Sitting of 27 July 1891

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  HANOVER CHAPEL BILL.
  Bill considered as amended.
  MR. CALDWELLmoved, in page 7, line 26, Clause 7, to insert the following proviso:—
  "Provided that the amount to be expended for sub-sections 3, 4, and 5 shall not, without the consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, exceed two-fifths of the sum to be paid for the said site."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHERmoved, in Clause 13, page 9, line 22, to leave out from "to," to end of Clause, and insert—
  "Apply to the Charity Commissioners, under the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1891, for a scheme to be established by them amending the said scheme for

  395
  the administration of the charity of the 'Trinity Chapel Site,' so as to provide for the future administration of the said moneys for the benefit of the mother parish of St. George, Hanover Square, or any ecclesiastical parish or district therein."
  The hon. Member said: The Amendment is simply another way of drafting the clause which was amended by the Committee. It is an alteration of the machinery, and will bring the provision under the ordinary jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (SCHOOLS RECEIVING SPECIAL GRANTS).
  Return ordered, by Counties, of the Schools which received, during the year ending the 31st day of August 1890, the Special Grant of £10 or £15 under Article 104 of the Code, under the following heads:—
  Name and population of School District.
  Name and denomination of School.
  Accommodation.
  Average attendance.
  Total Grant.
  Additional Grant, Article 104.
  —(Mr. Arthur Acland.)

  BRITISH GUIANA (IMMIGRATION OF COOLIES).
  Address for—
  "Return showing particulars relating to Immigration of Indian and Chinese Coolies into British Guiana since the Report of the Commission of Inquiry in 1871:—
  Coolies introduced:—

  British Indians.

  Chinese.

  Total.

  Description:—

  Males.

  Females.

  Total.

  Deaths,

  Births.

  Returned to India.

  Now in the Colony.

  Number of Coolies sent to gaol for offences against the person.

  Number found guilty of murder, and sentenced to death.

  Number executed.

  396

  Now in goal for different crimes.

  Total expenditure for immigration purposes.

  Amount paid by Planters who employ Coolies.

  Amount paid from Immigration Revenues, and loans redeemable by Immigration Revenues.

  Amount paid from general Revenues.

  Number of estates under cultivation.

  Number of estates on which Coolies are employed.

  Amount of wages paid to the Coolies."

  —(Mr. Alfred Pease.)

QUESTIONS.

  IMPENDING FAMINE IN INDIA.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the increasingly serious reports with regard to impending famine in the North-West Provinces, Rajputana, and other districts in India, he will give the House the most recent information on the subject, and will state what steps the Government of India has taken to meet the distress and danger that may arise?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,(for Sir J. GORST): My right hon. Friend, in whose absence I answer the question, says—I have with me the latest telegrams about the crop and famine prospects. They are dated the 24th of July, and as they appeared in Saturday's newspapers, I do not know that it is necessary to read them. A further telegram is expected to-morrow; and thereafter weekly telegrams will be sent every Friday as long as cause for anxiety continues. The telegrams will be sent to the newspapers. As regards the preparations for dealing with famine, the Secretary of State is in telegraphic communication with the Viceroy, whom he has urged to take without delay every necessary precaution for the relief of distress, and from whom he has heard that adequate arrangements have been made for all contingencies anticipated. In all the threatened British provinces famine Codes have been issued, and plans have been drawn up for dealing with distress caused by famine. Funds are available for meeting the cost of relief; and in

  397
  any district where relief operations are necessary, they will be begun on the scheme laid down in the Famine Codes. In two districts of Madras considerable relief operations have been going on for some months.

  CONDITION OF COOLIES IN BRITISH GUIANA.
  MR. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have received any Reports as to the condition of the Coolies in British Guiana since the removal of the late Inspector to a subordinate position in the hospitals, and whether the status of the medical officers is virtually fixed by the elective members of the Combined Court of Policy, although the Coolies are nominally under Imperial protection?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,: The late Medical Inspector of Immigrants, now Chief Medical Officer of the Colonial Hospital was succeeded by the present Medical Inspector of Immigrants in July, 1889. The usual Annual Reports as to the condition of the Coolies, both general and medical, have been received for the year 1889. Those for 1890 have not yet been received. The salary, £1,000 a year, of the Medical Inspector of Immigrants is permanently secured; those of the other medical officers are voted annually. There is no reason to apprehend that the Combined Court will not at all times provide whatever salaries Her Majesty's Government think necessary in connection with Coolie immigration.

  TRINCOMALEE (CEYLON.)
  MR. SCHWANN: I bag to ask the Secretary for War, whether he is aware that there is no permanent method of manufacturing ice at Trincomalee (Ceylon), where there is a garrison and hospital and only a temporary ice house erected, and furnished with ice from Colombo at the private expense of the Admiral for the time at the station, and whether he will consider the desirability of furnishing Trincomalee with permanent means of making ice, so necessary to hospital patients and the comfort of the garrison in a hot climate?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: The question of securing a supply of ice for Trincomalee is now under consideration.

  SLAVE TRADE IN THE RED SEA.
  MR. E. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information concerning a slave trade which has sprung up between small places on the Red Sea Coast north of Suakin to the opposite coast north of Jeddah; and whether, as the slave caravans have to pass through Egyptian territory, Her Majesty's Government will call upon that of Egypt to carry out the terms of the Convention of 1877, which undertakes to prevent such transit of slaves?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Information has been received from Sir E. Baring of the existence of such a slave trade as that mentioned. It is, however, his opinion that the Egyptian Government is doing everything in its power to prevent it. The frontiers at Wady Haifa and other stations are carefully watched, and the surveillance at Suakin and other ports on the Red Sea Coast is, in my opinion, as efficient as it is in the power of the Egyptian Government to make it. They are also assisted by the gunboats of Her Majesty's Navy. Early in the year about 60 slaves were taken to the Governor of Suakin by Arab Sheikhs and liberated. The occupation of Tokar dealt a heavy blow to the slave trade, and immediately after the fall of Handoub important arrests were made of notorious slave dealers.

  THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  DR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to carry out the recommendations of the Western Highlands and Islands Commission as regards lighthouses, by causing lighthouses to be erected at Tiumpan Head and at the entrance to Loch Carlowey, in Lewis; and if he is aware that only a few days ago a large ship went ashore in Broad Bay, Lewis, owing to there being no lighthouse on Tiumpan Head?
  *A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir HERBERT MAXWELL: I have

  399
  received information that the vessel referred to has been got off and left in tow of a tug, but I may inform the hon. Member that it is intended to erect a lighthouse at the entrance to Loch Carlowey in Lewis, and it is possible that the light may be completed this Session. There is no present intention of erecting a lighthouse on Tiumpan Head.
  DR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, if a petition has been received by Her Majesty's Government from various representative bodies in the island of Lewis, praying that the telegraph system should be extended to the fishing villages of Tolsto, in Stornoway parish, Gravir and Crossbost, in Lochs, and to Shawbost, Brager-Arnol, on the west side of Lewis; and what his intentions are in reference to these petitions?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that I received a Petition on the subject to which he refers, and at once caused inquiry to be made. The result of that inquiry has just been reported to me, and I regret to say that at none of the villages mentioned would a telegraph office be self-supporting. I shall be glad to forward the Petition to the Scottish office, but I think it will be found that the whole of the grant placed at the disposal of that department for extension of the telegraph in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland for the current year has been expended.

  POSTAL DELIVERIES AT NESS.
  DR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why the district of Ness has only two postal deliveries a week while the other districts have three; and if he can see his way to give all parts of the island equal facilities in this matter?
  *MR. RAIKES: The post to and from Ness, in the Island of Lewis, already entails an expenditure which largely exceeds the revenue from the correspondence. The post to other districts, besides that of Ness, is restricted to two days a week, and having regard to the heavy charge which the mail service with the island as a whole entails on the Revenue, I regret that I should not be justified in sanctioning any increase in the frequency of the internal posts.

  REGENT'S PARK.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has received a Petition from the Regent's Park Senior Cricket Association, asking for permission to erect a pavilion for refreshments and dressing accommodation on the junior ground; and whether he is aware that the lads playing on the ground have neither latrine, dressing, nor refreshment accommodation; and, if so, whether he will reconsider his decision?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLTTNKET,: I have received from the Regent's Park Senior Cricket Association a letter in support of the application made by the caterer who sells refreshments at the existing cricket pavilion for leave to build and work a new one on the junior ground. I shall inquire further into the matter, but at present I incline to think that no such necessity exists as should outweigh the objections sure to be raised by other portions of the public against the setting up of any more buildings in the park. It may, however, be true that additional latrine accommodation ought to be provided. I will look into that question.

  MANCHESTER POLICE FORCE.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Manchester Watch Committee, who have lately revised the pay of the police force in their employ, will not grant any pensions, under the new scale of pay, to men who retire before the expiration of 12 months from the introduction of the new scale of pay, even though certain of the men have been in the police force for more than 25 years, which is the time fixed for their retirement; is this refusal in accordance with the terms of the Police Superannuation Act of last year; and are police officers entitled to a pension in proportion to the rate of pay they are receiving at the date of their retirement, and to retire at the expiration of 25 years of service?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I am informed by the Chairman of the Manchester Watch Committee that no Resolution has been adopted whereby

  401
  any benefits which members of the Manchester Police Force are entitled to under the Police Act, 1890, in consequence of an increase of their pay, are to be withheld from them, and the Watch Committee have no intention of coming to any such Resolution. The answer as to the pensions in proportion to rate of pay will be found in Section 1 (a) and Part III. of the first schedule of the Police Act, 1890.

  THE CROFTER COMMISSION.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increased work thrown on the Crofter Commission by recent legislation, and the probability that these new duties will further delay the Court in dealing with the applications for fair rents in the highlands and islands, the Government will appoint additional Commissioners who may be empowered to deal with the new duties, and so leave the original members of the Commission free to dispose of the applications for fair rents at a more rapid rate; and whether representations have reached him that the long delay in settling what are fair rents in the highlands and islands is injurious both to crofters and landowners, and that a prompt settlement is most urgently needed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: I assume that the "recent legislation" to which the hon. Member alludes is the Crofters' Common Grazings Bill, which is now awaiting the Royal assent, but it is no anticipated that the new duties imposed upon the Commissioners by this measure will make any very serious call on their time. I much regret that the Commissioners have not been able to overtake their work at a more rapid rate, but the hon. Member will understand that it would be practically impossible, even if it were thought altogether advisable, to introduce the legislation necessary to increase their number at so late a stage of the Session.

  REVISION OF VOTERS (METROPOLIS).
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, considering the great importance of the list
  402
  of voters as published on the 1st of August being correctly drawn up by the overseers, and considering that the number of names respectively added to and struck off that list to form the final register can be easily obtained, especially for London, he will grant the Return to be moved for to-night in relation to the Revision of Voters (Metropolis)?
  *MR. COBB: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as all lists of voters are equally important, he will extend the Return to the registers for the whole of the country?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WOETLEY,: Undoubtedly, if the Return is granted at all it would be extended over the whole of the country, but I believe that it will be very difficult to obtain the Return asked for, and if obtained would be of a misleading kind.
  *MR. CAUSTON: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my question. I am certain that there would be no difficulty in obtaining a Return for the Metropolis.

  MULLINGAR PRISON.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he has received a copy of a Resolution adopted by the Grand Jury of Westmeath, re-questing that the prison at Mullingar be re-established as a major prison; and, if so, can he now state the decision of the Government on the matter?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: The Resolution mentioned was duly received and acknowledged. The Government would not feel justified in incurring the increased public expenditure which the proposal in regard to Mullingar Prison would involve.

  TELEGRAPH ENGINEERS.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can hold out any hope that the engineering branch of the telegraph service will be placed on the same footing as regards classification; and, if not, will he state the reason for withholding the concession?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: The hon. Member has not stated in his question the branch of the postal or telegraph service with which he thinks the engineering branch of the telegraph service should be put on a level, and I am therefore quite unable to say whether any or what concession will be granted or withheld.

  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE OFFICERS IN SWITZERLAND.
  MR. T. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office will direct Consuls to report as to the working of the system of employing the police as school attendance officers in Switzerland and other foreign countries?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Considering that the system in question is inapplicable to this country, the Report proposed would not be of practical value, and would not justify the cost and trouble of procuring it, unless this House should desire to have it.

  THE SALTERS' COMPANY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if the Government is aware that since June, 1889, legal proceedings have been instituted in the County of Londonderry by the Salters' Company, London, against 250 of their former tenants (purchasers in 1886 under the Ashbourne Act) for the recovery of arrears of rent and interest due 1st November, 1884, and 1st November, 1885; that decrees in all cases were granted, and thus the Company have either obtained payment or hold decrees capable of being at once executed for £2,500; that, subsequently, Mr. John M'Guiggan, of Ballynagaire, appealed, and that Judge Holmes, at the recent Derry Assizes, reversed the decree; but, as no appeals are possible in the other cases, will the Government enforce the decrees still outstanding, or take steps to provide that the money already paid under threat of legal proceedings being returned to those 250 tenant purchasers?
  MR. MADDEN: I understand that it is the case that proceedings were instituted, as stated in the question, to compel compliance with agreements which the tenants had entered into. The case of M'Guiggan appears to have terminated in the manner indicated by the hon. and
  404
  learned Member. The Executive Court have no power to interfere in any way in the matter.
  In answer to a further question by Mr. T. M. HEALY,
  MR. MADDEN said: Of course, I have no positive information to enable me to decide whether the appeal in the single case governed the decision in the other 249; but, whether or not, the hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that it is a matter between the litigants themselves with which the Executive Government have no concern. Any representations on the subject from the 250 tenants should be addressed to the company.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman address a question to the Salters' Company on the subject?
  MR. MADDEN: No, Sir; I cannot do that.

  WATER SUPPLY AT OTLEY, SUFFOLK.
  MR. STERN: I beg to postpone until Thursday my question—To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether complaint has been made to his Department in reference to the neglect of the Wood-bridge Rural Sanitary Authority to carry out the Sanitary Act in connection with the supply of pure water to Otley, in Suffolk; how many cases of illness and death from fever have occurred in that district during the last two years; and will the Local Government Board use its powers to compel the Local Authority to proceed at once with the necessary works?

  TELEGRAPH OFFICE AT LEWKNOR.
  MR. F. PARKER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will establish a telegraph office at Lewknor, a village between Tetsworth and Watlington, and where the wire passes the post office, seeing that the postmaster is willing to work the telegraph without remuneration till the receipts cover the expenditure, and the only expense would be connecting the office with the wire outside?
  *MR. RAIKES: In reply to my hon. Friend, I am compelled to say that I could not accept an offer from the sub-postmaster to work without remuneration; but I shall be glad to establish a

  405
  telegraph office at Lewknor if a guarantee be forthcoming to secure the Post Office against loss. I fear from what I have been able to ascertain that the wire to which my own Friend refers is fully occupied.

  THE NAVAL VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admirality whether, with reference to his recent statement with regard to the Naval Volunteers that he would be ready to consider any propositions which would give greater effect to the wish of the Admiralty to convert the Corps into a Marine Corps, he will allow enlistments to go on for the present, so as to maintain the strength of the present force, pending negotiations for its conversion into a Coastguard Naval Corps, or such other form as will meet the requirements of the Service and the views of the Volunteers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,: I am anxious to treat the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers with every consideration, but as their organisation is to be changed, to prevent misunderstandings, all future recruiting must take place under the new and not the old conditions.

  THE CASE OF MRS. BARKER AT ALEPPO.
  MR. SINCLAIR&c.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been frequently called to the delay, by the Turkish Courts at Aleppo, in a case raised by Mrs. Braker, widow of a former British Consul (who had been connected with the Consular service for about 50 years); whether he is aware that a Turkish subject, residing at Aleppo, had forcibly entered into Mrs. Barker's house, and resisted for five or six years all her efforts to regain possession of her property by legal proceedings; whether the communications received allege improper influence being exercised over the local tribunals, in order to delay the hearing of the case; and whether, in view of the fact that two of Her Majesty's Consuls have reported favourably as to the justice of Mrs. Barker's case, and also as to the
  406
  delay of the Turkish Courts, and that Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has reported to the same effect, instructions will be sent out to Her Majesty's representatives at Constantinople to press for the obtaining of a speedy hearing and decision in this case.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The case of Mrs. Barker has formed the subject of frequent correspondence. The questions in dispute have given rise to a long and complicated lawsuit. Mrs. Barker's opponent at one period attempted to enforce his claim by force, and was punished on the representations of the British Ambassador by dismissal from the Government Service. Allegations have been made on Mrs. Barker's behalf as to improper influence over the tribunals, but they have not been substantiated. Further instructions are not required, as the British Diplomatic and Consular officers, while unable to interfere with the action of the constituted Law Courts, have been unwearied in their efforts to assist Mrs. Barker to the extent of their powers. Recent information from Constantinople shows that Mrs. Barker is instructing her legal adviser in communication with the British Embassy.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Commissioners or Judges to be appointed under the permanent Act recently arranged with the delegates from Newfoundland for carrying out the modus vivendi are to be appointed by the British or by the Colonial Government; whether there will be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland from the decisions of the said Commissioners or Judges by the inhabitants of the west coast of Newfoundland; and whether the salaries of the Commissioners or Judges are to be paid by the British or by the Colonial Government?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Until the Draft Bill has been formally accepted by the Government of the colony, it would be premature to state the nature of its proposed provisions.

  THE LATE MR. JAMES M'HENRY.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department

  407
  whether he can state the date of the certificate or authority which was given by the Home Office, under which the body of the late James M'Henry was exhumed in St. James's Cemetery, Liverpool; who applied for such certificate or authority; what was the substance of the Report of the analysis of the contents of the stomach of the deceased; and whether there is any objection to producing such Report?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The exhumation order was granted on June 15 at the instance of the Director of the Public Prosecutions. The result of the postmortem and subsequent analysis is to point to natural causes as the source of the disease of the stomach found after death. I have no objection to showing the Report to the hon. Member.

  LIGHTHOUSES.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that within the past few days one of the lightkeepers on Tuscar lost a hand through an accidental explosion of gun cotton, and would have remained some 16 hours without surgical attention but for having been taken off by the Cephalonia, whether, for use in cases of accident or shipwreck, Her Majesty's Government would consider the propriety of establishing telegraphic or telephonic communication with the more important of the lighthouses situated on rocks and islands round the United Kingdom?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the account of the accident referred to, as given by the hon. Member; but the injured man was, as a matter of fact, promptly taken off for surgical treatment, and I do not think this particular case could be quoted in support of the necessity of establishing the communication to which the hon. Member refers, however desirable it may be on other grounds.

  ARMY CONTRACTS—COAL.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the coal supplied to Maker Fort, Tregantle Fort, and Picklecombe Fort by Messrs. Harvey is North Country or Scotch; if the contract
  408
  with Messrs. Harvey calls for North Country or Scotch coal; and if he would make inquiries into the truth of the allegation that Scotch and not North Country coal has been supplied by Messrs. Harvey?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The contract with Messrs. Harvey with regard to the supply of coal to Maker Fort, Tregantle Fort, and Picklecombe Fort, is for North Country coal; and, on inquiry, it is reported to me that such coal has been duly supplied.

  CYPRUS.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any foundation for the statement in the Phoni tis Kyprou of the 26th June, to the effect that there was a serious error in the basis of the calculation of the average surplus revenue of Cyprus; whether the further statement in the same issue is correct that—
  "If the difference between the value of gold and paper money were taken into consideration, Cyprus would now be paying to the Porte £40,000 instead of £92,000 per annum;"
  and whether Her Majesty's Government will have the matter investigated?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The tribute was fixed at the value of £92,000 by Her Majesty's late Government in 1881–82 upon Reports of Sir Robert Biddulph made after an investigation of the subject both in Cyprus and at Constantinople. Her Majesty's present Government have had occasion to review the question, and are satisfied that the conclusions of their predecessors were correct, and that there has been no such error as the writer in the Cyprus newspaper imagines. As a matter of fact, only a small part of the five years' receipts were encashed in paper, and full allowance was made as to this in converting the payments into sterling.

  THE LITTLE BROSNA RIVER.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will direct the Board of Works, or cause the Railway Company, to remove the obstruction erected by the railway in the Little Brosna River, which now prevents the drainage of the Shinrone drainage district; and whether there are any means of compensating the

  409
  riparian owners and occupiers for the damage resulting from the obstruction?
  *SIR H. MAXWELL: We have no powers to compel the Railway Company to do as the hon. Member requires, and the riparian owners and others have their remedy at law for any damage caused.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in connection with the new contract held by Messrs. Bramble Brothers for works and repairs of barracks, forts, &c, at Portsmouth, the rates of wages paid by them are for all mechanics at the rate of 6d., and for labourers at the rate of 3½d. per hour, whereas the rates of wages generally accepted and paid in Portsmouth are for mechanics 6½d. to 7d., and for labourers 4½d. an hour; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in order to carry out the Resolution of this House of 13th February, that under future Government contracts the rates of wages paid should be those generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: Messrs. Bramble, the contractors for barracks, forts, &c, at Portsmouth, undertook to pay the wages generally paid in the district, and I have not received any notice from persons concerned that Messrs. Bramble have not fulfilled their pledge.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that Messrs. Turner & Co., who have taken a contract for work at Buckingham Palace, have sub-let a portion of the work to Messrs. Parker & Co.; and that, in connection with work under this contract, the mechanics employed are being paid at the rate of 8½d. and their labourers at the rate of 5½d. per hour, which is less than the rate of wages generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen; and what steps he proposes to take, in regard to this contract, to carry out the Resolution of the House of 13th February?
  MR. PLUNKET: I have ascertained that there is a small piece of work, the cost of which is, I understand, less than
  410
  £50, being executed by Messrs. Turner & Co. at Buckingham Palace. It is not a Government contract, nor is it to be paid for out of any moneys voted by Parliament. I have, therefore, no authority to inquire what wages are paid to the mechanics or labourers engaged upon the work, nor do I know.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that A. Lethbridge, contractor for work at the Royal William Victualling Yard, Stonehouse, Devon, sub-let the painting to William Randel and Prowse, of Plymouth; and what was the minimum rate of wages paid by Mr. Lethbridge to the men employed under his contract for the different classes of labour?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: The contract with Mr. Lethbridge for work at the Royal William Victualling Yard, Stone-house, was for a lump sum of £745, including £52 for painting. No authority was given for sub-letting the painting or any part of the work, and it was believed at the time that the painting was being done by the contractor's own men. Further inquiry will be made. The contract being for a lump sum, the rate of wages paid by the contractor to his workmen was not reported to the Admiralty.

  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that on 29th April, 1889, the University for London Commission reported that—
  "A reasonable time should be allowed to the Senate and Convocation of the University of London to consider whether they will apply to Her Majesty for a new charter in accordance with the suggestions contained in Report of the Commission";
  that—
  "In the event of their applying for and obtaining such a new charter, no other University can now be established in London, and that the prayer of the petition of University and King's College be not granted";
  and that, in the contrary event, the subject should be remitted to the Commissioners for further consideration; whether he is aware that on 12th May last the Senate of the University of London invited Convocation to concur in petitioning the Crown for a new charter,

  411
  but that such charter was admitted in a Memorandum issued by the Senate to differ very materially from the charter suggested by the Royal Commission; and whether, in view of the fact that a Committee of the Privy Council has recently given judgment in favour of the grant of a charter in accordance with the Petition of University College and King's College, the Government intends to ask Parliament to give its assent to this charter without further consideration of the subject by the Royal Commission, and without Convocation of the University of London having had an opportunity of accepting or rejecting a charter drafted upon the lines of the Royal Commission's Report?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have to inform the hon. Member that the London University failed to obtain the sanction of Convocation to the draft scheme, by which they proposed to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Thereupon the Privy Council resumed their consideration of the Petition of University and King's Colleges for the grant of a charter, and after considerable discussion, requested the petitioners to submit an amended draft charter. This has just been done; but before the Committee report to Her Majesty, the draft charter as finally settled must be laid before both Houses for 30 days. It will then, of course, be subject to discussion in Parliament, and it will be for Parliament, and not for the Government, to decide whether it shall be accepted.

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if his attention has been called to a statement in the Annual Report of the Science and Art Department just published, purporting to show from Returns received up to 10th May that the Council of the North Riding of the County of York (amongst other County Councils) has notified that the whole amount of their share of the residue under the Customs and Excise Act will be applied to technical education; and if it is the case that last year the North Riding County Council appropriated the whole of such share, and this year have decided to appropriate one-half to non-educational purposes?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: The statement in the Annual Report was compiled from the best information obtainable at the time; but it is possible that subsequent changes have been made by the Local Authorities, in the appropriation of the grant, which have not been communicated to the Department.
  MR. A. DYKE ACLAND: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the omission of the names of many counties which have granted money to technical education under "The Local Taxation Act, 1890," in the list on page 51 of the Report of the Science and Art Department just issued, a new and complete list can be prepared and separately issued?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: The Department have received but very little further information since the compilation of the statement made on page 51 of the Report, and I think it would be better to wait till the beginning of next year, when a full and exhaustive list of the operations of the County Councils for the current financial year can be issued.
  MR. C. S. PARKER: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state the amount of the residue now applicable in Scotland, under "The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, at the discretion of the authorities named in the Act, in relief of local rates, or in aid of technical education; and how soon the grant will be paid?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: The amount available for distribution is £48,051 15s. 2d., and it is expected that the grant will be paid in the course of this week.

  PROMOTION IN THE CIVIL SERVICE
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the practice observed in transferring or removing members of the Civil Service from one office to another, or from one force or station to another in the same capacity, under the same Department, and subject to the same Board; if the person so transferred, either at his own instance or from any other cause, at the instance of the

  413
  particular Board under which he serves, is subjected to any pecuniary loss or loss of seniority by reason of such transfer or removal; whether, when questions of promotion arise in particular forces or stations, the time served in the same capacity in a different port or station from that in connection with which promotions are to be made militates against a person so transferred, in considering his claims for promotion in connection with that force or station to which he may then be attached; and whether seniority and promotion throughout the Civil Service generally depends principally upon the length of service in each particular Department, and not upon the length of time spent in any particular office, force, or station, under the same Board?
  *SIR H. MAXWELL: To answer completely the question of the hon. Member would necessitate inquiry in each Department of the Public Service. I can, therefore, only undertake to reply in a general sense and subject to reasonable reserve. In the first place, men transferred in ordinary course are transferred in accordance with the exigencies of the Public Service. Secondly, men transferred on promotion would not lose seniority, and under reasonable conditions would receive an allowance in respect of removal expenses; but the same rule would not apply to men transferred for their own convenience or as a punishment. Thirdly, in the case of a man transferred the time served by him in the same capacity at the port or station which he leaves would not militate against the man so transferred. Fourthly, as a general rule, promotion in the Public Service is hold to depend upon merit.

  CIVIL SERVICE SURVEYORS IN LONDON.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when does the Board of Customs intend to fill up the vacancies which have been created in the third class of surveyors in London by the promotion of seven of them to the second class; what steps have the Board taken to have the whole of the import gauging done by first class examining officers as far as possible; and whether officers of this grade are being
  414
  transferred to that duty from other duties on which they had hitherto been engaged, and their places filled permanently by second-class examining officers; and, if so, whether it is his intention that such duties should in future be regarded as of an inferior kind, and not requiring the services of first-class examining officers?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member will see, on referring to the Treasury Minute of March 24, that the vacancies in the third class of surveyors were caused by the creation of three additional first-class and four additional second-class surveyorships,
  "Which shall remain until such time as the whole of the existing third-class surveyors who may be fit for promotion shall have been promoted."
  These appointments were specially created owing to circumstances which were recorded in the Minute, but it was not part of the plan to promote a corresponding number of first-class examining officers. With regard to this class, provision was made for them to receive increased emoluments under the Minute. As regards import gauging, the Board of Customs have now under active consideration a scheme for assigning the duty as far as possible to first-class examining officers. The work of those officers has been defined, and in any transfer of officers to import gauging duty from other duties care will be taken that proper provision is made for the latter duties by officers of a grade sufficient for the proper performance of the work.

  SPECIAL GRANTS TO SCHOOLS.
  MR. A. DYKE ACLAND: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will arrange for the insertion in the future Annual Reports of the Education Department of distinguishing marks showing the schools to which special grants have been made under Articles 104 and 105 of the Code, and the amount of these grants?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I will see what can be done in the direction indicated without unduly adding to the complexity of the information given in the Appendices to the Report.

  YORKSHIRE NORTH RIDING LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the statement in the Appendix to the 46th Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy, as to the Yorkshire North Riding Asylum, in which the Commissioners say—
  "We gather that there is not any Roman Catholic service here, although there are 72 patients of that faith";
  and if this Report has been or will be officially communicated to the Local Authorities who are responsible for the management of the asylum, or if any other means can be taken to secure suitable religious provision for the persons referred to.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Report quoted was originally written by the Visiting Commissioners in the Visitors' Book at the North Riding Asylum, in order that it might come to the notice of the Visiting Committee, whose province it is, under Section 276 of the Act of last year, to deal with the subject of religious provision for the patients. I am informed by the Superintendent of the asylum that the Report was considered by the Committee of Visitors, who decided that the practice hitherto pursued of allowing Roman Catholic patients, when well enough, to attend, if they desire it, the services of the Roman Catholic Church at York be continued; and that care be taken to communicate with a priest in the event of any patient being seriously ill, or wishing to be visited by a priest. I am also informed that the priests have willingly visited the members of their Church, and have always attended when summoned.

  REVENUES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the revenues in the Return of the Revenues of the Church of England (No. 287) are limited to the annual income arising from permanent endowments, and do not include rates levied under local or other Acts, in London and elsewhere, for the maintenance of the clergy, fees, pew rents, Easter, or
  416
  other offerings, or income derived from voluntary sources; and whether, in Part 3 of such Return, column 2, the tithe-rent-charge is taken at par value, as in Part 2, or at its value in 1885–6, as in Parts 1 and 4?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that certain fixed payments made to incumbents out of rates levied under the authority of Local Acts are included in Part 3 of the Return (column 9); but it does not include any receipts from fees, pew rents, Easter and other offerings, or income derived from voluntary sources, other than interest, &c, derived from benefactions permanently invested. The tithe rent-charges included under column 2 of Part 3 are entered at the "commuted amount" or "par value."

  TELEGRAPH LINES IN SHETLAND.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can say when the telegraph line to Heylor, in Shetland will be established?
  *MR. RAIKES: I regret that I am not yet in a position to afford the hon. Member definite information on the question of an extension of the telegraph to Heylor. The wire which passes within about two-miles of that place is already sufficiently weighted with telegraph offices, and it will, I fear, be a most expensive operation to provide a satisfactory means of communication. As soon as the inquiries have been completed, I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the decisions of the Institute of Chartered Accountants are subject to be reviewed by the ordinary Courts of Law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: No general answer can be given to the hon. Member's question, as it depends upon the nature of the decisions and the circumstances under which they were given. If the hon. Member will communicate with me with reference to the circumstances of any particular case, I shall be pleased to render him any assistance in my power.

  BOARD OF TRADE REPORT.
  In answer to Mr. TOMLINSON (Preston),
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid: I am not quite certain as to the date up to which the Report of the Board of Trade under the Conciliation Clause can be prepared; but I believe it will be presented before the close of the Session.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. PICTON: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he succeeds this evenng in getting the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule, he will proceed with the Clergy Discipline (Immorality) Bill, seeing that the Bill is very much disputed, not only in this House but outside; and whether it does not come under the pledge recently given by the Government that contentious measures would not be proceeded with?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist any Private Bills being taken after 12 o'clock?
  MR. ATKINSON: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not give away the privileges of private Members.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I presume we may take it for granted that no new Bill will be introduced.
  MR. CRAWFORD: I hope that time will be allowed to take the Bills of private Members which have reached the last stage.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will answer the questions which have been put to me when I make the Motion on the Paper.

  THE ABDUCTION OF MISS GREENFIELD.
  MR. PICTON: Can the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs inform the House whether Miss Kate Greenfield has been released?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: My information on this subject corresponds with what has appeared in the newspapers—that she has been removed from where she was and taken to the house of the Governor. Arrangements are being made for an inquiry as to her personal wishes, where there will be no coercion exercised with regard to her.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  The Honourable Arthur George Brand, for Cambridge County (Northern or Wisbech Division).
  PARISHES (UNITED DIVIDED, &c)
  Order [2nd March] for an Address for a Return relative thereto read, and discharged; and, instead thereof:—

  PARISHES (UNITED, DIVIDED, &c.)
  Address for—
  "Return of Parishes divided and Districts assigned to Churches by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, under the provisions of the Church Building Acts and 'The Parish of Manchester Division Act, 1850:'"
  "Of all Districts and new Parishes constituted by the same Commissioners under the New Parishes Acts:"
  "Of all Districts or Parishes assigned or constituted by the same Commissioners under 'The St. Leonard and St. Mary Magdalen Church Districts Act, 1868,' or any other local Act, from the 31st day of October 1880 to the 31st day of October 1890 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 413, of Session 1881):"
  "Of all the Benefices, Parishes, or parts of Parishes united by Order in Council, and of all Benefices or Parishes disunited by Order in Council:"
  "Of all Chapelries, Hamlets, and other parts of Parishes severed from their Mother Parishes:"
  "Of Extra Parochial Places, constituted separate Benefices by Order in Council, from the 19th day of March 1872 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 227, of Session 1872):"
  "And, of all Chapelries, Hamlets, or other parts of Parishes severed from their Mother Parishes, and of Extra Parochial Places not constituted separate Benefices but united to other Parishes, by Order in Council, from the 25th day of June 1872 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 345, of Session 1872)."—(Mr. Talbot.)

  EAST INDIA (OPIUM).
  Address for—
  "Return of an Article on Opium by Dr. Watt, Reporter on Economic Products with the Government of India, recently written by him, and intended to he published in the Sixth Volume of the Dictionary of Economic Products of India."—(Mr. Bryce.)

  BANKRUPTCY ESTATES ACCOUNT (BOARD OF TRADE.)
  Return ordered—
  "Showing for each year since 1883 (a) the Amounts of Money received by the Board of Trade for the Bankruptcy Estates Account; (b) the Amounts paid over from the said Account to the Treasury; (c) the Amounts repaid by the Treasury in respect of the same."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

  BANKRUPTCY ESTATES ACCOUNT (TREASURY.)
  Return ordered—
  "Showing for each year since 1883 (a) the Amounts received by the Treasury from the Bankruptcy Estates Account; (b) the Amounts expended for the provision of Office Accommodation for Officers performing duties under 'The Bankruptcy Act, 1883;' and (c) the Amounts repaid to the Board of Trade."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

  MR. ATKINSON AND MR. SPEAKER.
  MR. ATKINSON: Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I very respectfully claim freedom of speech in order to call your attention to the Journals put before the House to-day, which contain a statement with reference to me which, if it were true, would make me ashamed of myself and my conduct as a Member of Parliament for the remainder of my days. It is stated that I, on Friday night, frivolously called for Divisions. I beg to say that the matter I took in hand—namely, the timber trade advocacy—was not known to me until two days previously. There had been a large meeting of the timber trade, and I was moved by a well known firm to take the matter up. I represented to them that they should not pass by the three Members for Hull and their county Members and ask me to do it simply because I was a Hull man, but I was told by my friends that, as I had been 45 years in the business, I was the best fitted to take the matter up. Being pressed to undertake the duty, at length I consented, although there were other matters which I wished to attend to. I went through my duties the other night with extreme reluctance and great regret, and although I had given notice of nine Amendments to postpone for three months the Bills in question, when I found that the feeling of the House was against me, I let five of the Bills go without challenge. I then believed that an hon. Member had spoken in the sense in which I was speaking, and so I named him as a Teller with mo, but the hon. Member immediately got up and said that he did not go as far as I did, and thereupon the House laughed, and I let the Amendment go. Another hon. Member on the other side of the House, with whom I had never before acted and of whom I ought to have been
  420
  wary, then came across to me and said, "I will tell with yon, and I will stick by you to the last." I said, "Very well," and in these circumstances I thought it to be my duty to take one more Division. I gave to the Speaker the name of that hon. Member as Teller, and the Speaker called upon him, and that gentleman, showing that he understood the agreement he had made with me, stood up at once. The Speaker told him to stand up again. I had never before that night been in the position of only having one hon. Member with me. I thought it my duty to take a Division once more, and I stood up again, but the hon. Member did not stand up. If I had known that that hon. Member would not have stood up, I should not have troubled the Speaker and the House to divide. I then sat down, and in my club at 9 o'clock the next morning I found, on receiving the papers, that I was to be pilloried before the House and the country as having frivolously attempted to divide the House. I protest against that, and I say that I would rather have a Committee of the House—even of my political enemies, if you like—to go into the whole matter and show exactly what happened, and it will then be seen that I was moved by the timber trade of the country, and had no personal interest in the matter. In fact, I am a large shareholder in six of the companies I was opposing. But there, I was entrapped, if I may use the word without being unparliamentary, or cajoled, and if that will not do I will say seduced, into accepting the co-operation of an hon. Gentleman opposite—a cooperation I never asked for in my life, and which I never will ask for or accept again should I live to the age of Methuselah. The Papers bear the signature of the Speaker, but I' presume that was formal, and I wrote to the clerk to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he had not already signed them, kindly not to sign them until I had explained the matter. That is the treatment I have received for a week past. I ask the House kindly to accept my Motion that these two entries be expunged from the Journals. If the House will not do that, I ask for a Select Committee to inquire into the matter. If that be not granted, I will take the Chiltern Hundreds, and will go down to Boston and stand upon the question whether I did my duty in this matter or

  421
  not. I will not be trampled upon by any one.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must recall to the House the circumstances of which the hon. Member complains.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE&c.): May I ask a question? [Cries of "Order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: There were upon the Paper on the occasion in question several Amendments applicable to several Railway Bills. The first of those Bills after a time came to the stage of Third Reading, and when the hon. Gentleman challenged my decision I asked him whether he had any other hon. Member to act with him as Teller, and, no Teller coming forward, I said that the "Ayes" had it. The Great Western Railway Bill next came before the House, and on the Question that the Bill be now considered, the hon. Member moved to leave out "now" in order to insert the words "this day three months." That was put and negatived. Then came the Great Eastern Railway Bill, and the same thing happened as had occurred with reference to the two previous Bills. I put the Question, and that Bill passed without any demur. There was then the Great Northern Railway Bill, which was exactly of the same character as the other Bills. It was not challenged, but was read a third time and passed. Then came the London and South-Western Railway Bill. I put the Question that the Bill be now read a third time. The hon. Member challenged it, and I thought after what had taken place I might properly employ the Standing Order No. 30 and ask the minority to stand up. The hon. Member stood up alone in his place, and the House was saved the trouble of a Division. The hon. Member complains that in the Journals of the House an entry is made that he had frivolously and vexatiously attempted to divide the House.
  MR. ATKINSON: It does not say so. [Cries of " Order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I thought it was vexatious, and I put the Standing Order into effect. I have something more to say, and I desire to say it in the hon. Member's presence.
  MR. ATKINSON: Hear, hear! [Cries of "Order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, in the course of the remarks he has just made, referred to the treatment which he says he has received at my hands for a week past.
  MR. ATKINSON: Hear, hear! [Cries of " Order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: I wish to say, in reply, that I will not notice any communication that comes from the hon. Member in his private capacity. I think that any complaints which he has to make against me should be made publicly in this House.
  MR. ATKINSON: Hear, hear! [Cries of "Order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: The House is aware that there is standing on the Paper in the hon. Member's name a notice of Motion charging me with an offence which I hope is new to me as regards any Member of this House—that of discourtesy. I have been on several occasions during my time in the Chair brought into relations that have been exceedingly unpleasant to me with several hon. Members of this House, but I am not aware that either on their part, and I can certainly say not on my own, have any private relations been established between us other than of a friendly kind. They have distinguished between the person and the office. Now, it is my duty, and a very painful one it is, to read to the House two communications which I have received during the last 48 hours from the hon. Member, and I think that the House will agree with me that a stop must be put to these communications between an hon. Member and the Speaker.
  MR. ATKINSON: Hear, hear! [Cries of "Order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: I was away on Saturday on business, and when I came back I found a letter from the hon. Gentleman following a former communication, which was, as I think, so discreditable to the hon. Member and so insulting to myself that I do not think it becoming to read it to the House.
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, do.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I shall take my stand upon the two communications, which I will now read. The hon. Member, as the House will observe, has objected to some public action which I took, and I found this letter on my return:—
  "National Club, 1, Whitehall-gardens, S.W.,
  July 25, 1891, before 9 a.m.
  Sir,—To my utter amazement, I find that in the minutes of 24th inst., page 835, professing at page 840 to be signed by you, I am pilloried as 'frivolously' claiming a division, which, in fact, I claimed in fulfilment of my promise to one of the greatest trades in the United Kingdom.
  As a matter of fact, I assume you have not signed the minutes, which are lengthy, and I believe are not yet fairly written out.
  If you do sign them, I ask you (or the clerks) to tell me what is my proper course to impugn the veracity of the record.
  I shall certainly do so, and I now protest in the strongest way possible against your persecution of me while a motion is pending which I tried to get on already by making it 'privilege,' and which was printed without that word in the paper.
  My protest also refers to page 847.
  It contains a false statement, and I will move that it be expunged from the Journals of the House, first proving, as I can do with the greatest ease, it is false.
  I much regret the need for this letter, and I send a copy of it to the Press unless I hear satisfactorily before 1 o'clock to-day (addressed to me here).
  I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
  HENRY JOHN ATKINSON, a duly-elected Member of Parliament, addressing you in that capacity only.
  To the Eight Honourable A. Peel, M.P., as Speaker of the House of Commons."
  I have not replied to that letter. I would not in any case reply to it. But there has been handed in to the Clerks at the Table this document, intended, of course, for me to see—
  "Mr. Atkinson,—To ask the Clerks at the Table if they will consult together as to an impartial chairman to hear the complaints against the Speaker of the House and fix an early day for it."
  Now, with reference to the complaint against me which the hon. Gentleman has put down on the Paper, in which he complains that the word "privilege" is struck out, the House is very well aware that no privilege attaches to a complaint involving a question of order, and that it is put down in the ordinary way, the hon. Gentleman—every hon. Gentleman—taking his chance of it coming on. The other night I called upon the hon. Member when the time came round for the Motion to come on. I said, "Mr. Atkinson," when the hon. Member ran from behind my chair, and with a rudeness which is now in the recollection of those who were present at the time said, "What is it?" I
  424
  replied, "The hon. Gentleman surely ought to know his own Resolution." I have made this statement before the House. It is intolerable that I should be subjected to treatment of this kind. I have foreborne during the whole of last week from taking any step, whether public or private, in the matter. I have asked the friends of the hon. Gentleman if they could in any way influence him for the purpose of avoiding what I felt to be a growing scandal. And now, having made that statement, I hope without any prejudice on my part, and without attempt to prejudge the question, I beg to leave it in the hands of the House.
  MR. ATKINSON: I feel bound to claim freedom of speech again, as a duly elected Member of this House. I protest against any attempt to prevent my discharging my duty to my constituents. I say that I have been obstructed by the officials of this House for a week past and more, and if the House will give me a Committee I will prove that I have been so obstructed. I have given notice during that time of Motions which impugned the conduct of the Clerks at the Table, and I have to ask why they were not printed. I have the courage of my opinions, and when anybody tries to prevent me doing my duty he will not find, wherever he sits, on this side of the House or the other, that I will submit to it. I therefore ask the House, even now, to appoint a Committee on the subject, or to listen while I give the other side of the matter which the Speaker has put before the House. Just now, when the right hon. Gentleman was giving an account of the last Division, he did not mention the fact that Dr. Tanner [Cries of "Order!"] did stand up and was called upon. After Dr. Tanner ["Order, order!"]—I beg pardon for infringing the Rules; I mean the hon. Member for Cork—had sat down, I went to him and said, "You volunteered in this matter. You have put me in a very unpleasant position "; and I then left the House. Having done all that I could in the performance of my duty, I thought it was very hard that my conduct should have been impugned. As to the other matter, I assure the Speaker that I had no intention of speaking rudely to him. If I spoke quickly it must be remembered that it was 12

  425
  o'clock at night, and I had had a great many other matters to attend to. I beg to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, because never in my life have I intended to be rude, either to the right hon. Gentleman or to the clerks at the Table. But, at the same time, I have been spoken to by the clerks at the Table as if they were Members of Parliament, and I was a clerk. One of them the other day, when I showed him a notice of Motion, said, "Oh, oh." I said, "Do not say 'Oh, oh,' to me; I am responsible; toll me whether it is in order or not, and if it is I will go on with it." He was a clerk at the Table, and clerks are not Members of Parliament. I am proud of being a Member of Parliament, and I have never done anything to make my constituents ashamed of me. I will go before them if any one else concerned in the dispute will go before his constituents, and we will see what the result is. I shall come back here elected by a larger majority than before, and then I will no more be browbeaten than I will now. I ask the House to appoint a Committee, and I will prove everything I have said; or I ask the House to name a day to discuss my Resolution, and I will prove that every word I have written or spoken is true. I beg to move that a Select Committee sit to consider the question, or that the Journal of the House be altered immediately in accordance with what I have asked.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: I doubt whether a more painful case than this has been before the House, I may say, during the whole of our Parliamentary history. If there is one office the dignity of which is valued by this House and by the country generally, it is that of the Speaker. I am only expressing the feelings which obtain universally in every part of the House when I say that you, Sir, have shown courtesy and impartiality to all sides of the House and to every Member of the House. You, Sir, have been obliged to appeal to the House against a Member of this House [Mr. ATKINSON: Oh, oh!] and you have said it is intolerable that during the whole of last week you have had to complain of the conduct of the hon. Member. I venture to think it will be the universal feeling of the House
  426
  that the protection which you have asked at our hands must be accorded to you, Sir, unanimously. Without wishing to bear hardly on the hon. Member, without wishing in any way to show towards him any animosity, I still think the House will be of opinion that what you have said, Sir, must be marked, and must be marked in such a manner that it may be known that you have the support of the House. Therefore I feel it to be my duty to move—
  "That the hon. Member for Boston be suspended for the rest of the Session, and be excluded from the precincts of the House."
  MR. ATKINSON: I protest against that from a Liberal. He is not my leader.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I make no doubt that, after the painful scenes we have witnessed, not only today, but I may say for many days past, the House will feel that it was not even necessary that you, Sir, should make the statement which you have felt it your duty to make in order to convince the House that the conduct of the hon. Member for Boston has been a scandal to the House of Commons.
  MR. ATKINSON: Order order! It is not true.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That being so, and feeling that it is our duty to vindicate your office, and to vindicate the character of the House of Commons, I think that all of us who have been witnesses of what has been taking place for many days past in the conduct of the hon. Member for Boston have no option but to support the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. ATKINSON: Not true.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the hon. Member for Boston be suspended for the rest of the Session, and be excluded from the precincts of the House."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer).
  MR. ATKINSON: May I not speak upon it?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
  MR. ATKINSON: I wish simply to say it is a very convenient way of settling the Motion which stands in my name, but the moment I come back I will move it. I am not going to be silenced by anything of the sort.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw.
  MR. ATKINSON: Is that in order? Oh, then, I will withdraw, but I will come back and prove my case to be what I have said it is.
  Mr. ATKINSONthen withdrew.
  MR. SEXTON: I feel it to be my duty to say that I do not concur in the Motion. I admit without reserve that Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances in which he found himself, had no other course open to him but that which he has taken; the House will unanimously sympathise with him in the position in which he found himself, and will feel that the conduct of the hon. Member has been in a high degree reprehensible. I think, however, that the Members of the House who have observed the conduct of the hon. Member for Boston will feel that his faults and errors are due rather to lack of self-repose and to incapacity for perfect self-control than to any disposition to be disrespectful to the Chair. The errors of the hon. Member are due to impulse and not to malice. In the scenes in which the hon. Member has borne a prominent and regrettable part he seems to have been moved by a feeling which he sincerely believed to be quite justifiable; he was intrusted, in some degree, with the care of an important interest, and that feeling, in his mind, operated perhaps to an extent which many of us cannot justly estimate. It has led him into acts and words with regard to the Chair which cannot be justified, and which the hon. Member himself in cooler moments will most deeply regret. As an Irish Member and one who has had to go through painful experiences in trying times, I wish to say that Mr. Speaker has been sometimes placed in difficult relations. But I feel bound to say that, however much we may have felt at the moment aggrieved by any action he took, we never doubted that his kindness of heart and dignity of disposition made him superior to anything like unfair or discourteous treatment of any Member. That unqualified testimony will, I hope, remove any doubt as to the feeling which animates me in the course I feel bound to take now. I think the Resolution is harsh, and that it is in excess of the necessities of the case. Any one who has observed the hon. Member for Boston will feel
  428
  that he is rather to be compassionated than blamed. I think the justice of the case will be met by suspending the hon. Member for this Sitting, and that the lesson taught by that suspension would be sufficient. I therefore hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to mitigate the severity of his Motion.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I wish to say one or two words, because I also on one or two occasions have been brought in unfortunate conflict with the Chair. I concur in the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), but for different reasons. I fear that such a dangerous precedent as this might be used in this way in the future. An hon. Member or some hon. Members might have a very important measure to bring forward touching the condition of the democracy, and it might possibly happen that the general feeling of the country was opposed to it. Then it might happen that that Member or group of Members, while observing the courtesy due to the Chair, would protest vigorously and at great length, and thereupon this precedent might be used to silence them. Without wishing to extenuate the conduct of the hon. Member for Boston, I beg to join in the protest so ably made by the hon. Member for West Belfast.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: As I am closely connected with the constituency of the hon. Member, and as a large number of his constituents, through the dual operation of the franchise, vote in the Parliamentary Division which I represent, I venture to say a few words, although that reason in itself is not sufficient warrant for my intervention in this painful matter. I have been brought into close personal relationship with the hon. Member. We live in the same town, and I can assure the Speaker and the House that the conduct of which complaint is made is exactly that suffered by everyone who has been brought into association with the hon. Member for Boston. If the matter were not so serious it would be ludicrous, but I hope the House will see it is simply the habitual conduct of an impulsive man, which considerably detracts from the personal offence towards the Speaker in

  429
  his official capacity. If there is any possible way in which the consituents of the hon. Member, as well as the dignity of the Chair, can be protected, it will be a happy escape from this unpleasant affair
  MR. MACLEAN: I think it only right that some Member on this side of the House should make response to the generous sentiment to which expression has been given by hon. Members opposite. Everybody who knows the hon. Member for Boston must respect him for his honesty and independence of character; and no one can help having a vary kindly feeling towards him. We know the hon. Member has not great powers of self-command, but it is certain that in his conduct towards the Speaker he never has had the slightest intention of showing any personal rudeness or discourtesy. I am quite sure the hon. Member did not intend to use the words "false charge" in his letter to suggest that a deliberate mis-statement had been made against him by the Clerks on the Minutes. His only object was to say that the statement that he had "frivolously" pressed a Division was erroneous. With the greatest possible respect for the Chair, I think it is open to question whether the hon. Member acted frivolously in calling for a Division. Speaking with some years' acquaintance of the hon. Member, in which I have known his many good qualities, I am aware that the hon. Member is frequently given to making remarks which he certainly does not intend to be taken as discourteous. I therefore hope the Leader of the House will be satisfied with passing a censure upon the hon. Member's conduct, and will not proceed to the extremity of suspending him.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I am quite willing to bear witness that the Speaker has always treated every Member with the greatest possible courtesy, even at times when relations have been somewhat strained. The conduct of the hon. Member for Boston justifies its being reported to the House, but I must strongly object to the form of the Motion, which is an enormous innovation and of grave political significance. It is quite unusual in my experience to suspend an hon. Member for a first offence for the remainder of the Session, and that course
  430
  might work in a most important manner. The precedent will be entered on the Journals, and may be taken to justify a suspension at the beginning of the Session in the future. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer either to withdraw his Motion or to so modify it as to limit the suspension to a single sitting, or at least to one week. Personally, I think a mere Vote of Censure would meet the case.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I have nothing but the kindest feeling towards the hon. Member for Boston, but we must not look at the matter as a personal question. We must look at what has occurred in the House. I go no further back than this evening. The hon. Member said the Chair had persecuted him for a week past on account of the Resolution he had put down in regard to the Chair. It is perfectly impossible that any representative Assembly respecting its Chairman can sit quiet and allow such words to pass without punishment of the peccant Member, and, if ever there was a case in which suspension should follow, this is the one. Members are suspended by the Rules of this House, and when an hon. Gentleman addresses the Speaker in such words as has been used this evening, he ought to be suspended. I will, however, suggest that it would meet the views of many hon. Members on this side of the House if some specific period of suspension were named in the Resolution. It is rather vague to say it shall last till the end of the Session. Of course, we hope the end is near, but we do not know.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: With reference to the remarks which have been made, I feel very strongly some of the observations which have dropped from hon. Members opposite—that the hon. Member for Boston lacks, to a certain extent, the power of self-control, and that much of that which seems to be most offensive may be the result of sudden impulse on his part. I venture very respectfully to submit that the Motion I have made is not only a punishment—and I do not wish it should be regarded simply as a punishment of the hon. Member—but that it is a continued protection to the Speaker during the time the hon. Member may remain in the same state of mind as he is now. His particular friend (the hon. Member for Spalding)

  431
  has told us that if we knew the ordinary ways of the hon. Member for Boston with his friends we should look in a more indulgent way on what has happened. But what we have to do is not to act in any spirit of resentment—though we should be bound to feel resentment at any insult offered to the Chair—we have to look to the maintenance of the dignity of the House, and I am bound to say that, in my opinion, it requires that we should persist in the substance of the Motion I have made. In view, however, of the suggestions which have been made, I will substitute a fortnight for "the end of the Session" if that would in any way meet the view of hon. Members opposite; but I distinctly wish that those who give their votes should not give them thinking this is a harsh punishment, but that it is a protection to the Speaker. I would move that the hon. Member should be suspended for the remainder of the Session or for a fortnight, whichever should first terminate. [Cries of "No!"] Then I would move it be a fortnight if that would secure the unanimity which is so desirable on the present occasion. I attach the greatest importance that it should not seem as if we were a divided House of Commons in this matter, and I will substitute this Motion, hoping that that substitution will do away with any belief that we are actuated by a spirit of anger, and show that our only desire is to protect the Speaker. I trust the Motion will be accepted unanimously.
  MR. PICTON: There is another view in which the Motion should be considered, namely, that of sympathy with the hon. Member for Boston. Although differences of opinion have been expressed as to the details of the course to be pursued, there is no one who is not thoroughly earnest and loyal in supporting the Chair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not impute malice to the hon. Member for Boston. He imputes nothing but a temporary lack of self-control, and, when we consider the great gravity of suspending a Representative of the people for any considerable time, I think the Resolution might be amended. Had the hon. Member been allowed 24 hours for consideration the result might have been that he would have come and amply
  432
  apologised for his temporary offence. I should have very much preferred suspension for this Sitting only, and I certainly think suspension for a fortnight is too severe a punishment. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reduce the term to one week, in view of the fact that no one imputes malice or any desire to be disorderly on the part of the hon. Member.
  LORD HENRY BRUCE: I think that the House is acting very harshly towards the hon. Member, who, whatever his mistakes, has tried to do his duty as a private Member.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I approve of the course taken by the hon. Member for West Belfast, and think, if the conduct of the hon. Member for Boston had been judged simply from the speeches delivered from the two Front Benches, the impression conveyed would have been that the hon. Member had been actuated by malice. I hope I shall not be misunderstood. I deplore the conduct of the hon. Member during the past week, but everyone must have noticed that the hon. Member has been suffering from an abnormal amount of excitement, which has absolutely destroyed all his self-control. If the Resolution had been carried simply on the speeches from the two Front Benches it would have been grossly unfair to the hon. Member and to his constituents.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I appeal to my hon. Friends behind me, and hope that there will be unanimity on the part of the House with regard to this Motion. I hope so for the sake of the hon. Member for Boston himself, for I am afraid that if we are not unanimous the hon. Gentleman will believe there is a minority which will support him when he comes back to the House, and that might encourage him to persist in the course which he has pursued. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has amended the Motion to an extent which I think Members on this side of the House may fairly accept.
  MR. SEXTON: There is a feeling on this side of the House that it is desirable to have, if possible, a unanimous vote. Naturally, as far as the Speaker is concerned, we should feel pained if we were to give a vote which might be mis-

  433
  understood. We wish to avoid that, but some of us feel that we must do so upon the present Resolution. May I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the object he has in view—namely, the securing of the period of exclusion to the end of the Session—will be practically gained by suspension for a week instead of a fortnight? A Motion limiting the suspension to a week would be more in accordance with the Standing Order.
  *SIR A. ROLLIT: Having known the hon. Member for Boston all his life, and having been associated with him in Parliamentary and municipal matters for many years, I should like to say a word in favour of a modification of the Motion, which should be at once unanimous and considerate. I have had opportunities of forming some estimate of the influences acting on the hon. Member throughout the last few days; and when I use the word "considerate," I think it is the one which is most applicable to the case. My private knowledge of the associations of the hon. Member leads me to take the view that one week's exclusion will be sufficient to attain the object in view.
  MR. H. BYRON REED: I desire to add a few words in the spirit of the observations which have been just addressed to the House. I do not think the hon. Member was actuated by a desire to outrage the House or the Chair, but his conduct is rather an expression of waywardness in circumstances with which many hon. Gentlemen sympathise, and such a punishment as a suspension for a fortnight would afford a grave precedent. I hope, therefore, that the House will, under the circumstances, accept the suggestion of the Member for West Belfast.
  MR. R. T. REID&c.): I wish to ask whether the Leader of the House will say that in his judgment it is necessary that the period should be a fortnight in order to protect the Speaker from further insult? If the right hon. Gentleman says that, I will support the Motion.
  MR. O'KELLY: If unanimity is desired the shorter the right hon. Gentleman makes the period of suspension the better. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he
  434
  cannot secure unanimity if the suspension for a fortnight is pressed.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It may perhaps relieve the House of some embarrassment if I may be allowed to interpose an expression of my own feelings in the matter in favour of the least period of suspension which is compatible with the feelings of the House. I need not say that I have no vindictive feeling towards the hon. Gentleman; the matter has passed beyond any personal feeling altogether. I respectfully suggest to the House that the hon. Gentleman is at this moment somewhat wanting in self-control, and that a short period of rest will be beneficial to himself and will save the House from any repetition of the cause of complaint. If that be the view of the House, I submit that a week may be substituted for a fortnight.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That Mr. Atkinson be suspended from the service of the House, and be excluded from the precincts for one week,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)
  —put, and agreed to. (4.50.)

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL. (No. 401.)
  Lords' Amendment to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 432.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Tramways (Ireland) Act (1860) Amendment Bill, without amendment.
  That they have agreed to Public Health Act (London) Bill; Penal Servitude Bill; and Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Bill, with Amendments.

MOTION.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS).
  MR. GOSCHEN: I rise to move—
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."
  By this Motion I ask the House to allow the 12 o'clock Rule to be suspended for

  435
  all Government Business. I think I may assume that there will be a general consent on the part of the House that we should now wind up the Session as speedily as possible, and to that end I look for co-operation in almost every direction. When recently the House was asked to suspend the 12 o'clock Rule as regards Supply, I gave a pledge that the House should not sit very late, but now I think that pledge should be superseded by the Motion on the Paper. I hope that during the short remainder of the Session the House will be ready to sit till a reasonable hour with the object of concluding Supply. I have been asked what the Government intend to do with regard to the Clergy Discipline Bill. That measure creates a new tribunal, which may be a matter of controversy, but the first three or four clauses of the Bill are simply to the effect that clergymen found guilty of crimes are to forfeit their benefices. I think there will be no objection to that, and I shall propose to omit the whole of the remainder of the Bill, and to pass those three or four clauses. I have been asked by the hon. Member for Dundee whether we will stop all Private Business.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: My question was whether the right hon. Gentleman will stop all opposed Private Business?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I think the hon. Member must appoint his own sentinel. There may be a few Bills which are unanimously desired in every part of the House, and any promise of mine might frustrate the passing of such Bills. No new legislation of a controversial nature will be introduced.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What will be done with regard to the Training Colleges (Ireland) Bill?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I have nothing to add to what the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has already said on that subject.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business he not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. COBB: I hope the Hares Bill introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Thirsk will not be allowed to pass.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I also must oppose that Bill. It seems to me that there is no disposition to refuse to accept the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for, according to Moore's verse, with a little alteration—
  "The best of all ways to shorten our days
  Is to steal a few hours from the night."
  I need not repeat what I have said on a former occasion, but I think it is greatly to be deplored that the business of Supply should have fallen into such a condition that we are obliged to assent to this proposal. We ought to have some clear understanding that no new Bills will be introduced. I see there is one on to-day's Orders in the name of a Member of the Government, and we know nothing of it. I think also there should be an understanding that only Government Bills will be proceeded with late at night. I would take notice that this House has been sitting 15 days longer than last Session. That is the result of the experiment of an Autumn Session. Fifteen days means three weeks. I hope this will be a lesson against the repetition of an experiment which has obviously failed. The idea was that a Sitting in November would shorten the labours of the House. I ventured at the time to protest against that idea and against the experiment. I think the prediction I ventured to make has been amply fulfilled. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fix a day for the discussion of the Lords' Amendments on the Education Bill. On previous occasions the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will postpone this matter until Committee of Supply has closed; but I would remind him that he has already interrupted Supply in order to take the Lords' Amendments to the Irish Land Bill. Now, the Education Bill is a measure which affects England a great deal more than the Irish Land Bill, and there is every reason why the Amendments should be brought on at a time when there is a sufficient number of hon. Members present to fully discuss them. I would, therefore, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill shall be taken on some day not later than Thursday next. Bearing in mind the importance of the Bill, and that it is not desirable that hon. Members should be called on to discuss the Amendments

  437
  at a late hour of the night, I think we have a right to ask for this assurance.
  SIR H. DAVEY: I should like to ask whether the Government will take the Betting and Loans (Infants) Bills. There is, I think, a very general feeling in their favour.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not think it is in the power of a Minister, having obtained a concession from the House in regard to Supply on a distinct pledge that he would not persevere with it in the case of any important Vote after a given hour, to say when he obtains larger powers as to general business, that it is in his power to retract his pledge. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will say he will not persist against the general feeling of the House with any Vote. If so, no doubt no opposition will be offered to this alteration in his view. As to the proposal with regard to new legislation, I do not know what Bills have been passed by the House of Lords, but a most objectionable practice has grown up of sending down a batch of Lords' Bills after the general body of members interested in them has gone away. I would suggest the insertion of the words "and in the case of Bills already introduced" before "may be entered upon." This would prevent the application of the Motion to Bills not yet introduced into this House. I do not suppose anybody in the House would be so stupid as to oppose a Bill like that of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Chaplin) with regard to fertilisers, as it is intended to serve the interests of the agricultural community generally. There are Bills frequently introduced by the Treasury at the end of the Session which, like the Public Works Loans Bill of last year, contain a mass of contentious matter. I beg to move the Amendment I have suggested.
  Amendment proposed, in line 3, after the word "and," to insert the words "in the case of Bills already introduced."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GOSCHEN: I can assure the hon. and learned Member that his Amendment is not necessary, for I will
  438
  undertake that no new Bills shall be introduced during the prohibited hours.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No Lords' Bills.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: No Lords' Bills. Of course the hon. Member is alluding to Bills which come from the Lords, and not the Lords' Amendments. As to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Derby, I do not quite understand whether it applies wholly to Government business or not.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I understand the difficulty to be in reference to Bills, not being Government Bills, that are not opposed. I know the difficulty there sometimes is of distinguishing between opposed and unopposed Bills, and I think the best course to take at this late period of the Session is to lay down that no business shall be taken except Government business.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I thought that was the view of the right hon. Gentleman. What I undertake is this, that if the House is fairly unanimous in proceeding with these Bills, we will not deprive private Members of their chance. We adopt this attitude not in the interest of the Government, but in the interest of private Members. With regard to the question of the right hon. Member for Derby relating to the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill, I had hoped that it would not be necessary to interrupt Supply. If we should be so fortunate as to finish Supply by Wednesday evening, we should be in a position to take the Education Bill on Thursday. However, seeing the interest hon. Members take in the Amendments, and in order to facilitate business, I will undertake that the Lords' Amendments to the Bill shall be taken, under any circumstances, on Thursday next as the first Order.
  MR. SCHWANN: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Indian Budget will be the first Order on some early day?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir; I think the Indian Budget will come soon after the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill have been disposed of. If we should be fortunate enough to finish Supply on Wednesday night we would take the Education Bill on Thursday, and possibly we might take the Indian Budget after that or on Friday. I do

  439
  not wish hon. Members, however, to regard this as a pledge, but merely as a contemplated possibility.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to ask whether it is intended to proceed with the Training Colleges (Ireland) Bill after 12 o'clock?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: Yes, Sir.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: In spite of the pledge that no contentious Bills should be taken?
  MR. PICTON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has certainly lightened the load with regard to the Clergy Discipline Bill. Probably to the first four clauses most people will agree, but it is more than likely that they will be discussed and opposed, and I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is worth while to run the risk of this after 12 o'clock in order simply to, pass the four clauses referred to.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask when the Scotch Supplementary Education Vote will be taken?
  MR. BUCHANAN: Might I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be more convenient, as the Indian Budget has been put off till so late, that it should not come immediately after the discussion of the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill. In view of an impending famine in India there may be very important matters to be discussed upon the Indian Budget.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: In view of the statement made by the Chief Secretary, I beg to give notice that I shall oppose the discussion of the Training Colleges (Ireland) Bill after 12 o'clock, at a time when hon. Members cannot have an opportunity of fully expressing their views, and when no reports can reach Ireland.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I suppose the Order for the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill will be discharged?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Yes.
  MR. SEXTON: I have heard the statement of the hon. Member for South Tyrone with great surprise, because he allowed the Second Reading to pass without dissent. The hon. Member will have no difficulty in expressing his views
  440
  after 12 o'clock. I hope the House will not be kept sitting late on Wednesdays.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. GOSCHEN: With regard to Wednesday I think we may sit till 6 or half-past 6 o'clock. I am not favourable to the House sitting later than half-past six on Wednesday evenings if it can be avoided. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester concerning the Clergy Discipline Bill, I cannot believe there will be much opposition to the first four clauses, and it is very desirable that they should be passed. With regard to the Scotch Votes, I will endeavour to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen from Scotland as far as I can, but I cannot give a definite pledge as to the time when they will be taken.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I wish to move to add to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman,
  "And that no other business to which notice of Amendment has been placed on the Paper be proceeded with after 12 o'clock."
  That is a more moderate demand than has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is already bound by his pledge to prevent any business being taken after 1 o'clock. He is now going to make the House sit till 2 or 3 in the morning. I am really attempting to protect private Members. On the Paper to-day there are 20 private Members' Bills down for consideration, and most of these would not now be on the Paper at all unless they were opposed Bills. Unless my Amendment is agreed to private Members who oppose these Bills will have to stay here till 2 or 3 o'clock every morning in order to say formally "I object." It is a pernicious practice to send Government Bills down from the Lords at this period of the Session; but it is a still more pernicious practice to send down Bills which are not Government Bills. Private Members in all parts of the House have been compelled to abandon their Bills, and now, forsooth, we are to be asked to sit here till 3 or 4 in the morning to consider the

  441
  Private Bills of Members of the House of Lords.
  Amendment proposed,
  To add at the end of the Question, the words "and that no other business as to which notice of any Amendment has been placed on the Paper be proceeded with after midnight."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. SCHWANN: Could not the Chancellor of the Exchequer cause these Bills from the Lords to be withdrawn entirely? I specially object to Order No. 39 on the Paper (Chartered Accountants Bill) being forced through in the small hours of the morning. That Bill, which is opposed by accountants throughout the country, was only introduced into the House of Lords about a week ago, and is a sample of a kind of legislation that ought not to be encouraged at this period of the Session.
  MR. PICTON: I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. If it be rejected it means that we must take the trouble of stopping here till 3 or 4 or perhaps 5 in the morning in order to say—"I object."
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I will endeavour to arrive at a compromise in the matter. It is because I wish to protect private Members that I hesitated to meet the views of the hon. Member for Dundee. But I will undertake, if it meets the general view, that no Private Bills at all shall be proceeded with after 1 o'clock.
  SIR H. DAVEY: As I find there is considerable opposition to the Chartered Accountants Bill I will not proceed with it this Session.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: I would suggest that an exception should be made in favour of four or five private Members' Bills, which have reached almost the last stage.
  MR. GOSCHEN: After Supply is finished there may be an opportunity between 12 and 1 o'clock for these Bills to come on. Till Supply is finished, I must adhere to the view I have expressed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to the suggestion of my hon. Friend. If there is to be a massacre of innocents, let all suffer alike.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It really is not a kindness to private Members
  442
  bers to keep these Bills in a state of suspended animation. It would be kinder, both to those who are promoting and those who are opposing particular Bills, that the exceptional rule should extend only to Bills which have been brought forward by the Government, and not to private Members' Bills.
  MR. KELLY: There are 19 Orders of the Day apart from the Government Orders, and as to 16 of them it is absolutely impossible that they can pass this Session. On the other hand, there are three which have reached the Report stage, and I do think the Government might make some exception in their favour.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I would point out that even if the three Bills referred to by the hon. Member pass this House this Session there is no chance of their passing the other House, and it would be better to give them the "happy despatch."
  MR. COURTNEY: I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby is under a misapprehension. Why should you at, this period of the Session deprive private Members of their chance of getting Bills through? I do not see why the private Members' Bills should not be left in the position they were in before. It is quite true that the chance of passing them is a small one, but why should private Members be deprived of that chance?
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I merely rise for the purpose of stating that I strongly sympathise with the views which the hon. Member has expressed, and perhaps the statement of them will suffice.
  (5.30.) Question put, and negatived.
  Ordered, That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Resolved, "That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock a.m."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Chaplin, Bill to amend the Law with respect to the sale of Agricultural

  443
  Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chaplin and Mr. Secretary Stanhope.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 433.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1891–2.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1891–2.

    CLASS III.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £438,490, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Expenses of the Prisons in England, Wales, and the Colonies."
    MR. PARNELL: In dealing with this Vote I desire to refer to two questions which are intimately connected with each other. I desire to raise the question of the treatment of political prisoners suffering sentences of penal servitude in the convict establishments of this country. I shall, I think, be able to establish the claim, at all events of some of these men, to be treated as political prisoners suffering imprisonment in consequence of sentences for offences of a political character. And after I have dealt with that branch of the subject, I propose to go on to refer to the case of two prisoners now undergoing, one of them, a long sentence of penal servitude on the charge of treason felony, and the other, John Daly, undergoing a life sentence as a consequence of his conviction on the charge of treason felony. The time has now come when the whole question of the conviction and imprisonment, and continued imprisonment, of persons convicted years ago on charges of treason felony should be considered, with a view to determining whether, both on grounds of public policy and also by reference to the special circumstances of some of these cases, a measure of amnesty might not be extended to many of such prisoners. With regard to the first question, the treatment of political prisoners in convict establishments, it has never been brought before this House yet without results following. The old system of transportation for
    444
    political offences was abolished many years ago, and in its place was substituted the punishment of penal servitude in these convict establishments; and with this change in the system of punishment came also a change in dealing with political offenders. That change, to some extent, was also coincident with a furtherchange—the substitution for trials for high treason of accusations of treason felony, under which it was sought to degrade the persons convicted of such an offence from the title of political prisoners to that of an ordinary felon. It was under such circumstances that the Fenian prisoners convicted in 1865 and 1867, and later Mr. Davitt, and Sergeant McCarthy, Corporal Chambers, Clancy, and others were sentenced to long terms of penal servitude. The conditions of their imprisonment were on many occasions brought before the House, with the result that they were liberated—I do not say all at the same time, but one after the other—and from time to time they were liberated as a consequence of the revelations made in the Debates in this House, of the circumstances of their prison treatment. It was stated against the 1865 and 1867 men that they were not political prisoners, because they had been convicted of treason felony. But I think there is no one in these days who will any longer attempt to suggest that men of the capacity of Mr. Davitt, who was convicted of the offence of which the men of 1865 and 1867 were convicted are not entitled to be treated as political prisoners. Yet, if offences convicted by these men and Mr. Davitt were repeated to-day, and convictions were obtained, the prisoners would remain subject to the terrible treatment of your prison discipline, and which is meted out to the hardened offenders who are usually found in your convict establishments. I think that is a very great blot on the prison system of England. You will have political prisoners as long as the Irish question remains unsettled. You will always have political prisoners of some kind or other. When the right hon. Gentleman got the Coercion Act, the question of the status of political prisoners was raised from time to time, with the result that there were material ameliorations of the treatment of prisoners, though there were many vain struggles on the part of the Chief Secre-

    445
    tary to maintain the prison rules. I shall be asked at the outset whether I compare the aims and objects of the men of 1865 and 1867 with those of the men who were convicted in 1883–4 under the jurisdiction of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. Although their aims and objects may have been similar, I will not compare them. But I claim for the men of 1883–4 that they should be treated as political prisoners, because they were tried and convicted on political offences. I believe it is true that every one of these persons was convicted of treason felony and conspiring to levy war against the Queen. Certainly, in the case of Daly and Egan, the main portion of the evidence against them was in connection with the Irish Republican Brotherhood, dating back as far as 1873. Daly, Egan, and the others in penal servitude were tried for treason felony. They were tried for conspiring to levy war against the Queen and against her authority in her own dominions, and they were convicted of these offences. And this was done by the policy of the then Liberal Administration, in face of the fact that at the time there was the Explosive Substances Act which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, the then Homo Secretary, had obtained to give him more stringent powers in dealing with the possession of dynamite, or the causing of explosions with dynamite. Notwithstanding this Bill was passed through its three stages in one night, yet the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have used it after it was passed into law. On the contrary; when he came to try persons accused of having dynamite in their possession—I believe he never got as far as convicting anybody who had actually caused an explosion—he placed John Daly and Egan under the treason-felony enactments. Why? I suppose we shall have some explanation from him to-night. Looking into the matter, with my own unaided judgment, it appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman took the course of trying them, not as political offenders, not under the Dynamite Act—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order! I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to enter on that subject; it is not under the Vote. The hon. Member is entitled to discuss the treatment of prisoners so far as it relates to the rules. He is also
    446
    entitled to discuss the rules so far as they are within the discretion of the Commissioners. He is not entitled to discuss them in connection with an exposition of the law laid down by Act of Parliament, nor will he be entitled to do what he suggested in the second part of his speech, to enter into the considerations on which the sentences should be remitted.
    MR. PARNELL: Very well, Sir. What I propose to ask is this: that the Government extend the system of treatment to persons convicted of political offences now in penal servitude prisons that they extended to Mr. Davitt when he was re-arrested in 1881 and sent back to the same prison where John Daly and Egan are now confined. That, I apprehend, is a matter within the competency of the Commissioners—it is an alteration of the system which has no reference to the law. Indeed, Sir, I think the Statute is not concerned in this question of the treatment of penal servitude prisoners at all, because there never have been any Statutes passed for the purpose of regulating the treatment of penal servitude prisoners, who are treated in accordance with the rules framed from time to time by the authorities. The treatment of ordinary prisoners is regulated by rules framed under the provisions of Statutes, but the treatment of penal servitude prisoners is left very much to the discretion of the Home Secretary and to the Commissioners appointed by him. I think I ought to be allowed to point out that these men were tried as political offenders, but that the Statute under which they were undoubtedly arrested was not used against them. I might point out, further, that by being charged with treason-felony they could be transported for life, whereas had they been charged under the Explosive Substances Act they could only have been sent to penal servitude for 14 years. I observe that this is not contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, so that I suppose he accepts my statement. In addition, by not charging these men under the Explosives Act, they were precluded from the right which that Act conferred of giving testimony in their own defence. By being charged with treason-felony and conspiring to levy war upon the Queen, John Daly

    447
    was sentenced to penal servitude for life, and he was not allowed to give testimony in his own defence. What I claim is that these men, whose mouths were then closed, are entitled, after the interval of eight or nine years, to be treated as political offenders. I will add this, that if Daly had been tried under the Explosive Substances Act, and for the offence for which he was arrested, and for which he was really punished, he would now be almost entitled, under the penal servitude rules, to receive his liberty as a person on ticket-of-leave. I submit it is a fair argument to use that if, in addition to the considerations I have advanced, there are grave doubts connected with the case of Daly, then there is great reason why these prisoners should receive better and more lenient treatment than that which has yet been dealt out. Daly had been arrested in Birkenhead with dynamite actually on his person. After his arrest a bottle of nitro-glycerine was found in the back garden of Egan's house where Daly was lodging. And Daly admitted on his trial, in order to free Egan from a share in his punishment, that he (Daly) was alone responsible for having placed this bottle of nitro-glycerine there. In fact, the evidence against Daly as regards being in possession of dynamite under circumstances of reasonable suspicion were overwhelming, and we should not have complained, under the circumstances, if he had received his sentence of 14 years' penal servitude after he had been allowed, under the provisions of the Statute, to give testimony in his own defence. But he received a life sentence, and he was not allowed to give testimony in his own defence. Circumstances have transpired since then which throw an entirely new colour, and put an entirely different complexion, upon the case of this unfortunate man. From information received to-day by my hon. Friend Mr. John Redmond, from the lips of Daly himself, there is every reason to believe that Daly was absolutely innocent even of the charge of having dynamite in his possession with the intent to cause an explosion; and that if he had been allowed at the trial in 1884 to state to the Jury—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is going beyond the limits which I mentioned in entering
    448
    into the circumstances of the trial, which have nothing to do with the action of the Prison Commissioners. On the Prison Vote he can only discuss the action of the Prison Commissioners in relation to the imprisonment itself.
    MR. PARNELL: Well, Sir, I am endeavouring to make my argument as close as possible to the subject of the treatment of the prisoners. Of course, Sir, if you say I cannot bring forward these arguments in favour of Daly's having a more lenient system of prison discipline extended to him, and later on introduce the question of an amnesty, I shall have to bring it before the Home Secretary, and also before the House of Commons itself, on the Appropriation Bill. If you hold that I am not in order in slightly referring to the circumstances of the conviction in order to strengthen my claim for proper treatment for the prisoner pending investigation of his case, I shall not persist.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think that would be going beyond the proper limits of this discussion. The question might possibly be raised on some other Vote, but not upon this.
    MR. PARNELL: Well, Sir, I bow to your ruling; but however inconvenient it may be, when the time comes, I shall be compelled to stop the Appropriation Bill and re-open the question on the Committee stage. Keeping myself strictly within the limits of the ruling, I will say that from information I have received to-day, from a statement made by Alderman Manton, which I will venture to read to the House, there is every reason why the stringency of the rules under which Daly is treated should be relaxed pending the re-consideration of the case, which will undoubtedly become necessary. Here is Alderman Manton's letter—
    THE CHAIRMAN: It would be quite irregular to enter into an argument for more lenient treatment on the ground that there is a claim for a remission of the sentence. However inconvenient it may be to the hon. Member or the Committee, that is a subject which could not be raised here.
    MR. PARNELL: Very well, Sir; in that case I shall simply go on to say that in my judgment it is absolutely necessary that some discrimination should be shown with regard to the

    449
    treatment of these men, whose sentences are political, inasmuch as if the offences had not been of a political character the prisoners would be now almost entitled to their release. The right hon. Gentleman may dwell upon the horrors of dynamite, the terrible circumstances that then existed, the panic in this country, and the fear under which many people laboured that they might at any moment become the victims of an explosion. In reply to that, I would say that these explosions were fortunately not attended with any loss of life, and in only one or two instances with injury to person. The political motive being there—whatever the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else may think as to the character of the means used to carry out those explosions—political sentences having been imposed, and the proceedings having been of a political character, these men now, at all events, after this long interval of time are entitled, justly and fairly, for the sake of the honour and credit of this country, to some relaxation of the terrible conditions under which they are working out these sentences of penal servitude for life. With regard to the general question, very strong reasons exist why the whole case of Daly, Egan, and others should be reconsidered with a view of seeing whether absolutely innocent men have not been sent to penal servitude—men who have been convicted of these offences owing to a most disgraceful plot on the part of the Irish police and the Home Office of that day. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £5,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £5,000, part of the Salaries of the Prisons Commissioners.—(Mr. Parnell.)
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I desire to interpose a few words on the general question before the answer of the Home Secretary is given. All I can say is that if any circumstances which ought to lead to the reconsideration of the sentences or the treatment of any prisoner come up, I certainly should be the last to stand in the way. During my administration of the Home Office I over and over again re-considered matters when there was any ground for re-consideration. Therefore, on those grounds generally I have
    450
    nothing to object to the claim which the hon. Member for Cork or any other person has to bring under consideration any case which demands it. I only rise for the purpose of noticing one or two points which the hon. Member has addressed to me personally. The hon. Member seemed to think that for some reason or other in the case of Daly I preferred to proceed against him for treason-felony instead of under the Explosives Act. It was no part of my business to determine what should be the proper form of indictment. I took the proper course in leaving the form of indictment to the Law Officers of the Crown, who had the facts laid before them. The hon. Member for Cork has rather suggested that the object of these proceedings was to shut the mouth of Daly. But the mouth of Daly was not shut. Daly contented himself with making a statement to the jury, and it was upon the statement of Daly himself—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is out of order in entering into a controversy with regard to the circumstances of the trial.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Of course, I bow to the ruling of the Chair, but I am bound to make some explanation with reference to the statement made by the hon. Member for Cork, which would otherwise go forth without any explanation. The hon. Member in his speech said that Daly himself admitted the possession of dynamite, and never from first to last, as far as I know, has Daly until this time disputed any of the facts alleged against him. [Cries of "Oh!"] It has never come to my knowledge that Daly ever denied the possession of dynamite. [Mr. PARNELL: He has never had the opportunity until to day.] In the defence he offered for himself at the trial he made no such denial, nor did he allege anything to the purport that the hon. Member for Cork has suggested. The offence has been spoken of as if it was less serious because fatal consequences have not ensued, but the results of explosions were often cruel if they came short of being fatal. Victims have received injuries from which they have never recovered, and on them at least sentences for life have been passed by those injuries. Then the hon. Member speaks of plots by the police, and I think he said plots by the Home Office also. [Mr.

    451
    PARNELL: Hear, hear!] Well, Sir, all I can do is to meet that with an absolute denial, and I say now, as I have said before in this House, that I shall always bear testimony to the honour, the zeal, and, as far as I know, the absolute integrity of the police, to whose courage and intelligence it was due that much more fatal consequences did not result from these conspiracies and crimes.
    MR. J. REDMOND: It may be convenient if the Home Secretary will allow me to intervene for a moment. I regret extremely, Mr. Courtney, that your ruling prevents us going into the substance of the case. That ruling has already placed us in some little difficulty, because it is very hard to listen to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby without attempting to reply to it. I confess I do think nothing could be more unfortunate to Daly, from his point of view, than that we should have a fragmentary discussion on one point or another point in his case. When the opportunity comes it will be shown, on the solemn declaration of the Chief Constable of Birmingham, and on the statements of a number of other persons in similar positions, that there was a plot on the part of the agents of the Irish Police. I regret extremely that it is not possible to go fully into the case. The case must be gone into fully, and I hope the occasion will soon come. In anticipation of that occasion and obeying your ruling, Sir, I shall refrain from any further reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. This, however, I desire to say before I sit down: I regret very much that I was not in my place in the House on the last occasion when the case was mentioned, because the Home Secretary apparently made statements it would be difficult to substantiate. The right hon. Gentleman pleaded misapprehension as to the object with which I applied for permission to visit Daly. As I understand, he stated that he did not know from me or anybody else that it was to be a purely professional and legal visit. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman on the 4th of January stating that I had been engaged on behalf of some friends of Daly's to investigate his case and all the circumstances attending his conviction, that I had had an opportunity of
    452
    visiting him, and had advised him to apply for an order for me to consult with him professionally and privately. I made a similar application myself, and I assured the Home Secretary that such a visit was essential to enable his friends to investigate his case. In reply to that letter, which could have left no misapprehension in the mind of anyone who read it, but clearly showed that my object was to pay a professional and private visit to Daly, I received, almost by return of post, a letter from the Home Office granting me the permission asked for. I accordingly made the long, tiresome, and expensive journey from Dublin to Portland, and on arriving at the prison was told by the Deputy Governor that he and a warder must be present at the interview. In vain I exhibited a copy of my own letter and the reply from the Home Office. I then telegraphed to the Home Office, and I received the following reply:—
    "Telegram received; Secretary of State cannot sanction any relaxation of the rules relating to a professional visit to a convicted criminal prisoner."
    It was not any relaxation of rule I asked for; it was for permission to pay such a visit; and am I to be told that the Deputy Governor and a warder must be present at such interviews? That was not the defence of the right hon. Gentleman the other night; it was that he was under a misapprehension as to the character of the visit, but that when his misapprehension was removed he sent the necessary order. The probable explanation is that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen my letter and the reply to it; if he had seen them the misapprehension is inexplicable. I received by telegraph the order I asked for on Saturday in Dublin. I again travelled to Portland; I have this day seen Daly, and, after a too hurried interview, have returned to the House. The impression produced on my mind by the statement of the Chief Constable of Birmingham has been intensified by the result of to-day's visit, which has strengthened my conviction of Daly's innocence and my determination to do what I can to bring the truth to light. It is, perhaps, well that a few days should intervene before a full discussion takes place, because the information received is

    453
    such as must be investigated. I have no ulterior object in this matter; my object is by investigation to get at the truth and see whether injustice has been done; and I trust that in any further steps to be taken the right hon. Gentleman will not, without serious reason, interpose further obstacles. I can assure him that I will not in the slightest particular abuse any privilege or facilities that are afforded to me. I trust, therefore, he will give me what facilities he can to enable me to inquire fully into what I think I have good reason for believing was a great miscarriage of justice.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I have pleasure in saying that I have very little to add under the limitations imposed by the ruling of the Chair. The facts to which the hon. Member has alluded are not new to me. They were brought before my notice some time ago, and since then I have on two or three occasions gone with all possible minuteness and impartiality into an investigation of every circumstance connected with the conviction of Daly. I have satisfied myself that the suggestions of the hon. Member are entirely groundless, and are little more than the creation of imagination. I have scrutinised most carefully everything that has been done under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and I have been able to detect nothing that could call for the slightest censure or blame. I hope that this direct denial will be a sufficient answer to the allegations that have been made by the hon. Member. I will point out that if I had discovered the slightest ground for supposing that there was anything in the nature of a plot against Daly, such a discovery would not have led me to a relaxation of treatment, but to instant release of the prisoner. The hon. Member for Cork contends that the prisoners in question ought to have been convicted under the Explosives Act instead of being convicted for treason-felony, and that they would have then enjoyed the double advantage of giving evidence themselves and of suffering a shorter sentence.
    MR. PARNELL: I was referring to Daly and Egan. They could only have been convicted under Section 4.
    MR. MATTHEWS: Daly and Egan were also guilty under Section 3, and the jury might have found Daly guilty under that section in consequence of his having done acts or having conspired to cause an explosion by means of an explosive substance. The offence under Section 4 was the minor offence of being in possession, contrary to the law, of an explosive substance, and thereby giving rise to reasonable suspicion that he intended to cause an explosion.
    MR. PARNELL: The sentence under Section 3 is limited to 20 years.
    MR. MATTHEWS: The evidence satisfied the jury. I am anxious not to appear to prejudice the case, but it is impossible to read the evidence—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman cannot go into the evidence.
    MR. MATTHEWS: Taking it for granted that there has been a proper conviction, and looking at the character of it, it is impossible to say that the treatment in a convict prison is too severe. The present punishment is itself a relaxation of the old law of treason-felony, under which the prisoners would have forfeited their lives. Modern ideas of greater clemency have brought about the less extreme punishment. Having regard to the Chairman's ruling, there is no other topic which I am entitled to discuss in this case. I would remind the Committee that I have instigated what I endeavoured to make a perfectly independent and impartial inquiry into the treatment of the Irish prisoners in Chatham Prison, and then the prisoners had every opportunity of stating their grievances. As it is evident that the discussion is to be renewed, I will say no more on the present occasion.
    COLONEL NOLAN: With regard to what has been said as to the prison treatment administered under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, I can corroborate what the right hon. Gentleman has said, because I remember that in the case of Michael Davitt a large number of hon. Members thought it very hard that he should be subjected to the treatment of an ordinary prisoner, and the right hon. Gentleman allowed him to be exceptionally treated. I think that in the present case it would be advisable to introduce some relaxation of

    455
    the stringency and hardship of the Prison Rules; or, at any rate, that some inquiry might be made into the matter, with a view of seeing whether the rules might not be relaxed. I think that, under the circumstances, we have strong ground for voting for the reduction of the Vote as proposed by the hon. Member for Cork. I would point out that if the hon. Member for Wexford had been allowed to have gone to the prison and seen Daly some months ago, we should have been much better prepared on this subject, and might have challenged the salary of the Home Secretary on the Police Vote; but Owing to the fact that the Government refused this, we were not in possession of the necessary materials at the time. I think it must be generally admitted that we are placed in a very unsatisfactory position by the way in which the matter is brought before the Committee. We have seen the hon. Member for Cork called to order before he has really developed his argument. We have also seen the ex-Home Secretary the Member for Derby called to order and then allowed to go into some of the facts against the prisoner, and after this we have seen the present Home Secretary first diving into the subject and then retreating from it and apologising and expressing his regret that he could not go further into it. I am not quite sure that we ought not to bring this question up on all the Votes having any bearing on the subject; but, at any rate, if we cannot fully discuss it on this Vote there is the possibility of doing so on the Appropriation Bill, which I should advise the hon. Member for Cork to look carefully after, because many things are ruled out of order in discussing that Bill, and, therefore, unless he takes the earliest opportunity of securing the necessary discussion on that Bill, it may have to be put on one side. The hon. Member for North Wexford has procured a half-hearted promise from the Home Secretary that he will do everything he can to facilitate an inquiry into this matter, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will afford every possible assistance for the prosecution of that inquiry. I hope we may have some other opportunity before the end of the Session of dealing with this question, so that we may have it thoroughly threshed out.
    456
    It is possible that we may not have an inquiry before the end of the Session; but if it is refused, the impression left upon the minds of the people will be that this inquiry has been purposely obstructed by the officials.
    MR. SEXTON: This question was discussed to some extent last year upon the Home Office Vote, and it is distinctly within my memory that the Home Secretary made a more favourable response than he has given to-day. He did not then come to the unchangeable conclusion at which he has arrived to-day. I regret that the Debate was not raised upon the Vote for the Home Department, because we would then have been able to deal exhaustively with the various considerations in the case. The Home Secretary has the prerogative of clemency, and we would have been able to bring before him evidence such as would have entitled him to ask for the clemency of the Crown. On the Prisons Vote we are limited strictly to the question whether the Commissioners within their discretion have acted properly or improperly. Whether by inadvertence or not I do not know, but the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the letters sent to him by the hon. Member for North Wexford. The hon. Member has read the letter, which states that he wished to see Daly on professional and legal business. I certainly think the hon. Member was entitled to complain, even with more energetic language than he used, of the treatment which he has received at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. It is not a light thing for a professional man, who thinks he has permission to see the prisoner, to come across the Irish Sea and across this country to Portland Prison only to find that he will merely be allowed to see the prisoner in the presence of two warders. There has been a want of businesslike arrangement in connection with the whole affair, and I think the Home Secretary should give some explanation. I claim that the hon. Member for North Wexford should be allowed to see the prisoner. Daly and the other men have undeniably suffered grievously in these prisons, because of the prejudice which exists against them in connection with the offence of which they were convicted. No one

    457
    who reads the Report of the Commission can fail to become aware of the indignities to which these men are subjected, often being put to disgusting offices in the middle of the night, simply because of their offence. If there is a strong doubt in the case of Daly, there is a stronger doubt in the case of Egan; and if I may venture to discriminate, I do think it is not too much to ask the right hon. Gentleman not to make these men suffer the punishment which is provided for ordinary criminals; at any rate, pending his final decision, their treatment might be as much relaxed as is compatible with the rules. As to the right of interview, the right hon. Gentleman clearly laid down on Friday night that a prisoner may be seen by his legal adviser. I ask him to allow the hon. Member for North Wexford to see the prisoner, even though it be in the sight of, not in the hearing of, a warder. I trust that before the Debate is concluded we shall have an assurance that the hon. Member for North Wexford, without further letter or telegram, mistake or misapprehension, will be entitled to see this prisoner.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I am very glad that this entire question can be raised on the Appropriation Bill, and that it will not be necessary to deal with it in a piecemeal manner on this Vote. I asked the right hon. Gentleman several questions with regard to the treatment of Daly in Chatham Prison, and the right hon. Gentleman twice laid down that Chatham Prison was the proper prison for Daly, and that he was very well treated in that prison, although he had three times been nearly poisoned.
    MR. MATTHEWS: Twice.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: He had three excessive doses of belladonna, and if that is not being three times nearly poisoned I do not know what is. The right hon. Gentleman stated to me in the month of May that some suggestion would be made for a separate classification, or some kind of division, at Chatham Prison, but beyond that he would not go. Now I have to ask why it is that John Daly has been removed—I am glad he has been removed; I am not making it a complaint—but why was he removed to Portland? Considering the abominable language proved to have been used by the warders at Chatham, which stands
    458
    recorded in the Blue Book, I consider the removal to have been good policy on the part of the Government; but the Committee ought to know why Daly was removed, and the whole circumstances connected with the removal. Then I have to refer to another prisoner whose name appears in the Report of the Visitors to the prison, James McGrath, who has since died, and as to whom I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman earlier in the Session. The case of this prisoner is thus referred to in the Report—
    "One of the prisoners, James McGrath, informed us that he was studying Spanish, with a view of getting employment on his liberation as a sailor on the Spanish Main; and he expressed a wish to he supplied with an epitome of navigation in the Spanish language, similar to Norie's Epitome of Navigation. We find on inquiry that this prisoner is exceedingly well conducted, having only been punished once during nine years, and we trust that his request will, if possible, be complied with."
    Well, what happened? He was' according to the Report of this most prejudiced Commission—prejudiced against the prisoners—found to be a well-conducted prisoner; and this poor man, in his examination, made no complaint whatever. You find his examination recorded on the 2nd page of the Report. He was asked if he had any statement to make with regard to his treatment during the nine years of his imprisonment, and he replied—
    "No, I have got on very well here."
    Then followed questions and answers—
    "Has your health been good?—It has been very good. Is there any matter which you wish to bring before us?—Nothing with regard to my treatment, or anything of that sort. Perhaps this might not be the place to make a request for something that I wish to obtain. Would it be out of place here?—We have only power to make recommendations; we have no power to' grant anything.—It was with regard to a special book which, perhaps, would hardly be granted to me, that would be possibly out of place here?—We will consider it."
    Then the prisoner went on to say—
    "I am a sailor, and have been a sailor all my time, and I have been a good deal about the Spanish Main, and I intend, if I ever get my liberty, to go to South America; I do not want to go to any place where I have been before; I intend to go to Chili or Valparaiso. I had some knowledge of the Spanish language before I began my sentence. Twelve months ago the chaplain kindly allowed me a grammar and a dictionary of the Spanish language. He came to the cell door and handed them to me and spoke very kindly to

    459
    me and gave me encouragement. I have been studying it ever since, and I have made some progress with the language. I have not a practical knowledge of it, but I have a good theoretical knowledge of it. That is to say, I could read it fairly, but not speak it; and I wish to get an epitome of navigation in the Spanish language, it would assist me in gaining my living when I leave the prison. The book I would wish to have particularly is a book like Norie's English Epitome with complete mathematical tables. There are various editions, but this is the complete one. He is a standard authority on English Navigation, and I would wish to have a Spanish one just like Norie's."
    The Chairman undertook that the request should be laid before the proper authorities, and the prisoner said—
    "I will deem it a very great favour, and if I can obtain it it would be a great assistance to me, and would enable me to pass my time in prison. I have been a great deal better since I have taken to the study of this language. I have an object. I was very well treated here, but I had no object, and under the very best circumstances the life of a prisoner is somewhat irksome. I went through my old school career and took up various subjects, but since I have been studying the Spanish language, I have had more of an object in life, and I have been in better health, and I would wish to follow it up."
    In the appendix you find the doctor's reference to this prisoner—
    H. 700. James McGrath in hospital from August 27, 1885, to September 1,1885, suffering from bronchial catarrh."
    And for this he was treated. This appears to be the only ailment for which he was treated during the whole time of his imprisonment. It will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to say this prisoner reported himself in good health; a man may not be cognisant of his being under the influence of a specific disease, but what I have to complain of is that, when this man was stricken with a mortal illness, his friends were not apprised of the fact. The right hon. Member for Derby, when Home Secretary, laid down the principle that when a prisoner was in a dying condition he ought to be discharged. I remember the release in such circumstances of one of the Scotch prisoners connected with the Glasgow explosion. I saw in the Times mention of an inquest on the prisoner, James McGrath. I asked the right hon. Gentleman why it was the man's relatives were not communicated with, why it was not brought to their knowledge
    460
    that he was dying, so that they might receive his dying words and wishes—not an unreasonable thing to ask. I also ask why it was he was not released when his illness was known to be mortal. Whether the death occurred at Chatham or Portland I do not remember, and newspaper paragraphs do not turn up when you want them; but if the death occurred at Portland, there is, of course, less responsibility upon the doctor, under whose care the prisoner could only have been for a short time; but if the death occurred at Chatham, then a strong responsibility does rest upon the doctor for not taking steps earlier to inform his friends of his illness. I did not know when I asked the right hon. Gentleman the question whether the prisoner was an Irishman or an American, whether he was friendless or whether his friends lived at a great distance, and when the right hon. Gentleman told me that the friends of the dying man had been communicated with, I naturally supposed that they lived at a distance and had not replied. But I have since received a letter from the deceased prisoner's mother contradicting point-blank the right hon. Gentleman's statement. She says that no communication was sent to her, and that she never heard of her son's illness until he was no more. Now, all through this Blue Book these treason-felony prisoners complain that they received treatment over and above in severity the usual prison treatment or punishment, in supererogation, if I may use the expression, as the result of the prejudice against the offences of which they were convicted. But it is not the law or custom in England that a sentence of imprisonment should be enforced to the death of the prisoner, or at all events, when a man is dying he is allowed his liberty and the company of his friends. I maintain that a careful inquiry ought to be instituted into the circumstances of McGrath's death. An inquest was held on the deceased man, and was reported in the Times, but prison inquests are often unsatisfactory, the jury being too often composed of contractors, traders, and others having business relations with the prison officials and warders. Then, another case to which I have to call attention is that of another prisoner, J. F. Egan, in relation

    461
    to whom there was a pregnant passage in the Report on the treatment of Daly, giving rise to the hope that there would be a, special inquiry into the case of this man. It was in relation to this that the hon. Member for North Wexford visited Egan, as he was fully entitled to do within the regulations; but I am informed that every obstacle was thrown in the way when the prisoner began to talk of the circumstances attending his conviction. Now, surely to a prisoner this is an all-important subject of conversation with one who comes from the outside world. If a man is allowed a 20 minutes' interview with a visitor, surely the prisoner may be allowed to occupy the time in conversation upon his own affairs so long as he does not indulge in insulting language towards the officials. Surely it is not necessary for the warder present to interpose and check conversation like a Chairman of Committees. Certainly it is a strong doctrine that when an educated man like the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. J. Redmond) visits a prisoner, the conversation is to be controlled by a warder. A prisoner ought to be allowed to say what he likes during the visit, as long as he does not make an attack on the constituted authorities of the prison, or say anything of an insulting or aggravating character. This brings me to the statement made by Daly with regard to Egan. It must be remembered that at the time Daly was suffering from poison, and he believed he was a dying man, Daly wished to see the man with whom he was convicted, but his request was refused. Supposing a prisoner was believed to be dying from natural causes, and not from poison administered to him by prison officials, would he be denied access to his friends, would his friends be informed of his condition, and would he have an opportunity of making a dying declaration concerning a fellow prisoner whose imprisonment he believed he had caused? Daly, in his statement, said—
    "I wished to see Mr. Egan because, as a dying man, I wished to ask his forgiveness for the great wrong I had done him. I wished to say, with my dying breath, almost in the presence of the unknown God, and in the presence of witnesses, that during the time I lived in his house in Birmingham he never, at any time, had my confidence; he had no share in my political sentiments, no more than the child unborn. I deceived him first by saying I changed my name, and took off my beard,
    462
    because I wanted to go to Ireland, and that owing to the things that Rossa had said about me in his newspaper in New York, I was afraid I would he arrested. He was constantly saying he would go to the Police Office to ask for an explanation for his house being watched by detectives, I kept him from it by saying from day to day I'd be clearing out. I had several reasons for going to live at his house, amongst them was economy, his beautiful garden, the society of his admirable wife and his own; but, before God, as a dying man, I wanted to say that I had no political reason whatsoever. And I may be here permitted to mention a thing, the truth of which the Birmingham police can ascertain. Mr. Egan sent to his house while I was there two sheet iron pans from Mr. Hill's office or warehouse where he was employed, by the carrier, or one of the carriers of the London and North Western Railway who used to deliver and carry goods to Mr. Hill's warehouse."
    Then Daly went into matters which are not relevant to the point now at issue. They can be dealt with on the Appropriation Bill. The fact remains that the prisoner Daly declared, when he believed himself to be dying, that his fellow prisoner was an innocent man. I understand that when he was tried before Sir James Stephen he made a solemn declaration that Mr. Egan was absolutely innocent of the charge made against him. In view of the important statement made by Daly we asked last year for a special inquiry with regard to the case of Egan. I always regarded the case as one of great doubt, and I shall be rejoiced when an opportunity is afforded on the Appropriation Bill of going fully into the matter.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot help regretting that the hon. and learned Member has indulged in so many disagreeable suspicions. He says that the Coroner's Jury consisted mainly of contractors to the prison. No intimation of that kind has been made to me, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely mistaken. As to McGrath, I may say that a very short time before his death he was in excellent health. In February, 1890, the Report of the Medical Inspector was—
    "Health good on reception, and has continued so up to the present time. Only once admitted into hospital for bronchial attack. Free from organic disease, No complaint was made."
    On the 17th March, 1891, he was taken into hospital. His illness developed suddenly into acute tuberculosis, and on the 21st April he was considered in

    463
    danger. In accordance with one of the prison rules, his friends were immediately communicated with.—[An hon. MEMBER: When was that?]—I take it that the letter was written on the 21st of April. That is not stated in terms, but I assume that was so. In any case, his mother and sister visited him on the 23rd of April, 1891, and he told them he had the best of treatment. He died on the 28th of April of acute tuberculosis.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the ordinary rule as to removal was not followed in this case?
    MR. MATTHEWS: Probably he was too ill to be removed at all. He was at Chatham, and his mother and sister were at Salford. The Coroner's Jury found that he died from natural causes. I have been asked as to the conversations with Egan. It is an invariable prison rule that complaints as to treatment must be made to the officials, whose duty it is to inquire into them, and, if necessary, to redress the grievances. It would be quite impossible that a prisoner should avail himself of the visits of friends to bring charges against those in authority. Then, I have been asked about the removal of those prisoners to Chatham. As I stated on the 4th of December, 1890, there was absolutely no reason in the interest of the prisoners for removing them from Chatham. The occupants of the cells at Chatham are amongst the best of prisoners, certainly so far as health is concerned. The premises have since been transferred to the Admiralty, and in consequence I am gradually transferring the prisoners there to other prisons. Eight of the prisoners, including Egan and Daly, have been transferred to Portland. There are still some prisoners at Chatham, and they will be removed before long.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Are prisoners when visited allowed to discuss the circumstances of their conviction?
    MR. MATTHEWS: My experience is that prisoners always do. Certainly there is nothing inconsistent with the prison rules in their doing so. Of course, no interview has hitherto been allowed in convict prisons except in the sight and hearing of a warder. ["The Times."] I hope hon. Members will do me the honour not to interrupt. At the time of the Special Commission there were certain
    464
    irregular interviews in local prisons. There were certain Irish convicts who came over here and were received as guests, being brought over to London by order of the Court; they were received as lodgers. With regard to the telegram sent to the hon. Member for Wexford, his message came late in the evening when I was not at the Home Office. A reply was sent that night by the person in charge at the time, who probably did not know much about the matter.
    MR. J. REDMOND: My telegram was sent early in the afternoon.
    MR. MATTHEWS: It did not reach the Home Office until a late hour.
    MR. J. REDMOND: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the hour at which it was handed in, he will find that it was early in the afternoon. Speaking from memory I should say it was 3 or 4 o'clock in the afternoon. The hour at which the reply was sent out will show that the right hon. Gentleman is again in the wrong, and in saying that, of course I do not question his bona fides. The answer was handed in at 6.30 p.m., so that it was not late at night.
    MR. MATTHEWS: At 6.30 the Public Offices are closed. Then, at the Home Office they had no knowledge of the date at which the hon. Member wished to visit this prisoner.
    MR. J. REDMOND: But they were good enough to intimate to me that I could go on any day I chose to select.
    MR. MATTHEWS: That shows that the hon. Member's case is even stronger than he has hitherto made out and I repeat my apologies to him. I express my regret that the hon. Member should have suffered any inconvenience. Such a visit to the convict as he asked for was a novelty, and it was only introduced in consequence of the hon. Member's application.
    MR. SEXTON: How does it happen that when the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion to allow these interviews the prison officials were not informed of it?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot tell the hon. Member how it was.
    MR. J. BARRY: I regret, Mr. Courtney, that under your ruling it is not possible to discuss the case of Daly on this Vote, and I regret it the more because I believe

    465
    there are elements in the case which require that we should discuss the matter in the House at the earliest possible date. We are excluded from referring to the case of Daly, but it is admissible to refer to the case of Egan—at least to matters that have occurred since his conviction. About this time last year, Egan, writing to his wife, expressed a wish that I should pay him a visit. He suggested that I should ask for a special visit so that it should not exclude the half-yearly visit granted under the ordinary rules. He generally receives a visit from his wife under those rules. I made the request to have a special visit but it was refused, and after waiting for some time—until an ordinary visit could be made—I went to Chatham and visited Egan. He was extremely anxious to refer to certain circumstances relating to his conviction, and he commenced to make a statement when he was peremptorily stopped by the warder, and a discussion arose as to whether Daly was at liberty to talk on this subject. I was astounded just now to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it is permitted to discuss with prisoners questions connected with their conviction. Egan had no other object in view in asking for a visit from myself. He had no desire to enter into the question of prison treatment or to say anything about what had occurred in the prison. But at that time certain statements were made by an Alderman in Birmingham and the Chief of Police in that town which cast grave doubt on the validity of the conviction, and it was to those matters that Egan desired to address himself when he was interrupted by the warder. For 15 or 20 minutes the dispute went on, Egan anxious to make his statement, and I equally anxious to hear it. The warder, however, persistently refused to allow him to make his statement, so that as the entire visit was only about 20 minutes the dispute was discontinued, and ordinary topics were discussed for the remainder of the time. My only object in rising now is to make this appeal that in any further steps that may be taken by the hon. Member for North Wexford no such interference will be allowed on the part of the warders, but that an opportunity will be allowed to Daly and Egan to state their case fully and uninterruptedly
    466
    to the gentleman who is permitted to visit them. I also hope the right hon. Gentleman will make some inquiry as to why it was Egan was interrupted in the statement he wished to make to me. It is clear from the law laid down that it is no infringement of the ordinary rules to make such a statement. It is of the gravest importance that this case should be gone into at the earliest possible moment, and it is also important that when entered upon there should be no attempts made by officials or by any authority to interrupt a clear and full statement of the case by the prisoner.
    MR. FLYNN: The Committee are now face to face with a very important question in connection with prison discipline. I do not, in consequence of your ruling, Mr. Courtney, propose to go into the case of Daly, but I would lay stress on the point dealt with by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and that is as to the right of prison warders to interfere in conversations between prisoners and their visitors. An important admission has been made. We now know from the Home Secretary that such an important matter as the conviction of a prisoner can be referred to on the occasion of these visits, and we now find from the evidence in the Blue Book that Daly himself, when he thought he was on the point of death, begged to be allowed to make a statement as to the innocence of this unfortunate man Egan. Surely, then, it becomes a matter of very extreme gravity indeed if an ordinary warder can interfere with a man like Egan, when he wishes to put his visitor in possession of certain proofs or circumstances that may help to establish his innocence. We are told by the hon. Member for North Wexford that the warder on his own authority interfered in the hon. Member's conversation with Egan, and stated that the latter could not say anything about his conviction. The warder evidently took that course on his own responsibility, and of course my hon. Friend would have no appeal. The time permitted for the interview—15 or 20 minutes—would not allow of an appeal to the Governor, and very probably, if such an appeal had been allowed, it would have been barren of result. I

    467
    am glad we have had the official declaration from the Home Secretary that prisoners are allowed to discuss their convictions with their visitors, for I myself have had personal experience of the rule being construed in the Irish prisons exactly as it was construed at Chatham. It is a very valuable point to have elicited from the right hon. Gentleman, who is an authority on the question of prison discipline, that it is consistent with the prison regulations for a prisoner to speak of circumstances connected with his conviction to visitors. The right hon. Gentleman even said, "What can be more natural than that a prisoner should refer to these things and that prisoners are always talking about them?" This being so, I hope that when the case of these prisoners, Daly and Egan, comes to be ventilated it will prove that advantage has been taken of the right hon. Gentleman's admission. The right hon. Gentleman was unnecessarily severe with the hon. Member for North Longford in reference to Coroners' Juries. My hon. Friend did not wish to imply that juries sitting within the prison walls would be wilfully corrupt, or anything of that kind; but he did seem to imply—and I think the circumstances bear him out—that the people who form these juries are more or less connected with the prisons, or are brought more or less into connection with prison officials, and, therefore, would be likely to make these inquiries more or less in a slipshod manner. That this is the case is known to everybody who lives in the vicinity of a gaol. It is the case in Cork. The people who live near the gaol are the people who have dealings with it—tradesmen and the like—and they are the people who are most likely to be selected as jurymen. And if this is the case in Cork I can quite believe that it is the case in connection with English gaols. Therefore, my hon. Friend is right in saying that the verdict of a Coroner's Jury in one of these prison inquests is a thing to which too much weight should not be attached. With regard to the case of the deceased prisoner McGrath, I regard it as a most pathetic one. He tells his tale to the Commissioners. He says he entered the gaol comparatively in good health. He makes no complaint; we find that he is taken ill on the 17th
    468
    March; that in a few weeks he developes acute tuberculosis, and that he dies in four weeks. I am not a medical man, and have not much knowledge of medical matters, but I feel sure it will come upon every medical man in the House with surprise to learn that acute tuberculosis could commence and end fatally in four weeks. It seems very strange that the prison doctor was not able to mark the development of the disease, and did not do that which is done in so many cases, namely, certify for the man's removal from prison, in order that he might be taken to spend the last few days of his life with his afflicted mother and family. Speaking as a layman, I must say that it seems to me very much like carelessness that a man should be reported to be healthy when he was taken sick on the 17th March with acute tuberculosis, and died on the 28th April. And what may happen at Chatham may easily happen at Portland. No one can read the Report of the Commissioners without seeing that the majority of these political prisoners have suffered punishment over and above that meted out to ordinary prisoners—even those suffering ordinary terms of penal servitude or life sentences. I grant that the Commissioners try to explain away many awkward charges, but on their own showing there are many circumstances in connection with the treatment of these men that does not reflect credit on the discipline of Chatham Prison. It bears out the contention of these men, to some extent, that our account of the nature of their offence—on account of their being Irish prisoners convicted of a certain class of offence—they were treated with exceptional severity and hardship over and above that meted out to the ordinary prisoners. In the case of one of these prisoners the Prison Rules were not read to him until he had been in the prison for nearly 12 months, although I understand that it is one of the chief regulations that the Prison Rules should be read over to a prisoner as soon after his reception in the prison as possible. Then there is another point that all these prisoners complain of—that they are deprived of the ordinary exercise in the prison yard. Mr. Egan complains of that, and so also does Mr. Daly. The rule says that the prisoners must take

    469
    such exercise in the open air as is necessary to their health, and they say that, instead of being allowed to take that exercise, they are put to work of a very trying character, which thoroughly exhausts the frame, and makes the hands a mass of blisters. The men are punished with a severity far greater than the nature of their offences demands. I will not deal with the point the hon. Member for Cork referred to. I draw—no matter what anyone else does—a distinction between political offenders of this kind and those condemned in 1865 and 1867. I believe that the common sense and patriotism of the Irish nation draws that distinction, and does it to-day, and has done it from the time those offences were first committed. But I say that no matter what offence these men may have been convicted of, they should not be punished with greater severity than any of the ordinary prisoners, many of whom are in prison for vile and disgraceful offences against society. I trust that the important points which have been brought before the right hon. Gentleman to-night will receive his attention. We hope the Prison Rules will not be strained against these men, and that they will be allowed to discuss with their visitors the circumstances of their conviction, so that, if possible, they may be able to demonstrate their innocence.
    MR. H. J. WILSON: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that according to his statement anybody who happens to be left in the Home Office, after he and the other persons in authority have gone away, are at liberty to send messages to such people as the hon. Member for North Wexford saying that they cannot avail themselves of privileges that they had supposed were given to them. The right hon. Gentleman did not offer an explanation of the circumstances under which the telegram was sent down saying that the hon. Member would not have the privilege for which he asked. It seems to be an extraordinary thing that a doorkeeper or a junior clerk should have the power to send these telegrams.
    DR. TANNER: May I ask how it was that this man McGrath showed no signs of tuberculosis? I know—and the right hon. Gentleman
    470
    will find it in Quain's dictionary, which is in the Library—that acute tuberculosis is sudden, but we also know that the termination is death. If the diagnosis was established as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, how was it that the man's mother and relatives were not called in until the man had been dying nearly a month? Quain's dictionary says that acute tuberculosis is absolutely and positively unmistakable. How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile these points? He cannot. I ask him to consult any fair and conscientious independent medical opinion, and I maintain that his statement will warrant the remarks I have made. I consider that this convict was diabolically treated, and that his treatment was merely due to the fact that he happened to be an Irish political prisoner.
    (7.58.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 95.—(Div. List, No. 381.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. CHANNING: I desire to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £100, in order that I may draw attention to the great anomalies which exist in the treatment of prisoners in English prisons, and with a view of impressing upon the Home Secretary the desirability of taking steps to exercise the powers he now possesses under the Prisons Act to bring about a better state of things. The questions to which I wish to draw attention may be briefly stated. The questions put by me to the right hon. Gentleman and questions asked in "another place" have elicited the fact that persons committed to prison for the non-payment of fines under the Vaccination Acts or under certain local Acts, such as that at Eastbourne, under which Salvationists are being punished, are subjected to the whole of the disagreeable and odious incidents of ordinary imprisonment; whereas persons committed to prison in respect of exactly the same Acts, who are committed to prison for the nonpayment of costs, as opposed to fines, have, under the Prison Rules at present existing, the advantage, such as it is, of being treated under the debtors' rule". I contend that it is within the power of the Home Secretary, under the Prisons

    471
    Acts of 1865 and 1877, to do something, without further delay, to mitigate and alter this state of things. Punishments involving treatment of a degrading nature applied, contrary to public sentiment, to persons convicted of offences of the class I have referred to, are merely a surplusage of cruelty, and alienate public feeling from the law, and, so far from having any deterrent effect on the prisoners, encourage rather a contempt for the law. Where prisoners of this type are associated in the same prison with persons convicted of brutal assaults, dishonest acts, and horrible offences of all kinds, the treatment to which they are subjected, and which is supposed to have a deterrent effect, ceases to be deterrent. Every one knows that it is in the power of the Magistrates in minor cases such as I have already referred to, to order that the persons convicted shall be treated as first-class misdemeanants, and I will draw the attention of the House to a way in which this power is used by the Courts at the present time. I have here a list of the cases in which the treatment of misdemeanants in the first-class was actually given to persons imprisoned for offences which were of a distinctly criminal character. For instance, there were 15 cases of fraudulent bankruptcy, six of libel, and three of serious misdemeanours; there is a case of acting as a solicitor without qualification, and a case of conspiracy to procure indecent photographs, in which the prisoners were treated as first-class misdemeanants. This treatment, I venture to say, was mainly permitted because the prisoners were well-to-do and occupied a good social position, although, in my opinion, the higher the social position of the person offending the less relaxation should there be of the punishment attached to their offences. If anyone will take the trouble to look through the evidence taken by the Vaccination Commission he will find that the persons sent to prison for non-compliance to the Vaccination Act were, to a large extent, persons occupying a respectable position—persons belonging to the middle or lower middle class, including many small tradesmen—while those who were not of this class were well-to-do and respectable mechanics and artizans. One of the witnesses before the Committee
    472
    presided over by Lord Aberdare stated that the prison dress had a degrading effect on such men as he had known in prison—men who were the cream of the working class, who in several instances had been connected with our Sunday schools. He added that the influence exerted on the minds of these men by making them wear the prison dress is such as to make them almost despise the law. The people on whose behalf I urge that better treatment should be meted out are persons deserving of our sympathy. They are persons who, rightly or wrongly, attach a great importance to their own views as to the physical welfare of their children. What I desire to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to is that under the provisions of the existing law he has powers which would go a long way towards modifying the treatment of those who are neither criminals according to the definition of the Act nor according to public opinion. By the exercise of those powers he might do a great deal towards bringing about a more satisfactory state of things. Under the 24th and 25th section of the Act of 1877 he has clearly considerable powers with regard to the administration of prisons and the distribution and classification of the prisoners. Under these powers relating to classification he might get rid of the anomaly of sending persons imprisoned under the Vaccination Acts to prisons where they are associated with criminals of the worst class. It seems to me also that the powers he possesses under the 38th section of the Act, with regard to the framing of rules as to the classification and treatment of prisoners, would cover cases in which fines are imposed for noncompliance with such laws as the Vaccination Acts. I have submitted these points to the Home Secretary, because I wish to press upon him the duty of seriously considering whether some modifications of the Prison Rules may not be made by which the treatment of debtors or first-class misdemeanants might be applied to all cases of nonpayment of fines where there has been no moral obliquity or real crime. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as a Member of a Conservative Ministry, to take a lenient and generous view of this matter. Lord Beaconsfield and his

    473
    Ministry passed the Act of 1877, and have great reason to be proud of doing so, for it was a measure conceived in a wise and generous spirit. In that spirit I ask the right hon. Gentleman to regard the question now. In a discussion which took place in this House two years ago on a Bill to mitigate the treatment of prisoners in Ireland, opinions were expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, to which I desire to draw attention. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "Consider a case I heard of only a few hours ago. A respectable woman, wife of an English tradesman, refused to have her child vaccinated, and went to prison. She was forcibly stripped, and put into the bath, was, in fact, treated as if she had been the dirtiest tramp from the streets.… So far as I understand the philosophy of punishment at all, these kinds of punishment, which are thought to inflict degradation, need not, and ought not, to form part of the penal system, because the evil of that kind of punishment is this—that the hardened criminal is not punished by it at all."
    And at the close of his speech he said—
    "Those who have been condemned under the Vaccination Act, and in connection with the Salvation Army, are the class of prisoners who chiefly command our sympathies, and who ought to receive the benefit of any modification which may be made in the law."
    There are two further grounds on which I would press this Motion. The Government, by conceding the Royal Commission on Vaccination now sitting, have practically admitted that the people to whom I allude have a case for consideration. The question whether the views for which they are willing to go to prison are right or wrong is really referred to this Commission. Again, public opinion is in many parts of the country so strong that the Guardians have declined to prosecute. I contend, therefore, that a strong case has been made out for the Home Secretary to exercise his powers to the fullest extent in modifying the Prison Rules in the direction I have indicated.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £100, part of the Salaries of the Prisons Commissioners."—(Mr. Channing.)
    MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member has treated an interesting subject in an interesting way, but, unfortunately for his argument, the
    474
    Home Secretary has not the power which the hon. Member alleges that he possesses. If he will read with a little more care Sections 38 and 39 of the Act of 1877 he will see that the Home Secretary has no power—and I am glad I have no power—to modify the system of treatment laid down in the Schedule of the Act of 1865, which applied to all criminal prisoners. The Home Secretary has power to make rules with regard to prisoners confined for debt, unconvicted prisoners, and misdemeanants of the first division, but he has no power to modify the prison treatment which is applicable under the section to all convicted prisoners alike. Therefore, I cannot help thinking that the whole discussion is to some extent out of order, and I will not, therefore, spend many moments in answering the interesting part of the hon. Member's speech, in which he touched upon the treatment that ought to be awarded to prisoners with whom many people not unnaturally feel a certain sympathy. In the first place, when the hon. Member talks about there being no moral obliquity in this class of offences he indirectly criticises what Parliament has done. Parliament has chosen to say to parents, "You shall have your child vaccinated." Of course, if Parliament is wrong in that view, if it is desirable to have the smallpox, then the omission to vaccinate ought not to be an offence at all; but if it is an injurious thing to society at large that the best means should not be resorted to in order to avert the spread of an epidemic—one of the most disastrous from which Europe has ever suffered—if vaccination is desirable, surely it is impossible to say that there is no moral obliquity in a man choosing to disregard the law laid down by Parliament. Disobedience to a sanitary enactment demands punishment of some sort. If an act is mischievous to the public weal, it can hardly be said that Parliament is wrong in decreeing that it shall be an offence and must be punished. In this case the punishment inflicted is not particularly disagreeable; it is a fine. There is no halo of sympathy attracted around your head when you have paid 5s. or 7s. 6d., but those persons who set themselves against the law of Parliament and determine to disobey the law, do attract

    475
    sympathy, and are regarded as martyrs when they refuse to pay the fine and went to prison. If a man chooses, for the sake of martyrdom, to go to prison, the prison should be made disagreeable to him. As to the incidence of that prison treatment I have no control. I have no power to say to A, "You are a good-looking woman; yon shall not be forced to take "skilly"; or to say to B, "I have a good character of you from your locality, and will not give you the plank bed." I think it would be most undesirable for a Minister to have any such power, for it might lead to lamentable injustice. The provisions as to "skilly" and all the rest of it are most properly laid down by the law. I suppose that when the hon. Member for Northamptonshire comes to be Home Secretary he will inflict no punishment on parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated, or on members of the Salvation Army who infringe the law. But let me remind him it is the duty of the Secretary of State, whatever his personal feelings, to see that the law is applied equally to all.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! If the Home Secretary's view is correct that the matter is governed by regulations framed under an Act of Parliament, the discussion is out of order.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: In accordance with your suggested ruling, Sir, I may say a few words on the assumption that the Homo Secretary is incorrect in his view of what the law is in regard to Prison Rules. I am bound to say that I think my hon. Friend who introduced this question is entitled—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman must give some proof of his assumption.
    MR. ATHERLBY-JONES: I am going to do that, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not here to assent to my proposition. Under the 9th section of the Prisons Act of 1877 powers which were formerly exercised by the Visiting Justices are exercisable by the Prison Commissioners, under the control and subject to the discretion of the Home Secretary.
    (9.14.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: In the absence of the Home Secretary, I was endeavouring to point out that the right hon. Gentleman is incorrect in his view of the effect of the Prisons Act of 1877, and I gather from your ruling, Sir, that I am expected to give some ground for that statement. In the 9th section of that Act it is provided that the Prisons-Commissioners shall exercise all the powers that were formerly vested in Visiting Justices, and that the Commissioners shall conform to the directions which may from time to time be given to them by the Secretary of State. The Visiting Justices had exercised a large suspensory power with regard to punishments. In 1838 the Marquess of Normanby, who was then Home Secretary, issued a Circular Letter to Visiting Justices pointing out to them that it was within their power to modify the conditions of imprisonment for prisoners charged with political offences. A Return was afterwards issued showing that, in accordance with that Circular, a material change was made in the treatment, as, for instance, in the case of Monmouth prisoners convicted of riotous conduct and certain offences against public order. So there is a primâ facie case which admits of reply, at any rate, that my hon. Friend is right in his contention. Thanks are due to my hon. Friend for bringing forward this Motion, because quite apart from the vaccination question, in which I must confess I do not take any particular interest, undoubtedly the Government should consider, and should long ago have considered, the desirability of exercising the discretion the law allows in reference to this class of prisoners. It is a curious fact that, with the exception of Spain, this is the only country in the civilised world where different treatment is not meted out to offences of this description as distinguished from ordinary felonies and misdemeanours. In recent times there has been an immense volume of legislation passed in relation to sanitary matters; and for offences against sanitary regulations penalties have been imposed—fines, with the alternative of imprisonment; and, in some cases, imprisonment without the option of fine—for breaches of the sanitary laws. Therefore, it is not at all an unreasonable subject for argument and discussion in this House that a

    477
    distinction should be drawn in the treatment of prisoners who are convicted of these offences, offences which they advisedly and conscientiously commit, offences which do not partake of the ordinary sordid character and turpitude attaching to the penal class of felonies and misdemeanours. It would have been more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman had given us same statement recognising this. The Chief Secretary for Ireland very properly and justly, though it must be admitted rather tardily, recognised the fact that a distinction should be drawn; and he stands in the same relation to prison management in Ireland as the right hon. Gentleman does towards English prisons. He very properly and wisely, in the case of Mr. W. O'Brien and other offenders against the Criminal Law of the country, made exceptions in their treatment in prison; and I remember that he, speaking at that Table, instanced the fact that vaccination prisoners, with whom I have no particular sympathy, were of the class to whom exceptional treatment should be awarded. But the Home Secretary has approached the subject almost in a tone of levity. He gave as an illustration the case of a pretty woman—or a comely woman—sentenced to imprisonment, to whom the Chairman might extend a relaxation of the ordinary prison discipline. But Parliament, in its wisdom, has vested a discretion in the Home Secretary for the time being, and it is not to be supposed that that Minister would be susceptible to the influence of female charms. The power was formerly vested in the Visiting Justices; and this is not a serious argument in favour of maintaining a hard and fast rule of punishment. I know that this is not the occasion, nor is it expedient to discuss the question at length, and we probably shall have a better opportunity next Session; but I do very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman fails to appreciate the distinction in offences my hon. Friend has drawn. I am sorry there is no indication that an attempt will be made by the Government, either by legislation or by a judicious use of the powers vested in the Home Secretary, to apportion the conditions of punishment to the moral character of the offence. I know of an instance of a gentleman of respectability and
    478
    probity, a solicitor and Town Councillor in Wiltshire, who, having conscientious objections to the vaccination of his child—ill-advised objections they may be—he declined to comply with the order and was committed. Is it reasonable that a prisoner of this character and position in life should be treated like an ordinary criminal? I do not think that an adequate answer has been given, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stuart Wortley) will appreciate the opportunity offered and depart from the non possumus attitude of his chief, that he will express some sympathy with a proposal that has not found that amount of physical support to which I think my hon. Friend was entitled.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,: I must ask the Committee to remember that I am limited by the ruling from the Chair to the effect that the discussion of Prison Rules relating to discipline trenches on projects of legislation. The Government must adhere to the position that the Executive is not vested with dispensing powers which would enable it to differentiate the treatment of prisoners. Parliament has shown that it is jealous of conferring these powers. In 1865 a comprehensive Act was passed relating to prisons. The rules were expressly scheduled and were made incapable of variation at the discretion of the Executive. Again, in 1877, when the subject was reviewed, Parliament acted with equal caution, because, although a power was given to the Secretary of State to make rules as to differentiation of treatment, those powers were confined to the distinction between convicted and unconvicted prisoners and prisoners who are or who are not classed as debtors. In these circumstances, the alteration of the existing conditions of treatment cannot be discussed on the present Vote. On the general question I must adhere to the position taken by the Home Secretary, which is that experience shows that you cannot devise for a special class of offences which constitute a distinct breach of the law a different treatment from others which would not in effect give the offenders the glories of martyrdom without any of its pains.
    *MR. CHANNING: I cannot accept the interpretation the hon. Gentleman has given of the Acts and the powers given by them. But in any case, however the Acts may be interpreted, I submit that the Home Secretary clearly has the power of issuing a Circular addressed to Magistrates calling their attention to the powers they possess with regard to the treatment of prisoners, and I would still press upon the right hon. Gentleman to consider the expediency of doing so.
    MR. PICTON: The Under Secretary has said that certain regulations were framed and scheduled, but we have known cases in which—
    THE CHAIRMAN: This is a matter which cannot be discussed under this Vote, nor, indeed, can the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, that the Home Secretary should issue a Circular as to differential treatment.
    MR. PICTON: Cannot the exercise of the discretion of the Home Secretary be discussed under this Vote?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Only within the limits of the Prisons Act. This Vote refers to the administration of the prisons.
    MR. PICTON: It is with regard to the treatment of different classes of prisoners that hardships exist, and upon which there is much feeling in the country.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is not pertinent to this Vote. What can be arraigned is the administration of prisons by the Prison Commissioners, and their action within the limits the law allows them.
    MR. PICTON: If I am precluded from discussing the punishment on prisoners convicted of offences against the Vaccination Laws, I confess I am rather at a loss. I can only say that, having the honour to be a Member of the Vaccination Commission, I feel myself under a difficulty, for I have no right here to express an opinion on the general subject, but I may say that evidence already published shows that the exercise of discipline in prisons with regard to prisoners who have been actuated by conscientious motives is irritating to public feeling, and ought to be amended as soon as possible.
    *MR. CHANNING: On the point of order, Sir, may I draw your
    480
    attention to the fact that what I was asking the Home Secretary to undertake was to draw the attention of the Magistrates to the discrimination as to treatment of prisoners instituted by the Prison Rules under the Prisons Act, and the desirability of so using their discretion as to bring about a state of things in which the Prisons Act would be administered in the spirit under which those rules were laid down?
    (9.35.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 94.—(Div. List, No. 382.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. JOSEPH C. BOLTON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £2,000, as a protest against the high salaries paid to prison chaplains in England as compared with those paid to chaplains in Scotland and Ireland. The salaries paid to the first-class chaplains in England range from £350 to £450 a year, while the salaries of first-class chaplains in Scotland are only £200 and £300; and the highest salary paid to any chaplain in Ireland is £200 per annum. In England the second-class chaplains begin at £300 and rise to £400, or £200 more than the highest salary paid in Ireland to any chaplain. In England assistant chaplains are paid a salary at the commencement of their services of £250, rising to £300, so it would appear that assistant chaplains in England are considered more efficient public servants than first-class-chaplains in Scotland, and, of course, greatly superior to first-class chaplains in Ireland. Some three years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury admitted the necessity of a revision of the salaries paid to chaplains in English prisons, and in a subsequent year he practically admitted the anomaly, and took credit to himself for the possibility of correcting it without adding to the salaries in Scotland and Ireland. I do not know whether he has attempted to revise these salaries and finds it impossible to do so, and I am sorry he is not in his place to give an explanation of the absence of a revision, and in his absence I think it only remains for me to move the Amendment of which I have given notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item D, Pay and Allowances of Officers, be reduced by £2,000, in respect of Salaries of Chaplains."—(Mr. Joseph C. Bolton.)
    MR. MATTHEWS: I admire the extraordinary ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman who, under colour of finding fault with the salaries paid to English chaplains, has practically insinuated that the salaries of chaplains in Scotland ought to be raised. But this is a matter over which I have no control; the hon. Member should address his arguments to the representatives of the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman omitted to explain that the salaries of the chaplains in both countries are based upon the population of the prisons, and until very recently there was no Scotch prison whose population entitled the chaplain to the higher rate of remuneration. The salaries paid in England to first-class chaplains are in respect to prisons where there is a large daily average of prisoners.
    DR. CLARK: Barlinnie Prison shows an average of 740.
    MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, there the numbers exceed the numbers in English prisons where the remuneration is from £200 to £300, but usually the proportion is the same in both countries for that scale of payment. I might, therefore, rest my defence on that. But upon this Motion for reduction I can only say we do not find that the salaries paid for duties rendered in England are too large. For an increase in the remuneration to Scotch chaplains the hon. Member must address his arguments to the Treasury.
    DR. TANNER: Under this system of payment by results it is to the interest of chaplains to keep up a large attendance of criminal population in our prisons. Now, I once had the honour of a brief stay in Holloway Prison, and I am bound to say I was fairly comfortable there. During the few weeks of my stay I attended the ministrations of the Protestant clergyman on Sundays, but not once did I have the pleasure of a visit from the chaplain. I do not know if other prisioners were similarly neglected; but, speaking from my own short experience, I may suggest that English chaplains might devote
    482
    more attention to the work for which they are well paid.
    MR. JOSEPH C. BOLTON: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right when he assumes that my desire is to raise the salaries of Scotch chaplains, not to reduce the salaries of English chaplains. If the right hon. Gentleman maintains that English chaplains are not overpaid, then he supports my contention that Scotch chaplains are underpaid. It is not in my power to move an increase to the Vote, so I am driven to the usual expedient of moving a reduction when calling attention to the grievance. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the number of prisoners in English prisons, but he has omitted to mention that in many of these prisons there are also assistant chaplains and Roman Catholic priests assisting in the ministrations to prisoners. It is not very easy for one who does not know all the details to make a correct comparison, but it is perfectly evident from the short statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and from what the Secretary to the Treasury has previously said, that there is an anomaly in the scale of payment which requires remedy. The right hon. Gentleman admits that at Barlinnie Prison the chaplain is underpaid. Under the circumstances, and unless the right hon. Gentleman can give us some promise of revision, I must persist in my Motion.
    MR. MORTON: If we assume that the Scotch chaplains are properly paid, it follows that the English chaplains are overpaid, and the personal experience of my hon. Friend seems to indicate that in English prisons the clergyman does not always do his duty.
    *MR. CAUSTON: It was my intention to have brought forward the claims of what I considered an underpaid English chaplain, who, however, has recently died. In voting in support of the Motion of my hon. Friend, I desire to be understood that I do not think that English chaplains are overpaid, but I would like to see an increase of the pay to Scotch chaplains in proportion to their responsible duties.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL&c.): On the contrary, I shall give my vote for the reduction, in the bonâ fide wish to reduce the salaries of English chaplains. I am much in favour of the voluntary system, not paying sectarian clergymen.
    DR. CLARK: If we compare the figures given it will be seen there is a marked distinction in the scale of pay in the two countries in proportion to average number of prisoners. For instance, look at the average in Strange-ways Prison—1,181 prisoners and two first-class chaplains.
    MR. HOZIER: I have no wish whatever to reduce the pay of the English chaplains, but I must say I consider the Scotch chaplains are very much underpaid.
    *MR. JOSEPH C. BOLTON: I hope that the Home Secretary will re-consider the matter, and give some assurance that the salaries of the Scotch chaplains will be placed on a more equitable footing. In the case of one English prison whore there is a daily average of 224 prisoners, there is a third-class chaplain employed and one Roman Catholic priest. I would ask if the Roman Catholic priest serves any number of prisoners, because if he does I suppose they must be deducted from the 224?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I have really nothing to do with the Scotch prisons.
    DR. TANNER: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to say to these prisoners, and that they are not to be cared for?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I say that I have nothing to do with the Scotch prisons.
    DR. TANNER: That is not the point. I would again deprecate the anti-religious position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. WALLACE: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to do with the Scotch chaplains? I would ask whether there is any responsible Member of the Government who has to do with the Scotch prisons?
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is a matter which comes under the Scotch Prisons Vote.
    MR. S. T. EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman says he has nothing to do with the Scotch prison chaplains, but he cannot say that he has nothing to do with the Welsh prison chaplains. Fortunately, there are not many prisons in the Principality, and there are now fewer than there used to be. Bat there is one thing about the chaplains—they are all of one
    484
    sect. I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration the desirability of selecting Nonconformists in appointing prison chaplains in Wales?
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: The prison chaplains in Wales are paid exactly as they are in England.
    MR. S. T. EVANS: It is not a matter of pay, but of appointing them from one sect. All the chaplains belong to the Church of England.
    MR. T. ELLIS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will give some answer to my hon. Friend.
    MR. MATTHEWS: There is no provision by law for the appointment of any chaplains except those belonging to the Established Church.
    MR. S. T. EVANS: And Roman Catholics?
    MR. MATTHEWS: They are not chaplains, but Roman Catholic priests, who are appointed to officiate amongst a certain number of prisoners.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: Are we to understand that even where the majority of the people do not belong to the Church of England the Home Secretary is obliged to appoint clergymen of the Church of England as prison chaplains?
    MR. MORTON: It seems from the Estimates that the right hon. Gentleman has power to appoint a visiting Presbyterian clergyman as well as Roman Catholic priests. If that is the case the right hon. Gentleman can surely appoint a Baptist, Wesleyan, or other Noncomformist chaplain in Wales.
    DR. CLARK: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Estimates he will find that priests are put down at £200 a year, the salary rising after five years to £250, and after another five years to £300.
    DR. TANNER: May I ask whether we are to understand that the overwhelming mass of the prisoners in English gaols belong to the Established Church? The right hon. Gentleman assumes a singularly unfortunate position. If he will only quit his present religious attitude he will, I think, be able to furnish us with some solution of this problem.

    485
    (10.8.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 97.—(Div. List, No. 383.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I wish to draw attention to the conditions of service of prison warders. Their usual hours of labour are 12 per day—from 6 o'clock in the morning to 6 in the evening—and every third night they have to remain on duty until 9 or 10, and sometimes until 12. In addition to this, the warder is frequently called on to sleep in the prison in case he is required, and yet he is expected to resume duty at the usual hour in the morning. Then, as to the wages of these men, they are exceedingly low having regard to the nature of the duties. On a man entering the Service he receives 23s. a week, with an increase of £1 a year for five years, when the increment stops, and the only chance he then has of further increase is by promotion. The chances of promotion, however, have during recent years been much lessened, owing, no doubt, to a happy cause—namely, the large diminution of the prison population. Still, that is no reason why some compensation, in some form or other, should not be given to those men for the loss they sustain in this respect. I find that some years ago an assistant warder, on an average, became a head warder at the end of seven years, whereas now the average period is about 15 years. Then, with regard to the quarters provided for the warders—for which they have to pay £9 2s. a year out of their already scanty pay—in some of the prisons they are in a very crowded and insanitary condition. A little while ago there appeared in the public journals a letter from Mr. Pearce Edgcumbe showing the way in which some of the warders are housed—showing that their residences at Portland are almost as bad as slums in the East End of London. Next, as to the question of superannuation. The age of compulsory retirement is 65, and a warder cannot retire on a full pension until he has served for 40 years. The morale of a
    486
    prison largely depends on the character of the warders, and yet these men are overworked and underpaid, and the houses in which they live, though public property, are frequently in a most insanitary condition. And, besides all this, these men are subjected to a very harsh military discipline. They are harassed by numerous fines for very trifling neglects of duty. In some foreign countries great attention is paid to the culture and recreation of the prison warders, but in England nothing of the kind is done. And there is another point in regard to these warders to which I would desire to call attention. It is a singular instance of the degree to which we are now carrying centralisation in the administration of our prisons. There are some 10 or 12 prisons at the present time which are now administered by a warder instead of a Governor—that is to say, you put a man who is receiving perhaps at the outside £3 a week in charge of a prison with 200 or 300 prisoners. The chaplain and the surgeon are both nominally under the control of the Governor. Now, can the right hon. Gentleman contend for a moment that a person in the position of a warder is capable of exercising control over the chaplain and the surgeon? It is obvious that the chaplain and the surgeon will under such circumstances do pretty much as they like, and it is also obvious that the Acting Governor will have no control nor discretion, but will be practically under the leading strings of the Prison Commissioners. I think that the degree of centralisation to which we have now attained is a matter which demands the serious attention of the public. Along with this centralisation, we also see that ameliorating influences in the prisons have, to a very considerable extent, fallen in the background, and that good influences from the outside are being more and more excluded. However, my main object in rising is to call the attention of the Committee to the circumstances of these warders, and unless I can obtain a satisfactory statement from the Home Secretary, promising some amelioration of their condition I shall persevere in the Amendment I now move, namely, to reduce the Vote by £200 under Sub-head B.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item D, Pay and Allowances of Officers, be reduced by £200 in respect of Pay of Warders."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: The claims of the warders to increased pay and improved conditions of service are at present the subject of investigation by a Committee appointed this Session for the express purpose of dealing with their grievances, and until that Committee report it will be premature for me to enter into the matter. The last time the claims of the warders were investigated was in 1883, when a Committee decided that there was no cause for complaint, and did not recommend any increase of pay. As to the quarters of the officers at Portland Prison, the matter was the subject of a question in the House a few weeks ago, and it then appeared that, although some of the quarters are insanitary, those quarters have been vacated, and are now unoccupied. The matter is still receiving attention.
    *MR. PICKERSGILL: The hon. Member has not made any reference to the fact that some 12 prisons are at present under the control not of Governors, as under the old system, but of warders.
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: These prisons are only very small establishments, and there may be some where arrangements of the kind referred to have to be made. No doubt the hon. Member is right in suggesting that caution must be used in making these arrangements.
    *MR. PICKERSGILL: The hon. Member says the prisons are small, but some of them contain 150 prisoners. But whether small or large the point is that these places are under the absolute control of men receiving only £3 per week. I ask how is it possible for such men to control the chaplain and surgeon—professional men of education? As to the Committee to which the hon. Member refers, it was appointed, I think, more than six months ago.
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: No.
    *MR. PICKERSGILL: How long ago?
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: During the present Session.
    *MR. PICKERSGILL: Then, may I ask when it is likely to conclude its labours and present its Report?
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: I am told that the Report is actually in proof at the present moment; but it has not yet come in.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. S. T. EVANS: I wish to call attention to the item of £750 for prison chaplains in Wales, and to move the reduction of the Vote by that amount. I find that, besides Roman Catholic clergymen, a visiting Presbyterian receives a stipend, and I therefore want to know why the Nonconformists should not be allowed to have chaplains? If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is bound by Act of Parliament to dispense this favouritism, I think that, at any rate, we have a right to call on the ministers of the Established Church to perform these functions for nothing. I move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £150.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item D, Pay and Allowances of Officers, be reduced by £750, in respect of Pay of Chaplains."—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)
    MR. T. ELLIS: I support the Amendment. Since the administration of the prisons has been centralised this is the only opportunity we have of calling attention to these anomalies, and this is worse than an anomaly. If the right hon. Gentleman is bound by Act of Parliament to nominate in a Nonconformist country only ministers of the Established Church, then I think the least those clergymen should do is to do their work, so far as prisons are concerned, for very much less pay than they now receive; and considering the little they have to do among the Welsh people, I think they might undertake this prison work for nothing. The same question crops up again in regard to work houses, but there local opinion has some sort of sway over nominations; but since 1877, since the centralising of prison control, this is the only opportunity we have of challenging the appointments. I hope my hon. Friend will press his Motion to a Division.

    489
    (10.35.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 100.—(Div. List, No. 384.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I have no desire to protract these proceedings in Committee, but there is a meritorious body of public servants whose salaries are included in this Vote, and who claim that they have not been fairly treated. I mean the clerical staff of the prisons. When the prisons were taken over by the Government under the Act of 1877 a very considerable change was necessarily made in the clerical staff, and certain regulations were made by an Order in Council in the year 1879. The Prison Commissioners required that the prison clerks should not enter the Service by open competition, but were to be nominated and to possess certain qualifications not generally required. They were required to be of at least 20 years of age, and Sir Edward DuCane, before the Civil Service Commission, two years ago, specially dwelt on the necessity of having men for the prison clerical staff of somewhat higher qualifications than the ordinary clerks in the Civil Service. So here is a special class of Civil servants with special qualifications; and in the Order in Council to which I have referred these prison clerks were led to expect all the advantage of the Civil Service, rising to salaries of £300 or £400 a year. The prison clerks, instead of realising the prospect the Government set before them, find the path of promotion blocked, and themselves stranded, in middle age or advanced life, at salaries of £150 and £200 instead of £300. There has been a distinct breach of faith on the part of the Government, and in equity these clerks have a strong claim to consideration. For reasons into which I now need not enter, I ceased to be a member of the Civil Service Commission; but if I had remained a member, I should have done my best to bring the case of these clerks before the Commission. As a matter of fact, their case was not presented, though they presented Memorials desiring to be heard. The head of the Department (Sir E. DuCane), under
    490
    some misapprehension, informed the Commissioners that the clerks on the staff did not desire to make any personal representation. A short time since, I think in December last, some kind of re-arrangement of the scales of pay was decided upon, with the class called storekepers at the head of the list, then first-class and second-class clerks. The second-class were to begin at £70, rising to £150; the first-class rising from £155 to £200. The result of the arrangement is that the men who entered the Service at 20 or 21 years of age have to serve 16 years before reaching £200, and then 10 years more, when under the most favourable circumstances conceivable, and which in practice can scarcely be attained, they may reach the maximum of £300. In ordinary civil life there might be a ground for action in this breach of faith, but of course the clerks have no means of recovery or action against the Government. Beyond all cavil, these clerks have been misled; the conditions under which they entered the Service have been falsified. I do hope we shall have from the Government a promise of amelioration of the position of these public servants.
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: This subject has been investigated by a Departmental Committee. The proposal made to it was that the two classes, consisting of 43 first-class clerks and 139 second-class clerks, should be merged into one class, so that the majority should receive higher emoluments. This, however, was found impracticable on account of the different-sized prisons that had to be provided for; but the number of clerks of the first-class has been increased to 93, and the number in the second-class had been reduced to 83, and this involves the raising of a proportionate number of salaries from £140 to £190, and from £155 to £200. There has also been an increase in the number of storekeepers, whose position is one of advantage, and of the number of clerks who receive higher pay for taking charge of stores. In this way it is understood that grievances have substantially been met. Experience has shown that, whether owing to the centralisation of the prison system or other

    491
    causes, there has been a great decrease in the number of prisons, and, therefore, in that of posts available, but the Government cannot be held to blame on that account. On the other hand, I submit that by improvements in pay and by recent changes the Government have done all that could be expected to meet the claims of these clerks. Under the circumstances, I do not think the Government can be held to blame for not having done their best in the matter.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I can quite understand how with such officials as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stuart Wortley) at the head of the Civil Service, feelings of disgust, of impatience, and of a sense of injustice are very rapidly developing, to the damage of the public interest. The hon. Gentleman has not answered one of the points raised. He has not said anything about the clerks who were in the Service when the Government took over the prisons. He fell back on the alteration in the scales of pay, and said the Government had benefited the clerks through that. He told us how they have raised the maximum. It is perfectly true they have. [Mr. STUART WORTLEY: And also the numbers; there are more than double.] There the hon. Gentleman is misleading the Committee, or else he does not understand the facts. The Home Secretary never would have given us the answer the Under Secretary has given us. I never heard any man give an answer with regard to a portion of the Public Service so utterly unworthy of a large-minded Administration as that which has just fallen from the hon. Gentleman. I do hope that for the sake of the Civil Service the Home Secretary will keep his subordinate in check and prevent him creating those feelings of dissatisfaction, discontent, and distrust which speeches such as his are calculated to create. Unless the Government hare got some better answer to give than the flimsy answer we have just had, I shall be under the necessity of dividing the Committee. I beg to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,000 in connection with Item D.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item D be reduced by £1,000.—(Mr. A. O'Connor.)
    DR. CLARK: I intended to move a reduction of the Vote on other grounds; but we had better take the whole discussion now. Last year I found that first and second-class clerks in England and Scotland had the same salaries. This year I find there has been an increase in the maximum salary of the first-class clerks in English prisons from £190 to £200, and an increase in the maximum salary of the second-class clerks from £130 to £150. Every official in England is paid a higher maximum than in Scotland, and I want to know why the Government have increased the pay of the prison clerks in England and not in Scotland. If the present state of things exists next year we shall certainly take a Division and fight the question out.
    MR. CALDWELL: I hope we shall have some explanation respecting the increase in the salaries of the English officials. Before the increase took place in November last the Scotch and English clerks were on exactly the same level, and surely we are entitled to know why, when the work of the clerks in both countries is precisely the same, an increase should be given to the clerks in one country and not to those in the other?
    MR. MORTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to give us some answer to the case put forward. I do not profess to thoroughly understand the question, but surely we are entitled to some explanation from the Home Secretary with regard to the charges made by the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor). As far as I can understand the Estimates, we amply protect those who receive large salaries, and show little consideration for the men in receipt of small stipends. Such a state of things is to be greatly deprecated.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I can only repeat what my hon. Friend has already told the Committee. I do not assert that the condition of these clerks is all that could be desired, but it is not possible to alter the conditions of the Public Service for the sake of one small class. The clerks in the Prison Department are in a position that compares not

    493
    unfavourably with that of clerks in other Departments of the Public Service.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: At any rate, no one can object to the tone of the right hon. Gentleman; no one can feel that any disposition of resentment will be enkindled by his words. But the right hon. Gentleman touched very lightly—if, indeed, he touched it at all—the point I wished to deal with. You induced a number of men to enter a particular branch of the Service under distinct representations as to prospects and promotion and pay, and when you got them into the Service you would not allow them to leave that particular branch, and you refused to give them the pay you promised them. The Home Secretary says that his predecessor in office had nothing to do with the matter; but the Order in Council says he had. The fees charged by the Civil Service Commissioners in connection with entry into the Service are fixed after consultation by them with the heads of the Civil Departments. Therefore, in the case of these clerks, I maintain that there has been a gross breach of faith.
    MR. WALLACE: There is a very great difference in this House between what may be called logical relevancy and practical relevancy. In the matter of logical relevancy I can see the Home Secretary is right, but in practical relevancy I can see he is wrong. I mean to stick to the practical relevancy in this matter, and I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness has not announced his intention of taking a Division, for the simple reason that there is no possibility of getting justice to Scotland, or for any community that is smaller than the English community, unless we take ourselves to processes that are more open to practical recommendation than to logical conclusion. I want to know why the English salaries have been increased, while those in Scotland have been allowed to stand still? I think the Scottish Law Officers of the Crown who are present have very feebly stood by the rights and interests of Scotland, when an inequality of this description is presented to the House, and is not dealt with argumentatively by the financial authorities on the Treasury Bench.
    DR. CLARK: I did not want to take two Divisions; but if the Government will not answer my question, I shall be compelled to move a reduction of the Vote by £2,190, the amount involved. If we are treated with silent contempt, the only thing we can do is to make ourselves felt. Surely the Home Secretary or one of the Scottish Law Officers can tell us why this increase has been given to England and not to Scotland.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: I am sure there is no wish on the part of any occupant of the Government Bench to be discourteous to hon. Gentlemen. We are asked why we have dealt with the case of the English officials only. It is a little discouraging that the moment we attempt to deal with the alleged grievances of one class of officials, a host of other grievances is to be raised. Certain grievances were put forward by English prison officials. According to hon. Gentlemen opposite, we have not satisfied them; we have endeavoured to satisfy them, but we have not, and I regret that that has been the result. Special circumstances were put before us in the case of the English officials. We have not had any special case put forward by the Scotch officials, and the reason why we have not attempted to deal with the case of the Scotch officials is that it has not been brought forward. If they can prove that the same grounds exist for favourably considering their case, as were shown in the case of the English officials, the attention of the Treasury will, no doubt, be given to the matter. I hope hon. Members will see after this intimation that we have not been niggardly in the case of Scotland. I do not wish to shut the door to any claim that may be made. I only repeat that we have only dealt with the special circumstances put before us.
    DR. CLARK: I expected such an answer from the Government. Next year if the present state of things is then in existence we shall raise the whole question at length. The lower grade clerks have always been on the same footing as similar officials in England, and by next year we hope the Treasury will have acted fairly all round.
    MR. CALDWELL: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the discourage-

    495
    ment to deal with grievances, I should like to point out that 177 persons in England benefit by the augmented salary. In Scotland only 14 would be affected; surely it would be a small matter to raise their salaries to a similar extent.
    MR. WALLACE: I understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the reason why the English applicants have been more favoured than their Scotch brethren is that they have been more importunate.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. There were special circumstances brought forward in the case of the English prison officials. I do not know whether those special circumstances apply to Scotland.
    MR. WALLACE: I understand that if the Scotch officials are able to bring forward certain special circumstances certain particular modifications and certain diversities in connection with their claims they will possibly be as successful as the English officials. I shall be content under the present circumstances to refrain from further opposition to the passing of this Vote.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: If by putting the Committee to the trouble of a Division I could secure anything, I would not hesitate to invite the Home Secretary to walk through the Division Lobby; but as I do not see any chance of securing the object I am aiming at, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    2. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £87,133, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland."
    MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I wish to get some information with regard to a legal officer whose position is not so well known to us as that of other legal officers. I refer to the Crown Agent. What are his duties, and is he engaged
    496
    in other pursuits outside his office work?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: The duties of the office are of an important character, and it is a permanent office. The gentleman in question acts as solicitor for the Crown in Scotland, and in that capacity has the management of criminal prosecutions. The present holder of the office is Mr. Jamieson, who is well known as one of the most accomplished and experienced men of business in the country. He is engaged, as all his predecessors were, in the conduct of business on his own account; but I am convinced that no public service rendered to Scotland is more valuable than that performed by the Crown Agent.
    MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I should like to point out that in other public offices steps have been taken to secure that the official has no private practice, and I would suggest it would be better if the Crown Agent were precluded from engaging in private practice. There is an increasing tendency in Scotland to separate public duties from private work; and as I gather that the holder of this office does not change with a change of Government, it becomes all the more easy to provide that he should confine his attention to the duties of the post.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I may point out that the Crown Agent has no power to determine who is to be prosecuted, or what shall take place in that direction. For that the Lord Advocate is responsible. No professional man of such standing would consent to give his entire services for £1,200 a year, and it is quite unnecessary that any such change should be made.
    MR. CRAWFORD: I think it right to confirm the observations which have fallen from the Lord Advocate. I have had considerable experience in the administration of the Criminal Law in Scotland. When I was at the Bar, and afterwards when I was Legal Secretary to the Lord Advocate, I was in constant correspondence with the Crown Agent.

    497
    The considerations which apply to the office of Procurator Fiscal in the matter of having a private practice do not apply to the Crown Agent. Whereas the Procurator Fiscal, in his local sphere, has a great deal to say in the institution of criminal prosecutions, the Crown Agent has no discretion in the matter at all. The discretion rests with the Lord Advocate and his deputies. The question as to whether the Crown Agent should be allowed to have a private practice has been several times carefully considered. It was considered by Lord Advocate M'Neill, afterwards a distinguished Judge and a Member of the other House of Parliament; and again it was considered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan; and the decision they both came to, without the slightest hesitation, was that it was so important that the holder of the office should be a man of high position and wide experience that it would be a great pity to appoint a mere permanent official, and not to have the advantage the country now possesses of having for the Crown Agent a man in the foremost rank of his profession. I can conscientiously assure my hon. Friend that there is no ground for adverse criticism on this Vote, and that the services of the Crown Agent are very cheaply obtained.
    *MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I wish on the sub-head—Law Agent to the Woods and Forests in Scotland—to raise a question as to the alienation of Crown fisheries, and to ask for an assurance that the practice shall not be continued.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That is not relevant to this Vote.
    MR. WALLACE: I have no wish to move a substantial reduction in the Vote; but in regard to the offices of Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland, I must say that the salaries are remarkably small compared with those of the Attorney General and Solicitor General for England. Certainly, the Government get good value for their money in their Law Officers, and I am, therefore, unable to understand the arithmetical principles on which the difference is made. But there is one item in the Vote—a comparatively
    498
    trivial one—which I have noticed on previous occasions, and intend to draw attention to every year so long as it appears in the Votes, and that is the Vote for macers and trumpeters. I cannot understand why this Vote is persevered in, and why this money, which might be much better spent in Scotland, is thus wasted. Why should £320 be spent upon trumpeters? It is, to my mind, utterly unpractical, and leads to no beneficial result. The trumpeters are practically useless even in their own Department. They each receive a salary of £16 16s. 4d. a year, and a uniform once in every five years. A man whose uniform lasts five years cannot have very much to do. Let the Lord Advocate conceive what a hat would be like on the ultimate day of the fifth year if it were much used. And what would be the state of the boots at the end of the quinquennial period. I do not wish to deal with other items of garmenture; but it must be assumed that the uniform has to be kept decent in order to maintain the honour of the country. And if it keeps decent for five years it cannot be very much used. With respect to the macers, their functions are altogether formal. They may have some substantial service to perform; but I have never been able to find out what their functions are in the Court of Justiciary. I believe they go on circuit; but surely justice would be as effectively administered without their attendance. I see the whole amount of salaries is £820 a year—£820 spent on wind and macers, under the pretence that it is conducive to the proper administration of justice in Scotland. Might not the money be spent more usefully, say on an Astronomer Royal for Scotland? The Scottish Judiciary would get on very well without these trumpeters and macers. They ought to be abolished, and the money thereby saved devoted to some useful purpose. I rejoice that there should be such difficulty in finding fault with the Scotch Estimates, and I can only say that I desire to purge the almost pure Estimates for Scotland from these absurdities.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am not sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman quite realises the functions

    499
    of the macers. The macer in Scotland is in England the usher, an officer with whom no fault is ever found, and who is necessary for maintaining the order and decorum of the Court. But even in the office of macer, a considerable economy has been effected in recent years, because, while the Court of Justiciary used to have a staff of macers for itself, who only went on circuit, those macers have now to perform their duties in both the Civil and the Justiciary Courts. As for the trumpeters, the hon. Member has himself vindicated the Vote to a large extent, because he has even censured the economy with which the modest state of the establishment is maintained. I objected to them having a uniform only in five years, and, accordingly, I have to defend the Vote against the charge of undue niggardliness which the hon. Member has suggested. But I may remind the hon. Member that even the office of trumpeters has been carefully economised of recent years.
    DR. MACDONALD: Is there any explanation to be given as to the office of election petition appeals?
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: There have recently been no election petition appeals, and the item for the officer under that head is not a Vote so much as an Estimate. The sum may not be necessary.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I desire to ask as to the fees received by the Legal Secretary to the Lord Advocate?
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: As regards the fees in addition to the salary which the Lord Advocate's Secretary receives, these are mainly for drafting, and they vary from year to year. I cannot say off-hand how much the Secretary receives, this year or last year, because recently the method which I think best has been adopted of having the bills drafted by experts. As regards Advocates Depute, the fees they receive, in addition to their salaries, are fees given in cases where they are merely selected as counsel in appeals to the High Court of Justiciary or suspensions in special cases relating to the decisions given in Courts below. In such cases, the Procurator Fiscal in Edinburgh or
    500
    elsewhere may employ any counsel they like, and, accordingly, if they employ as their counsel Advocates who are Advocates Depute, the fees are paid to them in the ordinary practice of their profession, although related to quasi-criminal work. Then, as to Procurators Fiscal, there has been a steady tendency in recent years to put them on salary, and in most cases where they are still paid by fees, they are survivals of old appointments.
    DR. CLARK: I do not expect we shall get much satisfaction out of the present Lord Advocate in relation to these Crown Agents any more than we have had any satisfaction from previous Lord Advocates. Officials of the same character in England and Ireland are permanent officials, and I think the Crown Agent in Scotland ought to be like the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and the other official of the same kind in Ireland. The salary might be re-arranged and fixed at £1,500 or £1,600 a year. I think the present system is a bad one. We have the Crown Solicitor in Scotland acting for the Crown and for half a dozen landlords. I know he acts for several Dukes. It may be that the Crown Solicitor can in these cases act impartially; but the feeling is that the Crown Agent does, in the interest of his other clients, control several matters in relation to Crown business. I on a previous occasion pointed out how the Solicitor for the "Woods and Forests was under suspicion in this respect, and I am sure it is a bad thing that the appointment should be in the private patronage of the Lord Advocate. It is no use taking a Division now, but we must see what can be done under a future Government. The Solicitor should be appointed to give the whole of his time, with a salary proportionate to the work.
    MR. CALDWELL: I think we could secure the services of a very superior Law Agent in Scotland for £1,000 a year. It would be for the public interest if the Crown Agent and the Agent for Woods and Forests were made into one official, who should not have private practice and be the agent of a large landowner, and who should be permanently in office; because in connection with criminal procedure in

    501
    Scotland, it is important to have continuity of office.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The taxpayer is not likely to gain very much from the proposals of Scotch Members. I find that whenever Scotch Members suggest the reduction of one salary they invariably suggest an increase in two or three others. Therefore, I am content with things as they are. I wish to complain of the item of £50 for the trial of Election Petitions. That item has appeared in the Estimates for the last 10 years, and I think that when the Minister in charge of a particular Estimate states that he does not anticipate for a moment that it will be spent during the current year it ought not to appear on the Estimates. The result is, it is transferred to some other item under the head of law charges, or it goes to swell the Budget surplus at the end of the year.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    3. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £25,354, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices in Her Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh."
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I desire to call the attention of the Lord Advocate and the Secretary to the Treasury to the office of Register of Sasines. The matter has been before the Treasury for a number of years. There was great dissatisfaction on the part of many when that office was transferred to the Treasury. The higher officials were satisfied with their old position, but there are a considerable number of most deserving men called engrossing clerks who complain that they have been excluded from the benefits of the Act of 1879. These clerks have been constantly urging their being placed on the same footing as others—that is to say, the commissioned clerks—with powers of getting an increase of salary, and also of being promoted to higher grades. Of a sudden the Secretary for Scotland, no doubt acting on the advice of the Treasury, withdrew all countenance whatever from these
    502
    clerks, who consider that they are exceedingly ill-used. Some months ago I put a question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, asking for the production of the correspondence, and for the Report of an inquiry into the state of the office presided over by the late Lord Lee. The Secretary to the Treasury refused to produce the documents, and I now call upon him to mention what the purport of that Report was as regards these engrossing clerks.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to support the appeal of my hon. Friend. The condition and salaries of these clerks have been constantly brought forward before the House for many years past. In view of the representations which were made in this House, a Departmental Committee was appointed in 1888. The Report of that Departmental Committee has never been published, but it is understood the Committee reported in favour of the claims of these clerks. A Minute issued by the Scottish Secretary did not grant the claims put forward on the part of the engrossing clerks, though it did those of the commissioned clerks. The clerks naturally feel that if the Departmental Committee did report in favour of their claims, they ought to have some explanation from the Scottish Secretary and the Scottish Office as to the Report of the Departmental Committee, and why the distinction has been made between them and the commissioned clerks. I should also like to have some information from the Secretary to the Treasury or the Lord Advocate with regard to another branch in the Register House—namely, the Minute Book clerks, six in number. It is a small matter. They have presented a Memorial to the Secretary to the Treasury in which they represent that they can now only earn under the reorganisation an average of £130 or £140 instead of from £170 to £190. They think, and with justice, that it was never intended that they should suffer in this way for the reorganisation. It is a small matter; only six men are affected, three of whom have been in the Service since 1868–9. I would urge upon the Government that they should inquire why it is these

    503
    clerks are dissatisfied, and what is really their complaint.
    MR. WALLACE: I am not generally in favour of any movement the effect of which would be to add to the Estimates, but in this particular case I really wish to have some explanation why these engrossing clerks should not be on the same footing as certain other clerks whose claims have been acknowledged. It is exceedingly difficult to understand the affairs of the Sasines Office; but my hon. Friend has sounded the depths and fathomed the difficulties, and his opinion is that the engrossing clerks ought under Statute to have the same footing as commissioned clerks, and I agree with him. Such documents as have been made public may be quoted in favour of my hon. Friend's contention. In the Treasury Minute of 1881 it is distinctly laid down that the abridgment clerks are to be put on the permanent establishment of the Department. The position of the abridgment clerks includes the engrossing clerks.
    MR. JACKSON: It is quite certain that the engrossing clerks are not in the Treasury Minute to which the hon. Member refers. They are simply clerks who are paid by piecework. They are not on the establishment of the Civil Service, and they are practically in the same position as copyists in other branches of the Civil Service in this country.
    *MR. BUCHANAN: I think we ought to have some further information. Three years ago the Departmental Committee, presided over by the late Lord Lee, reported upon the claims of these gentlemen; and though the Report was never made public, it is commonly asserted, and has never been denied, that the Report was in favour of those claims. The claim of the commissioned clerks has been granted, while that of the engrossing clerks has not been granted, and I want to know upon what ground this distinction has been made. Also, I should be glad to have some reply in relation to that limited class to which I have referred—the Minute Book clerks.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: The right hon. Gentleman introduces the word "copyists," a
    504
    novelty in the office. The clerks are engaged on work of an important character requiring the greatest care, and though they are paid at so much a page, this is merely carrying out the rule observed prior to the transference to the Treasury. Large fees are exacted for the work, which requires the greatest exactitude. The clerks occupy the same standing as the commissioned clerks, and until 1879 the engrossing clerks were treated as clerks of the Establishment. I feel compelled to take a Division against the Vote.
    MR. WALLACE: The treatment to which we are now being subjected by the right hon. Gentleman is most contemptuous. He seems to think we are to accept his ipse dixit on a matter of the interpretation of documents. If the right hon. Gentleman is simply going to try to work the matter off in this autocratic fashion, the Scottish Members may have to resort to the proper means of resenting this sort of contemptuous despotism. I have referred to the Minute of 1881 emanating from the Department for which he is officially responsible, and of which he may be considered the judicial expositor, but he gives us no explanation. His reply is: "Sic volo, sic jubeo; stet pro ratione voluntas." The right hon. Gentleman is trying to ride a high horse in a way that is quite inconsistent either with the position of the horse or the rider. I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman knows anything at all about the matter, and we cannot accept his official assertions as truth and gospel. The engrossing clerks, whose circumstances we are now considering, were put on the same footing by the Treasury Minute as the commissioned clerks, and the right hon. Gentleman has given no answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Inverness-shire and the hon. Member for West Edinburgh as to the declaration of Lord Lee's Commission. If the right hon. Gentleman will not give us an answer such as is suitable to the position which Scotch Members—and especially Scotch Members connected with the Register House in Edinburgh—occupy, probably he will not get this Vote as quickly as he anticipates.
    MR. JACKSON: I am very sorry that the hon. Member should have thought it necessary to address the Committee in the tone he has done. All I want to point out is that the hon. Member has misunderstood the Minute. I say again, that if he will make inquiries he will find that copying clerks were not put on the Establishment by this Minute.
    *MR. BUCHANAN: But the abridgment clerks?
    *MR. JACKSON: They were not the men employed in the copying work. If the hon. Member will look at the Estimate he will find that there is a sum of money taken for copying. The money is paid according to the amount of work done, and I can assure the hon. Member that he is mistaken that the Treasury Minute placed these copyists on the Establishment as the Establishment of the Civil Service. To do that would be to put the clerks in the position of being entitled to pension. These copyists are not entitled to pensions.
    *MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: As a matter of form, I will move to reduce the Vote by £60.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £25,304, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh.)
    MR. BUCHANAN: We must press for some information on this matter. As to the Treasury Minute, what took place was this: Six of these engrossing clerks were put on the permanent Civil Establishment; but it must be well-known to the right hon. Gentleman that ever since the Minute was published in 1881 there has been dissatisfaction in the office on the part not merely of the commissioned clerks, but of the engrossing clerks. In 1888 the Government took the very wise step of appointing the Special Committee referred to, the head of which was the very distinguished Judge, Lord Lee. We have never heard it stated to the House what the Report of that Committee was; but it is well known, and bas never been denied, that it reported generally in favour of the claim put forward, not merely by the commissioned clerks, but by the engrossing clerks. The Government have carried out the
    506
    recommendations of the Report as to the commissioned clerks, but not as to the engrossing clerks; and what we want is a statement of the reasons why that part of the Report has not been carried out. The right hon. Gentleman has studiously avoided saying a word as to the evidence brought before this Committee or what it reported. He cannot be in ignorance on these points, because they have been brought before him in questions, and he must have known when the Vote came up to-night that the question of this Committee and the engrossing clerks would come up on this occasion. I therefore say that the right hon. Gentleman is treating us with less courtesy than we have a right to expect when he refuses to answer the claims put forward by the representatives of the people of Scotland. If we cannot get a further explanation I shall certainly support my hon. Friend in his Motion for the reduction of the Vote.
    MR. WALLACE: I am perfectly astonished at the immovability of the right hon. Gentleman under the appeal of the hon. Member for West Edinburgh. Nothing could have been put in a more conciliatory manner, or in a way more fitted to evoke a declaration from an official willing to give information to those who have a right to expect information on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has sailed off again on a simple denial. He tells me that I am wrong in my interpretation of the Treasury Minute, but he does not show me that I am wrong. He merely says so. I say "Yes," and he says "No." Is that fitting discussion in an assembly such as this? I say it is not, and my way of argument is as good as that of the right hon. Gentleman. The thing is reduced to a nursery argument. That is the way children in a nursery argue. The one says it is, and the other says it is not. What satisfaction can be got for the promotion of public business in argumentation of that kind? The right hon. Gentleman has some dim and remote understanding of the history of this matter, because he jumped to a certain particular half-dozen of clerks who are placed in a peculiar position by this Minute.

    507
    I understand that, but 6 and 13 are not the same thing. There are 13 abridgment clerks who were put on the Establishment by this Minute, and they include the engrossing clerks; but the right hon. Gentleman can only say "No." Who are the abridgment clerks if they are not the engrossing clerks? Let him bring proof to show that the abridgment clerks are not the engrossing clerks. His mere uninstructed, individual assertion is of no value in this Committee unless proved by appropriate argument. He has been again and once again, and again and once again, and another time in addition challenged to give his opinion on Lord Lee's Committee. He will not say a word about it. I do not believe he knows a word about Lord Lee's Committee. His answer had all the appearance of stolid ignorance. What right has the Financial Secretary to be ignorant of Lord Lee's Committee? It was an important Committee in connection with this subject, and the right hon. Gentleman is bound to have read the correspondence with regard to it. I do not believe he knows who Lord Lee is. Let him acknowledge his ignorance of the whole matter, and we shall be able to deal with him. If he is not ignorant let him tell us whether the abridgment clerks, whose position was secured in the Minute of 1881, are not the very identical engrossing clerks I am now putting forward. I insist upon his telling us whether he has read the correspondence in connection with Lord Lee's Committee or Commission, and whether the deliverance of the Commission was not in favour of that decision?
    MR. JACKSON: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman opposite and I are not discussing the same item, if the hon. Member is correct about his 13 engrossing clerks. The item I refer to is an item of £7,000 for copying.
    MR. WALLACE: I did not mention any item.
    MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member spoke about 13 engrossing clerks, and, as I understood, went on to assert that they were the same as those to whom I had referred, who come under the head of copying, and for whom a round sum
    508
    has been taken in the Estimates. I cannot believe that the hon. Member's 13 engrossing clerks get £7,000; therefore, I think he must be mistaken in thinking that these are the same body as those to whom I referred. I think he will find he is mistaken. Reference has been made to a Committee which was appointed, and on which a Treasury Representative sat—and about which he thinks I know very little. Well, I may tell him that I had a good deal to do with that Committee, and had still more to do with it when the Report was made to the Treasury through the Scotch Office, and I was under the impression that the question had been settled to the entire satisfaction of those concerned. There is one point, as to which I have no Papers, and on which I am in some doubt. I am not clear in my mind as to the positions of those who have been described as "Minute Clerks." I cannot from recollection say what their position is, but I will inform myself on the matter, and on Report will give the hon. Member a complete answer.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I recognise the conciliatory tone of the right hon. Gentleman, especially with regard to the Minute Book Clerks, who are a comparatively small body of men. As to the other branch of the subject, the right hon. Member in his opening remarks adopted a somewhat unworthy argument. He knows whom the clerks are to whom the hon. Member refers. They are the engrossing clerks, who held appointments previous to 1879. He also knows very well that these clerks are 30 in number. Their position is an anomaly owing to the passing of the Lord Clerk Register Act of that year, and to the Treasury Minute, and to the action taken in that Minute. When the right hon. Gentleman tells us that he thought that Lord Lee's Committee had settled the whole matter he must have forgotten that during last Session, and during the present Session, a series of questions were put on the subject.
    MR. JACKSON: I have no recollection of any question having been put to me since the Report of the Commission.
    *MR. BUCHANAN: I thought the hon. Member for Inverness-shire said he had put questions. At any rate we have not had information. Why, when the Committee reported generally in favour of these two Departments of clerks, has the Executive Authority sanctioned the Report in regard to one section of them, and not done so in regard to the other?
    MR. JACKSON: I think it is admitted that the office is over-manned, the number of clerks being in excess of the requirements of the public service. It is part of the arrangement that on consideration of certain improvements in the position of these clerks when vacancies arise, the number shall be reduced. I do not think it would have been possible to have admitted to these ranks a large number of clerks only employed in temporary service in the sense of only being paid according to the amount of work done. The copyists are paid according to the work they do.
    *MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in saying that the office is over-manned. By the greater use of printing, the work of the six Minute Book clerks has been lessened, otherwise the general business is larger than ever.
    MR. JACKSON: There is a note in the Estimates saying that the clerks are to be reduced as vacancies arise.
    MR. WALLACE: The right hon. Gentleman does not even yet understand the elements of the position. He is arguing this matter as a question of economic administration, but that is not the question at all. The question is one of the historical claims of certain individuals, and the right hon. Gentleman by an instinctive dexterity tries to confuse the historic argument with this question of economic administration. I decline to allow him to confuse the two subjects. The right hon. Gentleman is trying not to bring light into our minds, but to throw dust in our eyes, and I must tell him that that experiment is one which depends for its success very much upon the quality of the dust he throws, and the nature of the eyes he tries to throw it into. I say to him that the engrossing clerks had a certain claim at a particular
    510
    date, and they are not to be mixed up with the copyists. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Members need not cry "Divide!" This is a matter which must be threshed to a conclusion. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the conclusion of Lord Lee's Committee was favourable or unfavourable to the clients of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire?
    MR. JACKSON: I am sorry I did not convey to the hon. Member my meaning. I am willing to admit—if that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman—that I am ignorant on the question of these Minute clerks. I have promised to look into the matter, and, when the Vote comes up on Report to-morrow, to give full and complete information in regard to it. I stated that I had not with me the papers relating to the clerks whom I suppose he speaks of as engrossing clerks. I would assure him that I had no intention of answering him curtly or with any want of courtesy, and I should be sorry if I thought I had.
    MR WALLACE: Shall we learn anything as to the Report of Lord Lee's Committee?
    MR. JACKSON: I have promised to make my statement on these points tomorrow.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I think that considering the importance of the next Vote, which relates to the Crofter Commission we should now report Progress. I therefore make that Motion.
    Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Angus Sutherland.)
    MR. GOSCHEN: I would venture to urge hon. Gentlemen not to press the Motion. I rather gather that it is the general feeling of the House that we should sit late to-night to endeavour to make progress.
    MR. HUNTER: I am in favour of having Scotch business discussed at a proper hour. The Government are entirely responsible for the delay which

    511
    has occurred in dealing with the Scotch Estimates. It has of late years been the practice of the Government to take first the business of England and Ireland, and then at the end of the Session when half the Members have left to bring on the Scotch Votes. If the Session is in consequence prolonged the fault is that of the Government, for Scotland is entitled to have more of the time of Parliament for the discussion of its affairs.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member must bear in mind that this year the Estimates are being taken in their regular order, and that, therefore, his complaint that Scotch Estimates are postponed to the last does not apply. I must protest against his suggestion that we put Scotland in a back place in these matters.
    DR. CLARK: I think the right hon. Gentleman might consider this question from another standpoint. On several occasions we have got by ballot a special night for the discussion of these matters, and on each the Government have taken the opportunity away from us. Now this Estimate is to be brought on at 1 o'clock in the morning, and last year it came on at 3 o'clock in the morning. We have some grievances which we want to discuss, and surely it will not be said that this hour in the morning is a convenient time for the purpose. There are only two Scotch Votes left, and I think that under the circumstances the Government might let us have the chance of debating them at a reasonable hour.
    MR. SEXTON: We are willing to sit up late, but the question is to what hour does the Government require the sitting prolonged. The Scotch Members may reasonably object to going on with the Scotch Estimates after 1 o'clock. Hitherto the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule has only applied to Supply, but now it has been agreed to for the purpose of enabling other Bills, including some Irish Bills, to be advanced a stage. I shall, in view of the desirability of getting on with those Bills, resist any further progress being made with the Scotch Votes to-night.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I should like to point out that one of the Irish Bills
    512
    referred to by the hon. Member for West Belfast is a very contentious measure, and will be resisted in every possible way. I therefore ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bear that in mind.
    MR. SEXTON: The Training Colleges (Ireland) Bill must be taken some night, and although it is confronted by the formidable opposition of the hon. Member I hope we shall get it advanced a stage to night.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: I hope the right hon Gentleman will listen to the appeal of my hon. Friends. I do not want to bring unnecessary charges against the Government, but it is a curious coincidence that the Scotch Estimates are always brought on at a most inconvenient hour for Scotch Members. The crofter question is one of great importance to the Highlands of Scotland, and surely it ought to be debated at a reasonable hour.
    DR. MACDONALD: I may point out that there is a Bill affecting the Highlands and Islands on the Paper. It is put down night after night but no progress is made with it, simply because the Lord Advocate does not feel inclined to give way to our views.
    MR. GOSCHEN: It is not the fault of the Government that the Scotch Votes have come on at a late hour. Hoping the House may make some progress with other matters, and in order to prevent wrangling and frequent visits to the Division Lobby, I reluctantly give way to the view of the Scotch Members. I hope, however, that discussion will not be prolonged to an undue length to-morrow.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
    Committee to sit again to-morrow.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [24th July] reported.
  Resolutions 1 and 2 (see pages 320 and 339) agreed to.
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £391,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the; County Courts."
  MAJOR RASCH: I should like to call the attention of the Home Secretary to the desirability of having a County Court at Grays. There is a population there of 20,000. The place is close to Tilbury Docks, and not long since a deputation of merchants and traders and farmers petitioned the Lord Chancellor for a Court. That Memorial has not even been acknowledged. I hope a County Court will be established at Grays, and I can assure the Government it will entail no expense in the matter of providing buildings, as there are some there suitable for the purpose.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I am surprised to hear my hon. and gallant Friend say that the receipt of the Memorial has not been acknowledged. I know that the question of the County Courts in Essex has been receiving attention at the hands of the Lord Chancellor, and that some suggestion has been made for transferring the Courts. I will take care that the matter is further looked into.
  Resolution agreed to.
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,047, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Police Courts of London and Sheerness."
  *MR. H. J. WILSON: When this Vote was under Debate the Government promised to state what steps had been taken to secure the attendance of female warders at police stations where women are detained at night time.
  MR. MATTHEWS: My hon. Friend the Under Secretary is not in his place. If the Vote is postponed he will give the information to-morrow.
  Resolution postponed.
  Resolutions 5, 6, and 7 [see pages 354 and 369] agreed to.
  Postponed Resolution to be considered to-morrow.

  REDEMPTION OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 426.)

    CONSIDERATION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    (1.26.) Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed
    514
    to Question [24th July], on Consideration, as Amended.
    And which Amendment was, in page 1, line 7, after the word "one," to insert the words "and Section 3."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in Clause 1, page 1, line 13, after "case," to insert "holding and district."—(Mr. Macartney.')
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I shall not oppose this, but I may point out that it raise" a very important contention. The phrase "a full agricultural rent," would include a rent on the tenant's own improvements, and I should prefer to see the words, "a fair rent within the meaning of the said Acts."
    MR. MADDEN: The Government cannot accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendments made.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, to leave out the words "full agricultural rent," and insert the words "fair rent within the meaning of the said Acts."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Other Amendments made.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. MACARTNEY: If I do not object to this, I hope the Labourers (Ireland) Act will not be opposed.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I am afraid that that not being a Government Bill, cannot he taken after 1 o'clock.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: In fairness to the Government, I should like to point out an error of drafting in the second line, which, unless it is altered, will let in the tenants for whom the Bill is not intended.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  TRAINING COLLEGES (IRELAND) BILL (No. 391.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am reluctantly compelled to move to report Progress. A pledge was given by the First Lord of the Treasury that no contentious measures should be taken after a certain date, yet a measure full of contention is sought to be forced through the House at 2 o'clock in the morning, when no one will have a chance of seeing what passes. The English as well as the Irish people are interested in this Bill, which proposes to hand over a practically unlimited sum of money to Archbishop Walsh and the Roman Catholic Church for the purpose of endowing denominational training colleges. It is not fair, nor just, nor reasonable on the part of the Government to force a Bill of this character through the House at this period of the Session, and at this late hour of the night. If the Chief Secretary desires to pass it, let him put it down so that we may discuss it at a proper hour, when the taxpayers of the country may have a chance of knowing what is being done.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
    MR. SEXTON: I have never heard a more reckless and misleading statement than that made by the hon. Member, who has turned a most astounding somersault. On the Second Reading he said his opposition was only formal.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I absolutely opposed the Second Reading, because the Chief Secretary gave no explanation of the Bill.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member said he only wanted an opportunity of making a speech and dividing against the Bill, but he had no desire to prevent its passing. Let me point out money has been already given to this fund by
    516
    Parliament. This is a mere tempest in a teacup. The Bill is simply an attempt on the part of the Chief Secretary to apply to Ireland the principles which exist with regard to denominational training colleges in England and Wales. I trust that reasonable men on all sides of the House will assist the Chief Secretary in disposing of a question which has caused great difficulty in Ireland.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I think that as this Bill is supported by Irish Members on all sides of the House, it can hardly be called a contentious measure. It has been rendered necessary by the fact that a former Government tried to force on Ireland a system of training teachers which—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That is not relevant to the Motion for reporting Progress.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Very well; I will only say I think the hon. Member for South Tyrone ought to be content with taking a Division, and should not then resist the further progress of the Bill.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I am opposed to this Bill, and I believe that the vast majority of Irish Protestants are opposed to it. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that this is a Bill in the direction of denominational education in Ireland, to which we are bitterly opposed. We also believe that the Bill will endow the training colleges of the Church of Rome with a very considerable sum of money out of the Irish Church Surplus Fund, and to that also we are bitterly opposed. I resist the Bill on the ground that it is an extremely contentious measure and one which ought to be carefully considered and debated before it is passed. It is impossible to do that at this late hour of the night, and I hope the Government will not press the Bill.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND: After what has happened in this House during the last few months, the hon. Member must have a lot of assurance to say he is opposed to denominational education, for he has been assisting the Government to pass a Denominational Bill through for England. Evidently he does not like to apply to Ireland the principle he is willing to apply to Scotland. As the hon. Member for West Bel-

    517
    fast has stated, the system of the denominational training of teachers obtains in England, Scotland, and Wales, and I do not see why its benefits should not be extended to the people of Ireland. I have always opposed the denominational training of teachers, but if it is allowed in England, it should also be allowed in Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is true that there is a system of denominational training college teaching in England, but it is not the system which I desire to see adopted in Ireland, whore I wish to see a more complete one. Two attacks have been made upon this Bill. One is connected with the conduct of public business. It is said that the Government are violating their pledge with regard to contentious business. But the proposal which this Bill embodies has been before the public, and especially the Irish public, for nine months at least, and the Bill has passed its first and second reading without a protest. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury has naturally considered that it will come under the head of non-contentious business. With regard to the charge that the Government propose to take money out of the Irish Church surplus to endow Roman Catholic Education, nothing of the kind is the case; the Church surplus appears merely as part of the machinery for carrying out the object of the Bill; it will not be one sixpence the poorer at the end of the transaction. The system of giving public money for training colleges is not my system; it was brought into being in 1833 by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and brought forward in a form in which it is impossible that it can stand. It is open to the House to say it will adhere to the system which has been in operation since 1833, to say "We will put all colleges on an equal footing." All I have attempted to do by this Bill is to carry out a policy that has been urgently pressed upon me. I believe the result of the Bill will be that the Presbyterian colleges will greatly gain instead of losing. At the same time I am bound to admit, from the fact that there is at this period of the Session a large body of Members opposed to the Bill, that it is in their
    518
    power to prevent its passing. I earnestly trust that even at this late hour of the night, the policy announced by my hon. Friend opposite will not be pursued, and that he will be content with the protest he has made. If the hon. Gentleman and his friends adopt a different line of conduct it will be impossible to ask the House to sit up night after night into the early hours of the morning to pass this Bill.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Chief Secretary, by his speech, has opened up a very wide question. It is believed that by this Bill a great blow is going to be struck at the mixed system of education in Ireland, which we who are anxious for the welfare of Irish education desire to see preserved. It will set up denominational training colleges, to which we are opposed. This is not a question which ought to be dealt with at the fag end of a Session, and I, therefore, support the Motion to report Progress.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Member says the Bill will set up denominational training colleges. Does he not know that such training colleges already exist and are supported by the State? Then, how it can be said that this Bill will set them up requires a Falkirk intellect to understand. It appears to me that this Motion is what the late Lord Beaconsfield called a "reconnaissance in force," aimed not at the Bill, but at something very different. The Government having brought in a minimum measure ought not to be intimidated by the hon. Member for Falkirk. We are sitting to a late hour, but this delay will simply prolong the Session. I shall be glad to hear what the Government propose to do.
    MR. KELLY: I do not wish to deal with denominational or mixed education, or to enter into the circumstances in relation to denominationalism in Ireland. My position arises out of the introduction of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund. If that were struck out I should know there is no intention of endowing Roman Catholic institutions out of the money of the disendowed Protestant Church. I feel bound to support the Motion to report Progress for more reasons than

    519
    one, and one reason is that I consider such a matter should not be debated in the dark, the discussion should be reported and made public, and the discussion taking place now cannot go before the public in a form giving the impression of what is said. I do not shrink from the discussion, but let the Government put it down for a time when it can be discussed freely and openly, not at 2 o'clock in the morning.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The hon. and learned Member for Longford seems to imagine that he monopolises all the common sense in the House, but we do not appraise the hon. and learned Gentleman at his own value. He has introduced a tone and temper into this discussion no one else sought to import into it. It matters little to me what the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman is of my action, and I suppose the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite equally appreciate, the compliments of the hon. Member for West Belfast. I address myself to the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as any man in the House that I have over and over again expressed my desire that this Bill should be discussed at an hour not only when it can be discussed and the discussion made public, but when Divisions can take place upon it. A discussion now will never go before the public; it will never reach Ireland. ["Oh, oh! All the better for you."] This money is to come out of the Church surplus in the first place; it is to be paid back over 30 years, but that Vote may be stopped any year, and then the endowment of Roman Catholic education will take place out of the Church surplus. I have examined the Bill day after day, and the more I examine it the less I like it, and the same is the case with the people of the North of Ireland. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the face of the opposition of Members from Ulster and of English Members, he will insist at such an hour on forcing this Bill down out throats.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to take what course he pleases, but he cannot expect us to accept his account of the contents
    520
    of a Bill to which, on a former occasion, he invited the hon. Member for Camber" well to withdraw his opposition.
    *COLONEL SANDYS: I do not often interpose—[Interruptions]—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must request hon. Members not to persist in these unseemly interruptions.
    *COLONEL SANDYS: I do not often speak on Irish Debates or separate myself from the lead of the Government, but this question has made issues outside the ties of Party allegiance, and as a supporter of the Government I would press upon my right hon. Friend the desirability of acceding to the Motion now before us. This is not a time to discuss a measure of this importance; there should be no suspicion of "hole and corner" work about a measure of this kind. The greatest dissatisfaction will, I am sure, arise in the country when it comes to be understood that Roman Catholic Colleges are practically to be endowed from the funds of the Protestant Church of Ireland, and I am sure the proposition will not redound to the credit of the Government bringing it forward. The Chief Secretary is acting from the highest motives, but I think he misconceives the situation. The Roman Catholic conspiracy is not to be dealt with by throwing out this sop, and I think the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that this species of placebo will fail in its object, but, in any case, the' Bill requires that open and full consideration which cannot be given to it now at this late hour and at the end of the Session when so few Members are present.
    MR. WALLACE: I am sorry to have to undergo the mortification of agreeing for once with my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone and differing from our friends from Ireland. Strong anti-denominationalist as I am, I have always protested, and shall continue to protest, against denominational endowment as applied to educational affairs. This Bill seems to me to be an extension of denominational education in a certain part of the Empire, and, therefore, I require more time to consider it. For that reason I shall support the Motion to report Progress.

    521
    (2.12.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 68.—(Div. List, No. 385.)
    MR. RENTOUL: Mr. Courtney, I beg to move that you do now leave the Chair.
    MR. BYRON REED: I beg to second that.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Rentoul.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I regret my hon. Friends think it necessary to take the course they appear to be bent upon; but, of course, if they do insist upon it, it will be impossible for the Government to resist. I may say that some of the objections to the Bill are, as I said before, based on a misconception of the provisions of the Bill. The Irish Church Surplus Fund undoubtedly appears in the Bill. It is a Treasury expedient and nothing more, and if the excision of that Treasury expedient from the Bill would facilitate matters I would be prepared to make the alteration. I assure my hon. Friends that that excision would make no difference in the financial result. I have said this by leave of the Committee. It is impossible to resist against a relatively considerable minority, and therefore under the circumstances I with great reluctance consent to the Motion.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I should like to point out that this is the first occasion this Session on which a Bill has been opposed by dilatory Motions, and that these dilatory Motions have been exclusively confined to Conservatives and Liberal Unionists.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It is very refreshing to hear a condemnation of dilatory Motions from below the Gangway; it is a new feature in our Debates that I hope the Committee will appreciate. I take full responsibility for opposing this Bill, and I want to know what would have been said if any of us had attempted to force a Bill through at half-past 2 o'clock in the morning. Would not torrents of abuse have been poured on our heads from below the Gangway? I oppose the Bill mainly on the ground
    522
    that this is an attempt to force the Bill down the throats of the House in secrecy, and behind the back of the country. I intend that the country shall know all about it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps my hon. Friend will withdraw the Motion, and then I will consent to the Motion that the Chairman do report Progress.
    MR. SEXTON: Before the Motion is withdrawn, allow me to say that in my judgment the lurid eloquence of the hon. Member for South Tyrone is entirely misapplied. There has been no secrecy; no attempt to force anything. The Secretary for Ireland made a most reasonable proposal, and hon. Gentlemen who appear in opposition to the Bill declined to discuss it. The hon. Member for South Tyrone spoke of something refreshing in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). What is refreshing and instructive is to find out how readily the Representatives of a certain section of Irishmen, who usually are in a great majority here, resort to obstruction when once in a way they find themselves in a minority. I am not ashamed to say, as an opponent of his, that the Chief Secretary has acted in a manner most creditable to him. The few words he has just addressed to the Committee were conceived in a conciliatory and statesmanlike spirit; but conciliation and statesmanship are thrown away on those who are his opponents now. He endeavoured to get rid of the only colourable reason that could be urged against the Bill, namely, that the fund of the Disestablished Church was going to be used in some measure for the purpose of Catholic education. The right hon. Gentleman offered to take the Irish Church Fund out of the Bill. Let it go forth to the country—let it go forth to Ireland, Protestants as well as Catholics—that a certain number of hon. Gentlemen, by dilatory and obstructive tactics, have endeavoured to prevent a Protestant statesman from applying to Ireland that equal treatment of training colleges out of Imperial funds, which for 40 years has, without question, been applied to the whole system of training colleges in England, Scotland, and Wales.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: We cannot defeat the Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair, because the Government, I suppose, will support it, but when the Motion to report Progress is made, we can divide, and for my part I will divide. I may point out that when Local Government for Ireland comes to be discussed the Chief Secretary may find himself in exactly the same predicament as he is in now. I think the Government might have shown a little more firmness on this occasion. In any event, I hope that when the Bill is taken again, it will be taken as the first Order.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    (2.27.) Motion made and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 12.—(Div. List, No. 386.)
    MR. SEXTON: May I ask when the Bill will be taken again?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall put the Bill down for to-morrow, but in face of what has happened, it will be quite impossible to take it after 12 o'clock.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL. (No. 416.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    (2.35.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR R. WEBSTER,: This is simply a Bill to continue Acts which must be continued; it is a purely formal Bill, as hon. Gentlemen know, and effective discussion can only take place on the Schedule.
    MR. FLYNN: But there are many Acts included in this Bill which we object to.
    COLONEL NOLAN: We have just decided by a Division that it is too late to go on with business; and, therefore, I do not think it is respectful to hon. Members to ask them to sit longer. I think that under the circumstances I would be quite justified in moving that the House do now adjourn.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see there are several Bills on the Paper which are non-contentious, and which might very properly be taken even at this hour. I trust hon. Gentlemen will allow us to make progress with those Bills, which are not controversial.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Where are all the godly men who supported the Government in the last Division? They have gone home to their beds. We are here, and we are going to remain here; and with regard to every Bill on the Paper, we will give the Government fits. We have been treated, as we consider, in a most unfair manner in respect to the Training Colleges Bill, because of the objection two or three Orangemen entertain to the Bill. I object to making progress at this hour of the morning with the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which contains 25 measures that are highly contentious and debatable. If hon. Gentlemen opposite really desire to make progress with legislation they must adopt the principle of give and take.
    MR. GOSCHEN: As you, Sir, have to be in the Chair at 3 o'clock, and seeing that it is impossible to make further progress with business to-night, I will not offer any opposition to the Motion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till to-morrow.
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)—put, and; agreed to.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes before Three o'clock.

NEW PEERS.
Sir George Stephen, Baronet, having been created Baron Mount Stephen, of Mount Stephen, in the Province of British Columbia and Dominion of Canada, and of Dufftown, in the County of Banff—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Samuel Cunliffe Lister, Esquire, having been created Baron Masham, of Swinton, in the County of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
Report, &c., of the Select Committee of the House of Commons: Communicated (pursuant to message of Tuesday last), and to be printed. (No. 267.)
RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
Proceedings of the Select Committee laid upon the Table, and to be printed (No. 268); and Minutes of Evidence to be delivered out.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY AND MR. STOREY.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I venture to ask your indulgence while I bring under your notice a matter concerning which I wish to make a personal explanation. I am sorry to occupy your time, but after the statements which have been made with reference to myself by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), on Thursday last, you will admit that I am fully justified in not allowing them to pass unnoticed and unchallenged, especially as those statements included the names of several other people who, on account of their position, are unable to reply for themselves. I would have brought this matter forward on Friday last, but, in the first place, I was anxious to obtain a
  374
  copy of the local paper which would contain a full report of the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland; and therefore I got a copy of Mr. Storey's own paper, which can devote more space to the speeches of a politician of the calibre of Mr. Storey than can the London papers. I further wished to obtain the fullest information with respect to the statement he made about myself from those who were best in a position to give it. This information has immensely strengthened my belief in the opinion generally held—that when a man has succeeded in making himself sublimely ridiculous, he invariably attempts to shift the responsibility of his folly on to some one else's shoulders. Mr. Storey is no exception to the general rule. He has attempted to fix the responsibility of his own folly on to the shoulders of no fewer than five persons; one a policeman, whom he says he can summon, and four others, myself among them, the chief constable of the county, and two inspectors of police. The statement that Mr. Storey made on Thursday is due to the prosecution of him by the police for perjury in connection with some evictions which took place in February last at some collieries of mine called Silksworth, in the county of Durham. In alluding to this prosecution on Thursday last, Mr Storey said that—
  "It was a police prosecution ostensibly, but the police did not venture to take the money out of the county fund, as they had a right to do, but went to private persons and to the owner of the colliery, the Marquess of Londonderry, for money with which to prosecute him."
  And further on he said:—
  "What is my remedy now? I could commence an action for damages against policeman Snaith. That is to say, that Colonel White, the two inspectors, and Lord Londonderry, who had combined in the matter, or found the money for conducting these criminal proceedings, would escape scot-free. I have no power over them, and if I have a remedy I could only go against the policeman."
  I am glad to take the first opportunity of contradicting most emphatically and flatly every word of Mr. Storey's statement. I was never approached myself and asked to provide money for this prosecution, nor was my agent, and I can assure your Lordships that I have not given a shilling towards it I therefore, as flatly and emphatically as is in my power, contra-

  375
  dict the statement of Mr. Storey. If I may venture to go further, and trespass on your Lordships' time, I will tell your Lordships what were the facts of the case. I need not enter at length into the evictions at Silks worth, for the simple reason that in March last I wrote a somewhat long letter to the Daily News on account of attacks which that paper had made upon me in connection with the evictions, and I am bound to say that in one of their leading articles within the next few days they gave me a fair and full apology. Mr. Storey came down for the purpose of attending these evictions, on February 20, and proceeded to a house known as Newport Farm, which is my own private property. He insisted on entering that house, in which, at the time, there were certain policemen and two inspectors named Oliver and Burrell. They requested him to leave the house, and on his refusing to do so they very properly ejected him into the street. On this he instituted a prosecution against the police on the ground of assault. I instructed my agent to render those policemen every possible assistance in the way of obtaining legal aid to defend them. In consequence the charge against one policeman was dismissed with costs against Mr. Storey, and Mr. Storey very wisely withdrew the charge against the other. Now, my Lords, I am glad of the opportunity which Mr. Storey has afforded me of expressing to you the opinion of those qualified to give it, that they regarded with sincere admiration the conduct of the police during the disturbances which took place at Silksworth. They said that the police displayed a moderation and a toleration which entitled them to the highest praise. But for that moderation and that toleration serious consequences might have ensued, and had these consequences taken place there is no impartial person who would have held Mr. Storey absolutely irresponsible. I thank your Lordships most sincerely for the manner in which you have allowed me to make this personal explanation, and for the indulgence you have accorded me. I trust that I have explained and proved to your Lordships that the statement made in the House of Commons on Thursday last is synonymous with the name of the man who made it, and that man is the hon. Member for Sunderland.

PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) BILL.— (No. 255.)
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments.
*LORD THRING: My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount opposite will regard with favour a clause which I move on behalf of my noble Friend Lord Clifford, which is to come in after Clause 7—that is the clause which provides that after two convictions for overcrowding, a house shall be shut up. This clause provides that when the house is shut up the owner may go to the Court and ask the Court to adjust the rights between the occupier and himself; in other words, the Court may on such conditions as it thinks right and proper turn out the occupier in order that the owner may do his duty. I do not see, myself, why the owner should be driven to proceedings in ejectment when the Court which has cognisance of the case and knows all about it, can deal with it. I confess I think that the Court may very properly be called upon to determine the rights as between the owner and occupier. I was told that the noble Viscount intended to bring in a clause in some other Bill. I quite admit that no one is better acquainted with the details of such legislation than the noble Viscount, but even if he did intend to introduce it into another Bill I trust your Lordships will think this Amendment is necessary.
Moved to insert the following new clause to follow Clause 7, page 6, line 3:—
"When a closing order has been made as to any premises, the owner of such premises may apply to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and the Court shall thereupon summon the occupier or occupiers of such premises to show cause why he or they should not forthwith give up possession to the owner, and upon the hearing of such summons, the Court, if it thinks fit, shall by warrant cause possession of the premises to be given to the owner within a reasonable time, to be stated in such warrant, and shall make such order as to the cost of the proceedings as to the Court shall seem meet."—(The Lord Thring.)
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, my right hon. Friend, the President of the Local Government Board, objects strongly to putting that clause here. If anything of the kind was wanted, it should have been put in in the Bill

377
which was passed last year with regard to the Housing of the Working. Classes. Your Lordships will think, I consider, that it would be very inconvenient to put in this clause, because you will find there is provision that when a nuisance arises notice shall be served on the owner, or, if he cannot be found, on the occupier. Then, if any structural alteration is necessary, of course notice has to be given to the owner, and if he does not do his duty, he will be subject to the penalties provided under the 4th and 5th clauses of this Bill. If the occupier is to be passed over for the purpose of the owner getting the premises into his own hands, it would be rather a premium on his not performing his duty and doing what he ought to do. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot accept the proposed clause.
*LORD THRING: I shall not press the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Clause 41 and Clause 60.
Verbal Amendments made.
LORD HERSCHELL: In regard to the Amendment in Clause 60, page 35, line 40, for compensating the owners of houses or articles for damage caused thereto, or upon the destruction of any article, by the authorities, I would suggest to the noble Viscount that he should move the Amendment, omitting the words "and in case of dispute shall be settled by"; and for this reason, that the words "shall be recoverable in a Petty Sessional Court," would, of course, give that Court jurisdiction to settle the dispute in cases involving any amount. You do not want those words "to settle" disputes, because you would have this inconvenience, that under the section in the other Act, with regard to proceedings for recovering penalties, if the matter be taken before the County Court it is to be treated as if such claim were a debt. If you leave those words in, it might be open to the construction that even if persons were desirous of going to the County Court their claims could not be settled there. That, of course, is not intended. It will do no harm to leave the words out.
*VISCOUNT CROSS: I will agree to that. Then the end of the clause will read, "shall be recoverable in a Petty Sessional Court."
Amendment moved, in Clause 60, page 35, line 40, to leave out from (" shall ") to the end of the clause and insert—
"Compensate the master or owner of such house or part of a house, or the owner of such article, for any unnecessary damage thereby caused to such house, part of a house, or article; and when the authority destroy any article under this section they shall compensate the owner thereof; and the amount of any such compensation shall be recoverable in a Petty Sessional Court."—(The Viscount Cross.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 108.
*VISCOUNT CROSS: In this clause I have to move to leave out the words "or Sanitary Inspector." This is a point which was raised in Standing Committee, and I object to the insertion of those words on behalf of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. The Standing Committee took a different view, and I have to ask your Lordships to reverse the opinion of the Standing Committee. The question is simply as to dismissal of the Sanitary Inspector, and it was sought by the insertion of these words to place him on the same footing as the Medical Officer. This is a question which has disturbed the Local Authorities very much. As originally drawn, the Bill had those words in; but very great objection was taken to them in the House of Commons; and an arrangement was come to by my right hon. Friend and all those who opposed the Bill, that the words should be omitted. In consequence of that agreement the opposition was withdrawn, and the Local Authorities were satisfied. As the Bill came up to your Lordships' House, therefore, those words were not in, but the Standing Committee inserted them, although I did all I could to prevent their doing so. I have now to ask your Lordships to strike out the words which the Standing Committee put in.
Moved in Clause 108, page 56, line 20, leave out ("or Sanitary Inspector"); lines 25 and 26, leave out ("or Sanitary Inspector"); line 28, leave out ("or Sanitary Inspector").—(The Viscount Cross.)
*EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I should not have attached so much importance to these words and have pressed their restoration rather than retention so much, if it had not happened that I have had almost a life-long experience of the great importance of enabling subordinate as well as more important officers in the work of Local Government to act fearlessly and independently. From the very first passing of what used to be called the New Poor Law, though it is now more than half a century old, a number of their officials, the Relieving Officers, the Medical Officers, and Masters of workhouses were rendered irremovable without the consent, in the first instance, of the Poor Law Commissioners, then of the Poor Law Board who replaced them, and now of the Local Government Board. Having served on a Board of Guardians, mostly as chairman and vice-chairman, for more than 40 years, and having during the greater part of the remainder of that time held the place of Secretary to the Poor Law Board, I can testify from experience, not only in a country Union, but from correspondence with Unions in all parts of the kingdom, as to the very great value and importance of enabling officers to discharge their duties fearlessly, without the dread of being dismissed at the instigation of some influential person in the body, whether a Sanitary Authority or Board of Guardians, or a London Vestry. The position of a Sanitary Inspector is still more invidious, still more open to misrepresentation, and still more likely to give offence than the position of a Relieving Officer. It is notorious—I speak from my experience now in another capacity, as having had a good deal to do for some years with the sanitary affairs of the Metropolis. I sat for years on more than one successive Metropolitan Commission of Sewers. I had the honour of being selected as chairman for all the latter portion of the time, and I know that sanitary improvement is in many instances just as unpopular with the tenants and lodgers, whose health is suffering from the unsanitary conditions in which they are, as it is with the owners of those unwholesome tenements. I am old enough to remember when one of the most powerful cries at an election was "The poor man's pig," and it is
380
difficult to say who was the most indignant at the compulsory removal of the pigs from the immediate proximity to human habitation, the owner of the pig or his neighbour. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the popular feeling among those who are most subject to the evils resulting from unsanitary conditions is on the side of improvement; it very often is just the reverse. The position of the Sanitary Inspector, who may be considered, as it were, a private in the ranks of the sanitary army, whereas the medical officer of health, who is made irremovable by this Bill without the consent of the Local Government Board, may be considered as one of the officers, is without some such protection as this, a most invidious and hazardous one. Sanitary inspectors are liable to be either tempted to neglect their duty or to suffer a real martyrdom, and to be deprived of their livelihood by giving offence to some influential vestryman—and under this Act the Local Sanitary Authority is the vestry—a vestryman who perhaps has taken great pains to get himself elected in order to protect from needful, but perhaps rather costly, sanitary improvement, the unsanitary dwellings and lodgings for which he is receiving a high rent. More than half the Sanitary Inspectors have now, in London, got certificates of competent sanitary knowledge from the Sanitary Institute after a regular course of pretty stringent examination by men like Sir Douglas Galton, Professor Schofield, Professor Corfield, and others, who are themselves notoriously experts in sanitary matters. I think the practical value of this Bill will be very much impaired by the elimination of the words in question, and of the protection to the Sanitary Inspectors; and highly valuable as it is, for it is consolidation into an accessible and intelligible form of the multifarious sanitary statutes under which the inhabitants of the metropolis are living, its practical value will be very much diminished; if all those whose business it specially is to examine and inquire from house to house are to do so at the hazard of their situations, and danger of being deprived of their livelihood by interested parties, owners—one may use the word "owner" because that does not necessarily mean the ground landlord—who, as I have said, in many cases

381
have taken pains to get elected in order to prevent the requisite sanitary improvements from being made at their expense. After, as I have said, a lifelong experience, almost, of the value of protection to officials who are engaged in useful, but unpopular duties, and as one who, for more than forty years, has devoted himself very much to the great sanitary cause, I most earnestly entreat the House not to accede to the elimination of these very important words.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble Friend has stated at such great length the arguments in favour of the amendment which he moved in Standing Committee, and which it is now proposed to strike out, that I owe an apology to your Lordships for saying a word upon it; but I think the matter is one of some importance, and I must say I deeply regret to find that the noble Viscount intends to strike out these words. The matter lies in a very small compass indeed. The Sanitary Inspectors have extremely invidious duties to perform, and it seems to me more than any officer who is employed under the bodies controlled by the Local Government Board can be expected to do without protection. It is desirable, I think, that he should not be dismissed without the consent of the Local Government Board. This is not a new principle at all; it has always been applied as regards all the officers who serve under Boards of Guardians, and they certainly have duties less invidious to perform than those of the Sanitary Inspectors. Even a Medical Officer hardly has, I think, duties so difficult to perform with perfect honesty as a Sanitary Inspector. I do not wish to impute any particular laxity in the performance of their duties to the Sanitary Authorities; but it must be perfectly obvious that where there are men sitting on a Board, who are themselves, as is constantly the case, with others on the Board, interested in the nuisances which are to be suppressed, the Sanitary Officer will be tempted to exercise the duties of his office with an extreme lenity. It is notorious that this is the case, and especially is it so, I am told, in London, where Sanitary Officers have not always done their duty. I think it is very important indeed in passing an Act of
382
this kind, the whole value of which consists not in the mere passing of the Act, but in the way in which it may be administered, that we should give this protection to the Sanitary Officers. It appears to me that was the intention of the Government originally, and although they have given way to pressure from the very bodies who are interested in the matter, and who ought not to have been listened to on the subject, I still hope the House will preserve the Amendment and keep the Bill as it left the Standing Committee.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I should just like to say one word upon this matter. I have heard with great regret that the noble Viscount proposes to omit these words. He offered no argument upon the merits of this omission; he simply said he proposed their omission because there were a good many vestrymen who would not like them to be retained. That rather appears to me to be an argument for the retention of the words. Every argument that applies to giving the Medical Officer of Health the protection of the Local Government Board, applies with greater force to the case of the Sanitary Inspector, who is a man whose task is even more invidious than that of the Medical Officer, and he is a smaller man, so to speak, and therefore more liable to be under the influence of the vestrymen than the other officers. It is not proposed to make the Sanitary Inspector independent; I should be very sorry to think he should be placed in an independent position, because be might act unreasonably, or take an unreasonable view of the facts in certain cases; but it is necessary he should be protected, otherwise he cannot be expected to perform his very invidious task.
*VISCOUNT CROSS: I would ask your Lordships to allow me to say one word more. I think the noble Lord who has just sat down has rather misunderstood my argument. The argument which I presented to your Lordships was that the Government, having introduced the words originally, were compelled to give way in the other House, and that they pledged themselves, as far as they were concerned, that those words should not appear in the Bill. I am very much afraid that, if we insisted upon these

383
words remaining in, we might very much imperil the passing of the Bill.
On question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 12; Not-Contents 31.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

IMPRISONMENT UNDER THE VACCINATION ACTS.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD HERSCHELL,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in recent cases, persons committed to prison for breach of the Vaccination Acts have not been treated as criminals, and not as persons committed to prison for nonpayment of a sum of money, said: My Lords, I am led to put this question to Her Majesty's Government owing to an answer which was given some time ago to a question put by my noble Friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. The answer that was then given by my noble Friend Lord De Ramsey to that question was understood by me certainly to be to the effect that persons committed to prison for breach of the Vaccination laws were treated as persons committed for nonpayment of sums of money, and that their treatment was the same as that of debtors. I expressed my satisfaction with that answer, and stated that I was glad that was now the treatment to which those persons were subjected. Since that time, however, I have received various communications on the subject, alleging that since that time persons committed to prison for breaches of the Vaccination Laws have had to sleep on the plank bed and have been made to pick oakum; and that question having arisen with regard to one person and his treatment in a particular gaol, the Home Office have stated, in answer to an inquiry, that the imprisonment was in respect of the non-payment of a penalty for disobedience to a judicial order under Section 31 of the Vaccination Act, 1867, and that the instructions given were that the prisoner should be treated as a convicted criminal prisoner not sentenced to hard labour. Those instructions seem to me to be quite inconsistent with the answer given in this
  384
  House by the noble Lord, unless there is some distinction drawn between the treatment of some vaccination offenders and other vaccination offenders, because certainly the treatment of a convicted criminal prisoner not sentenced to hard labour is not the treatment usually meted out to persons imprisoned in respect of the non-payment of a sum of money. At least that is what I understood when I expressed my satisfaction with the answer of the noble Lord. The matter is of some importance, because I find the only point on which those not opposed to vaccination and those who are opposed to vaccination are pretty well agreed, is that it is inexpedient to add to the punishment of detention in prison for breaches of Vaccination Laws, the treatment as a criminal of the person so convicted. The reason why those opposed to vaccination are opposed to this course is obvious, and I need not refer further to that; but the reason why those who are favourable to vaccination are opposed to such a course is that it does not really tend to increase the number of persons vaccinated; while, on the other hand, it certainly does intensify and extend the area of the opposition to vaccination; and therefore, it is a proceeding with which neither those who are opposed to vaccination nor those who are favourable to it are satisfied. If this be the practice, and if it be possible for the Home Office by any regulations to alter the practice, I would certainly, speaking entirely impartially as between those in favour of vaccination and those opposed to it, urge upon Her Majesty's Government the great inexpediency of the treatment of those persons as convicted criminals, which I believe does no good to the cause of vaccination, but, on the contrary, does a good deal of harm.
  *LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, I regret, if through any doubtful expression in my answer last May, I led the noble and learned Lord to believe anything but what is actually the true state of the case. My answer was correct as I am informed, and I have but to repeat it to-day, but I will endeavour to make my meaning perhaps a little clearer than it was on the 11th May last. The noble and learned Lord suggested just now that there is a division in the way in which the

  385
  prisoners are treated. That is so. If a conviction takes place, and a fine is imposed, and is not paid, then that prisoner is treated as an ordinary criminal; but the difference occurs here: that where the default is in respect of costs only, the prisoner is treated as a debtor.
  LORD HERSCHELL: The difference is between cases where a fine has not been paid, and cases where there are costs only, and no fine?
  *LORD DE RAMSEY: Yes, that is the difference. The noble and learned Lord knows very well, I have no doubt, that a case of this sort can be found; a case was tried by Lord Justice Lindley in 1884 bearing exactly on the question which has now been twice put to me. I do not know whether I have explained the matter sufficiently. I have no more details, but if it is desired I should answer further, of course I will.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not, of course, press the matter if the noble Lord is not prepared now to make a further statement on the subject; but what I should like to suggest to him is, whether the Home Office would consider the expediency, if it is possible, in the case of those persons who are imprisoned even upon the imposition of a fine which they have not paid for breaches of the Vaccination Laws, of treating them as debtors or persons committed for non-payment of money; that is to say, of treating such prisoners, not as convicted criminals, but in the same way as if it were only a question of costs.
  *LORD DE RAMSEY: As far as I understand it, the matter rests in this way: when a man is in prison, what is he in prison for? Is he in prison for neglecting to pay the fine imposed upon him, or for neglecting to pay the costs, which, I believe, is called, "disobedience to an order"? If he is in prison for neglecting to pay a fine he is in one class, and is treated accordingly; and if he is there for not paying costs he is in another, and is treated as a debtor.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: We perfectly understand the explanation which the noble Lord has given; but what my noble and learned Friend wants to know is something else—not an explanation of the two kinds of convictions, but whether or not the Home Secretary can order, and if he can, whether or not he considers it would
  386
  be highly expedient to do so, as I certainly think it would, that in cases where prisoners had been fined, not merely where they have costs to pay, for not complying with the Vaccination Laws, those prisoners should be treated as debtors?
  *LORD DE RAMSEY: I am not prepared to answer that at this moment. I must ask the noble and learned Lord to give me notice of the question.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I will ask the question on a later day.

SALE OF GOODS BILL [H.L.]—(No. 262.)
Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 259.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I have to move certain Amendments, and I am very sorry I have not been able to place them on the Paper, as the Bill in the present form had not been circulated to the Members of the House in time. I have three Amendments to propose. They are not Amendments so much of substance as to explain the meaning of the Bill in various clauses, and to carry out what I believe is the intention of its promoters. The purpose of the first is to secure that the meeting of the District Committee, at which it is resolved to apply to the County Council, shall be a special meeting.
  Amendment moved in Clause 2, line 24, after the word "passed" to insert the words "and such application having been sanctioned"; and in the next line to strike out the words "a meeting" and to substitute therefor the word "meeting."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  *LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My noble Friend has been good enough to show me this Amendment before the House met, and I have no objection to it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The next Amendment is in Clause 5. The

  387
  object of this Amendment is to explain exactly what the Local Authority is for the purpose of borrowing. There is no doubt it is the County Council; but at the same time it is thought better that the words "County Council" should be inserted. I beg to move that Amendment.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 5, page 3, line 37, after the word "the" to insert "the County Council as the."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  *LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I have no objection.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The purpose of the next Amendment is to make the procedure under Clause 6 the same as the procedure under Clause 2.
  Amendment moved in clause 6, page 4, line 6, after the word "authority" to insert the words "at a meeting called by special notice to resolve by an absolute majority of their number."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  Bill to be read 3a to-morrow, and to be printed as amended. (No. 269.)

TURBARY (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 265.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, this is a Bill, the object of which is to enable the Land Commission, when tenants on an estate have purchased their holdings, to buy up any charge on the estate for the purpose of taking advantage of the turbary, the costs to be defrayed as part of the expenses of the Land Commission, and all the sums received by the Land Commission in respect of the Turbary so purchased will be under charge of the Treasury, and they will be applied as in appropriation of the money provided by the Land Commission, or they will be paid into the Exchequer. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and Committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

METALLIFEROUS MINES (ISLE OF MAN) BILL.—(No. 225.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, this is a Bill for clearing up some doubt that has arisen as to the jurisdiction of a Court in that island to enforce penalties under the Metalliferous Mines Act. The intention is to put the Isle of Man on an equality with England in this matter. I beg to move the Second Reading.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

POST OFFICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 254.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (the Marquess of SALISBUBY): My Lords, this is a Bill for the purpose of increasing the facilities given by the Post Office to the public in a number of small matters, among others that of having re-directed letters sent on without additional payment. All the alterations are in favour of the public, and I have no doubt the Bill will meet with your Lordships' approval.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PENAL SERVITUDE BILL.—(No. 249.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a
  *LORD NORTON: My Lords, I wish to say a few words upon the Third Reading of this Bill. I want to ask whether there is any intention of renewing the proposal which was made in a most elaborate and able speech of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell) last year, for a revision of our secondary sentences. I think this Bill shows more than ever the importance of such a revision, and the urgent necessity

  389
  of it. The Bill very usefully restores the minimum term of penal servitude, which was most unfortunately omitted in an Act which was placed on the Statute Book during a panic in 1864; but it shows more glaringly than ever the want of anything like system in the sentences to secondary punishments, It enacts that a sentence of imprisonment for two years may be awarded in cases in which the Act requires a sentence of penal servitude. In official statements from the Home Office it has been urged lately that the two punishments have become the same. Imprisonment with hard labour and penal servitude are sentences practically in the same category of punishment, only differing in duration, and in the necessity in the longer term, that of penal servitude, of a period being passed on public works preparing for discharge. I think myself that penal servitude was altogether a mistaken phraseology in substituting for transportation a new punishment which really had nothing whatever to do with it. It does not carry a greater terror than a sentence to imprisonment with hard labour—rather the reverse, in consequence of the uncertainty with which it is necessarily carried out under the present system; but when two secondary punishments are decided to be punishments of the same kind, yet differently named, in the same category it is important that both the judges and criminals may understand what they mean. There is confusion in the series of punishments by making two punishments of the same kind designated differently, and still more as this Bill proposes to make one mean the other at the discretion of the Judge. I think this shows the necessity of revision. Nothing can be more striking to anybody who visits our prisons than the number of recommitments; in fact, you may say that a first commitment is a rarity in our prisons. Nine-tenths of the prisoners, have been convicted five or six, and even as many as twenty times. That shows an inefficacy in our existing form of secondary punishments, which is very much caused by indistinctness of phraseology, which makes the penal code unintelligible both to the Judges and to the criminals. What is wanted is something like a definite principle laid down as to the meaning of our punishments and cumulative sentences upon the repetision
  390
  of crime. I want to ask, especially, the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell), whose Motion for a Commission of Inquiry was accompanied by a very full and most able statement of the reasons why such an inquiry should be carried out, whether this Bill is all that is necessary. I observe that the noble and learned Lord in that speech reflected also upon the system of police supervision upon the discharge of prisoners as very much requiring reconsideration. All these experiments require re-consideration from time to time; and the noble and learned Lord suggested, and I fully agree with his suggestion, that now our Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies are distributed throughout the whole of the kingdom, they might be made a much safer and more practical mode of enabling discharged prisoners to get into employment, and to get into industrial life, than the police supervision which must, with all its details of reporting from time to time, be a great hindrance to a man's restoration to anything like a feeling of self-respect as far as regards himself, and a great check upon employers taking him into their service. Everybody is delighted with the undoubted fact that crime is being very much reduced in this country; and, therefore, many people are hastily thinking, if that is the case, what is the use of looking into the system. The system must be good under which crime has been reduced. But the reduction of crime, I think, as your Lordships will allow, is attributable not to the perfection of our penal system—I think that has been rather adverse to the reduction of crime—but it is attributable to the extension of education and the reformatory system, and to the Discharged Prisoners' Aid system in this country. Those are the three causes of the great reduction of crime. But that is no reason why we should not look into the faulty system which is fraught with injury and impediment to the effective execution of the law. I rather address my question to the noble and learned Lord opposite, whether he has any intention to re-introduce early next Session the Motion urging the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into this subject which he so ably proposed last year?
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, in answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord, I certainly do feel as strongly as I did when I brought the matter before your Lordships somewhat more than a year ago, that the time has come when inquiry might be very usefully made into our present system of punishments, with a view to see whether there could not be a better gradation of sentences than now exists, and also to inquire into the question of these particular terms of punishments, imprisonment and penal servitude. That inquiry has become more necessary in consequence of the one term becoming more assimilated to the other by means of the present Bill. There can be no doubt that different views do prevail among those who administer the law, not merely as to what is expedient to be done in particular cases, but as to the principle of awarding sentences. There are those who believe that anything beyond the first offence must be followed by very severe sentences; there are others who believe that for even many offences committed after the first one, if they are small ones, the sentences inflicted ought not to be for periods of lengthened detention. Those views have been acted upon at Quarter Sessions on one side and the other for a long time past; and I think the time has now arrived when inquiry might usefully be made as to the effect which has been produced during several years past by the application of those different systems. I think the present state of things has gone on long enough to enable useful knowledge to be obtained as to what the results have been as regards the repetition of offences and the numbers of persons imprisoned under the various sentences. There are other matters to which the noble Lord has referred, as, for instance, whether we could improve the present system of supervision of prisoners who are to be placed under some supervision for a time after their sentences have expired, and adopt some system which shall not tend, as it is to be feared the present system tends, to render it difficult for those who have been convicted to obtain or keep employment. The truth is, our present system has been going on for a very considerable time without inquiry, and I cannot help thinking there is an advantage in from
  392
  time to time overhauling a system of this sort by means of inquiry to ascertain where we stand and what improvements might be made, and, therefore, entertaining these views, I still propose to call the attention of the House to the subject, and early next Session to ask your Lordships to consider whether it is not expedient that such an inquiry should be made by a Royal Commission, Committee, or otherwise.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am under the impression that my noble and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department have already agreed on an inquiry into this subject. That is the information that has reached me from the Home Secretary.
  LORD HERSCHELL: No; the Home Secretary has communicated to me his willingness to grant an inquiry into the treatment of habitual drunkards, but he is not willing to extend it further.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think my noble and learned Friend has misunderstood the Home Secretary, or the Home Secretary has altered his mind since I made inquiry. If my noble and learned Friend will approach the Home Secretary I think he will find that he is not unprepared to have some inquiry on this subject.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am very glad to hear what the noble and learned Lord has said. I think it would be a pity to confine the inquiry to habitual drunkards. What is required is an inquiry upon the subject of habitual criminals. I had the honour to introduce a Bill into this House in 1869 which dealt with the treatment of habitual criminals. I think the time has arrived when it is very desirable to make some inquiry and see whether the system requires alteration and improvement, in these matters especially; and I am sure the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, will agree with me that it is quite necessary from time to time to look into the system and see whether changes are required. Such a step, of course, implies no want of confidence in the present Prison Commissioners. I remember when the inquiry took place upon penal servitude the very able Chairman of the Prison Commission, Sir Edmund Du Cane, told me that inquiries from time to time strengthened

  393
  the hands of the Prison Commission, for complaints which there is otherwise no opportunity of answering are very often shown to be groundless upon inquiry. The question of supervision was very carefully examined by the Commission, of which I was Chairman, and I would observe that the supervision exercised in cases of penal servitude is not supervision after the sentences have expired, but during the period when the prisoners are released upon license. It is very important to bear that in mind, because those who remember the introduction of the penal servitude sentences will recollect that the public were extremely alarmed when tickets-of-leave were first issued, and it was only when the system of the supervision of convicts, "on licence," as it is now called, was established, that the confidence of the public was restored. I entirely agree with those who think that the system of supervision should be enforced with the greatest care, so as not to impede the return to honest life of those who have committed crime, but as it is the fact that not a few of them do return to a course of crime, it is essential for public safety that there should be some means of ascertaining where these men are, and of being able to still watch them and know what they are doing. If that is done, as I believe it is done, with judgment by the police, I think such a system is useful and commendable; but, at the same time, with regard to the shorter terms of imprisonment followed by supervision, that system has never been examined into, and I should be glad if there were an inquiry into the matter. Then the grading of sentences requires careful consideration also, and especially the matter to which my noble and learned Friend referred, namely, the total differences of view which exist with regard to sentences which have been expressed with regard to those who have repeated their offences. A great number of people hold—I myself am one of them—that if a man has committed a long series of offences, not, perhaps, very serious, taking each of them, that man should be treated very differently from a man who commits an offence for the first time of the same kind. But some judges pursue the course of taking each offence upon its merits without reference to the previous history of the prisoner.
  394
  That being so, I think it is very desirable that the whole system should be examned into, because I am quite certain that every one will agree with me in saying that certainty in the infliction of punishment is of the greatest possible advantage. If people are not aware of what their punishment is to be, that must impair the efficacy of any system which may be adopted.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 228.)
Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered, That the Evening Sitting of the House to-morrow do commence at a quarter past Four o'clock.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.