is granted I am perfectly willing to withdraw my Amendment, but I will not, and I do not think

    1549
    that many in this House will, be satisfied with a mere ex parte denial on behalf of the incriminated persons. If the Committee is not granted Lord Salisbury and the others stand condemned by their own Code of ethics. The hon. Member for Cork was charged with writing certain letters, and again and again hon. Gentlemen opposite said that he must be guilty because he had not courted an investigation. Mr. Walter was not a member of this House; I am. Mr. Walter had certain proofs, but he did not submit them; I have submitted my proofs. For my own part, I think I have already shown more of a primâ facie case for an inquiry than there was simply because Pigott sold forged letters to the Times. If the Government refuse this investigation, either they admit their guilt or they have two Codes of ethics—one for an Irish leader and another for a Conservative leader. If the Government plead guilty I shall deem it my duty to divide the House, because I think that this House ought to disconnect itself from any condoning of abominable offences of this kind, and ought to stand up for the principle of equal justice between man and man. If they do not admit their guilt I shall divide, because a man cannot be Judge, jury, and defendant in his own case. If those charges, openly made in this House, are not in some way investigated a heavier blow will be dealt to the good name of the country and to the cause of law and order than anything that his been done for many and many a year. I appeal to the whole House, to hon. Members sitting on both sides, to support me in the action I have taken. I appeal to them, not as followers of this Ministry or of that, but on the broad ground that they are English gentlemen. I appeal to them because I know that they loathe these offences as much as I do, and I hope that they will stand by mo in the only course that ought to be pursued in this matter, and the only course which will lead to the thorough and efficient prevention of such crimes.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,725,003, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Henry Labouchere.)
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Of all the occasions on which I have spoken in the House and of all the questions
    1550
    I have heard raised since I have had the honour of being a Member of the House, nothing in my opinion has approached the importance of the occasion on the charge made by the hon. Member for Northampton to-night. He has charged the Prime Minister with being party to a criminal conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice, and that subordinate officials, whom he said must have known what was being done, were also parties to that conspiracy. The hon. Member has said that deliberate notice was given to enable an accused man to escape from justice, and said that it was the wish of those whom he charged that that person should not be brought to justice; and he has alleged that certain criminal proceedings were arranged by a corrupt bargain with the view of minor punishments being inflicted in order that other persons who might be implicated might escape. I think that the Committee will agree with me that these are charges of most disgraceful conduct if they are true, and more disgraceful charges if false, and it is strange that, with that semblance of fair play which the hon. Member has pretended to assume, though he knew that the person who now addresses the House must be one of the persons implicated in the so-called conspiracy, the hon. Member has endeavoured to discount what I may be going to say by describing it as only the chicanery of a lawyer. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friends the Members for South Hackney and Stockton will acquiesce in that view. The main sting of this charge is that Lord Salisbury on a given night in October, with the purpose of allowing Lord A. Somerset to escape, made a communication which was intended to be conveyed to him, and that on receiving that communication Lord A. Somerset fled. Before I sit down I shall demonstrate that there is not a shadow of foundation for that charge. But if the charge is true, is it just or is it right that it should be made in the presence of the man who can answer it, or behind his back?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I am not a peer.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: If the hon. Member has any prima facie case, any of the peers who are opposed to Lord Salisbury could ask the question in the House of

    1551
    Lords. Does the hon. Member moan to suggest that Lord Herschell, if he believed in such facts as the hon. Member for Northampton asserts that he believes, would not have thought it his duty to have brought them forward and enable Lord Salisbury to give an answer across the floor of the House of Lords? I am going to accept the responsibility for my own acts and state exactly what I have done. If there be anything in that spirit of fair play to which the hon. Member thought tit to refer at the conclusion of his remarks, it should have prompted those who appreciate a sense of justice to have made this charge where the answer could have been directly given by the person particularly affected by it. I hope the House will bear with me, for it may be that I shall have to address it at some length. It is absolutely essential I should deal with all the points raised one by one, and I am sure the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian would rather I should trespass upon the time of the house too much than too little. We are dealing with infamous charges, and I will undertake to demonstrate that they are not true. The House must remember that these infamous charges are levelled against myself, the Treasury Solicitor, and possibly the Chief Commissioner of Police, though he seems for some reason or other to have been exculpated. But what is to me much more important is, it is suggested that members of my own profession, who have practised for years and whose names are well known, have also been mixed up in that foul conspiracy with their knowledge. It is not very easy for me to take this story exactly in the order I should like to take it, because the hon. Member has thought tit to break it up into a number of different cases, and has put before the House what he asserts about each of those cases. Perhaps the better course, therefore, for mo to take will be to follow the order the hon. Member has found it convenient to adopt. If I were to do otherwise, I might possibly overlook some of the hon. Gentleman's statement. But first I wish to make one or two preliminary observations. At a date which does not substantially differ from that given by the hon. Member, and which we may take roughly to be about July 25—I do not say that is absolutely the earliest date, but some time in the
    1552
    middle of July, and certainly before July 25—the case was put in the hands of the Treasury Solicitor. From that time down to the present every step in the proceedings has been taken under my direction, and the hon. Member knows it, and therefore the House will appreciate what the hon. Member means by suggesting that no lawyer was to get up with a brief. That is the spirit of chivalry and fair play which animates the hon. Member. The first three cases are the Veck and Newlove case, the Hammond case, and the Somerset case, and, less important, the Newton case. It is, I must say, strange to my mind that the hon. Member for Northampton should have thought fit to introduce the Newton case into the discussion, seeing it is my unfortunate duty to have to represent the Crown in that prosecution, in which the defendant Newton is to be defended by the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney, I venture to think that knowing that, as he undoubtedly did from his speech, and as I shall show from other sources—
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I did know it.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: It is somewhat strange he should have thought fit to express the opinion he did about that case. I pass from that. When I deal with the matter I shall contradict every statement the hon. Member made; now I want the House to follow me and appreciate what the Veck and Newlove charge is. The charge against Her Majesty's Government is that these cases were intended to be punished by light sentences; that it was arranged between the prosecuting and defending counsel, with the knowledge of the Treasury Solicitor, that the accused should have-those light sentences as the price of silence; and that that corrupt bargain was made with the knowledge of those in authority. I think the House will agree that, if true, more infamous conduct was never charged against persons in authority. I am fortunately able to-speak more than once in this debate, and if, by inadvertence, I omit to deal with any point, I hope I shall be reminded of it. The first information given by the Post Office was on the evening of July 5; that was the same day as that on which Hammond bolted. Certain statements respecting Veck in connection with the-boys were placed before me some time in

    1553
    the month of July. The hon. Member has suggested that I either had instructions from some higher authority or gave instructions that no prosecution should take place.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: No, I did not.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: In connection with the Somerset case the hon. Member said that most distinctly, but I desire to say that whatever case the statement may be intended to apply to there is not the slightest shadow of foundation for the suggestion. My sole wish has been that when the evidence was sufficient to put a man on his trial he should at once be brought before a Court of justice, and there has been no distinction or difference whatever between one person and another. I will state exactly what did happen. Up to the middle of August, the evidence against Veck was not complete. I think the House will agree that anybody who puts forward these charges ought to be practically certain he can prove them, I cannot imagine anything worse than that a man should be put on his trial on such a charge on the mere chance of getting a conviction on some slight evidence. For it is perfectly well known that if these charges are once made, however much a man may clear himself, there are people foolish and wicked enough still to believe there is some truth in them. I do not hesitate to say that the sole consideration operating on my mind was whether there was or was not sufficient corroborative testimony. Up to the middle of August there was not sufficient evidence to put process in force against Veck. I may say, by the way, there was amply sufficient evidence against Newlove and Hammond, and the warrants were issued on the 7th.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I never raised this point. I simply stated as a hard matter of fact that Veck was arrested on the 20th August.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: It is absolutely necessary the whole story should be told, for the hon. Member has said that when these men were put on their trial on the 18th September they were lightly sentenced in consideration of pleading guilty and disclosing no other person's name. The warrant was issued as soon as the evidence in our hands was, in my opinion, sufficient. There was some difficulty in finding Veck, but he was arrested on
    1554
    August 20th, committed for trial on September 11th, and pleaded guilty on the 18th. Now I come to the gravamen of the charge. Every particle of evidence against Veck came under my immediate notice, and I was represented by Mr. Poland, Q.C., and Mr. Avory. I do hope the hon. and learned Member for Hackney will speak in this debate. No? I hope some hon. and learned Member of this House will bear me out in what I am saying with regard to these gentlemen. I want to know by whom this accusation is going to be supported. If any hon. Members opposite, who belong to my profession, speaks in this debate I do hope they will express their opinion of one—I may say both—of those gentlemen who represented the Crown in that prosecution, and say what they think of Mr. Poland, who has lived all his life at the Bar, and is perfectly well-known for his high honour and standing in the profession. The prisoners were defended by Mr. Gill and Mr. C. W. Mathews. The house has heard something about whispers. Perhaps the hon. Member for Northampton, has had something to do with some whispers circulated in connection with this case. Whether he has or not, the knowledge that the hon. Member was going to bring this charge has enabled me to obtain from Mr. Poland and from Mr. Avory a written statement with regard to this particular matter. I do not believe there is a Member of this House who will suggest that what I am about to read, signed by Mr. Poland, is other than the strict and literal truth in the matter. The learned counsel says this:—
    "Mr. Avory, my junior, was informed by Mr. Grill, who defended Newlove, or by Mr. Mathews, who defended Veck, that the prisoners intended to plead guilty, and that the case would be disposed of in the course of the day. I went to the Old Bailey between 3 and 4 o'clock and went into Court shortly before 4, that being the time when pleas of guilty are taken, when convenient. I addressed the Recorder, and Mr. Gill and Mr. Mathews addressed him also. I wish to say that I neither directly nor indirectly made any arrangement with the prisoners' counsel as to what counts the prisoners should plead guilty to, and that there was no undertaking of any kind, either expressed or implied, as to what should be done by me or by the prisoners' counsel."
    That is, I think, sufficiently categorical. I have here also the shorthand note of

    1555
    what Mr. Poland said before the Recorder. If there had been any such arrangement as was suggested by the hon. Member I must have known of it. Does he still insist that there was an arrangement?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I still state, Sir, that there was an understanding beforehand as to the pleas of guilty. I have never stated that it was agreed that the prisoners should plead guilty and get short sentences provided that they did not mention any names. That is not how things are done. One counsel says to the other, "Don't yon think the prisoners had better plead guilty?" and the other replies, "Well, what do you think?" And then the first says, "Well, we will see what we can do," and so on. The Attorney General has appealed to the lawyers on this side. I also will make an appeal to them. Will any lawyer who has practised get up and tell me that arrangements are not frequently made by which it is agreed that if the accused pleads guilty the prosecuting counsel will try and get him a light sentence?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Now, I understood the hon. Member to say that he had it from a credible informant that the arrangement which he described was come to between the prosecuting counsel and the counsel for the prisoners. Will the hon. Member now say who his credible informant is?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: No, Sir, I will not—for the same reason which the Chief Secretary for Ireland so often gives us—he would be a marked man.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I am surprised that the hon. Member, having now heard me state on behalf of the counsel engaged in the case that this wicked and corrupt bargain was not made by them, withholds the name of his credible informant. But I feel as certain as I am of the fact of my standing here that it is impossible for the hon. Member to give the name of any credible person who will come forward and state that this wicked arrangement was made. The next allegation made by the hon. Member was that the case was called on at a late and inconvenient hour when the reporters were not present.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I was informed of that fact by a learned counsel who was present.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: At the Old Bailey pleas are always taken either at 4 o'clock or at the beginning of the day's work. Mr. Poland is of opinion, an opinion which I entirely share, that no good is done by reporting cases of this description, and it is greatly to the credit of the reporters of the Press that they almost invariably refrain from, reporting them. But I have Mr. Poland's assurance in writing that he took no steps to have the Court cleared or to prevent the proceedings from being reported in the newspapers. When he began his speech there happened to be a woman in Court, and the Recorder of his own motion ordered her to leave. Mr. Poland says, "I was specially careful to do nothing in this case out of the usual and ordinary course." Now I come to the hon. Member's charges, based on the allegation that the sentence was light. Veck pleaded guilty to 13 counts of the indictment. There was no evidence of felony in the case at all, and Veck was prosecuted for misdemeanour under the section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Newlove was indicted for assault with intent to commit sodomy, as well as for offences against the Act. He did not plead guilty to the graver charge, and I was satisfied that there was no evidence to go to the jury on the grave charge, and it was on my responsibility, and mine alone, that the count against Newlove for the more serious offence was not pressed. The House must bear in mind that by pleading guilty these prisoners rendered themselves liable to more than two years' imprisonment. Cumulative sentences can be inflicted under the Act and the Recorder could have passed a much higher sentence if he had thought fit to do so. I say distinctly that neither directly nor indirectly was there any communication with the Recorder on behalf of the Government, or, as far as I know, by any living person with reference to the sentence passed upon these men. It is not my business to justify that sentence. It may not have been sufficient; I think myself that it might have been severer; but the question of insufficiency is a matter affecting the Recorder only. Does the hon. Member for Northampton intend to charge a Judge like the Recorder of London with being a party to this criminal conspiracy? Unless the hon. Member admits that the

    1557
    sentence was a sentence passed by the Recorder in the exercise of his discretion, he must contend that the Recorder also was a party to the conspiracy, and for some motive was willing to inflict a lighter sentence than should have been passed. The hon. Member affirms that the real object of the conspiracy which he alleges existed was to hush the matter up. Well, I have answered the hon. Member by meeting every assertion which the hon. Member has made respecting Veck and Newlove.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: There is one point which the hon. and learned Member has not dealt with. I said that I did not know whether it was suggested to the Recorder that he should pass a light sentence, or whether the depositions showing the gross iniquity of Veck and Newlove were not submitted to the learned Judge.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: All the depositions went before the learned Recorder as a matter of course. There is not a shadow of foundation for saying that anything but the ordinary course of justice was pursued in this case. The hon. Member has suggested that the real object of passing these sentences was to hush the matter up, and that these prosecutions would not have taken place but for the action of the Postmaster General. All I can say is that when the statement respecting Veck and Newlove came before me, I, and I alone, exercised my judgment, taking counsel, however, with those whose opinion in criminal matters is of the highest value. I think, Sir, I have proved to the House how unfounded the hon. Member's charges are, and now I come to the allegation respecting Hammond. It is an allegation which I confess has filled me with astonishment. The hon. Member says that Hammond ought to have been watched by the police, and that the Postmaster General, or the Secretary to the Post Office, desired that he should be prosecuted, but that the police and the Treasury Solicitor and others desired that he should escape. As a matter of fact no information of any kind was given to the police until the afternoon of July 5, and Hammond left the country on the morning of that day. I lay no blame upon the Post Office for not taking steps. We know perfectly well that by the Criminal Law we are not entitled to
    1558
    arrest a man without a warrant unless he is caught in the commission of crime.
    MR. MAC NEILL: How about the Statute of Edward III.? [Laughter.]
    SIR R. WEBSTER: This case is far too serious to be made the subject of laughter, and I do not know whether right hon. Gentlemen opposite think I ought to be interrupted in this manner. Hammond left on the morning of the 5th of July; and, notwithstanding the insinuations and statements of the hon. Member, from that moment Hammond was beyond the reach of the law. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that Hammond could have been extradited if the Foreign Office had wished it to be done. He had also suggested that arrangements could have been made whereby Hammond might have been put aboard an English steamer and so arrested. All I can say, and I carefully confine myself to what I know, and the Postmaster General can confirm me, is that every step was taken to bring the arrest about. From the beginning we have been extremely anxious to get hold of Hammond; indeed, ever since the issue of the warrant in July, 1889. As far as I know, no single act was done, directly or indirectly, to prevent Hammond from being brought to justice as quickly as possible. The hon. Member for Northampton has said that a letter came on the 25th of July from Lord Salisbury at the Foreign Office saying that Hammond could not be extradited. Will the hon. Gentleman give his authority for that statement? [Mr. LABOUCIIERE shook his head.] Then, has it come to this, that without any warrant at all such charges can be made across the floor of this House? As a matter of fact, the reply came from one of the Official Secretaries of the Foreign Office, who wrote the letter, it being a matter of regular routine business, and nothing being known about the case except that there was no evidence of any crime on which Hammond could have been extradited. I will not go into the strictly legal aspect of the question, as the authorities did not regard it in that light. They were all extremely anxious to obtain the extradition. The only ground on which it could have been demanded was aggravated or indecent assault; and, unfortunately,

    1559
    in the case of Hammond all the boys consented and were above the protected age. I again distinctly repeat that, with reference to extra-legal extradition, a step was taken to bring Hammond to justice. Hammond fled to Belgium. I understood the hon. Member for Northampton to suggest that it was with the cognisance of the Government.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Oh, no.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I am glad to have that withdrawal. Certainly an expression fell from the hon. Gentleman which made me come to the conclusion that the Government was distinctly charged with getting Hammond away, first to Paris and then to Belgium. If the charge be withdrawn, the House will draw its conclusions with reference to some of the other charges. I took down the hon. Member's words, which were to the effect that the Government could have induced the French Government to expel Hammond to an English ship; and that they hunted the man from France to Belgium, and the Government wanted to send the man away. I would ask the hon. Member, if he is bringing forward his accusation from a sense of justice, and desires to make this indictment because the interests of public justice require it, whether he will tell the House whose authority he had for saying that the Government wished to send Hammond away? There is not one scrap of evidence before me that the Government, directly or indirectly, took any stop to prevent Hammond from being brought to justice. On the contrary, every act is in the other direction. But the hon. Gentleman said that, owing to the action of the police— and supposedly he meant the action of the police under directions—and the action of the Government, a poor, miserable boy was abstracted from his parents and sent away to America. What did the hon. Gentleman mean by suggesting that this was done by the action of the Government? Are such charges to be bandied about on the mere ipse dixit of any hon. Gentleman who chooses to believe any clap-trap he may hear? If there were the slightest warrant for this charge the hon. Gentleman would be amply protected for any statement made in tile House. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to give the name of his informant. As to the circumstances
    1560
    under which Hammond did go to America my own mouth is closed. I should be perfectly willing, and some day I shall be allowed, to state them. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney knows them as well as I do.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I know nothing at all about them.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The hon. and learned Gentleman's memory misleads him. He appeared for Newton on the application to remove the case into the Queen's Bench; and on that occasion all the depositions and statements of Newton were brought up, and Newton's affidavit, in which he stated that he had been a party to getting Hammond to go away on account of the blackmail he was levying on people in England.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I am sorry that my name is being brought into the matter in this way, especially as I intimated to the hon. and learned Gentleman early in the debate that I should take no part in it, for reasons which it is unnecessary to state to the House. I can assure the Attorney General that, although I may have seen some general statements, I had no connection with the case which required me in any way to examine them.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Of course, I accept the statement of the lion, and learned Gentleman, and withdraw my remark. I would say, however, that I am precluded from stating the facts of the case, because it is sub judice, and I have to be the prosecuting counsel against Newton. On the Hammond case I think I have dealt with every fact mentioned by the hon. Gentleman; but if he will repeat any charge that has been overlooked, I will meet it subsequently. Then, as to what must be supposed to be the main charge against Lord Salisbury— the charge that Lord Salisbury connived at Lord Arthur Somerset getting away. This case stands on a different footing. I have had for many months upon my mind the necessity of considering, with the greatest anxiety, whether there was sufficient corroborative evidence against Lord A. Somerset or not. It was not until the 5th or 6th of November that I gave directions, after careful consideration, that the warrant should be issued. It is stated that this was done in consequence of some higher power preventing, for fear of revelations,

    1561
    a proceeding which was right, and amply justified. It is quite true that about the 25th July statements had been made respecting Lord A. Somerset, an attempt at identification was made, and I say so advisedly. But it was not at Knightsbridge, but in Piccadilly. I cannot give further facts, because the case may be further tried. On what grounds can it be suggested that, when Lord A. Somerset may come back and take his trial, the House is to prejudice the case? I should be guilty of a gross breach of duty if I were to suppose the information correct before there has been any cross-examination. The evidence of identification was unsatisfactory. The two witnesses did not agree, and there was some doubt whether they had not by conversation afterwards come to some agreement. The person who conducted the investigation moreover did not know Lord A. Somerset. I will now make a statement of which I am not ashamed, and for which I do not think the House will condemn me. I did not altogether act, upon my own judgment in such a matter. I have permission to say that in the month of August, before Veck was arrested, I consulted the Lord Chancellor. I will not appeal any more to lawyers; but will state that there was no man whose career at the Bar has been more honourable than that of the present Lord Chancellor. There is no man of whom it can be said with less justice that he has ever interfered with the course of justice, and there is no greater criminal lawyer living. After the most careful consideration and examination of the whole case, the Lord Chancellor came distinctly to the conclusion that there was not such corroboration as would justify any man being put upon his trial. The same course exactly was pursued in the case's of Veck and Lord A. Somerset, both cases being submitted to the Lord Chancellor. Subsequently further evidence came up about Veck, and he was placed upon his trial. When Veck was arrested some documents were found upon him, and some of them led the authorities, about the 24th of August, to find out the boy Allies at Sudbury. The boy Allies made a statement which may be said to have given corroboration of the evidence against Lord A. Somerset. But we were in this difficult po-
    1562
    sition. Some communication, which, as far as we could trace, did not come from Lord Arthur Somerset, was made to this boy the night before he was seen and the document was destroyed. The hon. Member suggests that the postal orders coining from Knightsbridge must be presumed to have come from Lord Arthur Somerset; but we were not able to identify them as having come from Lord Arthur Somerset. This was about the middle of September, and during the trial of Newlove. All the statements were presented to me; and knowing that I had previously had the benefit of the advice of the Lord Chancellor, I took upon myself the responsibility of sending the whole of the statements and of asking his advice. I thought that the matter was so serious that I took a step of which I am not ashamed. I asked Mr. Poland, who had been in the case of Newlove and Veck, to write a letter to the Lord Chancellor stating what his views were on the evidence. I did not see that letter until after it had been sent, nor had I any part in the preparation of it. It was a letter covering more than a sheet of foolscap, containing a most careful analysis of the evidence, and examining the considerations which bore on the duty of prosecuting or not. I received a communication by telegraph, and subsequently a letter from the Lord Chancellor, saying that, having gone carefully through the matter, he was of opinion that the corroborative evidence was wholly insufficient. These are facts which can be tested by any hon. Member, and can anyone suggest that such conduct could have been pursued by men in league with a criminal conspiracy? Can anyone suggest that I, not acting upon my own opinion and taking the opinion of wiser men than myself, ought to be ashamed of having taken the course which I did? If it had been a criminal conspiracy should I have taken Mr. Poland into my confidence and have asked him to write independently a letter to the Lord Chancellor? I am aware that acts of mine have been severely criticised in this House; but I did not think that any opponent of mine opposite was so hostile as to believe that I was being party to a criminal conspiracy, or had any lot or part in such matter. Now, Mr. Courtney, so the matter rested until the end of September; and now I

    1563
    come to the extraordinary allegations made by the hon. Member respecting Lord Salisbury in October. The hon. Member stated categorically that the Law Officers did not advise a prosecution. If by that the hon. Gentleman means that I, as Attorney General, did not direct a prosecution, he is perfectly right; but if the hon. Gentleman means that I corruptly and improperly declined to order a prosecution because of an arrangement that Lord Arthur Somerset should not be brought to justice, then I have to say that it is absolutely wrong, and there is no shadow of foundation for the statement. Then the hon. Gentleman put this extraordinary question to me—
    "I wish to ask whether the questions that were put to the witnesses at the Treasury were arranged by the Attorney General?"
    What is the insinuation contained in that? The hon. Member asserts that those questions were not intended to elicit tire real facts; the insinuation is that in the case of certain persons giving information to the Treasury I, as Attorney General, suggested that certain questions should be put to them, and certain others not be put to them in order not to elicit the facts. There is not a shadow of foundation for the statement.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I was speaking of the questions in the Court of the police magistrate.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The questions asked before the police magistrate only relate to Veck and Newlove. Does the hon. Member suggest that, on the case against Newlove, and I being of opinion that there was no sufficient ground for criminating other persons, questions ought to have been asked by means of a side-wind, so to speak, in order to elicit a charge against other persons? It would have been most discreditable conduct on the part of the person charged with the prosecution of Newlove and Veck to have put questions so as to bring out evidence against Lord Arthur Somerset or any other person. Questions were put by Mr. Avory in order to establish the guilt of Veck and Newlove; but I understand the hon. Gentleman to make a much more serious allegation, that the Attorney General arranged the questions which were to be put either by Mr. Avory or by the Treasury solicitor. Not one word ever passed between me and
    1564
    Mr. Avory and the Treasury solicitor as to the questions to be put. The statements were taken and examined in the ordinary way. Then the hon. Member said that Hanks went down to Badminton and received directions to withdraw. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House his authority for that? As far as I know, there is not the slightest foundation for the statement; because I myself gave personally directions to the Chief Commissioner of Police, among others, that an inquiry should be prosecuted, in order to bring all the parties who were really implicated to justice. I, therefore, ask again who was the person who informed the hon. Member that Hanks was directed to withdraw? Now, I come to the very grave charge which the hon. Member makes respecting the supposed communication between Lord Salisbury and Sir Dighton Probyn, and the allegations founded thereon. Now, the hon. Member was very careful, for I watched him most closely, in making this charge. Does the hon. Member suggest that Sir Dighton Probyn has given him a version of the conversation? From whom did the hon. Member get that statement? Was it the gossip of the clubs?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Gentleman asks me a question, and I will offer him this. I will write down the name of the person from whom I received it, and then I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman to read it out to the House or not.
    MR. MAC NEILL: Accept the challenge.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The hon. Member may or may not write the name down; but my question is "Yes" or "No;" did the hon. Gentleman get the statement from Sir Dighton Probyn? There are two parties to this interview. I have been able to communicate directly with one of them; but I have not been able to communicate with the other. But I am able to state exactly what did happen at the supposed interview. The statement is this: that, at a place not named, Sir Dighton Probyn, having telegraphed to see the Prime Minister, had a conversation with him, the exact purport of which is not stated. But at that interview Sir Dighton Probyn was told by the Prime Minister that he would issue the warrant "to-morrow or imme-

    1565
    diately," and that that communication was intended to be delivered by Sir Dighton Probyn to Lord Arthur Somerset. Mr. Courtney, the best answer to that is to give the simple statement of Lord Salisbury, which cannot be made otherwise than through me, in consequence of the course which the hon. Member has thought lit to pursue. The statement was very simple and straightforward, and I think the House will be able to judge whether, after a fair recital of the words, the story is likely to be true. Sir Dighton Probyn did see Lord Salisbury on a date, which I cannot fix, but it was the date upon which Lord Author Somerset fled from London. It was the evening of the day on which Lord Arthur Somerset disappeared. Sir Dighton Probyn saw Lord Salisbury, and asked him whether there was any truth in the imputations made in certain newspapers against certain parsons whom he named. Lord Salisbury said that, as far as he knew, there was not a vestige of evidence against any of those persons except one, and in his case the evidence of identity was not he believed, in the judgment of the Law Advisers of the Crown, sufficient. Whether Lord Salisbury said that or not, hon. Members can, of course, form their own opinion; but it is much more probable that Lord Salisbury would have said something which was in accordance with truth than that which was contrary to the fact. The statement made by the hon. Member is that some person told him that Lord Salisbury said the warrant would be issued "to morrow or immediately." As a matter of fact, I can state, from my own personal knowledge, that it was not determined to issue the warrant, and my directions were not given until the 7th or 8th of November. I cannot fix the exact date, because I cannot remember how long it took to prepare the depositions. But now I am glad to be able—for I believe the House want to know the facts—to negative the other statement, though I have not been able to check the statement as to the supposed conversation. I cannot imagine a more simple and straightforward story than that which I am enabled to make. Sir Dighton Probyn came back from the interview with Lord Salisbury; he never saw Lord Arthur Somerset again, and he never, directly or indirectly, com-
    1566
    municated with him through any person. Nobody was more surprised than Sir Dighton Probyn that Lord Arthur Somerset had gone, for up to that moment he believed emphatically in the innocence of Lord Arthur Somerset. I assert that there is no foundation whatever for the statement that Lord Salisbury stated that a warrant was going to be issued "tomorrow or immediately."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Does he deny it?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The hon. Member says "does he deny it?" Never until to-night has he stated what the words were. But I ask whether it is possible to reconcile the alleged story with the statement I have read in Lord Salisbury's own words?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Then he does, not deny it?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I would not notice such an unjust observation and, criticism upon the simple story I have told of this matter. The hon. Member knows that Lord Salisbury has denied it in the most straightforward manner by stating what actually did take place. If this kind of argument is to be used, why has not the hon. Member in common fairness allowed the question to be put across the floor of the House of Lords "Did that conversation take place?"
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I will tell the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have not got Lords in my pocket.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: No; the hon. Member has not got Lords in his pocket to do such dirty work as that. The hon. Member might have put a question to the First Lord of the Treasury. Over and over again questions have been asked in this House as to whether Lord Salisbury has made such and such a statement. The hon. Member comes down to the House and makes an allegation without taking the slightest means of verifying it.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: How do you know that?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Because if he had a scrap of evidence lie would be only too glad to produce it. Mr. Courtney, the statement is so absurd that—
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not want to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he said he would take this piece of paper from me with the name on it. I will

    1567
    leave him to read it out to the House or not, as he likes. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take it. [Here the hon. Member held out a small piece of paper]
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I insist upon putting the question which I am entitled to put. Does the hon. Gentleman say he got the statement from Sir Dighton Probyn? Will he answer that question or not?
    MR. LABOUOHERE: Look at the paper.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I am entitled to continue my speech. Nobody is entitled to make such a charge as this on hearsay evidence.
    MR. LABOUOHERE: It is not hearsay evidence.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: This I assert, that Lord Salisbury does distinctly deny that he ever said one single word about a warrant being issued, or directly or indirectly, conveyed anything of the kind. In this particular matter, I have only one more fact to discuss. The matter was most carefully considered, and I again saw the Lord Chancellor, and, not being convinced altogether, the Lord Chancellor told mo I should act in the matter on my own responsibility.
    SIR H. DAVEY: Which matter?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The matter I am dealing with—that of Lord Arthur Somerset. That was about the 1st or 2nd of November. I then gave directions that the warrant should be issued. I have been occupied with this matter for a long time, and I say that a more infamous charge than that made by the hon. Member was never brought, without a shadow of foundation. I hope and believe there are many on the other side of the House, who, however bitter their Party feeling, will not by their vote support such an accusation as that which has been levelled by the hon. Member for Northampton. The hon. Member has said that when Lord A. Somerset went to Constantinople he applied to the Sultan for an appointment. I know absolutely nothing about it. I do not suppose the hon. Member can know anything except some newspaper rumour that has come home, but in any event, it has nothing to do with the case, and was only introduced, I suppose, as a matter of prejudice. The last charge
    1568
    made is that Newton was made a scapegoat. I am not sure that I am justified in saying what I am about to say; but I suppose I must do so in consequence of the suggestion that has been made. The suggestion of prosecuting Newton was started as early as September or October, when we had reason to believe that he was doing that which was subsequently stated on oath. So far from making the man a scapegoat, I considered whether the evidence was sufficient, and I came to the conclusion that it was not sufficient to sustain the charge. I may be right or wrong, but nobody in my position can approach such questions otherwise than with a great feeling of responsibility; and I have been actuated throughout the whole affair by the determination, from which I never swerved, that, be he high or low, if there was evidence, the man should be prosecuted; but that I would not subject a man to these horrible accusations on the whispers which come from clubs or the paragraphs which are inserted in newspapers. I believe I have now referred to all the allegations made by the hon. Member. I thought the hon. Member would have given some authority for the statement that the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been that distinguished persons are allowed to go about committing these crimes with impunity, but that poor persons are hauled up. If there were any justification for such an, allegation, why, in the name of every instinct of fair-play, did not the hon. Member give us the time at which he says some Minister has directly or indirectly controlled the action of the Criminal Law? It is a mistake to suppose that the Director of Public Prosecutions acts under the direction of the Home Secretary. The rule is that the action of the Public Prosecutor should in all matters, including the instruction of counsel, be subject to the Attorney General, and during the time I have had the honour of holding my present office I have had, practically speaking, in all such cases the evidence before me. If there were any attempt to prevent justice being done it must have been known to me; and I repeat that there is not a shadow of foundation for the charge which the hon. Member has thought fit to bring. This is not an occasion on which, if I were capable of doing so, I should indulge in elo-

    1569
    quent denunciation of the hon. Member's conduct. I leave it to those who have heard the hon. Member's accusation and to those who have heard my statement and know his reputation to judge on which side truth lies. I can well understand that hon. Members, who, I am aware, regard my conduct in other respects in an unfriendly manner, have thought fit to suggest that my statement is unworthy of credit. [Home Rule Cheers.] I am quite willing to submit that to the judgment of the House. This I will say: examination was conducted step by step into the conduct of the persons in this matter; and though it may be easy to say that in the possible knowledge of guilt other steps might have been taken, yet in regard to the accusation made against Lord Salisbury and those connected with him that they have interfered with the course of justice, there is not the slightest foundation in any way for the allegations which the hon. Member has put forward.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I will deal first with Lord Salisbury. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that Lord Salisbury did not say anything about a warrant, because he told him he said something about something else.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Will the hon. Member pardon me? I stated distinctly that Lord Salisbury denied the allegation about the warrant. I had not his words at that moment before me. They are distinct. Lord Salisbury says:—"I said nothing whatever about the date of the issue of the warrant."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I was not certain as to the exact word—whether it was "soon" or "next day." The hon. Gentleman thought he had proved his case by asking, from whom did you get this information? What did I offer? I offered to write down the name of the gentleman, and to submit it to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and if he, having seen the name, liked to read it to the House he was at full liberty to do so. [Ministerial cries of "Read it yourself."] I leave it to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman at first appeared to accept the proposal, but he thought better of it afterwards. I can perfectly well understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman did not accept the proposal. I am obliged to speak frankly and truly in this matter. I
    1570
    assert, if I am obliged to do it, that I do not believe Lord Salisbury.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is aware that there is a certain courtesy due from Members of this House to the Members of the other House. It would be intolerable for an hon. Member to use that language of a Member of this House, and he cannot be permitted to use it of a Member of the other House.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, I repeat it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must call on the hon. Member to withdraw the expression.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I decline, Sir, to withdraw. [Cries of"Name."]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I shall have to exercise the authority vested in me if the hon. Member declines to obey my ruling. Does the hon. Member withdraw?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: No, Sir.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: As a matter of order, Sir, I wish to ask whether there is any precedent for a Member of this House being called upon to withdraw a statement he had made with regard to a Member of the other House; and if there be any precedent—in the case of an hon. Member of this House refusing to withdraw such a statement—for the Presiding Officer resorting to the pains and penalties which he is authorised to enforce. I will call your attention to the fact that on one occasion a statement was made by the Marquess of Salisbury, after the departure and suicide of Pigott, that certain letters, which are now acknowledged to be forgeries, attributed to the hon. Member for Cork, were really not forgeries. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland happened to make some allusion which enabled me to say something with regard to both him and the Marquess of Salisbury. You, Sir, called upon me to withdraw the observation, which was practically similar, as to the Chief Secretary, because he was a Member of this House. I repeated the observation with, regard to the Marquess of Salisbury, and you did not call upon me to withdraw.
    THE CHAIRMAN: There is nothing in the objection of the hon. Member. I again ask the hon. Member for Northampton whether he is about to obey the direction I have given him to withdraw?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: With all due respect to you, Sir, I must decline to withdraw.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Then I name you, Mr. Henry Labouchcre.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: It is my duty to move that Mr. Henry Labouchere be suspended from the service of the House.
    MR. HENEY LABOUCHERE,Member for Northampton, having been named by the Chairman as disregarding the authority of the Chair:—
    (7.50.) Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Henry Labouchere be suspended from the service of the House:"—The Committee divided:—Ayes 177; Noes 96.—(Div. List, No. 15.)
    Whereupon Mr. Chairman left the Chair in order to report the said Resolution to the House.
    MR. SPEAKERresumed the Chair, and Mr. COUBTNEY reported that Mr. Henry Labouchere had been named by him to the Committee as disregarding the authority of the Chair, and that the Committee had resolved that Mr. Henry Labouchere be suspended from the service of the House.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I rise to order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is possible to obtain your ruling now with reference to a certain ruling of the Chairman from the Chair, in consequence of which ruling the Motion now reported to you was carried?
    MR. SPEAKER: That is not in order now.
    Question put, "That Mr. Henry Labouchere be suspended from the service of this House."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that a division has not been challenged, you having declared that "the Noes have it."
    MR. SPEAKER: A division was challenged, and I ordered strangers to withdraw.
    (8.0.) The House divided:—Ayes 178; Noes 97.—(Div. List, No. 16.)
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman will withdraw.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg, Sir, to withdraw, expressing at the same time my regret that my conscience would not allow me to say I believed Lord Salisbury.
    The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.
    SUPPLY again considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Question again proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,725,003, be granted for the said Serviees."
    MR. E.ROBERTSON: I am sure you will not misunderstand me, Mr. Courtney, when I say I feel bound at once to rise in consequence of what has happened, and to move to report Progress. I understand I am at liberty to speak only to the matter of such Motion, and if I inadvertently do more I shall be glad to be called to order. I make this Motion specifically on the ground that there has been an infringement of the liberty of debate. An ancient privilege of this House, liberty of debate, has been infringed, when an hon. Member of this House has been expelled for declaring that he did not believe the word of an individual who happened to be a Member of the other House of Parliament. The word so challenged by my hon. Friend was not uttered in that House; was not uttered in his character of a Member of that House; was not uttered even in his character of an official of this country; but it was communicated to this House by a Member of the Government as a statement made by a private person, and it was communicated to him and communicated to the House in a matter affecting his official conduct. I understand that the rule of courtesy and comity which prevails between the two Houses extends to individual Members of either House in their capacity as such Members. But I do not understand that the Rules of this House require us to observe the rule of courtesy where the action concerned is the action of a private Member of the other House, not as a Member of that House, but as a private individual. Incidentally and collaterally to that, I beg the Committee to observe that at this moment, in consequence of what has taken place, we are deprived of our leader in this debate, and to allow the

    1573
    debate to go on under these circumstances would manifestly be futile. Our liberties have been invaded by your ruling, Mr. Courtney. On that general ground, Sir, which I allege with the most perfect respect for yourself in your capacity as Chairman of Committee, and also on the particular ground that the continuance of this debate has become an impossibility, I beg now to move that you do report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. E. Robertson.)
    THE CHAIRMAN: I did not interrupt the hon. Member in his speech; but I must point out that to discuss my ruling on the Motion to report Progress is irregular. If the hon. Member wishes to challenge or arraign my ruling the proper way to do so is by Motion with the Speaker in the Chair. The second contention of the hon. Gentleman is, of course, perfectly relevant to the Motion.
    (8.15.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 97; Noes 168.—(Div. List, No. 17.)
    Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,725,003, be granted for the said Services."
    MR. J. MORLEY: Mr. Courtney, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, who made the Motion upon which we have just divided, gave two reasons for that Motion. You then, Sir, from the Chair told us that, so far as one of those reasons was concerned—namely, that on the questioning of your ruling—the proper course was to arraign that ruling when the Speaker was in the Chair to take a division in a, full House upon that subject. I understand, Mr. Courtney, that it is the intention of some of my hon. Friends behind me to raise the question of your ruling, and on the proper occasion I shall support them. So far as the second ground is concerned, I think it is felt that the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton is a good reason why we should not continue a debate in which he has not completed his answer. I therefore would suggest to my hon. Friends that we should now leave the hon. Member for Northampton's proposal, and resume the discussion on some occasion
    1574
    when he shall be present, and that we should proceed with the other business before the Committee. So far as the debate has gone, it seems to me that my hon. Friend has done a good service in raising a subject around which a great cloud of rumour and mystery has gathered; and I think I am bound to say that the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General, although there were in it some gaps which may, on some future occasion, be criticised—I think the effect of that speech will, undoubtedly, be to dissipate most of those rumours. I do not know what happens to the Motion of my hon. Friend; but, at all events, I think the Committee will be well advised if this particular discussion is allowed for the present to drop, to be resumed at some time when the Mover is present.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman has only done what we should have expected from him when he said the speech of the Attorney General had dispelled those mists that had gathered round this painful question; but I must remind him and the Committee that it will be impossible for us to allow the question to drop without a division on the proposal which the hon. Member for Northampton has raised. The Government cannot allow a charge of this kind to hang round the Prime Minister for an indefinite period, until the hon. Member for Northampton is able to return to his place. The Motion is in charge of the Committee, and must be disposed of by the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman is so ill-advised as to return to the charge at a future period he may do so; but we must challenge a decision from the Committee now that we have had the charges, and that which we claim, to be a complete and absolute refutation from the Attorney General of one of the most odious charges that could, by any possibility, be brought against a Minister of the Crown.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: Without making any admission whatever as to the effect of the speech of the Attorney General, I refuse to accept the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman to take a division now. A division now, without further debate, would be a mere farce, and can have no effect whatever on the character of Lord Salisbury,

    1575
    or as indicating the feeling of the House in regard to his action. We have not the materials for a decision; many matters have been left unexplained. If a division is forced, I shall take no part in it.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: The Debate upon which we are now engaged, if ended by a division under present circumstances, will compel an expression of opinion inside and outside the House which I think would be much to be regretted. A statement has been made by the Attorney General contradicting several allegations made by my hon. Colleague, one of them especially dependent on a matter of fact upon which a Member of the other House has also made a statement. I take it, Sir, that in accordance with your ruling it is not possible, within the bounds of Parliamentary usage, for one Member of this House to express his disbelief of a statement made by another Member of this House. Your ruling must go to that extent, otherwise it would seek to enforce stricter rules as applied to language used as against Members of the other House than as to language used in relation to Members of this House. I did not understand my Colleague to use the kind of language which I have over and over again heard checked as disorderly in this House, and as implying wilful misstatement to the person against whom such language was directed; I understood it to be his expression of his belief in the matter. And there is this difficulty: that if two statements are made, one by a Member of this House, and one by a Member of the other House, which conflict, and upon which this Committee is asked to express its judgment—presumably my Colleague would have gone on to give the reasons for his disbelief.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member; but he is now entering upon a matter which is not pertinent to the Vote before the Committee.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I will not press that line of observations, which seems to be out of order. I only intended to show how extremely unsatisfactory any Division must be, when, to my mind, and possibly to the minds of many others, the debate or issue before us has been abridged at a point where proof or disproof of denial might have been given.
    1576
    I can only say that I shall be driven to vote for a reduction of the Vote if the Division is forced upon the Committee now, because my Colleague, in the middle of his statement, was prevented from concluding it. I am bound to say that, clear as was the statement of the Attorney General on some points, there was one point upon which it was consider-lacking in clearness. A charge made by my hon. Colleague was that at a particular time in November Lord Arthur Somerset learned from somebody—I do not know from whom—that proceedings were likely to be taken criminally against him, and thereupon he fled to escape these proceedings. I gather from the statement of the Attorneys General that early in July a case, full of suspicion at any rate, against Lord Arthur Somerset was then submitted to him. I gather from the statement of the Attorney General that on three occasions he consulted the Lord Chancellor on the subject, a course he will agree with me in saying which is not usual in criminal matters—a course which it may be presumed was pursued because of the very high position of one of the persons implicated.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I distinctly stated that I also consulted the Lord Chancellor in reference to others. I made no distinction whatever in respect to persons.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: But I gather from the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that at that time evidence implicating Veck was before him, and that there were statements which—whether or not they were sufficient as evidence—did cast suspicion on other persons. I think that appears to be on this agreement, and perhaps the only common ground at the beginning between my Colleague and the Attorney General. Afterwards further evidence came in, upon which the Attorney General again consulted the Lord Chancellor; and yet further evidence, upon which he for the third time consulted the Lord Chancellor. The date of the resignation of his commission by Lord Arthur Somerset, and the acceptance of that resignation between October 18 and the date of the issue of the warrant, is certainly a most important matter, especially as in the more complete statement from the noble Marquess read to the House, to which I listened very atten-

    1577
    tively, it was stated that he said nothing whatever as to the date of the issue of the warrant. That is perfectly consistent with my Colleague's statement that something was said about the issue of the warrant. Ambiguous language has been used, and I am not expressing an opinion on matters of fact that are not within my own knowledge. I should be loth to uphold the contention of my Colleague against the denial of the noble Marquess except upon the statement of the Attorney-General himself who read to the Committee a statement as coming from Lord Salisbury, from which it appears that the noble Marquess had an interview with Sir Dighton Probyn on this matter, and which does not positively deny that anything was said about a warrant. The words read from the paper returned to the first Lord of the Treasury, and which I presume was some communication from Lord Salisbury himself, the words were that the noble Marquess said nothing whatever about the date of the issue of the warrant. I submit to the Committee, although to me a discussion of this kind is painful, from inception to end, I submit to the Committee that however my Colleague may have been held to have broken the rules of Parliamentary debate, at any rate there is more in the allegation made by my hon. Colleague, and the arguments he used than may have seemed to many Members opposite. I should be unworthy of association with my Colleague in the representation of the borough for which we sit, if, though I have no knowledge of the actual facts, I did not take the opportunity of putting this before the Committee.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I greatly regret that the leader of the House does not see his way to accept the hint of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. It must be allowed that the Front Opposition Bench has up to now given the Government much assistance in the conduct of business, and now the first time the Government are asked to make some little allowance for circumstances in the interest of fair discussion, the right hon. Gentleman puts down his foot and positively declares he will have a Vote. The Committee is perfectly familiar with the practice of postponing contested Votes and taking
    1578
    other Votes, and in another week or fortnight we can resume this discussion in cooler, calmer minds, and decide the matter on its merits. I will not go so far as to say I am the most impartial man in the House, but I do say I have given proof of my impartiality in reference to the matter before the Committee to-night. For this reason I missed the first Division on the Suspension, because I thought it was a Division on a question in which I did not wish to interfere in any way. Being very impartial in that respect, still I think it is only fair that the hon. Member for Northampton should be allowed to return to his seat before the discussion is proceeded with and a decision arrived at. I, myself, heard the Attorney General distinctly challenge the hon. Member for Northampton to get up and indicate any point in which his reply was not complete, and but for that challenge I hardly think the hon. Member for Northampton would have got up again. In the course of his speech the hon. Member strayed into some expressions which did not find favour at your hands, Mr. Courtney, but I no more dreamed that the right hon. Gentleman would have moved the suspension of the hon. Member for Northampton, than that he would move the suspension of the First Lord of the Treasury. I think, Sir, under the circumstances we cannot now come to any fair determination. I do not pretend to have any knowledge of the main question, but if the question is put while the hon. Member for Northampton is absent, I must vote in what I suppose will be the minority, though if the hon. Member is here again I shall probably do as I intended to do when I absented myself from the first Division. To give the First Lord every opportunity to recede from the position he has taken, and accept the moderate proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, I beg to move that you now leave the chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Colonel Nolan.)
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Of course, Sir, it is impossible for us to accept the Motion just made. The hon. and gallant Gentleman professes an impartial mind on the subject we have been discussing,

    1579
    and I am sure I should be glad to listen to expressions of impartial opinion. He expressed some surprise that I should have found it necessary to move the suspension of the hon. Member for Northampton. In making the motion for the suspension of the hon. Member, I was simply acting in a Ministerial capacity. You, Sir, in the exercise of the authority which rests with you in the Chair, had named the hon. Member, and I had no discretion in the matter, but to give expression to your ruling, and to make the Motion which I placed before the House. The most grave charges are made which could be made against any public man—[A Voice: "Murder"]—well, I am not sure that this is not worse than murder, which might possibly be committed under provocation; but we are charged with deliberately hindering the course of justice. The hon. Member for Northampton had laid his case before the House, and he had abundant opportunity of making a reply to the speech in which that statement was answered; but he was called to order, and refused to obey your ruling. I may say, parenthetically, that no hon. Member should consider himself as subjected to any inconvenience, or that there is anything personally derogatory to himself in obeying the ruling of the Chair. It was the refusal to obey your ruling, Sir, that led to your reprimand of the hon. Member. We cannot permit ourselves or our Colleagues to remain under this charge or to leave it hanging round our necks for an absolutely unlimited period, and we must ask the Committee to decide whether they believe these statements to be true or false. That is the issue. Deeply as I regret that the hon. Member for Northampton has excluded himself from the House, I say it is only a matter of common fairness between gentlemen and Members of this House that this discussion shall be concluded this evening, and that the Committee shall say whether they believe Her Majesty's servants to be guilty of this great enormity, this frightful crime charged against them, or whether they do not.
    (9.20.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I had no intention of taking part in the
    1580
    debate initiated by my hon. Friend the senior Member for Northampton, but I am forced to do so by the fact that we have not now the benefit of the assistance of the hon. Member who is most intimately acquainted with the facts. I must congratulate the Attorney General on the success of his tactics, for in the most provoking manner he invited my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton to give his opinion with regard to a certain statement by the Marquess of Salisbury, and in that way provoked my hon. Friend into an assertion as to his credence or want of credence regarding that statesman's utterance. He has thus gained the marvellous advantage of securing that his speech shall not be replied to. There is not a single one of us who would not have assented to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, which offered the Government a means of escape from the unfortunate position in which they are placed by the absence of the hon. Member for Northampton. But such is their gratitude for this kind and generous offer, that the First Lord of the Treasury challenged us to keep on the discussion, although one of the parties most concerned in it is present. We are, therefore, compelled to go on to state our views regarding the statements which have been made. Now, what is our position? The Member for Northampton has made a statement, and the Attorney General has also made a statement. These two hon. Members are the sole depositories of the facts, and yet the First Lord of the Treasury thinks it fair to call upon us to give a vote aye or no, when only one of the disputants present, and he a Member of the political party opposite. I do not wish to embitter this controversy by any allusions that may be disagreeable to the Attorney General, but I think he must allow me to say that we have had previous experience of the learned Gentleman with regard to the question of foul and calumnious and odious charges, and he cannot be surprised if we adopt an attitude of reserve and scepticism with respect to the statements he has made. I think I have put that as gently and as courteously as any man could do. I feel inclined to be rather gentle with the hon. and learned Member, because I see his experience has not altogether been

    1581
    lost on him, for there was nothing more edifying in his singularly lofty address—lofty I mean in manner, and gesture, and acclamation—the horror he expressed for charges which were lightly made. There is unalloyed joy on these Benches at the somewhat tardy repentance of the hon. Gentleman. Now we are asked to give a vote in the absence of the hon. Member who initiated the discussion, and we are asked to give a vote on the uncontradicted speech of the Attorney General relating to a long Series of facts which I, for one, found it vary difficult to follow. We think that the Government should postpone this discussion until my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton is in his place. But the Attorney General and the First Lord of the Treasury object to postpone the discussion of these grave and odious charges for so long a period. Again I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Attorney General on his newly awakened faith in the desirability of prompt means being given to answer such charges. But let me point out that we do not ask that the discussion be postponed for an indefinite period. My hon. Friend will be in his place in a week's time. My hon. Friend has not lightly taken up this question; he has done so because he considers it his duty as a public man, and I tell the Attorney General he will hear more of this question from my hon. Friend. If the Government insist on our going to a Division, I will be no party to it, because such a Division would be taken under circumstances of disadvantage to the cause of the hon. Member for Northampton. I have said that this case travels over a large number of complicated events on various dates, and the hon. and learned Member cannot expect us to be able to decide immediately after hearing his speech—which is the speech of a trained lawyer and advocate, part of whose professional duty is—and I do not say this in any bad sense—to mystify those whom he addresses with regard to awkward facts. I am quite prepared, although at a disadvantage, to dissect some of the statements that have been made by the Attorney General, and I must say the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) put it very fairly when he stated that there are gaps in the statement of the hon. and
    1582
    learned Gentleman. Now, what is the first gap?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Motion before the Chair. It is simply that I do leave the Chair. The hon. Member is travelling very wide of that question.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I did not happen to be in the House when this question was first raised, and therefore I may be excused for having somewhat diverged from the proposal before the Committee. My attention having now been called to it, I shall not be guilty of so flagrant a breach of order as to attempt to enter upon the general question. I am sure I express the feelings of my hon. Friends on this side of the House when I say that we should not go to a Division, under existing circumstances, if we did not feel justified in so doing. We accept the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, and I would urge upon the Government the desirability of affording an opportunity for continuing this discussion when the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) is in the House. If, however, the Government are desirous of snatching a verdict under the circumstances, let them do so, but they will have to face the verdict that will be given outside this House. It will be for the country to judge of the action of Her Majesty's Government in forcing this question to a premature Vote when the House has before it only an imperfect statement of the real facts. I would therefore urge upon the House not only in its own interests, but in the interests of fair-play, and in the general interests of the public as well as of those who are suffering under most unjust imputations with regard to the offences that have been brought before the House, to postpone this Vote until my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) can be again in his place, and we shall have a fair opportunity of full and free discussion.
    DR. TANNER: I have not had the opportunity of hearing this matter discussed; but I must say that I felt very much astonished to hear that an English Member trying to do his duty in this House had been absolutely sat upon in a way with which the hon. and learned Gentleman

    1583
    the Attorney General is so familiar. Practically speaking, the hon. Member was led into a trap, with the result that he has been suspended from the service of this House. Of course, it is not for me at this moment to enter into detailed comment on the subject of the hon. Member's suspension, but, at the same time, it is a very serious matter; and having noticed the aspect of the Attorney General since I came into the House, I can understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman is sorry for what has happened. The question that has been under discussion is not a very pleasant one for Members of this House to discuss; but when the senior Member for Northampton has taken the question up and endeavoured to prove the case he has submitted, the dirt and filth lie with hon. Members on the opposite side of the House who refuse to take action on the subject. There ought to be no dilly-dallying with this sort of business.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I would point out to the hon. Member that the Question before the Committee is that I leave the Chair.
    DR. TANNER: Certainly, Sir. [Laughter.] Hon. Members should bear in mind that this is no laughing matter. Mr. Courtney, I always bow to your ruling, and accept it in a most thorough manner; but I repeat that this is no laughing matter, especially to Members of the Government who sit there and are absolutely dumb. They have listened to the remarks which fell from my hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and they will give him no answer. What are Her Majesty's Government paid for except to answer? Why does not some right hon. Gentleman get up and reply? Why is there any hesitation on the part of the Government? The suspension of one of the senior and most intelligent Members of this House—a gentleman who never gets up to speak without being attentively listened to by the most intelligent portion of the House—is a very serious matter. Of course, I do not allude to the "deadheads," and I repeat that we ought to have a reply from some spokesman of the Government, if, indeed, they have anything to say on the subject. Their conduct is really stupid. [Cries of"Order"] If that remark is not Parliamentary I withdraw
    1584
    it. But I certainly think it is stupid on the part of the salaried Officers of the Crown to succeed in suspending an hon. Member of this House, and when their conduct has been challenged from this side refuse to give an answer. Now, Mr. Courtney, I do not desire to continue this debate. I only got up for the simple purpose of trying, if possible, to spur on, to egg on, to compulse, to coerce, and to exercise some pressure on the Attorney General, who seems content to sit dumb under the charge which has been brought against the Government from this side of the House. It is disgusting.
    (9.40.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 80; Noes 163.—(Div. List, No. 18.)
    Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,725,003, be granted for the said Services."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: In view of the vote just given by the majority of the House, we are compelled, in the absence of my hon. Friend, to go on discussing this case. The general effect of the Attorney General's speech has been, in my opinion, which perhaps may be considered due to partisanship, that, while it has corrected some statements, and thrown doubt on others, to convince us of the general truth of the case. [Ministerial laughter]I have no doubt that what the Attorney General said has carried conviction to hon. Gentlemen opposite. But what the hon. and learned Gentleman said with regard to the Pigott forgeries had exactly the same effect upon them. As the hon. Member who has brought forward the question is absent, all that can be done is to dissect the case of the Government as presented by themselves. The statement of the Attorney General has been charitably described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle as having certain gaps; it is more accurate to say that it was all gaps. The great fact left unexplained is that a house admittedly used for vile purposes was for months under the supervision of the police, and the net result, even after the action of the Attorney General, the Lord Chancellor, and the Prime Minister, is that two of the most obscure criminals have been imprisoned for ludicrously short terms. The common sense of the country

    1585
    will not regard the sophistries of the Attorney General as any explanation of this fact. Again, why is it necessary to call into the discussion of the case the Attorney General, the Lord Chancellor, and the Prime Minister? These crimes are, unfortunately, of not uncommon occurrence; and any frequenter of an Assize Court must have seen many poor and wretched agricultural labourers brought up on such charges.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: No, no.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I congratulate the hon. Member on his ignorance; it is an ignorance which I do not at all find fault with. But the hon. Gentleman is wrong in his statement. It is a fact well-known to those who attend Assizes, that labourers and poor people are frequently brought up charged with these offences. [Colonel KENYON-SLANEY: No, no.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt me, of course he can do so.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member, but I object to the character which he gives the agricultural labourer. I do not think it fair because of this particular controversy to brand the whole class of agricultural labourers, who, at all events in my particular county, do not bear that character.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I must say that I do not see the relevancy of the interruption. I do not brand the whole peasantry of the country because certain of them are sometimes charged with these odious offences, any more than I brand the whole nobility because one member of it flies from justice. I cannot really give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose remarks are irrelevant and do not enlighten the House with regard to any statement I have made. What I want to ask the Attorney General is this: When a humble person is charged with such an offence, does the Attorney General consult the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister? There is no answer to the fact that the titled position of suspected persons induced consultation with Ministers of the Crown who would not otherwise have been consulted. Is that equality before the law? Is the prosecution of a crime like this, because a man happens to bear a title, to be made a Cabinet question? That is a point upon which the public mind will eagerly
    1586
    ask for information. I have asked a question of the Attorney General, and he has not answered me. His attention was called to the fact that he consulted the Lord Chancellor as to the case of that unhappy nobleman whose name I. do not wish to mention, because I desire to spare his friends any pain in the matter. He denies it. What I complain of is that he makes the denial with such—I would not like to say affectation, but such an appearance of almost celestial virtue that we must have time to consider his answer before we are able to see what it really amounts to. The hon. and learned Gentleman says he did not consult him with regard to the case of the nobleman, but with regard to the case of Veck. One would really have thought from his gestures and his manner that he supposed we would be superficial and shallow enough to take that as an answer. Why did he consult the Lord Chancellor with regard to Veck? Because of all that Veck knew of this particular nobleman and other titled persons. I do not understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman has any answer to that. A gesture even so eloquent as those the Attorney General can use will not satisfy me. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked that his attention might be called to any point he might hive omitted. I have called his attention to this point, and I will not be put off with a gesture; he will keep his word. If he breaks it the country will be left to judge. There is another point to which I wish to call attention. The Attorney General says Hammond left on the morning of the 5th of July. I want to ask whether the Government or any Member of the Government knew the facts before the 5th of July?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I beg to state at once that the boys made a statement on July 4, and were immediately suspended, and were able to go away from their work. It is supposed that New love communicated with Hammond that night, and on the following morning Hammond went away.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: That is exactly my case. Why were not both New love and Hammond watched? The Government can find detectives enough to dog the footsteps of the Irish Members; they cannot find a detective to

    1587
    dog the footsteps of a ruffian who, for upwards of a year, has kept a house in this City which has brought disgrace on the character of the City. They let Hammond go to France. They ought to have watched him within an hour of New love's confession, if they were serious in the business. If the Attorney General had got up and said he had thought it batter that these matters should not be made public, and that the sacred ignorance of thousands of persons in this country should be preserved even though a few miscreants should escape, that would have sealed my lips to-night. He takes up, however, an entirely different position. I corns now to the sentences passed on New love and Veck. The Attorney General assumes an air of the most virtuous indignation because my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) spoke of an arrangement between the counsel for the prosecution and the defence in this case. The Attorney General is an experienced lawyer of many years' practice, and he knows that arrangements of this kind are common; that they take place almost every day, and that there is no dishonour on one side or the other. Take the case of Father M'Fadden and the other Gweedore prisoners. Everyone knows that light sentences were passed because a number of the prisoners, in obedience to the advice given by counsel after consultation with counsel on the other side, pleaded guilty. Some of them, no doubt, got long sentences; but, still, these arrangements between one side and the other are as common almost as criminal trials. In spite of all the Attorney General says, I maintain that there was such an arrangement here, and the object and meaning of it was to close the mouths of the persons in gaol, and in that way save the criminals whom their confessions might have exposed. I must now call attention to the Attorney General's conduct with regard to Lord Salisbury. Knowing very well that the hon. Member for Northampton was about to make an attack on the Government and Lord Salisbury, the Attorney General had ample means of getting from Lord Salisbury a statement in reply to the hon. Member for Northampton. He had, he says, formal notice, and no one can say that my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) has acted at all unfairly in
    1588
    the matter. He has for months given notice of his intention in a public journal with which he is notoriously associated. What docs the Attorney General do? He produces a letter from the Marquess of Salisbury denying a statement which my hon. Friend never made, but not denying the statement my hon. Friend did make. My hon. Friend's statement was that the Marquess of Salisbury spoke of a-warrant being out against this nobleman. The Attorney General, as a contradiction of that statement, says that the Marquess of Salisbury was asked whom he thought to be guilty and whom innocent, and that the Marquess replied that except in the case of one person, against whom the evidence was not quite complete, he thought the evidence broke down. How did the Prime Minister of this country become so intimately acquainted with the details of the whole case? Why was it not left to the authorities at Scotland Yard? I think the country will learn with something like stunning bewilderment that the Prime Minister, who is also our Foreign Secretary, is actually diverted from the enormous and momentous duties he has to perform in our relations with foreign countries to the discussion of the hideous, and loathsome, and horrible details of a case like this. Sir, there was no small cause for bringing the Prime Minister so deeply into the knowledge of this case. The Attorney General says Lord Salisbury stated his opinion that the evidence was strong against one individual, and insufficient against the others.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I must say, Sir, that is not in the least what I stated. I stated that Sir Dighton Probyn had asked Lord Salisbury whether there was any truth in the rumours about certain persons whom he named. Lord Salisbury replied that as far as he knew there was no evidence against any of those persons except one, whom he named, and that in his case the evidence was not, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, sufficient.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Of course I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, which is in correspondence with my own recollection. But my hon. Friend asked not as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence against this person or that, but whether Lord

    1589
    Salisbury did or did not communicate the information with regard to the warrant. The Attorney General had no answer ready to that question. He said that the statement he made implied a contradiction of the statement of my hon. Friend. Then, by some means which I do not wish to inquire into, another statement of the Prime Minister was brought in.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I should like to put the hon. Gentleman in possession of the accurate facts. The letter from which I quoted is entirely in Lord Salisbury's handwriting, but I had copied in my own handwriting as much of it as Lord Salisbury actually said—the affirmative part. I did not copy out—I did not think it was part of the story of what he said—the denial. The letter was in the keeping of the First Lord of the Treasury, to whom it was sent, and when the question was put to me again by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchore), I got up and read the denial. I have not the smallest objection to read the whole reply again to the hon. Member, so that he may see it bears out what I have said.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have no objection. I only ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to read it, because I do not wish him to think, as he appears inclined to do, that I am making a charge against him. I am doing no such thing.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I understood the hon. Gentleman to suggest that I had not read a denial, and that some other paper was produced—as if I had produced something to which I had not referred before. I explained that I read only the affirmative part and not the negative part. This is the letter—
    "Sir Dighton Probyn, I believe on October 15, asked me whether there was any truth in the imputations which had been made in certain newspapers against persons whom he named. I said that as far as I knew there was not a vestige of evidence against any of those persons except one, and in his case the evidence of identity was not, I believed, in the judgment of the Law Advisers of the Crown, sufficient. I said nothing whatever about the date of the issue of the warrant."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am dissecting the Attorney General's speech, and I hope fairly. I did not charge him with concealing any part of the letter. What I said was
    1590
    that the Attorney General seemed to have received two statements, whereas I find he received only one. I will deal with the letter the hon. and learned Gentleman has read. Now, the Marquess of Salisbury is accustomed to writing letters of great importance, and he is a man who knows as well as anybody the significance and importance of words. What is the meaning of the mysterious reserve Lord Salisbury makes in saying not that he did not mention a warrant, but that he did not mention the date of the warrant?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I think it only right I should read the only document sent to Lord Salisbury with reference to this matter. This is the letter, dated February 26, of the hon. Member for Northampton:—
    "Dear Akers-Douglas,—I think it only right that I should tell you when the Cleveland Street matter comes on I mean to refer to Lord Salisbury's interview with Sir Dighton Probyn on October"
    —it may be the 16th or the 18th; I cannot pledge myself, for the hon. Member's writing is indistinct
    "and to show that the statement of Lord Salisbury on that occasion that a warrant against Lord Arthur Somerset would be issued next day was conveyed to him and was the direct cause of his flight. The warrant was issued on November 9.—Tours truly, H. LABOUCHERE."
    That letter was sent to Lord Salisbury, and I have read his reply in his own words.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am glad the letter has been read, because it shows how base and without foundation is the charge that adequate notice was not given by the hon. Member for Northampton to the persons he intended to attack. The whole burden of the Attorney General's speech was the unfairness of the attack which, by some miraculous intervention,—in spite of the tactics of my hon. Friend—he was yet in a position to meet. Still, the fact remains, that the Marquess of Salisbury did not deny the mention of a warrant; he said he denied the mention of the date of a warrant. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer see no difference between the two?
    MR. GOSCHEN: As the hon. Member appeals to me, I say the charge was that Lord Salisbury said a warrant "would be issued to-morrow;" and he denied that in the most absolute terms.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not answered my question. I quite agree that the terms of the hon. Member's letter might have suggested the terms of the reply; but the Marquess of Salisbury did not deny that he had mentioned a warrant. The Attorney General also contradicted a statement my hon. Friend did not make. My hon. Friend did not say that Sir D. Probyn had seen Lord A. Somerset; there was no necessity that Sir D. Probyn should see him; the suggestion is that Sir D. Probyn communicated the knowledge he had obtained from Lord Salisbury by some other person to Lord A. Somerset, the result being that he left the country.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: There is no doubt about my words. I said that on that night Sir D. Probyn neither saw Lord A. Somerset nor had any communication, direct or indirect, with him, and no one was more surprised than Sir D. Probyn that he had left, as he firmly believed Lord Arthur was innocent.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows well the authority on which my hon. Friend made the statement, or if he does not, it is because he has wilfully refused to secure the knowledge. My hon. Friend was challenged to produce his authority, and offered to write down the name, thus exercising what I, knowing the facts, deem to have been a wise and honourable discretion—a discretion which every hon. Member would respect if he knew the name. Declining thy responsibility of divulging the name, the hon. Member challenged the Attorney General to mention it. Why did he not? If the Attorney General does not know, at any rate he suspects whence the information came.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I must crave the indulgence of the House. I had not the slightest idea as to the name the hon. Member referred to; I considered, and I consider, the responsibility of bringing in the names of these persons other than that of Sir D. Probyn should rest with the hon. Member for Northampton.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: That is a question the hon. Member must decide for himself. I maintain that the Attorney General, who may be right or wrong, is at any rate no longer in a position
    1592
    to say that my hon. Friend refused to give the name of his informant Sir, I, myself, know the name, but it was given to me in confidence, and I would not accept the responsibility of mentioning it; but I say the name of the informant makes it a matter of absolute conviction that the hon. Member stated the facts when he said that Lord A. Somerset knew the result of the interview between Sir D. Probyn and Lord Salisbury. It certainly seems a singular coincidence that the flight of Lord Arthur Somerset should occur on the day of that interview. I am precluded from casting doubt on the accuracy or veracity of Lord Salisbury. I will not commit myself in face of your ruling, Sir. Indeed, I do not know that I should desire to question anyone's veracity even if you had not given a ruling. I cannot say that Lord Salisbury wilfully said what was untrue; but I can say that his recollection was imperfect, and that Sir Dighton Probyn's recollection is imperfect also. And I say that the public will ask with some curiosity how it came to pass that the date of this interview and the date of Lord A. Somerset's flight were the same? A further question is this On the 12th of November there was a warrant issued against Lord Arthur Somerset, but the police knew that he was then out of the country. Why were there no proceedings to extradite him?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: It was not an extraditable offence, unfortunately.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Of course not, if the offence was reduced by the Government from felony to misdemeanour.
    SIR R, WEBSTER: I say distinctly there was not the slightest evidence against the unfortunate man to whom the hon. Member refers of anything exceeding misdemeanour. There is no offence for which he could be extradited.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I, of course, accept the statement, and I am relieved to hear that so much can be said in extenuation. But I am not dealing with the offence of this unfortunate gentleman—he will suffer for it to the end of his days. I am dealing with the action of the Government, who took the course of issuing a warrant for the arrest of a man who had been out of the country a fortnight or three weeks—a farcical afterthought to make up for their remissness or laxity in allowing the man to escape.

    1593
    It was not on the 18th November that the Government knew for the first time of the charges against Lord Arthur Somerset. He had been watched. Why was not soma effort made to arrest him? How was it that he fled the country on the very day the conversation took place between Lord Salisbury and Sir Dighton Probyn? The common sense of the country will be able to judge of these facts. No amount of argument on the part of the Attorney General can explain the coincidences in connection with the conversations and the escape of these men. Now, Sir, what is the justification for raising this question at all? I admit that if I were left to my free choice I would never have mentioned a word of the case. But the solid ground on which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton stands is this: that whereas these odious and horrible offences are punished here in the case of poor men, all the resources and counsels of the Government are exhausted to save rich men who are charged with them. [Ministerial cries of "No."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite contradict me. Well, I have stated one side of the case; the Attorney General has stated the other, and I leave the public to decide between us. The public will not stand inequality in the treatment of anyone. It will not stand a number of unfortunate wretches being sent year after year to long sentences of penal servitude for these offences when in the midst of our city a house is allowed to exist where titled people commit these offences, and when they are allowed to escape in the end.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Now, Sir, I ask the hon. Gentleman to state to the House the name of the person on whose authority the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) made his allegations. The hon. Gentleman says he knows it. I claim, in the interests of justice, that he should state it to the House. I ask an answer from the hon. Member.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Of course I must answer the direct appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that the name is not in my custody. My hon. Friend mentioned the name to me in confidence. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and ironical cheers.] Does any hon. Gentleman doubt my word?
    An hon. MEMBER: Yes.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I do not know from what hon. Member that cry came.
    MR. MACNEILL: I see the gentleman, Sir—the fourth from the Gangway on the second Bench opposite.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is most un-parliamentary, and I ask him to disavow it.
    MR. T. FIELDEN: If I s lid anything un-Parliamentary, of course I withdraw it.
    MR.T. P. O'CONNOR: I would not take any notice of the hon. Member's observations under ordinary circumstances; but after what has taken place I feel called upon to say that the hon. Gentleman opposite did say "Yes" when I asked if anyone doubted my word. I call on you, Sir, to compel him to withdraw.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I understood the hon. Member to withdraw it; but if there is any doubt about it I will again require him to withdraw it.
    MR. T. FIELDFN: I withdraw.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman asks me to reveal a name given to me in confidence. I cannot do it in honour. The hon. and learned Attorney General had the opportunity of revealing the name, because my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) when in the House wrote it down and offered it to him.
    MR. PICTON: I do not think, Sir, that any complaint can be made after what has happened tonight that it should be found necessary to discuss this question at some little length. I am afraid that neither the Ministry nor hon. Members on the opposite side of the House understand the gravity of the issues in this case. An impression has been created, and is likely to be extended, that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. I am afraid that the natural heat of the discussion has led occasionally to some little misapprehension. I should he sorry, indeed, to bring any charge of anything like corrupt collusion in the escape of criminals against members of the present Ministry. I should be very far, indeed, from endorsing a charge of criminal conspiracy, except in the innocent and merely political sense that is necessarily attached to that phrase in some particular circumstances. All that I accuse the Ministry of—and I cannot but

    1595
    consider that, at any rate, a primâ facie case has been proved—is a somewhat wrongful negligence. They may have thought that they had a discretion to exercise; but, in my opinion, they exercised it improperly. We can well understand the natural unwillingness of the Government to meddle with such a disgraceful matter at all, but when the exposure took place, and the law dealt, with such a case, the law ought to have been evenly and impartially applied; and the question is, whether that has been the case? There are certainly gaps in the Attorney General's argument. He assured us that the Ministry throughout the history of this dreadful case always intended when the evidence warranted it to proceed. I quite believe that; but I cannot help thinking that they formed an over-estimate of what was necessary evidence to enable them to proceed. An impression has been created that they would have been satisfied with much less evidence in the case of poor men than in the case of certain rich men. Then, again, in every criminal case it is always considered as of the utmost importance to arrest the criminal before he has time to escape. The police frequently arrest men suspected of murder if they have a reason able amount of suspicion, and why should not the same rule have been applied in the case of a dreadful crime like this? I cannot but think that a grave error has been committed by those responsible in allowing these criminals to escape while even suspicion existed. The Attorney General has denied that any arrangement was made by which the persons arrested were to plead guilty. Of course I know nothing about law, and I may not have understood the language of the Attorney General properly; but it seems to me that the Attorney General did not exactly deny what was alleged on this side of the House. The allegation is not that Mr. Poland arranged the counts on which the accused should plead guilty; but that there was a general understanding that if the men pleaded guilty they would be dealt with leniently. As far as I understood the Attorney General, he did not deny that.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to re-read the passage from Mr. Poland's letter which the
    1596
    Attorney General has already read? It is as follows:—
    "I wish to say I neither directly nor indirectly made any arrangement with the prisoners' counsel as to what counts they should plead guilty to. There was no undertaking of any kind, either expressed or implied, as to what should be done by me or the prisoners counsel."
    MR. PICTON: Mr. Poland states there was no arrangement made as to which counts the prisoners should plead guilty to; but he does not say there was no understanding whatever that they should plead guilty generally. These poor men know nothing about counts. The allegation is that they pleaded guilty generally, on the suggestion being made to them that if they did so they would be leniently dealt with. Of course, that may not be so; but all I say is that the denial given to us does not absolutely contradict what has been said on this side. Then with regard to Hammond, we are told by the Attorney General that he could not possibly have been arrested. It was on the 4th July that the first revelations were made, and had there been prompt action taken Hammond could certainly have been arrested. Hammond did not escape until the 5th. One cannot help thinking that if the same energy had been displayed as would be displayed, we hope, in the case of a murderer, the man might have been arrested before he left the country. Then, it is said, he could not possibly have been brought back by extradition. But we have been told, and it has not been contradicted, that Mr. Phillips, who is connected with, the Post Office, went to Belgium and telegraphed, on the 14th of September I think, that as soon as assurance was given that demand for extradition would be formally made, action would be taken by the Belgian police. If the Belgian police were anxious to co-operate with the police of this country, why was not advantage taken of their willingness? Even if the Extradition Treaty did not apply to the case literally, arrangements might have have been made by which the man might have been expelled the territory of Belgium and so brought into the hands of justice. I do not think that the case made by my hon. Friend has been quite answered, and I cannot but think that the impression created by this debate in many parts of the country will be a very disagreeable one. It is

    1597
    most important that the law should by enforced regardless of rank or position. ["Hear, hear."] Yes, but the impression has been created that this has not been done in the present case, and the Government will have to make a very much better defence than they have made to-night if they would convince all sections of the community that the law in this case has been applied equally and impartially.
    MR. MACNEILL: Very early in the life of this Government I came to the conclusion that they would if they could introduce Irish methods into English administration, and the facts that have been elicited to-night have gone very far to bear out the justice of that conclusion. This debate has been interesting in a literary point of view; it has brought out a fresh letter from Lord Salisbury, but a letter very unlike those written to the Portuguese Government, a letter equivalent to the plea of the man who said, "Not guilty, but I will not do it again." The answer given by Lord Salisbury to the anticipated attack of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) convinces me that bluntness is hereditary, for I see the style of the Prime Minister in answering questions bears a remarkable family likeness to the style of the Chief Secretary in answering Irish questions. Now, there are various coincidences in this case to which I should like to direct the attention of the country. The 5th of July is a remarkable date in these transactions. On that date the warrant was issued for the arrest of Hammond, and on the same date Hammond escapes. No matter how the hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head—
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I had better correct the hon. Gentleman. The information was put into the hands of the police on the evening of the 5th. The warrant was not issued until the 6th; and that was obliged to be because there had to be sworn informations obtained. Hammond escaped early on the morning of the 5th.
    MR. MACNEILL: That makes the case against the Attorney General stronger. We shall make him a very fine criminal lawyer before we have done, as good a criminal lawyer as the Lord Chancellor. On the 4th of July these unfortunate boys were dismissed
    1598
    from the Post Office. They were told for what they were dismissed. That gave them an opportunity of communicating with Hammond. We have been told of the difference between misdemeanour and felony; and that Lord A. Somerset could not be extradited because he was only accused of misdemeanour. What were the boys accused of? If of anything, they were accused of felony; and if the Government had wished justice to come home to Hammond, they would have at once arrested Hammond's collaborateurs in iniquity, and not given them an opportunity of communicating with the wretch. When I heard the description of Hammond's escape just at the lucky moment I thought of our old friend Richard Pigott and his escape just at the lucky moment. If we do not sec to these matters the administration of justice in this country will become rather more Irish than it is in Ireland. The next date is the 18th of October. That was the date on which Sir Dighton Probyn interviewed the Prime Minister in reference to a criminal matter; and on that evening who escaped from justice? Lord Arthur Somerset. When Lord Arthur Somerset was well out of the way the Government issued a warrant against him. The Dowager Duchess of Beaufort died in October, and Lord Arthur Somerset attended her funeral. Constable Hanks was sent to arrest Lord Arthur Somerset, but when he got to Badminton his orders were countermanded. Why were his orders countermanded? I would suggest was out of kindness—it would have been an ungracious thing to arrest a man at a funeral. But no such considerations enter into the system of Irish administration. We know that Irish funerals are happy hunting grounds, not only for arrests, but for baton charges. Lord Arthur Somerset, a member of the classes, is to be allowed to go, while John Mandeville, who is a member of the masses, is to be arrested. I respect the Attorney General as a lawyer, and I always thought he was an independent man. When, however, he was consulted in this matter what did he do? He asked the opinion of two of the highest persons in the land, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Salisbury. When did Lord Salisbury become a criminal lawyer? I do not think even the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would be

    1599
    satisfied with his criminal knowledge. It is rather singular that in a case of this kind the Attorney General should consult these high person ages, when we know that in a case in which the character of the Irish Members was involved, he studiously kept aloof from any Members of the Cabinet. He confers with the Lord Chancellor and Lord Salisbury in this wretched case, but in a case in which perjury and forgery went together, in which violence and fraud kissed each other, he depended upon his own unaided judgment. I think if the Solicitor General were defending a criminal in a case like this, in a case where there might happen to be a conflict of evidence between two men, such as there is between the Marquess of Salisbury and the hon. Member for Northampton, he would consider the probabilities of the case as to where the truth would be likely to be. Did the Attorney General act in this way? The hon. Member for Northampton, when there was a conflict of testimony between himself and the Marquess of Salisbury, invited in support of his own case the name of a certain person. Now, I ask the First Lord of the Treasury and the Attorney General do they know the name of that person?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: No.
    MR. MACNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury know? [Mr. W. H. SMITH dissented]. Well, I pass it by, for I fear that if I press the question further the right hon. Gentleman will move the Closure, having regard to his sense of duty to the House and the country. The right hon. Gentleman keeps looked up in his own breast the secret he challenged an irresponsible Irish Member of the House to give to the House and the country. Why did not the Attorney General in his investigation of the truth take for what it was worth the evidence put forward by the hon. Member for Northampton? Why did lie, a lawyer with 30 years experience at the Bar, and a high reputation in this House, why did he when he rejected that evidence, reject it with the blushing modesty of a young lady of 16? Why was the good man nonplussed? Because he knew that the personage whom he does not know but whom he strongly suspects—perhaps he has no
    1600
    legal proof, perhaps he only has the name of hear-say—because he knows that the name being known would at once give predominance to the truth of the allegations of the hon. Member for Northampton. I do not accuse Lord Salisbury of falsehood; I simply say there is an inaccuracy of recollection. Were I called upon to give judgment as between the testimony of Lord Salisbury and the testimony of the hon. Member for Northampton, I should find myself on the horns of a dilemma. The hon. Member for Northampton has always been a very good friend, an honourable and a true-hearted friend of ours, and therefore I would, with all my heart and soul, believe him. But, on the other hand, I would believe Lord Salisbury because he is a Member of the House of Peers. But I would point out—and I am sure the Solicitor General will agree with me—that in judging in a conflict of testimony between these two, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman were, say, engaged in defence of the hon. Member for Northampton, he would naturally, by examination, test the memory of Lord Salisbury. Suppose the noble Marquess in the witness-box, one of the questions would be:—"Do you remember the Salisbury-Schouvaloff Memorandum, the existence of which you at first denied, but afterwards confessed, amid the cheers of the opposite Party?" In this matter of recollection, it would be fair to judge Lord Salisbury and the hon. Member for Northampton by their antecedents. I do not impute inaccuracy of statement to hon. Gentlemen, but I ask them, do they know what truth is? The hon. Member for Northampton has done good service in noting a difference in the administration of justice as between rich and poor; he has made a gallant fight, and I do not think that eventually he will get the worst of it. If for a season we are deprived of his voice here, I have no doubt it will be heard with effect in speaking to the Commons at large in St. Pancras.
    MR. C. HALL: I will detain the House but a very few minutes. I was in the United States when these occurrences took place, and up to this point I thought it bettor to leave to those better qualified by knowledge to speak on the matters which form the subject of this discussion.

    1601
    I should not have interposed now but I for some observations that fell from the hon. Member for S. Donegal, in which he alluded to what he called the "marvellous coincidence" between the date of Lord Arthur Somerset leaving London, and the date of the interview between the Prime Minister and General Sir Dighton Probyn. It is necessary to refer to the charge originally made in this respect by the hon. Member for Northampton, for it is practically repeated by the hon. Member for S. Donegal. Now, what was this charge? The charge brought by the hon. Member for Northampton was, that. Lord Salisbury having told Sir Dighton Probyn that a warrant would be obtained the next day or immediately, that information was conveyed to Lord Arthur Somerset, who left London the same evening. The hon. Member went on to say that the information was given with the intention that it should be conveyed to Lord Arthur Somerset. Now, there is no mistake about that being the allegation and I hope by the recital of a very short statement of facts to show not only that information was not given, but that it was impossible that it should have been given. I will not deal with the question of the honour of Sir Dighton Probyn; his name is too well known to suffer from any attack from the hon. Member for Northampton, but I will show first of all that it is impossible that the information could have been communicated by Sir Dighton Probyn to Lord Arthur Somerset, or anyone on his behalf; secondly, that Lord Arthur Somerset's flight was the very last thing that any man connected with the household of Marlborough House wished. The facts are simple, and I will recite them as far as I can without any expression of feeling. The interview between Sir Dighton Probyn and Lord Salisbury took place at King's Cross in the evening. When that interview was over Sir Dighton Probyn drove home to dress for dinner. It was then late, and having dressed he went to his club and commenced a late dinner. Before Sir Dighton Probyn had finished his dinner, and before he had spoken to anyone on the subject, Lord Arthur Somerset had left London, and it has since been ascertained that he gave orders to his servants to have his things ready for his leaving London before the interview between Lord
    1602
    Salisbury and Sir Dighton Probyn took place. Now, if that be the case how can it be suggested that Lord Arthur Somerset's flight was in any way connected with any information given by Sir Dighton Probyn, or through Sir Dighton Probyn? I have only to add that Sir Dighton Probyn and Lord Arthur Somerset's Colleagues in the Household believed him to be innocent, and it was their most anxious desire that he should take steps to clear his character from what they believed base and scurrilous accusations made against him; and on that, very day Sir Dighton Probyn had urged him, pressed him, to vindicate his character, and Lord Somerset said he would take steps to do so. How, in the face of these facts, can it be alleged that Sir Dighton Probyn behaved as has been suggested. I have stated the facts, and they speak for themselves. I venture to say that when these matters are looked into, when the facts are considered dispassionately, it will be seen that so far from being true it was absolutely impossible that Sir Dighton Probyn could have given information to Lord Arthur Somerset, or anybody on his behalf, before he left London.
    MR. PHILIPPS: I do not psrsonally take any interest in this matter, but, after the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hall), it is right that somebody should say a word on behalf of the hon. Member for Northampton, who is not here to speak for himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given us a very fair account of Sir Dighton Probyn's experiences on the evening of the interview with Lord Salisbury, but he has expressed some indignation that anybody else should have put things in a contrary way. Up to the present moment, however, we have not heard any hon. Member who is able to speak so authoritatively as the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am glad to have heard him for several reasons, but especially because just as he was resuming his seat he said that his statement of facts would be borne out when the thing came to be examined. Now, it is for this that I have risen, because the hon. Member for Northampton said he wished for a Select Committee to inquire into the matter. He did not ask for a decision as the result of this debate. He asked the Government to appoint a Select Com-

    1603
    mittee for inquiry. Now, from the time the hon. Member for Northampton sat down many hours ago, the Government have made no answer whether they will grant this Committee or not. All we heard on the subject from the leader of the House was that the matter ought to be decided to-night, because this was not the sort of thing the Government could allow to hang over them. Well, it is rather hard that we should be required to accept the vote of a mechanical majority on a matter which the hon. and learned Gentleman says ought to be inquired into.
    MR. C. HALL: What I said was, when the facts are looked into dispassionately.
    MR. PHILIPPS: Quite so, when the facts are dispassionately looked into, but can that be done by the Committee to-night? How can the facts be best looked into? The Government, I believe, do not like Select Committees; perhaps they would prefer a Royal Commission. The hon. Member for Northampton would prefer a Select Committee, but no doubt he would be satisfied with any impartial tribunal. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to take it for granted that there is going to be an inquiry because he talked about it when these things are inquired into.
    MRK. C. HALL: I must really ask the hon. Member not to misrepresent me. I said nothing about an inquiry by Committee, or of any sort whatever.
    MR. PHILIPPS: I took down the words, and I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman said when these matters were looked into dispassionately. Well, surely that must refer to some time other than to-night. One good service the hon. Member for Northampton has done is bringing before our notice this very curious interview which took place between Lord Salisbury and Sir Dighton Probyn. Now, when my hon. Friend was making his speech and gave an account of this interview, I thought that this surely would be denied. I never thought that any Member of the Government would admit that such an interview had taken place between the Prime Minister of this country and a private individual in reference to a criminal prosecution. I say that interview, whichever account of it you accept, that interview of Lord Salisbury's showing was a very curious affair. As to the statement of the hon. and learned
    1604
    Gentleman that this gentleman who has left the country did not leave in consequence of that interview because he had arranged his departure before that interview took place, I have no doubt that the statement was made in good faith, but, speaking as a lawyer, I should like to have all that kind of thing tested by cross-examination; it is not to be settled by any hon. Member coming here and giving us an interesting account of the proceedings of an hour or two. The Committee cannot decide fairly upon the materials before them. The Attorney General asked us to point out to him anything that he had not awswered fully, and I must say I do not think he has explained how Lord Salisbury came to be mixed up in these matters at all. He has told us that he took the legal opinion of the Lord Chancellor, and he said of course that the Lord Chancellor's opinion was valuable on a matter of Criminal Law. He says he also took the opinion of Mr. Poland, but he did not say why or when Lord Salisbury was brought into these transactions. Why in the world should the Prime Minister, with, I should think, work enough on his hands be consulted about a criminal action? There is another little point the Attorney General did not deal with and which I will recall to his recollection. The hon. Member for Northampton mentioned that this gentleman now absent from the country left the Army under somewhat peculiar circnmstances. His resignation was accepted, whereas the usual course in such matters is to issue a Gazette notice that his services are dispensed with. Whether that is so or not I, of my own knowledge, cannot say; I only know that such was the statement made by the hon. Member for Northampton, and the Attorney General has not said a word about it to-night. These among other things ought to be cleared up by a Member of the Government before we go to a Division. It is unfair that we should be called upon to vote to-night. It is a very important matter that people should know why it is that a Prime Minister and other Members of the Cabinet should mix themselves up in criminal matters. We cannot determine these things to-night, and it is because these matters must be inquired into, because the demand of the hon. Member for Northampton for a Committee is

    1605
    reasonable, that if the present Motion is carried to a Division I shall support it.
    MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I am the first of the Metropolitan Members to speak upon a matter upon which London is specially concerned. I am not going into the whole controversy that has occupied the evening; I regret that the hon. Member who introduced the matter is not here to bring it to an issue; but what I wish to draw the attention of the Government to is that they have not said one word expressing their opinion as to an inquiry. Let me ask them seriously to consider this. I speak with some knowledge of what has been in the public mind in London during the autumn and winter. The people of London have had a great scandal in their midst, and in connection with this scandal many rumours have been going about, growing as rumours do until they took shape that has filled the public mind with anxiety. The names of many influential persons have been mixed up in matters with which the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton is concerned, and in the public interest it is necessary that these matters should be cleared up. I ask the Government to consider, can they grant this inquiry—whether there is anything in the allegations freely made outside or not? Let the thing be sifted. Let the worst be known—let public confidence be restored. One thing there is that fills the public mind with anxiety. I do not say it is true, but it has been forced on the attention of the people of London, that, owing to the intervention of the higher authorities, the police have not been permitted to perform their duty in connection with these cases. It is a most serious charge to make, and I do not say it is true, but bring it to the light of day, and if it is only wild rumour show that it has no foundation in fact. Let us have it searched into and settled once for all. I know the rumour has great hold on the public mind in London. Even this evening after listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton and the reply of the Attorney General, one cannot help noticing in connection with the action of the police referred to by the hon. Member, that there was not an answer from the Attorney General as to whether the best possible means were taken to bring the criminals to justice. The whole question cannot be
    1606
    settled by a Vote in this House. Whether the majority against the hon. Member for Northampton be large or small, it will leave the public mind exactly where it was before. No one who was in London through the autumn could have failed to recognise that these scandals have produced a great effect on the public mind. The wildest rumours are prevalent; let us for Heaven's sake know what is the truth. I earnestly urge the Government again to agree to an inquiry in order to restore public confidence.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I understand that it is deliberately suggested by the hon. member that a Committee of the House of Commons, or some similar body, should be appointed to inquire into the truth or falsehood of the rumours that have prevailed in connection with these charges—that is to say, that the names of a number of gentlemen, or rather of persons, because all people are equal before the law, who, according to the opinion that is entertained by the Law Officers of the Crown, have been falsely accused should be dragged before the Committee or other body appointed to carry out the inquiry, and that they should be pilloried and gibbeted, and perhaps injured and ruined for life by the institution of inquiry into the truth or falsehood of these rumours. Well, I think that a Government who undertook to authorise such an inquiry of such a character would be guilty of the greatest possible wrong to a number of persons against whom, according to the information that has been received, no sort of evidence exists. I will say at once that the Government will not be a party to such a proceeding. I can also say that we rely upon the completeness and fulness of the answer given by the Attorney General, and that we claim the judgment of the House upon the matter.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS: I did not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman while he was speaking, but he has made such a parody of my statement that I must explain. Nobody asked that any persons should be pilloried or gibbeted. We have had a distinct statement made us on a matter of fact that the police were not so active as they might have been, because the higher authorities checked them. That is the question I urge should be inquired into. No man in his senses would propose that all the names

    1607
    associated with rumours should be brought to light and be gibbeted; I only mentioned the disquieting effect of an impression that action taken by the Government had prevented that being done by the police which could have been done. With all respect to the Attorney General his statement will not be satisfactory to the people of London. One effect it certainly will have, to strengthen our determination to have the control of our own police, and take it from the Home Office.
    MR. PICTON: The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misinterpreted the object with which this question has been brought on. It is not rumours with which the proposed Committee would concern itself, but the action or inaction of the authorities —surely a proper subject to bring before a Committee. No innocent man need fear being gibbeted by the inquiry. If the name of any person falsely accused comes up before the Committee, he will have the opportunity of clearing himself. No harm can come to the innocent person, but if the guilty escape it is a curse to the whole nation.
    MR. MACNEILL: I am most anxious that the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Hall) should not have a false impression of what I said earlier. I simply said it was a remarkable coincidence—and I only put it as a matter of comment—a remarkable coincidence that the flight of Lord Arthur Somerset took place on the self same day as that memorable interview between the two friends, Lord Salisbury and Sir Dighton Probyn, an interview which seems likely to become as famous as the Parnell-Carnarvon interview. The hon. and learned Member says—and I believe him—that Sir Dighton Probyn in no way had any communication with Lord Arthur Somerset between the interview with Lord Salisbury and the flight of Lord Arthur Somerset. But it is remarkable, and it is a fact we did not know before, that Sir Dighton Probyn came straight from an interview with Lord Arthur Somerset to the interview with Lord Salisbury. He saw Lord Salisbury at some railway station on the day of his last interview with Lord Arthur Somerset, and then the hon. Member, in a short description of the habits of Sir Dighton Probyn, told us how that gentleman went home
    1608
    to dress and afterwards dined at his club, both important occupations, but he did not come into personal contact with Lord Arthur Somerset. But the principal question is, what communication had Sir Dighton Probyn with Lord A. Somerset after the interview with Lord Salisbury?
    MR. C. HALL: I stated distinctly that he never communicated directly or indirectly with Lord Arthur Somerset or anybody on his behalf.
    MR. MACNEILL: It is perfectly certain that Lord Arthur Somerset was able to find out the result of the interview.
    DR. TANNER: After the discussion which has taken place in the House this evening, I think people outside will ask themselves "What is it that the Government wish to hide? Not so long ago, when charges and allegations were made against us, we were asked why we would not go before a Court of Justice, and now I am inclined to ask why the Government do not propose the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the charges brought forward by the hon. Member for Northampton. The Attorney General may smile and smile, and smile again, but we are growing accustomed to his smiles now. I want to know, seeing that these charges have been made in the strongest possible way, what it is that the responsible Ministers of the Crown are trying to hide. I think the Government have put in a poor, shabby, paltry, and mean defence. Lord Arthur Somerset, against whom these abominable charges are made, is a member of the aristocracy; he held a high position, and I want to know what was done to prevent him escaping from justice. Just compare the action of the authorities in this matter with their action in regard to persons suspected of offending against the Coercion Act in Ireland. Why, in my own case, when I was served with a summons for telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, a big force of police was employed to serve the document, although it was only an ordinary civil proceeding not even arising under the Coercion Act. Hon. Members who wish to address their constituents in Ireland are dogged all over the place, but the course taken is different when a member of the aristocracy is concerned, although he may be accused of a most abominable crime.

    1609
    Why not give the people an opportunity of forming their opinion on this matter? I should have thought that, in the interests of justice and fair-play, we should, instead of this conspiracy of silence, have had some answer from the responsible and paid minions who are at present decorating the Front Bench opposite.
    MR. PICTON: I understand the question before the Committee is whether the whole Vote on Account shall be passed? At present we have not had an opportunity of discussing it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is in error. The question now before the Committee is the reduction moved by the hon. Member for Northampton.
    MR. PICTON: When a Division is taken on the reduction shall we still be able to discuss other points in connection with the Vote on Account?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
    MR. PICTON: I do not think the question has as yet been thoroughly discussed, and I therefore move that you do now report Progress.
    (11.40) Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Picton.)
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 202.—(See Div. List, No. 19.)
    Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,725,003, be granted for the said Services."
    Whereupon, Mr. William Henry Smith rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    MR. COBB: I only wish to make a few remarks. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire tell us for the first time in this discussion of the interview between Sir Dighton Probyn and Lord Salisbury. He said Lord Salisbury had no intention whatever of giving information to any one that a warrant was to be issued for the apprehension of Lord Arthur Somerset. I do not presume to dive into the intentions of the Prime Minister—
    MR. C. HALL: I never said one word about Lord Salisbury's intentions. I never referred to them. I simply quoted the remarks of the hon. Member for
    1610
    Northampton. He said it was intended that the information should be communicated to Lord Arthur Somerset. I said nothing as to what Lord Salisbury's intentions were.
    MR. COBB: I should be sorry to in any way misrepresent the hon. and learned Gentleman. He told us that after the interview Sir Dighton Probyn went home to dress for dinner, and then went straight to his Club. The only assurance we have got is that he did not communicate either directly or indirectly with Lord Arthur Somerset or any one on his behalf. But we have not been informed whether Sir Dighton Probyn told any one that evening what Lord Salisbury had said to him. If he did, it is quite possible that without any intention on his part to communicate directly or indirectly with Lord Arthur Somerset, the information may have got to Lord Arthur Somerset through some third person. We have been told that Lord Arthur's luggage was packed in readiness for his flight before the interview between Lord Salisbury and Sir Dighton Probyn took place. But is it not probable that a man, knowing the position in which he was placed and the crime he had committed, would have everything ready to go away directly he heard that a summons was out against him? I take no interest in the facts of this case, but I am interested in ascertaining whether the law is administered impartially to rich and to poor. I think we are carrying on this discussion under great disadvantages in consequence of the absence of the hon. Member for Northampton, and I hold that we ought to have further time to debate this Vote on Account, as there are other questions which we desire to raise. I therefore think I should not be doing my duty to my constituents if I did not move that you now leave the Chair.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is under a complete misapprehension. The Vote can be discussed even if the present question is disposed of.
    Motion made, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Cobb.)
    But the Chairman, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: I desire to support the reduction of the Vote. We have frequently been told that equal laws are applied to Ireland and to England. Recently, when we complained of the Statute of Edward III. being put in operation in Ireland, we were told by the Home Secretary that it could be put in force also in England. Within the last few days we have seen a venerable pastor in Ireland and a lot of his parishioners—
    MR. FORREST FULTONrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    (12.2.) Question put, "That the Question be now put:"—The Committee divided: —Ayes 196; Noes 78.—(Div. List, No. 20.)
    Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,725,003, be granted for the said Service."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to say that no division was challenged, Mr. Courtney.
    MR. SEXTON: When you declared the Ayes had it that declaration was not challenged.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I heard it challenged.
    (12.10.) The Committee divided:— Ayes GG; Noes 206.—(Div. List, No. 21.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    It being after Midnight, and Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [27th February] reported.
  SUPPLY—REPORT.
    CIVIL SEEVICES AND REVLNUE DEPARTMENTS, 1889–90.

      CLASS VI.
      1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,101, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for Superannuation and Retired Allowances."
      2. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £828, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of
      1612
      March, 1890, in aid of the Local Cost of Maintenance of Pauper Lunatics in Scotland."
      Resolutions agreed to.

  COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION EXPENSES BILL. (No. 162.)
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 AND 1884.
  Address for—
  "Return showing the working of the Regulations made in 18·6 for carrying out the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1884, with Statistics setting forth the Number. Nature, Costs, and Results of the Proceedings instituted by the Director in accordance with those Regulations, from the 1st day of January 1889 to the 31st day of December 1889 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 38, of Session 1889)."—(Mr. Stuart-Worthy.)

  HOP INDUSTRY.
  Ordered, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the causes which have produced the steady decrease in the acreage of land under Hop cultivation, and the serious displacement of labour occasioned thereby, and to report as to the best means, if any, of providing a remedy.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Agg-Gardner Mr. Biddulph, Mr. Channing, Sir Guyer Hunter, Mr. Edward Knatchbull-Hugessen, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Sir Edmund Leehmere, Sir Roper Lethbridge, Mr. Long, Mr. Jasper More, Mr. Norton, Mr. O'Keeffe, Mr. Pomfret, Sir Henry Roscoe, Mr. Stack, and Mr. Brook-field.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum."—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

  MOTIONS.
    ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES.

      ARRANGEMENT OF VOTES.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That the Statement laid before the House, showing the changes in the Arrangement of Votes made in the Estimates for 1890–91, be referred to the Committee of Public Accounts."—(Mr. Jackson.)
      MR. SEXTON: Mr. Speaker ruled this evening that the functions of the Public Accounts Committee are strictly limited by the Standing Order; and as the Committee will require a special instruction, I

      1613
      would ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the present Motion, and put one on the Paper sufficient for the purpose.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I have been in consultation this evening as to the form which will best carry out the intentions of the House expressed to-day. I have consulted with the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and it is his view that the reference to the Committee must, of course, be limited by the functions of the Committee as defined by the Standing Order. I hope that explanation will satisfy hon. Gentlemen. I will endeavour as far as I can to give effect to the wish of the House as expressed to-day, and to act with the concurrence of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
      MR. A. O'CONNOR: The hon. Gentleman has entirely missed the force of the objection urged by the Public Accounts Committee themselves, namely, that the Committee as at present constituted are not empowered to deal with such a subject as this, and that a special Resolution would be required to enable them to deal with it. Both the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee on Estimates Procedure, of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) was a member, have recommended that any change in the form of the Estimates should be submitted to the approval of the House, and not referred to the Public Accounts Committee. If this matter be referred to the Public Accounts Committee we shall not be able to deal with it except as far as it deals with matters of mere account.
      MR. LANE: I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the interests of public business to re-consider-their decision in this matter. If the account be referred to the Public Accounts Committee in its present shape we shall merely be compelled to send a second Report down to the House, such as we have sent this week already. Unless the reference be accompanied by a special instruction from the House, the result will be the wasting of a week of the public time and a day of the time of the Committee, which has enough
      1614
      work thrown on its hands every year already.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,: My hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) was under the impression that he was acting according to the views of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in the course he has taken. We by no means wish to oppose the feeling of the Committee in the matter, and we will postpone the Motion for two or three days. In the meantime, we will consult the Chairman and Members of the Public Accounts Committee to see whether we can agree upon a reference.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    On the Motion for the adjournment of the House,
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid: I wish to ask when the Vote on Account will be taken again?
    MR. JACKSON: I have put it down for Monday; but it will not be taken on Monday.

    IRELAND—THE CLONGOREY PRISONERS.
    MR. SEXTON: I regret, Sir, that the Government has not considered the urgent case of the Clongorey prisoners; but perhaps the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) will now be able to make a statement. The House is aware that the tenant on the estate agreed that some of her out houses, which were her own property, should be enlarged for the purpose of affording shelter to a number of evicted tenants who were in a poor and friendless condition. The agent of the estate made an affidavit, to the effect that the enlargement involved unlawful waste. The Act of 1860 defines the manner in which the summons shall be served. It must be served on the occupier or posted on the principal door of the dwelling. It was not served in either way; and the precept was not sent at all to the workmen who were employed. The Government acted under a complete

    1615
    misapprehension in the case, and on the insufficient basis of an improperly served summons they proceeded with a number of acts of violence—the arrest, the handcuffing, and the housebreaking. Three batches of prisoners were arrested. The first batch was called on to answer a charge of disobeying the precept, and the second a charge of unlawful assembly. In the case of the third, which included Father Kinsella, the magistrate did not proceed to any action on the charge, but, in default of bail, sentenced them to imprisonment for two months—which was double the maximum term to which they could have been sentenced under the precept. The first batch was brought up the day before yesterday before two Castle resident magistrates. It turned out that the precept had not been duly served, and the Government Justices agreed that the case fell to the ground. The Government counsel asked that a case might be stated. The curious thing is that when we ask for a case to be stated we very rarely get it; but in this instance the application was granted, and the proceedings were adjourned for two months. The defendants went free, and the cases pending were adjourned for two months. The second batch was tried yesterday and to-day, the Court being again composed of two stipendiary magistrates. In the event, one of the magistrates held that there was no case against the accused, and the other took the contrary view. The result was that the men went free. The third batch of prisoners were brought before a solitary magistrate. They asked to have a case stated on this very point of whether the precept was duly served. The magistrate refused to state a case, and called on them to give bail. They declined to give bail, were sent to prison for two months, and are suffering imprisonment now. I am not competent, and not disposed, to go into this question in its strictly legal aspects; but I would ask the Government whether it is desirable that this priest and these 17 men should be detained in prison when if the same procedure had been adopted in their case as in the case of the others they would have been free at the present moment. I hope the Government will be able to see their way to order the release of the third batch of prisoners.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALTOUR,: The hon. Gentleman has imported into this question certain controversial elements which, under other circumstances, I should have thought it my duty to reply to. I think that at this late hour I can pass them by, and I am far from complaining, speaking generally, of the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The analysis of facts which the hon. Gentleman has brought forward is one which appears to me to be substantially accurate. It is a fact that two batches of these people have been released, in one case because the Court thought the precept had not been properly served, and in the other because the members of the Court differed on the point whether there was unlawful assembly or not. On both grounds a case has been stated to a Superior Court, and I am far from saying that my opinion is adverse to the action originally taken. But no doubt the substantial conclusion is that two batches of men are free at this moment and the others are in prison. The two batches released cannot be tried afresh for two months, and an interval of indefinite length must elapse before we can learn on proper authority whether or not the precept was properly served. Of course, if no action were taken in the matter the persons imprisoned under the Statute of Edward III. would undoubtedly remain in prison during all that time, with the possibility that at the end of that time it might be held that the precept was improperly served, and therefore the root of the action of the magistrates was not supported by reason or by law. Under these circumstanced, I shall take the opportunity to-morrow of consulting my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as to whether some steps may not be taken for the purpose of releasing the persons still confined to prison. I hope that answer will content the hon. Gentleman.
    House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock till Monday next.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report from the Committee made, and to be printed. (No. 30.): To be considered on Friday next.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
The Lords following, namely—

E. Lathom. (Ld. Chamberlain.)

L. Colville of Culross.

L. Kensington.

V. Oxenbridge

with the Chairman of Committees, were appointed a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.

EXAMINATIONS FOR OFFICIAL APPOINTMENTS.
EARL WEMYSS: My Lords, in rising to bring before you the notice which stands in my name on the Paper, I have to make a double apology to your Lordships. I have, first, to apologise for this notice having last Session been so long on the notice Paper, and for not having brought it forward, but, as perhaps some of your Lordships know, when those twin enemies of man, gout and neuralgia, get possession of one's person, they do so to the exclusion of everything else. It was physically impossible for me, therefore, to come down to this House for the purpose of bringing this matter forward. I make that apology to those in particular who may have suffered inconvenience from my inability to attend. The second apology I have to make is for venturing at all to bring this subject before your Lordships, but the explanation I have to make for doing so is this: Those of your Lordships who read the Nineteenth Century—and who does not?—are probably aware that at the close of 1888 and the beginning of 1889 the pages of that periodical were full of letters and articles upon the question of examination. Against what is called "The sacrifice of Education to Examination" a very numerously signed protest was drawn up which appeared in the columns of
1446
that serial. On turning to that protest I find it was signed by 415 persons There were among them 12 Peers, 73 Members of Parliament, 154 principals, professors, tutors, heads of schools, ladies, and others connected with education. Of those persons 37 who signed the general protest, I should mention, signed it with reservation. Now, my Lords, I signed among others, not on account of having any special knowledge of the subject, but in agreement with the general feeling which I have no doubt exists throughout the country, and possibly among your Lordships, that this system of examination was and is being carried in this country to an extreme. I afterwards, to my surprise, one day received a letter from three gentlemen who had been most active in making the protest, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Auberon Herbert, and Mr. Frederic Harrison, asking me to bring this matter before your Lordships' House, and ask for the appointment of a Royal Commission. My answer was that I had no special aptitude for this work, that I had simply signed the protest to show my own feeling in reference to it, and that there were many Members of your Lordships' House far more able to deal with the subject, to whom they had better appeal. But having received a further letter from them I think your Lordships will agree that I could do no other than consent to bring this matter before you. In doing so, I shall not venture to give you any opinions of my own upon this most important matter; your Lordships must look upon me as a sort of telephonic instrument, which will bring to your ears the views and opinions which have been uttered outside the walls of this House; and in giving those views and opinions I shall endeavour to do so in as condensed a form as I can. For that I pray your Lordships' patience. I wish I had the power of condensation, which, as the story goes, was once possessed by a French cook—I do not know whether he was in the service of the Noble Earl Granville—who was supposed to be very extravagant and wasteful of meat. When he was reprimanded, and asked what had become of an "ox which had been sent into the larder a few days before," he was equal to the occasion, for, putting his hand into his pocket he drew forth a meat lozenge — "Voilâ le bœuf de

1447
Monsieur." I repeat that I wish I had such powers of condensation; but I have endeavoured, out of the documents which have appeared upon the subject, to summarise, as far as I can, what appear to me to be the principal protests against the cramming examinations which, are conducted at the present time. I think I had best begin by touching upon the general protest upon the question. To discuss the general question would embrace the whole subject of education and culture; but my Motion is confined to two points, namely, inquiry into the means for obtaining good public servants for the service of the State, and also inquiry into what is done abroad, so that we may, if possible, profit by the methods adopted in foreign countries. I believe that as regards the arguments against the general system of education, so far as general education is concerned, this is the sort of thing that is said: that education, generally speaking, in the proper sense of the word is sacrificed to examination; that is, education in the true sense of teaching—that which trains the mind and faculties; and that training of the mind and faculties is impossible with the rapidly succeeding examinations of students, which are constantly going on at the present time. I see that one of the fellows of Oriel says that between the ages of 7 and 22, he was never examined less than twice a year. Then it is stated that what is thus learnt for examination purposes is rapidly forgotten; the examinees' memory is called "a ten-days' memory," and no wonder. The Duke of Argyll, speaking of the present system, says—
"In primary education we have an overburdened memory and a weakened brain, and in higher education an artificial examination."
Then it is said that the aims of students are misdirected: that instead of being directed to learning, culture, and education in the proper sense of the term, men's aims are entirely directed to getting money—prizes, scholarships, and fellowships — and making way in life. The result is that you have superficiality, monotony, and men turned out as from a one-pattern machine. All play of imagination or individual character is crushed out, as it were, by an iron roller, and you have
1448
uniformity where Nature intended variety. Education is given into the hands of two classes of specialists, the examiners and the crammers, and everything is directed to the examinations. And what is the direction of these exminations? They cause the construction of analyses, summaries, and tables to be substituted for the study of Standard works, and the Association of Teachers meets to discuss what are called "wrinkles" in examinations, those wrinkles being intended to meet the crotchets of examiners, with which they are well acquainted. A teacher says that his most intelligent pupils do not do best in examinations. Now here is what a lady, a parent, says—
"It is the duty of parents to revolt against the present system, because a child's life is a perfect torture, and no heed is taken of the child's intellectual bent."
Sir Sydney Waterlow states that he is Governor of a school where there are 800 out-door pupils and 200 boarders, and that in that school
"Ever since they had prevented the headmaster trying for payment by results the educational improvement in the school had been manifest and great."
I am happy to say that, under the wise rule of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, within the last fortnight, a revised educational Code for Scotland has come out, under which payment for results in schools is in a great measure done away with; the payment is given for classes, and much discretion is given to the schoolmaster as to how he will classify his scholars. That is what has been very much wanted; what parents and teachers have been asking for; and I think I may say that the proposal of my noble Friend has been received with gratitude in Scotland by all who are interested in teaching. Now, my Lords, the general system of these examinations is pithily put by an old Parliamentary friend of mine, Admiral Sir J. Hay, who says, "There is really nothing like our present system of examination—except in China." It is true we have not got quite to the point yet that they have reached in China in this respect. I saw in a paper the other day that at Canton they have what is called an "examination lottery;" that is to say, they bet on the students who are going up for exami-

1449
nation just as they do in this country upon horse races on Epsom Downs; and in China, too, it is said, that both horses and jockeys—that is, the students and the examiners—are occasionally "made safe" in order that those who make the bets may win in those lotteries. Well, I trust we shall not come to that; but I have here a passage in which a very distinguished scientific man puts the argument very strongly and clearly—Professor Huxley. He says about examinations—
"Examination, like fire, is a good servant, but a bad master, and there seems to be some danger of its becoming our master. I by no means stand alone in this opinion. Experienced friends of mine do not hesitate to say that students whose careers they watch appear to them to become deteriorated by the constant effort to pass this or that examination, just as we hear of men's brains becoming affected by the daily necessity of catching a train."
And Professor Huxley sums up the whole thing in this one short sentence—
"They work to pass and not to know; and outraged science takes her revenge. They do pass and do not know."
So much, my Lords, for the general question of education in the proper sense of the term. I point out opinions. I do not merely give names, but they are the names of most distinguished persons who hold these views which I have endeavoured to summarise. This is one class of arguments against the over-cramming produced by the present examination system; but there is one most important feature of the subject, and that is the effect produced on the health, not only on the present but of the coming generations. Here is what is said upon this matter by medical men of great distinction. One says that—
"A great increase of nervous affections is due to "—what?—"school examinations, that much brain disease results from over-pressure, and that both home and colonial experience bears this out."
Another says—
"That where there are no counter-athletics the physique is deteriorated."
Dr. Avery says—
"That the effect on girls of over mental strain is great. They grow up highly nervous women, giving birth in case of their marriage to weak and deteriorated offspring."
And he goes on to say—
"The spirit of emulation is stronger in girls than in boys, and makes them work beyond their strength."
1450
I was talking to the Rector of St. James's, Mr. Kemp, and he told me that his observations bore that out, for he said "I constantly see howover worked and strained young women pupil teachers are." For a moment I may be forgiven, perhaps, for adding upon this point that as I was coming down to this House in a hansom this afternoon, I found I was being pursued by a brougham and pair which finally overtook me. A medical friend jumped out and said, as he knew I was going to the House to bring forward this subject, he would tell me a very instructive incident bearing upon it. He had been attending a lady who had already added several boys to the population. Her boys had recently gone through some severe competitive examinations. After recovering from the chloroform which had been administered to her, she eagerly asked "Is it a boy or a girl?" On being told it was a boy, she burst into tears and said, "Oh dear, then we shall have all those horrid cramming examinations to go through again." That shows what an influence these examinations have had on people's minds in this country, and how they look forward to modifying them. Dr. Warre, the Master of Eton, spoke in the Letters from all Sorts and Conditions of Men, of there being many more boys at Eton wearing spectacles than there used to be, and that many a bright boy between 12 and 15 becomes blunt and dull from this cause. And we are told that-many more of our distinquished schoolmen die in early life entirely from the results of the work entailed upon them in preparing for these examinations. Now, my Lords, I come to the specific subject of my Motion, namely, whether or not this system is good for the public service, and whether it is the best means that we could adopt for the purpose of giving us efficient public servants. As regards the public service in the Army and Navy, I do not propose to go into that branch of the question. Still, one cannot help thinking there is something wrong in the Army Examinations when one finds what men have to go through. I saw the other day a friend of mine, a captain of Volunteers; we were out shooting, and I thought he looked very much depressed and out-of-sorts. On asking him "What is the matter?" he said, "I have to go up to London for my

1451
military examination, and what bothers me is that I have got to sit up all night and learn forty pages by heart; I must not miss a particle or a word of it, and that is where the trouble occurs." I do not think that is a practical way of training men. I think it would be much better to train men in manœuvres and in what they would be called upon to go through in actual warfare. They should be trained for that purpose in the open country, say at Aldershot, and be taught to manœuvre their men under instructing officers, and should be required to show that they had the requisite knowledge of ground. It was not examination that gave us our great generals and admirals of olden times, and, as far as I know, no examination-general has ever had a command yet, except one distinguished officer of the Staff College. As regards generals in command, I do not think any such officers have been in active service, and we have yet to learn whether all that is done in the way of examination in the Army is likely to give us anyone fit to be chosen for it. At any rate, it strikes me that is not the way to make practical soldiers. But, my Lords, it is more especially with the Civil Service that I have to do on the present occasion, and the question is, Does this system of competitive examinations give us the best type or the best men for that service? I happened to be at the Treasury when this system originated. It was in 1852 or 1853 under Lord Aberdeen's Administration; and I well recollect hearing that the whole question of the Civil Service was to be gone into by Sir Charles Trevelyan and a gentleman whom we did not know then at the Treasury. We asked who he was, and we were told that he was a great friend of Mr. Gladstone— by name Sir Stafford Northcote. He was not in Parliament then. That was really the beginning of this new system of Civil Service Examinations. But what was the cause of its origin? It was want of courage on the part of public men and Members of Parliament to enquire into the merits of individuals and to recommend proper persons for admission to the Civil Service; and they thought they would got rid of the whole thing by sending all the candidates to a cram-examination, and so have all responsibility taken off their shoulders.
1452
That was the cause of the system being instituted, and I think your Lordships will not say that it was a good origin. I will say very little, but I hope it will be to the point on this question. Lord Rosebery put the case in a nutshell when he wrote to the Nineteenth Century:—
"I am deeply impressed with the fact that by the present system we lose many excellent, and obtain many useless men."
Another extract from these letters, which I will read to your Lordships is from one by Lady Taylor, the widow of a man well-known to us, Sir Henry Taylor, who was for many years at the Colonial Office. No better public servant I think ever held office. She says:—
"The present system is torture to the victims and does not supply the best materials."
Such, she says, was her husband's; opinion; and he said that—
"If our present system had been in force in 1824, he never would himself have got into the Civil Service."
And Lady Taylor says:—
"In such case the State would have lost 50 years' service"
from one of its best, as he was generally recognised, Civil servants. Moreover, a point which I would bring particularly to your Lordships' attention is that we do not carry this principle out to the full. It is only appointments in the lower branches of the Public Service that are put up for competition and examination. Cabinet Ministers are not so chosen; Judges are not so appointed; the Right Reverend Bench is not so filled; professors, one and all, are not so chosen. I go further, and ask would any of your Lordships be content to choose your land agent who works for you, or even the odd men working about your house, by such a system as this of competitive examination? Take for instance the Cabinet—I do not say the present Cabinet, but almost any other Cabinet Ministers who have ever held office, would they if that office had to be filled by examination have been able to assert their right to the positions they held? Certain I am, I may say, of one who would have been so qualified, and that is the present Prime Minister. I well remember being told by an Oxford man, the son of the late General Peel, in the course of a conver-

1453
sation about Oxford—"We have at the present moment the future Prime Minister at Oxford." I asked, what is his name? and he said "Robert Cecil." Therefore I have no doubt that if there had been necessity for it my noble Friend the Prime Minister would have succeeded in putting himself in the front in any competitive examination. But there is a very important branch of the Civil Service which we are told suffers greatly by this system, and that is the Indian Civil Service. In India you have races who are extremely intelligent, who know the sort of men who go out there; they draw comparison between the Civil servants of pre-examination times and those who are appointed by special examinations; and they say that there is deterioration in many respects, in many qualities—I will not say precisely what they are—but qualities which are essential for governing those races. They see that manifest deterioration and falling off. Nothing can be stronger than the expression used in a published letter of Sir William Gregory, than whom there is, I think your Lordships will agree, no greater authority as a highly cultured man. He lays the greatest possible stress on the deterioration in the Indian Civil servants and the danger arising from it; he hopes there may be some remedy found for this, as he considers, very pressing and immediate danger; and he speaks most strongly of the necessity for some security being taken for the choice of men fit to deal with and be entrusted with the government of highly intellectual races. Now, all I shall say further upon this subject is in reference to the concluding part of my Motion in regard to how far the system now adopted in this country prevails abroad. I am desired to ask that an inquiry should be made into the working of foreign systems. I find that there is no competition in any of the 26 States of Germany in the sense of our competitive examinations in England. They have qualifying examinations for categories and posts in which success is essential. In fact the English system obtains nowhere in Europe except in France; and what says M. Yves Guyot upon the subject? He writes—
"La protestation est juste; si elle est juste en Angleterre, à plus forte raison l'est elle en
1454
France, où nous sommes tous des petits Mandarins, qui n'avons la permission de devenir quelque chose qu'après avoiréte broyé par un tas de laminoirs qu'on appelle des examens et des concours, et tout est demandé à la mémoire, rien au jugement, où le mieux noté est celui qui a le mieux retenu la lecon du maître et n'a jamais pensé pour lui-même."
He says if this protest which we are making is right in England, it is even more so in France, where they are all "petty-Mandarins," who have not permission to become anything except after being crushed by examinations and competition, where everything is asked of the memory and nothing of the judgment. And he says of those examinations, that the man who gets the most marks is he who has best retained the lessons he has learned from his master and has never thought for himself. The American view of the subject also bears out that which I venture to set before your Lordships from the protest. From letters published in New York, it appears that this question is being raised in that country also. A New York publication which is headed "Examination and Education," published by Leonard, states that President Adams, of Cornell University, says:—
"From his own experience the best work was done where there was the largest freedom; the least satisfactory where there was the most rigid system of examination and marks. The German method is superior to the English; American experience accords with the German."
Professor Thompson, of the University of Pennsylvania, writes:—
"Thus far we have avoided the worst defects of the Englsh system. We have kept examinations in the hands of teachers, which minimises cramming."
Chancellor Sims, of Syracuse University, declares the whole system of prizes and scholarships and other honours on examination to be vicious and hurtful. And Professor Rogers, of Harvard College, says:—
"It is almost a truism since the days of Matthew Arnold that in Germany, the land of few examinations, scholarship has touched a mark far beyond that reached in England, where an examination begins and concludes everything."
My Lords, I have nothing more to quote to you in opposition to the present system of cramming-examinations, but as my object in moving for this Commission is that in doing so both sides of the question should be brought before

1455
the House, so that your Lordships may decide which is right and which is wrong, I think it is right that I should now say a few words on the other side. A reply to that protest has appeared in the Nineteenth Century, and I think I may say that the general answer given is that examination and competition act as a stimulus to candidates to work, and that without it not one in tan, or even one in a hundred, would work for learning's sake. Lord Thring, in his answer to one of the published letters, also says that he does not think you can get boys to learn for learning's sake, and that you must give a stimulus in the shape of scholarships and prizes, or perhaps, as he says, even a stimulus behind. What he means by that I will not attempt to explain. Then they say in defence of this system that there is no other means of avoiding favouritism in appointments to public offices than by throwing them open to competition. That was the very reason why, as I have told your Lordships, this vicious system was first introduced. This necessity, I grieve to say, is considered to be much greater now under a Government of the democracy than ever it was under a Government conducted by a bloated aristocracy. Let me give the House a very short summary of the view of, I suppose, one of the chief of crammers—Mr. Scoon, a man of extreme ability, who has done good service in getting young men forward for examination. He sends foxes into the Philistines' corn. He does not mince matters in answering his opponents, and he says that the agitation against examination is due to the unendowed coach; that a private tutor is rarely consulted before the University course for better or worse is closed, by which enthusiasm is kindled not so much for the acquisition of knowledge as for the objects of knowledge; that it is the University men and not the coaches who swamp the country with detestable primers, summaries, and digests which supply the place of larger works, and the use of which deprives the candidates of the power of thinking out even the value of an adjective; that injury is done to health by examinations; that the unendowed coach represents the survival of the fittest; and that high-class candidates are successful without the aid of tips. My Lords, I have now stated both the
1456
arguments against and those in favour of the present system. There have also appeared in the publications to which I have referred and in the letters of different kinds from which I have quoted, suggestions as to what should be done in the way of remedy for the defects which the writers themselves see. For, mark, in all this correspondence, in all the remarks of those who defend the existing system, they do not defend it exactly as it is. They defend examination, they defend competition; but they do not defend the examinations-as they are now conducted, for I think, almost without exception, they say reform of some kind is wanted. The difficulty is for them to find what the change should be; they do not see their way, and meantime they are content to more or less let things alone. Still, if they do not ask for, they are not opposed to the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry, and in that way they hope that some outlet will be found. Of those suggestions I have noted a few. They mainly resolve themselves into qualified selection, limiting and controlling appointments by examination. All educational examinations of pupils, it is again strongly recommended, should be conducted by-teachers with an independent assessor. Then grants of luoney to deserving-students are recommended without examination, and on the recommendation of college and school authorities, rather than awards of scholarships and prizes by competitive examination. Others again think that physical tests should be added to examinations, and that marks should be allowed for them. Lord Lytton wishes the Public Service to be supplied by qualification, subject, if possible, to selection, while Lord Derby is of opinion that some substitute for competitive examinations is required which would give equally free opportunities to all. Lord Carnarvon says there is nothing like the old Oxford University honors system; and no man is more entitled to speak of that system than Lord Carnarvon, who under it distinguished himself so much at the University. He also says he would be in favour of nomination with a high qualifying test, as in the Foreign Office. Lord Pembroke says there should be a pass-examination put at whatever height you choose, and then there

1457
should be physique tests. In Holland there is a system existing which is said to work: extremely well. For public appointments there is a qualifying examination, with a nomination of candidates to the qualifying examination from the universities and schools. When the nominations are vested in the universities and schools, there would be much less chance of jobbery than if they were in the hands of public officials. Now, my Lords, my task is at an end, and, as I have said, it is not a responsibility which I have taken upon myself. I am simply the mouthpiece of others. I will only say I wish that, in addition to what I have been able to state with regard to the views of distinguished persons, I could bring any experience of my own to bear upon this matter of examination; but I recollect hearing, many years ago, that the grandfather of one of your Lordships once said, "He thanked God he was born before that scoundrel Jenner adulterated the race." And I, for my part, thank God that I was born before men were put, as they are now, under this torturing examination harrow. My examinations at Oxford were very much the same, I have no doubt, as those of many of my noble Friends—on entering the University for the Little-Go, and for one's Degree. I am happy to say that is the whole amount of examination to which I have ever been subjected; and my first examination, on entrance into the University, was, I recollect, not very formidable. I was marched up the Hall where all the tutors stood in a row, into the presence of the Dean, and the Dean simply put one very searching question to me—"How is your father?" I supposed I answered that question very satisfactorily, for I was instantly passed and became entitled to all the privileges of the University. I cannot, therefore, my Lords, thank God, speak to the working of these examinations from personal experience; but I think I have Said enough, quoting from these authorities, some of them among the most distinguished men in the land, who have expressed their views on this subject. I hope I have convinced your Lord that this question is a very vital one; that it not only affects the intellectual progress and education of the nation, but that it affects the national health in the present, and possibly that of
1458
generations yet unborn. We are told that it is not the best way of obtaining our public servants, and there is no other country in Europe except France in which this system prevails. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will take this matter into their serious consideration, not necessarily from anything that I have said, but on account of the interest which is taken in the question at the present time by the public as manifested by the opinions to which I have referred. From what I have been told, I believe that the granting of this Commission is not impossible, and that it is not viewed at all with disfavour by the head of Her Majesty's Government. It is in that hope and in that belief that I have brought the matter forward, not speaking for myself, but for those who have desired that I should bring the subject under your Lordships' consideration. I have, in conclusion, to apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships time.
Moved,
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon the whole subject of official appointments by examination, and to collect information bearing on the matter from other countries."—(The Lord Wemyss, E. Wemyss,)
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE: My Lords, as an old examiner, and not in my episcopal capacity, I should like to say a few words upon this subject. Looking round upon your Lordships' House I can see the face of certainly one noble Lord whom it was my privilege and duty in old times to examine. I daresay there may be others present, for I have examined a good many. With regard to the articles in the Nineteenth Century, to which the noble Earl has referred, I may say that I am not one of those who signed the protest. I was desirous of doing so, but felt myself unable to sign it as I thought it went too far. But I contributed one of the articles which have been referred to, and if I rightly remember it was the last word in the discussion upon the subject. Although unable to sign the protest, I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the Motion of the noble Earl. With the general purpose of that Motion I entirely agree; but, as the noble Karl did not speak as an expert on the subject

1459
of examinations, I think it desirable to point out the distinction between examinations as a mode of entrance to the Public Service and of testing capacity for well-paid work, and the use of examinations as a distinct part of education. I maintain, and I think any one with University experience will support me in saying, that examinations are a necessary part of a regular education. With regard to the subject to which I especially devoted my own attention at Cambridge— mathematics—examination was the very backbone of the educational system. It is the best way of first getting knowledge into a man, and then getting it out of him; seeing whether he is competent to reproduce that knowledge which has been put into him. As to the notion of a man being merely crammed for a time and then having, upon the strength of his memory, to produce a certain amount of knowledge, that is a mere caricature of that which is the real system of teaching and of which examination is the test. A certain amount of knowledge is put into a man, and it is only by examination that you can find out whether he is competent to reproduce the knowledge which has been imparted to him. Examination is the test that a man has understood what he has learnt, and that he is able to reproduce it in a clear and suitable way. But beyond that, I venture to say that it is not the mere reproduction of knowledge that is first put into a man that is required, but both with regard to classics and mathematics the most important portions of them are just those things which a man has to evolve out of his intellect, and which he cannot possibly get from any books beforehand. In the case of classical examinations, every one knows that certainly at Cambridge the chief stress is laid on original composition—it may be verses, or it may be Latin prose or translation; but it is perfectly impossible, from the nature of things, that that could ever have been crammed into a man. With regard to mathematics, the great object of the examiners is so to frame their questions in reference to book work as that they shall test a man's thorough knowledge of what he has been doing, and make it impossible for him by mere cram to rise to any high place in the tripos. Examination and cram are often taken as if they were
1460
correlative terms; but the great effort of Cambridge examination was, as far as possible, to dissociate those two things. Anything at all in the nature of cram was at once marked in black by the examiners, and every effort was made to throw cram into the background and to give the marks and the honours to those who showed that they had not been crammed, but that they understood what they had learnt, and who showed by the manner in which they worked their problems that they knew what they had been doing. There seems to be a great tendency, because examination seems to have partially failed with regard to certain applications of it, to bar examination altogether. I entirely approve of what has been said by the noble Lord—I believe it was a quotation from Professor Huxley—that examination is a good servant but a bad master. I have no doubt that is so; but while we disclaim it as a master, let us make it our servant. Let us make it the handmaid of education and the test of knowledge, but let us suppress as strongly as possible the notion of any real connection between examination and cram. The noble Lord has wisely confined himself to one particular portion of the subject; he has not asked for a Royal Commission to inquire into the question of examinations in general. It seems to me that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, consisting of men who are experts in this matter, and who are most laboriously and conscientiously devoting themselves to the question how examinations can best be managed and how they can be made best to answer their purposes, might well be let alone. I think they understand their business better than any Royal Commission can teach it to them, and it is much better to allow them to work out their own problem in their own way. With regard, however, to official appointments by examination, that seems to me to be a subject which deserves to be looked into. If one may believe all that one hears about the results of these examinations, I think there is a great deal which may be very properly inquired into; and, therefore, while I speak strongly of the benefit of examination and the possibility of entirely dissociating it from cram, I am entirely with the noble Lord in the Motion he has made.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, the noble Lord who has addressed you with so much ability on this subject has in his speech combined a number of subjects which hardly seem to be appropriate to the object of the particular Motion itself. My noble Friend appears to have had a limited experience of examinations, and his experience was a very pleasant one I should imagine, for a young man going up at Oxford simply to be asked about his father's health could not be very trying. I am sure, however, that you could hardly put that forward as a system which could either be preserved in Universities or which, if preserved, would conduce to the advantage of the Universities generally. With reference to the three very distinguished men whose views he has put forward, Mr. Knowles, Mr. Auberon Herbert, and Mr. Frederick Harrison, I think, without any disrespect to them, I may say they are not without what some people call crotchets, or, at all events, hobbies, which they ride with some violence. With regard to the passages which have been quoted by my noble Friend, I regret to say that I am not so extensively read as himself nor have I refreshed my memory as to those passages, but I certainly do remember that there was a long controversy in the Nineteenth Century with regard to this subject of examinations. The right rev. Prelate who has addressed your Lordships' House has, I think, shown you that examinations for prizes, scholarships, and degrees, are absolutely requisite, or else the Universities would become of little or no advantage. Everything that has gone on in this country recently has been in the direction of stimulating education by offering open scholarships, and making prizes more open than they formerly were, so as to bring forward those of special ability for whom the Colleges have almost contested. I am far from saying, nor do I think it necessary to the argument to say, that the number of examinations at the Universities do not strike one with surprise, remembering what formerly took place, and comparing them with the period at which one was studying at a University one's self. At that time there was the "Little-go" or responsions, and there were no
1462
doubt what were called College Examinations at the end of the term but no examinations for degrees either when going in for pass or for moderations and then final honours. I think my noble Friend was speaking not of the official examinations to which his Motion is directed, but rather of the examinations within the Universities themselves, which are continually going on. In fact, whenever I have been at Oxford I have found that the new schools in High Street there are pretty well occupied by those who are being examined for something or other in that place, which was certainly not the case before. We are apt to forget the state of things which existed formerly when Sir Stafford Northcote and Mr. Trevelyan began their movement, though that was not done by themselves alone, one being a private secretary, the other being employed as everybody knows, in an official capacity. At that time to which my noble Friend has referred, it was not thought that the system in existence was a good one, and I cannot imagine that it was only with the view of getting rid of the responsibility of nomination that Ministers consented to the change which then took place. I do not say that it does not interest myself as a Minister to be free from nominations, which was the system formerly, and I think that many must have the same feeling. The selection of individuals is a very invidious task, particularly for offices, which should be open to all. It seems a hard thing that when five or six boys at a school, all equally capable, all equally educated, and all equally brought up as gentlemen, you should exclude five of them from particular offices because the sixth has influential connections. It seems a hard thing that five of such boys must be excluded from the competition and from the chance of obtaining a particular appointment because they had no connection with the Minister, and no connection with anybody who could give the appointment. This system of open competition, therefore, is not a thing which has come about suddenly, but it has grown. In the first place, there were test examinations, and eventually competition followed, and I think the effect of those examinations, judging from the results, has not been so bad as my noble

1463
Friend supposed, for one office after another has come voluntarily under this system, and many offices which are not under the Orders in Council still call upon the Civil Service Commissioners to undertake the examination of their clerks with a view to obtaining efficient Civil servants. Therefore, I say, that this system of open competition has sprung up gradually of itself. In a few moments I will show what Parliament has done, rather differing from the view of my noble Friend, though I quite admit that this question has exercised men's minds very much, and that eminent men have taken different views on the subject. My noble Friend went on to speak of the Scotch Code, and gave all the credit for it to my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland, and he is entitled to a great deal, but, at the same time, I would point out that we in England have taken the same course, and that I am as responsible for what has been done in Scotland as my noble Friend (Lord Lothian). I do not quite see, however, the bearing of this upon the question before us. I go back to that, and if I thought that this system were destructive of all real education, as my noble Friend says, I should be the last to resist his Motion. I do not say that it may not require great modifications, and indeed constant modifications have been going on. The Departments have boon in constant communication with the Civil Service Commissioners not only with the view to render the examinations such as will secure candidates fitted for their particular Departments, but will also ensure that the knowledge possessed is not the result of a system of cram. In fact, the first object put forward was to insist upon a thorough education. The main object of the entrance examination, it is to be borne in mind, is to secure the selections of youths which have had a thoroughly well grounded liberal education as English gentlemen; and what I want to contend for is that the Civil Service Commissioners secure that end while they do not exclude youths possessing the ordinary education which gentlemen get. For you will find it is a remarkable fact that in a great number of cases in which Universities and schools send up their candidates, they are largely suc-
1464
cessful, not in consequence of having gone upon a system of cram, but from having adopted a system of what is called a liberal education fitted for gentlemen both at school and in College. I quite agree that the object ought to be that those which have been reading specially for those examinations, should not be taken out of the ordinary course of education which will qualify them for any other position; and the system which the Civil Service Commissioners adopt is, I think, well qualified to attain that end. For instance, in the lower branches of the Civil Service Examinations to which candidates are admitted no one can say that the examinations are of such a character as to induce an education different from that which would qualify a man for any ordinary position as a merchant or shopkeeper or anything else in London or any of our cities. But with regard to the higher class examinations, if my noble friend had looked into the subjects which are examined upon, and the care with which they are selected, I think he would have seen that there was nothing which would tend to encourage cram, but that it was intended and everything was done to encourage the acquirement of a liberal education at universities and schools. There have always been at the universities and outside men with special qualifications, who are able, as it were, to whip up their pupils for examination for good degrees or for positions which they desire to attain. There is no doubt that there are unendowed persons who have adopted their own course in these matters, and have shown themselves specially qualified in that way, but those persons are not the examiners, and therefore no suspicion of favouritism can be attributed to them in regard to those whom they coach, who undergo the same examination, and whose only advantage is that they have received the help and stimulus of the unendowed tutors. I do not think the object of my friend is to interfere with the system of education, and I do not understand him to say that these examinations for special purposes do interfere more with the system of education than the examinations for prizes and certificates, which he seemed to think so injuriously affect the minds and physique of those who are subjected to them. That point has been

1465
answered by the Right Rev. Prelate, and I think I need not further dwell upon it. But let me quote from the late Report of the Civil Service Commissioners for the purpose of showing what are their own views upon this question of liberal education. They say that for themselves they are fully sensible of the great responsibility which is imposed upon them, and that they will strive by constant vigilance so to administer the system as to encourage a liberal measure of instruction, in order to ensure that those candidates only shall succeed whose knowledge has been thoroughly and intelligently acquired. And when we consider who the Civil Service Commissioners are, we find among them Sir George Dasent and Mr. Courthope—one of the most distinguished literary men of the day and a man highly qualified for the post he occupies. I know more of him than of Sir G. Dasent, but everyone who knows Mr. Courthope knows that he is singularly qualified for the post he holds, and that he is the last man in the world to allow a system of real education to be eclipsed by a system of cram which should lead to the carrying away of prizes by those who had not received a thorough, true, and liberal education, as he says himself. Then my noble Friend speaks of health, and on that point I am a little surprised. I do not deny for a moment that the great competitive strain to which people are subjected in these days, not only in schools or in official examinations, but in the tremendous struggle for existence and for a competency which is going on in this country, has to some extent increased the prevalence of nervous disorders, and has had in that way an injurious effect upon people's brains. The only question is whether the undisturbed brain is so valuable an article that the risk of disturbing it should not be run for the purpose of arriving at higher qualifications. I do not find from my own experience that people's health and minds are to any large degree affected by these examinations in schools, colleges, and universities. In the Commissioners' Report there is given a summary for the first 30 years of the system. In the first 30 years they state that there were 123,000 entries for examination. My Lords, think of the trouble which Ministers have been saved. There were
1466
nominated 26,675, and entries for open competition 291,521. The reason I give the full figures is to show how many were affected in health. Even upon the strict medical examination made of candidates the number was only 2,363, or not 1 per cent. Therefore, your Lordships see that those who had prepared themselves for these examinations or competitions had not absolutely destroyed their health, and one knows that among such large numbers there must be youths who have inherited disorders. That seems to be the effect of these competitive examinations. You will find in the last Report of the Civil Service Commissioners a letter from Sir Andrew Clark with respect to the Indian competitions, for which lie had been medical examiner, expressing the opinion that those who passed for the Indian Civil Service did not appear to suffer in their health, though I believe the Indian Civil Service examination is as severe as any. But though he does not find that they suffer in their health, he finds, curiously enough, that there is a particular form of disorder—rather disagreeable to talk of perhaps—albuminuria, which comes on at the critical moment of examination, arising apparently from nervous excitement, and to which those possessing highly nervous constitutions are liable. However, he finds that when the examinations are over that passes off in a few days, and does not materially affect the candidate afterwards. I think, my Lords, we may pass on with the subject as far as the official examinations are concerned. With regard to the general question of health, I would ask have we become a nation so puny and unhealthy that we have no longer either muscles or strength enough for such a strain, as would appear from the statement of my noble Friend? The complaint is generally the other way: the complaint is that we are becoming a nation of athletes, and there never was a time when athleticism was so prevalent as at present in our colleges and schools and among our youth. Those who have been the most celebrated at Cambridge and Oxford as athletes have taken the highest places and honours in the Oxford Classes and the Tripos at Cambridge. And so with regard to the Judges and those who have held high office in this country. My

1467
noble Friend says that neither we, as Ministers, nor the Judges are put to examination. The Judges have to go through a long trial; it is true they have not to go through the trial of an examination extending over several days, both oral and written, but they have to make their reputation as men of ability, as lawyers able to state facts and deal with them—certainly they have to show their competency in law. So, again, with regard to those who adorn the Bench on which my right rev. Friend sits, there is not one who rises without examination: they have had to show their qualifications before the period when they wore elevated to the Bench. With regard to my own position I will say nothing—or I will only say this, that nothing would be less to my taste than to be put to an examination test by the Civil Service Commissioners. When I was at the Home Office I remember a very curious incident occurring in reference to this subject. I was called upon to appoint an Inspector of Mines, and I wrote to the great College at Newcastle to recommend somebody. They sent me back the name of a man who they said knew everything about mines, who was consulted upon all mining questions throughout the country as an authority, was thoroughly acquainted with everything connected with the ventilation of mines, and whom they said I might safely appoint. Well, I appointed him, and he went before the Civil Service Commissioners for examination. He was plucked because, as lie said, he had totally forgotten all the things he knew when he was 22, but that at 42 his mind had been carried far beyond what he knew then, and he said it was unreasonable to call upon a man at his age, and after so long an experience to undergo a Civil Service examination. I agree, but that was at a very early period of this system; things are now conducted in a very different manner; but I know it happened in that particular case that after having appointed two men, both eminent engineers in the North, who were both plucked, the Commissioners at last passed a young man of the greatest distinction, but they again complained that he was not quite 25. I replied—"This will not do, if he is not 25 he is very near it." Then they said they would pass him, but that his pension would
1468
only reckon from his 25th year. He was then appointed, and I believe has been acting with great success ever since. I only mention that, my Lords, to show that with regard to examinations they should be adapted in some sense to the kind of men who are called upon to undergo them, and it no doubt requires a great deal of skill to conduct them properly. My noble Friend spoke with some disrespect, I think, of those who had gone to India. I have myself had a little experience with regard to Indian matters, and I never heard complaints made on that subject. On more than one occasion inquiries have been made by Government into the working of the competitive system, with the result of ascertaining that the system has produced men many of whom have acquired a reputation for administrative capacity of a high order. With regard to Indian Civil Servants, I can only say that they are men who are eminently qualified to perform the duties called for from them. I can quote from the Reports of the Director of Military Examinations to the same effect; and, in fact, the Civil Service examinations have been conducted with the view of getting the best men, because it has been found that we have no means of getting them in any other way. I do not wish to be in the least misunderstood in this matter. I can quite understand the arguments of my noble Friend and his supporters with regard to avoiding the responsibility of nomination, but he is mistaken if he supposes that character is not now tested. The subject of character is closely inquired into by the Civil Service Commissioners, and there were over 2,000 rejected on that ground, and not allowed to go in for the examinations, as appears in their Report to which I have adverted. That shows that there is supervision exercised with regard to character. My Lords, after all this, what have we to do with a Royal Commission? I cannot myself understand the arguments for a new inquiry of that kind. There is a perpetual inquiry going on. What good purpose would be served by appointing another Commission? There are no facts with regard to what is done in foreign countries, which cannot readily be procured by the Foreign Office, as to this subject and all matters connected with it. The Army examination of the Belgians is referred to in the Appendix to the last

1469
Report of the Civil Service Commission, and anything else of that sort can be readily procured. Have there been no inquiries upon the subject? Has not this subject been inquired into again and again? In 185;! there was Sir Stafford Northcote's Commission; then in 1855 there was au Order in Council which began the system; and in 1856 there was a Resolution of the House of Commons in favour of it. Then in 1859 there was the superannuation measure, that no one who had not a certificate should receive a pension. In 1860 there was a Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed upon these subjects. Then there was another Order in Council in 1870 upon which practically they are now acting. Since that time there has been the Playfair Commission, and now there is the Ridley Commission, which has to consider this question incidentally, and which has found, in fact, that a great many of the pupils are too good for the post for which they go up to be examined; and that really you have put razors to cat blocks. The standard may be altered in order to answer the objection that many of the Lower Division clerks have really higher qualifications than men in the Higher Division. Now, after all these things, what is it my noble Friend wants? He wants a Commission on which we must put, I suppose, representatives of different opinions, who will not report unanimously. Suppose we put on a Commission Mr. Frederick Harrison on the one side, and some person who tikes a totally different view on the other, what would be the result? You would have simply no Report whatever, or an imperfect Report, and we should be just where we are. My Lords, I am convinced of this: that with an Executive deeply interested in having the offices well filled, and interested in exercising the vigilant superintendence which it exercises now, I fail to see the need of any inquiry such as is suggested by the noble Earl; and it is a remarkable thing, when you consider how every subject is brought before Parliament, that nothing has been brought forward against the system as one bringing into office persons who are unfitted for their duties. No attack has been made upon the system on the ground of the unfairness in the examinations, or of injustice done to individuals.
1470
Of course, there will always be among great numbers of persons black sheep. Though the majority are white sheep there will always be some black ones, whether the system adopted be nomination or competition. I believe, in the absence of any such charges against the present system, that a new Royal Commission would throw no greater light on the subject. Let us inquire, if you please, into the subject of education, and how we can give a better stimulus to it in regard to those who are to fill official positions. If, on the other hand, there be anything in the system which conduces to ill-health, let us have statistics-on the subject, and not act upon suggestions such as that put forward by my noble Friend, whose medical acquaintance got out of his brougham to tell him the interesting fact which he narrated. It did not seem to be of much importance upon this point, because the-particular effect to which he had just been referring was the effect upon girls, and therefore a girl was more likely to be subject than a boy to the effects of the system which he so much deplores. My Lords, I believe that without any further Commission you have already full means of arriving at a just conclusion on this subject; and therefore, with great respect to my noble Friend, I must answer that I cannot accede to his request for a Commission.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I think you will allow that my noble Friend made an exceedingly good point when he referred to the athletic part of the argument of the noble Earl. I wish the noble Viscount had been as successful, as he certainly was eloquent, in attempting to deal with the numerous other points which were put by the noble Earl. It would be a most satisfactory thing to the public could this-matter be dealt with successfully once for all, and as I think every great question ought to be dealt with, by an able Minister like the noble Viscount, competent to lead public opinion, and to give to public opinion that guidance which the people of this country expect to-receive, not only upon this, but every other important question. My Lords, it is very curious, indeed, to see how many inconsistent opinions there are among eminent men, themselves connected with the work of

1471
education, upon this subject. I was very glad to hear from the noble Earl that Dr. Warre had given his views against the present abuse of examinations. The last time I looked at an Eton list, and that is not very long ago, I found that the Rev. Dr. was not only examining in the old-fashioned manner, hut was actually examining every boy for every division he had to enter, and if he did not pass affixed the sign of a minus quantity against his name. I hope that has been abolished, and that the opinion of the Rev. Dr. has been changed. Then there is the question of Public Schools. I am acquainted with one which is, perhaps, rather more a proprietary school which is greatly patronised by the upper Middle Class, and I know what happens to the boys who are at a too early age over-educated in that school. They are sent up to the Universities, there to obtain scholarships, and they obtain nothing else because they are worked out; and I am not at all sure that that is not an advantage to them considering the present condition of the Universities. I am not speaking of what they were formerly, but of what they are now, even when the positions of distinction in them have been so very highly filled. My Lords, what are they? Instead of the old educating subjects—the classics and mathematics—we have all kinds of "ologies." Your Lordships know the term which is applied to these other subjects. They are subjects which are harmless enough; but if they do not precisely educate, they are not of any distinct advantage to the persons who are examined. Subjects like Political Economy and Modern History, with which the Universities have nothing to do, are substituted for real educational work. As for the origin of this system which the noble Lord pointed out, I am not at all surprised to find that Sir Stafford North cote was in favour of this kind of examination, because it is within my knowledge that Sir Stafford Northcote, in order, I suppose, to assist himself in his Parliamentary work, went to a celebrated Professor of Mnemonics and studied under him, and probably he thought as he had derived benefit from that kind of instruction it would be of advantage for examinees and would assist them in the same manner. Now, the next point is one to which I desire
1472
particularly to call your Lordships' attention. The noble Earl, quoting Lord Thring, said that he contended that school examinations were absolutely necessary, simply because a large majority of the boys would not work unless they had a stimulus before them or a stimulus behind. My Lords, I question that, and I think they might be made to work. It might be made a necessity of their school time that they should work—it was so in the time of our grandfathers. The man who I consider injured and ruined more than any other the education of England was the late Dr. Valpy of Reading School. He took it into his head—it was one of the follies of the wise—that grammars ought to be written not in a learned language, but in English. Before his time the old Eton grammar was written in Latin, and not only so, but Latin was the language spoken in every school where a gentleman was educated. A boy never addressed his master except in Latin, nor would any boy even address his schoolfellows except in Latin, and the consequence was that in those days a Lower Fifth Form boy would have a more competent knowledge of that most difficult art, Latin Prose Composition, than anyone now, except perhaps Archdeacon Denison. As to the right rev. Prelate saying that the Universities know their own business best, and do not want to be guided by a Royal Commission, I happen to have seen the actual marks which were given by four examiners to a very eminent man with whom I am acquainted, in giving him a First Class in Classics, and they differed so widely and absurdly in the marks which they gave for exactly the same work that it shook my faith in University examiners, and it shakes my faith now when the right rev. Prelate tells us that the Universities know their own business best.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this discussion further than to express my very great relief at hearing the speech made by my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, for I understood the noble Earl to say that he brought forward this motion with the support of Her Majesty's Government. It is a subject in which I have always taken a great interest. My noble Friend began by an allusion to a cook, but I can assure him that no cook

1473
of mine ever presented to me an ox in the shape of a pill; though with great culinary skill he has himself presented to us all the arguments which we have heard during the last 25 years against the admission of Civil servants to appointments by competitive examination. At the end of his long speech he stated his justification in bringing- this subject before us was that lie had the support of the head of Her Majesty's Government, and I own I trembled when the noble Viscount rose to address your Lordships, because I feared that we might be going back to a system which cannot be restored in place of a system which has answered very well indeed. It has always seemed to me that in order to have a Royal Commission the first thing is to show a necessity for it, and it is for my noble Friend to show that in this case there has been a deterioration in the personnel of Civil servants either in this country or in India. Some proof that that has been the result of the present system ought to have been given, and I believe there is no proof whatever of the sort. The noble Earl has not suggested mort than others have done who have at ticked this system, though giving- us, in a more tangible way, the desires which have been expressed for modification of details. The question is, what is the most certain mode of enabling us to secure the best men, whether by selection, by a competitive examination, or by leaving it entirely in the hands of Departments to fill up vacancies as they arise? The noble Lord made a comparison between Bishops, Judges, and statesmen. I think he might have said a little more about statesmen, for they have a great tussle to go through before they become Cabinet Ministers—a very great tussle indeed. I remember a joke of Lord Palmerston, who was once asked whether a man was fit for an office to which he had been appointed, and he replied, "I have generally found that when a fellow has been clever enough to get a political office he is clever enough to perform the duties of it." There is no doubt that political men have a much better and safer test than any mere literary examination could possibly put them through. Judges and Bishops are appointed, it is true, by selection, but in the case of such appointments the great responsibility rests upon the Prime
1474
Minister, or the head of a Department who makes the appointments; and if he makes a bad appointment, he is perfectly sure to hear of it directly through the organs of public opinion; the appointment is criticised, and he has at once to accept the responsibility. Now, what is the position of the political head of a great Department? Has he time himself to really examine into all the qualifications of the numbers of young men of 18 or 19 who are desirous of filling the office? I venture to say that he has not, and if he makes a mistake in making the appointment he has to admit the responsibility, though it may not be brought against him for eight or ten years afterwards. I believe there is no possibility of the head of a Department himself selecting young men, and the result must be, for human nature continues the same, that if you give the power to heads of Departments to make appointments to offices, the power will be exercised almost always at the dictates of political Whips in the House of Commons, or at the request of Peers who discharge similar duties in your Lordships' House; or at the suggestion of political friends. I have no doubt that we should all like to have an easier opportunity of providing for sons who are not quite so intelligent as we should wish them to be, and that may account, perhaps, for some of the attacks which have been made upon the system of competitive examinations. What the right rev. Prelate has slid is perfectly true with regard to distinguishing between real and forced education—we ought to make a distinction between cramming and real education. I do not think the word "cram" is a very admirable word. Students may be crammed in such a way as that they learn only the questions which they are likely to be asked, or they may not, and it depends entirely upon the character of these examinations whether they are successful or not in securing the best men. The noble Lord brought forward the instance of Sir Henry Taylor, who declared that he would never have been able to get into the Colonial Office if there had been a competitive examination at the beginning. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that I never knew a better permanent Civil servant than Sir Henry Taylor; but there are other

1475
authorities than Sir Henry Taylor, and I am justified, I think, in not taking his authority upon the subject of what he would or could not have done when he was a young man, because I am perfectly certain that if he had known that his admission into the Public Service depended upon his showing that he possessed a certain amount of education, he would have succeeded in satisfying the requirements of the tests. Another thing which your Lordships do not know, but which Lord Kimberley does, with regard to the question of clerks, is that Sir Henry Taylor was not quite so good an authority as will be supposed, for he was in such an exceptional position that he almost to the end of his life continued to do some of the most valuable work in the Colonial Office, but for 15 years of the time he never saw it, living 70 miles away as he did. My Lords, I really am glad that the noble Lord opposite has spoken on behalf of the Government as clearly as he has done, but I think if a case of deterioration had been made out, or if a case had been made out as to the destruction of health, it would have been a very difficult thing; but if no case of that kind does exist, I think it would be perfectly wrong of Her Majesty's Government to give encouragement to the notion that the valuable system now existing, though it may be open to improvement, is likely to be upset by the Report of a Royal Commission.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl whether, in the event of his succeeding in his Motion, he would include the entrance and other examinations to the Army within the scope of it. I think your Lordships will agree that in no branch of the Public Service is it so necessary to have men of initiative and readiness of resource as in the Army. By the present system of examination, the memory of a candidate is made the most important factor, and we know that many men of small memory, but of great readiness of resource, would under the present system be prevented from entering Her Majesty's Service. I am sure most of your Lordships must have among your acquaintance's many men who have failed in passing the preliminary examinations for the Army, but who are, above all, the most fitted to lead
1476
troops in action. I do not wish to make a speech on the subject. I came here not knowing that it was to be brought forward, but I desire to call attention to the examinations in regard to men who are entering the Services. The noble Viscount made some remark to the effect that he was not aware that these examinations have a bad effect on men's health, but I know men personally who have told mo they have been made ill by having to undergo the examinations. I trust, therefore, that the noble Earl will, if he succeed in his-Motion, include the Army examinations in the scope of it. In my own branch of the Service, the Cavalry, there were in former days four or five men deep waiting for commissions, but at the present time, or at all events a short time ago, there was hardly a Cavalry Regiment in the Service which was not short of officers, while hundreds of men who would make most excellent Cavalry officers, second to none in the world, are idle and doing nothing The object of an examination for the Public Service is to get the very best men possible to serve the country, and even it it be difficult to fill vacancies it is impossible to be too particular as to the men who present themselves and who are passed. In the Army now, according to a recent regulation, reports are made upon subalterns after, I think, throe years' service, by the senior officers. I am afraid that any report of that kind will be more or less a dead-letter, because when a subaltern joins a regiment he may, as regards acquirements, stand as fair; he may pass, and may be quite good enough to go on at first; and it is a very difficult position to put senior officers in who are perhaps friends of the young man, who may be quite passable in every way, to say that they shall block him out from the Service. I believe that, as regards the Army, the effect of this provision, under which yon can in that way get rid of an officer after three years' service, will be that you will only get rid of the most glaring instances of in competency. My Lords, I will conclude by again hoping that the noble Lord will proceed with his Motion, and that he will include the Army in it.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers, I would like to say a few words. I do not

1477
wish to enter into the general discussion, but only to touch upon the subject as far as it bears upon the Indian Civil Service, and to say that I confirm entirely as far as my own experience goes, and it has been considerable, what was said by the noble Viscount, as to the result of the present system in that Service. At the time I had the honour of holding the office of Secretary of State for India, I made repeated enquiries to ascertain whether the complaints sometimes made in the public prints with regard to the results of competitive examinations were well-founded or not, and I and my colleagues convinced ourselves from the reports we received from the various departments, that there was no reason to be dissatisfied with the results of the system of appointing Indian Civil servants by competitive examination. There were of course some failures, as there must always be under any system. Failures had occurred in the case of Civil servants who had shown want of judgment and even common sense, but under no system could that be avoided. You may test a man's intellectual capacity, but you cannot by any means you can devise test his judgment or common sense; his Examiners cannot be certain that he possesses either, and that is therefore an inherent difficulty in any system you may introduce. But I am quite sure there is no reason to be dissatisfied with the results of the system as regards India, and I am glad the noble Viscount quoted from the report upon that service, which gives a perfectly favourable opinion upon those results. I will also add that for many years there have been discussions upon the question, not whether there ought to be competitive examinations, but as to age and other qualifications. Different views have been taken on the subject, and it has been thought that the system might be improved upon. My own opinion is that the changes proposed, particularly with regard to age, were shown to be on the whole not desirable, and I am extremely glad to find that the Secretary of State for India has found it better to go back to the old system. I think it was better to give a trial to the new conditions; but as they were found not to work as well as the old conditions, I am very glad the noble Viscount has found himself able to put those conditions again in force.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I am glad to hear the expression of opinion which the noble Earl has just given. I can assure him the matter received very careful consideration before any alteration was made. I thought it only right that a fair and full trial should be given to the younger limit of age fixed upon some time ago when my noble Friend was Secretary of State; but the evidence which was produced before the Commission which sat in India, and the Report of the Commissioners themselves, coupled with the strong recommendation I had from the Viceroy, convinced me— having gone thoroughly into the subject upon the Reports which I received from every quarter—that it was wise to increase the limit of age for examination from 19 to 23. I am in hopes that we shall be able to secure the advantage which the Universities have given with regard to the training of young men after they have obtained their degree. Nothing could be better than the behaviour of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge in the matter, and I think the thanks of the country are due to them for the good they have done to the Indian Civil Service. I take this opportunity of publicly thanking them for the manner in which they have received the change of age, and no doubt still hope to render advantages to the Service. I think now that the limit of age has been altered, it is right for me to say that we never got the actual cream of the public school boys because they were taken away to go to the crammers. I hope we shall be able to get them now before they fix definitely their aim in life, and that either before they obtain their degree or afterwards they will find such an opening in the Indian Civil Service as will induce them to come forward for the purpose of filling the appointments, because to my mind there is no higher profession that a man can take up than that of the Indian Civil Service.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I should like to say with regard to what has fallen from my noble and gallant Friend with reference to the Army, that I had myself for some years the honour of being connected with the Army; and though of course I have not the direct knowledge which he as an officer can

1479
claim, still I had very ample opportunities of knowing what officers were some years ago. I think it will be admitted by everyone that officers of the present day are in knowledge and ability very superior to what they were 20 years ago. I do not attribute that entirely to the system of examination, but I think the system of examination has done much to improve the education of officers. When the noble Lord says that the examinations depend on memory and on memory alone, I entirely differ from him. The preliminary examination to which he refers is a very easy one, and one which an intelligent lad ought to pass without much difficulty. Then when you talk of physique, I venture to think that the officers of the present time are not inferior in physique to the officers of the British Army during any period of its existence. The noble Lord spoke of the necessity of obtaining men possessing powers of initiation, but how in the world are you to discover whether there exists the initiative power (the importance of which I entirely admit) in a lad of 18 or 19, whatever test you apply? It is impossible to test those powers except by experience. I am not in the least a fanatic for examinations, and I do not see why the system of examinations cannot be improved. I do not deny, as the noble Lord on the Cross Benches said, that your system might exclude some excellent men and some fools, but I would ask under what system can you avoid this? The great point is to admit as few useless men as possible and to get as high an average as you can. I believe that under the present system of examination you exclude those who are absolutely ignorant, and you do not run the risk of excluding more men than under any system which has yet been devised. One's sympathies are often excited at seeing a fine young fellow who has failed to get in under the Army, but we must remember that many fine young men who are now officers in the Army would have failed to get in under the old system, and have had the door opened to them under this system of examinations. I do feel very strongly that before we are called upon to abolish or revise this system, which has not been unsuccessful up to the present time, we
1480
should ascertain what system is likely to be successful.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I had not intended to trouble you for a moment on this subject, because I understood that the Debate was to have turned entirely on the value of examinations before official appointments are made. My noble Friend the Chairman of Committees has avoided that subject altogether and has dwelt exclusively on the Army Examinations. It may be in the recollection of some of your Lordships that I have ventured to contend that the tests for the Army are incomplete—not that intellectual and educational tests ought not to be applied to the Army or that their application has not been of great value, but the physical strength and proficiency in martial and athletic exercises, though not ignored for what has been called the scientific branches of the Army, the Engineers and the Artillery, are entirely ignored in the rest. Nothing but a pass examination takes place by a medical man with regard to the appointment of officers for the Cavalry and Infantry. An officer of Engineers may, as has occurred in some instances, for years together never have occasion to cross, a horse; a cavalry officer, ex hypothesi, is obliged to do so; and yet, in the Woolwich Examination, proficiency and excellence in riding counts for a certain number of marks, but is utterly ignored in examinations for the Cavalry or for the Infantry. Surely, while good health is desirable in fulfilling all duties in life, and in occupying any official position, yet good bodily strength is of most essential value in the case of officers in the Army. I remember an ex-Cabinet Minister once saying to me that an examination which attached any value to riding would give an unfair advantage to men who had had the opportunity over the sons of poor parents. I said:—
"I did not know before that you wished to have a handicap competition for the honour of serving Her Majesty in the Army, that the object was not to get the best possible candidate but to get the best possible race."
My view, on the other hand, is that if Her Majesty can get an officer who is qualified to ride, so much the better. The better article Her Majesty can obtain at a given price and on given terms, it seems to me the greater the

1481
advantage for the country. I must not detain your Lordships longer upon a question which has collaterally arisen in the course of this debate. I can only say with regard to the question which has been raised by my noble Friend, that I have a very lively recollection of the pressure that came from constituents nearly half a century ago in these matters; and one of the Whips long ago confided to me that as a rule Members for small constituencies got a greater number of appointments for their constituents than Members for large constituencies; and for this reason, that it made comparatively little difference in an election in a large constituency to the chances of a candidate's election whether he obtained a particular nomination for some particular friend and supporter or not, whereas in a small constituency it might make the whole difference. A man with two or three brothers and cousins in a small constituency in the old days might decide the election one way or the other, and therefore not only had you a preponderance of nominations in favour of the relatives of the least independent and least high-minded, as a rule, of the constituents, but you had a preponderance of this kind of nomination from the most corrupt and smallest constituencies of the country. Whatever faults may be found with the present system, looking back in my own remembrance—and I had some facilities at one time in my life for seeing how patronage was bestowed—I cannot doubt that the testing of candidates by examination is in its results greatly superior to the old system of nomination. As a noble Lord has very truly observed, the nomination of an incompetent young man is not likely to effect prejudicially at once the efficiency of a public office, but as years pass by, after the patron has gone into Opposition, or has been placed in some other office, or has died, by the process of seniority the inefficient young man rises to a position of some importance and weight in his office, and the office suffers accordingly, but no one remembers after the lapse of so many years who was the Minister originally responsible for the appointment. So that in using his personal influence a Minister used not to be immediately concerned with regard to the fitness or eligibility of the candidate. Nothing is perfect in this world,
1482
and I have no doubt that the system of appointment of candidates may be susceptible of further improvement. I am quite satisfied that it is susceptible of a great deal of improvement in the case of candidates for the Army, but I cannot as regards the Civil appointments altogether support the views of my noble Friend.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I have only one word to say, and it is hardly in reply, but rather in explanation. The noble Lord who spoke from the Back Benches asked whether I would enlarge the scope of the motion so as to take in examinations as regards the Army. I shall be perfectly ready to do that if it will make the Motion more acceptable to the noble Lord the President of the Council. Would it??
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: No.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My object is to get this Motion carried, which I believe would greatly benefit the prospects of education in this country, but I suppose, from the reply of the noble Viscount, that that enlargement of the Motion would not make it more acceptable to him. I am bound to say it was with some astonishment that I heard the speech of my noble Friend. That speech was quite the speech of a person in an official position, for he based his answers on the opinions of those under him in the Office?
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; the Civil Service Commissioners have nothing whatever to do with me; they are not under me— they are under the Treasury.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I thought there was a connection between the Civil Service Commissioners and the Education Department, but apparently there is none. What the public desire to know is whether these official Reports are as absolutely trustworthy as they might be supposed to be as regards the carrying on the affairs of the country. My noble Friend has absolutely ignored the mass of evidence which he knew, or ought to have known, is being got together in the shape of letters from all sorts and conditions of men, peers, heads of colleges, and some of the men best known to science in this country, who all say that the time has come for an inquiry into the matter. I say I am surprised, because I am inclined to believe that if the head of Her Majesty's Government

1483
had not been a victim to the prevailing epidemic and had been in the House tonight, we should not have had the speech we have heard from the Treasury Bench. I had hoped the Prime Minister would have been here, and I had reason to believe from what I have been told by those whom I represent in your Lordships' House to-night that he would have acceded to the appointment of this Committee. So that I may say that I am among those who have suffered from the prevailing epidemic. The Chairman of Committees argued as if there was no alternative between the present system and a return to the old system of jobbery and unfairness; but it is in the belief than there is an alternative, and in the hope of putting it forward, that we are moving in this matter. Certainly my object was to show that those who are in favour of this inquiry want a Royal Commission in order to see whether the complaints against the present system are well founded or not, and to see whether you cannot find some middle course which shall be less disadvantageous to the country. That is my answer to the Chairman of Committees. The noble Lord has referred to what has been? done in Holland. The whole of the Civil Service is provided for in this way —not by examination, but by the nomination of heads of Department, and then the candidates have to pass an examination. I can only express my disappointment that Her Majesty's Government have thought it right, through my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, to decline to grant this Commission, but I hope they will see fit to alter their decision.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord persist in his Motion?
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: NO; I shall not press my Motion,
Motion (by leave of the Housed) withdrawn.

DOCK ACCOMMODATION AT GIBRALTAR.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: My Lords, I wish to repeat a question which has now been before us for three Sessions. Three Sessions ago I asked my noble Friend representing the Admiralty whether they hoped to construct a dock at Gibraltar.
  1484
  Some notice was given to my request, but I was told that the Admiralty had not made up their minds upon the subject. Since then, as I understand, a member of the Board has been out to Gibraltar, and in company with scientific engineers has examined the various sites. The Report appears to have been favourable, and we are again told that the Admiralty are considering the question. My Lords, I am afraid the Government have been somewhat deterred by a speech which was made last year by my noble Friend Lord Carnarvon, whose opinion must carry great weight although it is a non-professional opinion. His objection to the dock was based on two grounds. He first stated that the anchorage at Gibraltar was very unsafe, and then he said, what was partially true no doubt, that wherevera dock might be constructed it would be exposed to hostile batteries from the Spanish shore. With regard to the first question, I would merely remark that if there is any one position in which a ship might be safer in harbour than another, it is when she is in dry dock; and if the question of the erection of batteries on the Spanish shore is supposed to be against the construction of a dock at Gibraltar, I can only say that the same objection applies to all docks, arsenals, and works to which we have gone on adding for a series of years. It is very doubtful, from whatever point hostilities might come, whether any batteries could be erected which could not be commanded by the Rock battery; or supposing there should be anything that could harm us, to which we could not speedily reply by armaments sent out from our own arsenals. If it is a question of working batteries it would be probably "para mañana" with the Spaniards (an expression implying delay in Spanish), and I think we could supply heavier guns from England than any hostile Power could place to command the Gibraltar dock. I hope the Government are considering this question, and the reason I bring it forward now is that it may be taken into consideration before the Estimates are passed, and not delayed for another year. I need not remind my noble Friend, who is a naval man himself, how important it is that some means of repairing our ironclads abroad, or in the I Mediterranean, should be found in addition

  1485
  to Malta. I venture to point out again that there is at this moment a fleet worth £10,000,000 sterling in the Mediterranean, and that there is no provision made for repairs except at Malta. I think there are three or four large docks at Malta; but suppose you go to war, and any of our large ironclads are disabled, there is really nowhere else to repair those ships unless they are taken away from the Mediterranean to Plymouth, as our nearest dockyard. In the present state of dock accommodation in the East Indies, men-of-war have been actually taken from the East India Stations because they could not be repaired on the East India Stations (I may say that with regard to that I shall have a question to ask by-and-bye), and they have had to be repaired at Malta. If you go to war your ships will be subject to hostile attacks in the East and in the Mediterranean, and very likely on the coasts of Spain. Your docks would be crowded at Malta; you would not be in the position of Lord Collingwood after Trafalgar, when there was no enemy to oppose him, and he could send his ships home to be repaired; but you would have to send your ships home 2,000 or 3,000 miles to your nearest port—Plymouth, in the face of an enemy. I very much fear from what I hear that the Government are grudging the expense of £350,000 which would be necessary for the construction of a dock, and that they are offering some subvention to private companies in the matter. I venture to suggest that if that is so, it is a policy unworthy of this great country to hand over the safeguarding of the vast property which I have mentioned to the enterprise of some private company, and that they should undertake as the only step worthy of this great country to at once commence this dock and pay for it themselves; and that they should lose no time about it, for it is impossible that a dock could be constructed under two or three years, and if any hostile operations take place in the future it may not be constructed in time.
  LORD BRASSEY: My Lards, before the noble Lord replies, there are two considerations which I should like to put in the briefest terms with regard to what has fallen from the noble Viscount. First, it is proposed that the dock at
  1486
  Gibraltar should be constructed as a convenience and facility to commerce. That part of the sea is crowded with our shipping, and I can only say, having been frequently at Gibraltar, that I never visited the place without seeing a number of steamers under repair there. It does seem unsatisfactory that in the contingency of war the Mercantile Marine should be entirely dependent for its coal supply afloat on the hulks in the Bay of Gibraltar, every one of which might be sunk by torpedoes on a dark night or in foggy weather. I think that is one very great argument for the construction of a dock.
  LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, no one who has studied the subject, especially with the aid of a map, will be surprised at the interest which has been shown in it on several occasions by the noble Viscount when he has, from time to time, brought the matter before this House. This is not the second, or even the third, time that he has brought it forward. Naval Commanders-in-Chief in the Mediterranean have from time to time pointed out to the Admiralty the advantage we should derive from having a first-class dock at Gibraltar, and the Admiralty fully concur in the view which has been so generally pressed upon them on the subject. The Admiralty fully admit the absolute necessity in time of war of having at that station such a dock as would be capable of accommodating our largest ships. Hitherto there have been difficulties in the way into which I need not enter, but which your Lordships will readily understand. Even now, the Estimates having been framed for this year, it has been thought better that the works should be undertaken by private enterprise rather than by Her Majesty's Government. Various Bodies have approached the Admiralty with the view to undertaking the construction of the dock, and now we are only waiting for some further particulars before deciding upon the details of the matter. The Director of Works was recently out on the spot, and of the various sites suggested he selected one upon the new Mole Parade Ground, in close proximity to the dockyard. The new dock which it has been decided to construct is to be 520ft. long and 100ft. wide, and capable of taking a ship drawing 32ft. of water

  1487
  on the blocks. In the event of a ship being partially damaged, having one of her compartments full and not being on an even keel, we shall be able to dock a ship drawing 35ft. of water without the blocks, and at high tide as much as 37ft. of water. Our longest man-of-war is 410ft.in length, and the greatest draught of water of any of our ships is 28ft., so that we shall have ample space. Another matter which has been considered of the greatest importance is the extension of the Mole, and it has been thought desirable that the work should be undertaken simultaneously with the dock. It is proposed that it should be increased in length by 1,600ft., and it is thought that the excavations of rock to form the dock, which will be 80ft. in depth from the surface, will go a long way, if not completely, towards the formation of the new Mole extension. The advantage of the site chosen for the docks is that it will be protected by rising ground under the lee of which it will be placed from the fire of ships at sea. On that rising ground, there are ramparts already placed. A further advantage will be that the entrance will have the protection of the Mole. It will not interfere in any way with the very limited space which now exists inside the Mole for anchorage. Moreover, the cost of the works on this side will be less than on any other that has been proposed. I will take this opportunity of referring to a matter upon which a good deal has been said. The idea has got abroad that Her Majesty's Government propose to construct docks, or the protection for the docks, on ground belonging to Spain. No such idea has ever entered the heads of Her Majesty's Government. It is true that among the many schemes from time to time suggested to the Admiralty there was one for making a canal along the north side of the Rock, and that scheme proposed that the canal should be used for coaling and docking purposes; but though supported by Sir John Burgoine it was strongly condemned by Lord Napier and especially by Sir J. Adye, the late Governor of Gibraltar, on military grounds. So far as the Admiralty are concerned the scheme has never even been before them officially. The scheme, I can only say, has been condemned, and wherever the idea originated it has never been
  1488
  entertained for a moment by any Department of Her Majesty's Government.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: Then I understand my noble Friend to say that the dock is to be constructed partly by private enterprise?
  LORD ELPHINSTONE: No; entirely.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: Will that fact occasion any delay?
  LORD ELPHINSTONE: We hope not; we hope to get the specifications in a very few days.

  CATHEDRAL CHURCHES BILL.— (No. 14.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.