asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he intends to propose any special measure for the consideration of Railway Amalgamation Bills?

replied that, without giving any opinion as to the merits of the Railway Amalgamation Bills referred to by his right hon. and gallant Friend, he might state that, in the opinion of the Government, it would not be advisable to leave those Bills to take the ordinary course of reference to a private Committee. It would also be advisable, in their opinion, before Parliament was asked to sanction those Bills, to institute a preliminary inquiry into the question of the public interests involved in these great amalgamations, and the practicability of protecting those public interests. As to the precise mode of inquiry, or the precise terms of reference, he would rather not pledge himself to them at that moment.

wished to inquire, as the matter was of immense importance to commercial and also to railway interests, when he could put a Question as to the exact Motion proposed to be made by the right hon. Gentleman?

said, he would communicate with his right hon. and gallant Friend within the present week.

asked the Postmaster General, When the Report of the Committee upon Sunday Labour in the Post Office will be laid before the House?

said, it would be laid before Parliament immediately.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is in contemplation to make the 27th of February a Bank holiday in the city of London or elsewhere, under the provisions of the fourth section of "The Bank Holidays Act, 1871?"

, in reply, said, the Government had desired to do whatever seemed agreeable to those more particularly concerned, and, having had communications with the representatives of City banking houses, he was led to believe that it would be agreeable if the 27th of February were made a bank holiday according to law, so far as London was concerned. That, therefore, it was the intention of the Government, as at present advised, to do. Their intention, however, was limited to the metropolis.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is his intention to take any steps this Session for enforcing the adoption, by Railway Companies, of a really efficient means of communication between passengers and the drivers and guards of trains?

, in reply, said, he was well aware of the unsatisfactory working of the present system of communication between passengers and guards; but he did not think they could say that a really efficient mode of communication had yet been discovered, which would entitle the Government or Parliament to enforce the mode exclusively upon railway companies. He had, however, pointed out to the different railway companies the failure of the rope system, and called upon them to submit to the Board of Trade an improved mode of communication. When he had received the answers to this circular, he would be better able to decide what should be done.

asked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, If the Fortifications of Bermuda have been completed and armed?

replied that they were not completed.

asked within what time the fortifications would be completed and armed?

said, he was not able to answer the Question at present; but he would inquire and let the noble Lord know.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will endeavour, if possible, to provide (either by subways or by any other method) for some safer passage than now exists from Parliament Street to Palace Yard?

, in reply, stated that it was almost impracticable to construct a subway from the end of Parliament Street to Palace Yard, because the Metropolitan District Railway ran between. Therefore, any subway would have to descend some 40 feet. The only other method would be to construct a bridge, which would have to be 20 feet high, and approached by steps, and he did not think any hon. Member would go up 20 feet, and come down 20, in preference to crossing the road. But, in point of fact, there already existed a very easy way by which any hon. Member could go from Parliament Street into the House of Commons without exposing himself to any risk. He had only to walk along the north side of Bridge Street, where he would find a flight of steps leading to the subway already existing. That flight of steps was a temporary arrangement; but he hoped that when buildings had been erected on the north side of Bridge Street, a permanent arrangement would be made for a convenient approach to the subway.

Sir, I wish to offer a few words of personal explanation in reference to a statement made by me the other day, which has caused some annoyance to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. I said, with respect to the Treaty of Washington, that I assumed that every word of the Treaty had been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and I said so because I was pretty cognizant of the custom prevailing at the Foreign Office when I had the honour of being connected with that Department. But I have since been authoritatively informed that no portion whatever of the Treaty of Washington was submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown except those rules which are to be regarded as rules of International Law henceforth. I regret very much that I should, under that misapprehension, have stated anything that has caused annoyance in any way to my hon. and learned Friend.

said, that the Motion before the House enabled him to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the state of the Notice Paper for to-night showed that it was quite impossible to carry out the understanding which was entered into with the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the Public Business and the Motion standing in his name. Thirteen hon. Members had given Notice of various Resolutions with regard to the business of the House. The Notice Paper suggested two considerations—first, that as it stands it would be impossible to proceed to a consideration and debate on the business of the House without constant interruptions, and that it would be impossible, with the Notice as it stands, to come to a satisfactory conclusion on this most important subject, which interested every Member of this House, and through the Members of this House deeply affected the interests of the country. He would make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the order of the Government that it would be reasonable that the House should devote one whole day to the future arrangements of its business. The Government was asking to be placed in command of more days, and he suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he should relieve the House of the embarrassment in which it was placed consequent on the change which had taken place in the intention of the Government with respect to the Public Business. He felt, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) and a great many Members of the House, that there had been Committees enough, and that what was needed now was that the House should decide what Amendments were necessary in its procedure—Amendments having been suggested by the Select Committee of the House which sat last year. He believed some of them would greatly contribute to the relief of the House. He had met a very high authority—one of the highest authorities with respect to the business of the House, and therefore with respect to the prospects of the Session—and he had said—"I am glad to hear that you are about to draw the attention of the House to this subject, because I am quite confident that unless something is soon done the House of Commons will come to a dead lock." Now, it would be lamentable that it should come to a dead lock; but some of the means taken to extricate the House were almost as mischievous as the dead lock itself. He would therefore conclude by asking the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Government would assist the House by devoting a day to the consideration of the various subjects connected with the future transaction of the business of the House; and he could only say that if the Government would decline to grant the House this favour, he and he believed other hon. Members would be anxious to use their best endeavours to put some Friday at the service of the House.

said, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would consent to postpone the consideration of the proposed alterations in the mode of conducting business. These changes involved one of the most important questions which could be brought before the House, and ought not to be pressed on without further deliberation. They were placed in considerable difficulty by being asked to go on with the Resolutions that evening, no proper opportunity having boon afforded them for giving Notice of Amendments. He was exceedingly anxious to consult with hon. Members on whose judgment he relied as to what Amendments he should propose in the Resolutions, but he had been allowed no time to do so. He therefore trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would defer his Resolutions for a few days.

said, he had risen at the same moment as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), to make the same request as he had done. When they considered that the most important question which could be brought before the House was the arrangement of the machinery by which it conducted its business, it was really desirable that Government should do those private Members who wished to take part in the discussion of the question the justice of giving them the opportunity of considering it which they desired. Although the subject had been inquired into by a Committee which had reported, and whose recommendations were laid before the House last Session, yet the Prime Minister the other night got up and said he did not think that inquiry sufficient; that it was desirable to have further inquiry; and that whatever was done should be done with the utmost deliberation. That appeared to be the rational way of dealing with the question, and was the result of its consideration by the Government during the Recess. But no sooner was it proposed than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) rose and stated that, all the requisite information being already before the House, there was no necessity for another Committee. Whereupon the Government immediately changed their course, and gave Notice that in a day or two a series of Resolutions would be submitted to the House. He did not say that in a spirit of captious opposition to the Government; but that was not the way in which so grave a question as the Business of the House should be brought before it by the Government. Considering the circumstances attending the Report of last year's Committee, that their decision was not very distinct, and that their Resolutions were carried by a very small majority, he thought the original proposal of the Government for a further inquiry by a Committee was the right one, and he would ask the Prime Minister to revert to it, rather than to persevere in his hasty determination to deal with the question at once by Resolution. At all events, if they proceeded by Resolution, instead of attempting to run this matter like a cargo of contraband goods on a night set apart for private Members, let them fix it on the first Order of the Day on some Government night at least a week or a fortnight hence—a course which would not involve so long a delay as the appointment of a Committee would have occasioned.

said, he thought it was the interest of the Government itself—of which he was a general supporter—that that question, which was not a party one, should not be brought before the House in a way which was sure to run more or less counter to the feeling of private Members on both sides. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not press his Resolutions to a precipitate decision at the fag-end of the evening.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his extremely yielding nature, would not resist the applications made to him by Gentlemen on both sides of the House. That was a question in which the interests even of the Government—of which his hon. Friend who spoke last was so good a supporter—must be held subordinate to the interests of the House. The question was one which concerned the entire House, and although it was not expressly mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech, yet it might come under the head of the several "administrative reforms" which were hinted at in that document. This was a night devoted to private Members; there were 36 Motions on the Paper, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Resolutions stood as the 20th. What chance, therefore, had they of coming on at an hour when they could be considered with the care due to their importance? He was surprised at the selection of that night for bringing them on. The right hon. Gentleman could not surely be aware of the very great and deep interest taken in the subject by nearly every Gentleman present, and more especially by those who come under the anomalous class of independent Members, because that blow was expressly aimed at that highly-deserving body of men. The Government, of course, wishing that such a body of men should be in that House, could not refuse the request made both by dependent and independent Members that they should select one of their own nights for the discussion of that question. He believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his natural good humour, would yield on that point with the same becoming grace as he gave up some of the principal features in his last Budget. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman refused to do so, he intended to himself move the adjournment of the House the moment the right hon. Gentleman rose.

concurred in the appeal to the Government not to press their Resolutions on the House that night. The Prime Minister had told them very properly that last Session was most prolific in suggestions from hon. Members for improving the mode of conducting business; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposed Resolutions did not deal with, but rather ignored, those suggestions, some of which, in the opinion of many, would do much more than his Resolutions to facilitate the despatch of business. The suggestions, in particular, made before the Committee of last year by a high authority on Parliamentary law, who sat at the Table of that House, were deserving of the most careful consideration; but they were not embodied in the proposals of the Government. He thought the Prime Minister had been too yielding in abandoning his Motion for the appointment of a Committee, and he would recommend him to adhere to his first decision. The Report of last year's Committee was incomplete, and to be viewed rather as a mere ad interim Report. There was nothing of a party character in that question, because Members on both sides had been unanimous in their recommendations to the Government, who, he hoped, would consider the matter as a whole.

said, it seem fated that that question of the Orders of the House was to occupy almost as much time in deciding when it was to be discussed as it would do by its actual discussion. But he would endeavour, as far as he could, to state to the House how the matter really stood, and he could assure them that the Government had no other wish than to consult their opinions, because it was perfectly true, as was said by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) and other Gentlemen, that that was as much or more the affair of the House than the affair of the Government; and therefore it was only reasonable that the wishes of the House should be consulted, more especially on a matter of that kind, in which no doubt every hon. Gentleman thought himself personally interested. Last Session a Committee sat on that question and made a certain Report. Certain of the Resolutions in that Report the Government felt it their duty to submit to the House last Session, and those Resolutions were frequently on the Paper, but, unfortunately, from the pressure of business, they were never able to bring them on. The Government, therefore, thought at the beginning of the present Session, as probably many of the things that happened last Session had called the attention of the public and of the House to the state of their Orders, that the best course was to refer the matter back to the Committee; and that proposition they accordingly made to the House. But hon. Gentlemen, and particularly the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) and another Gentleman of very great weight on those subjects—the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie)—got up and objected to that course, and thought its adoption would throw what would certainly have been a very undeserved slight upon the proceedings of the Committee of last year; and no other Gentleman rising to express a contrary opinion, and Government, having no wish in the matter except that it should be managed in a way; agreeable to the wishes of the House, assented to proceeding by Resolution. Now, they found on bringing Resolutions forward that a movement had arisen from the other side, and Government was asked to re-consider the course of proceeding by Resolution, and recur to the course originally proposed of appointing a Committee. He did not think that that would be a proper course for them to pursue. The Government had yielded to the expression of opinion that the matter having already been decided by a Committee it should not be sent before a fresh Committee until it had been submitted to the judgment of the House. The Government, however, were of opinion that when the judgment of the House had been pronounced upon the recommendations of that Committee, it would be right that the matter should again be sent before a Committee in order that it might be ascertained whether any fresh view had been arrived at with respect to it during the Recess. The Government were asked not to bring on the matter that night, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), to whose opinion great weight ought to be attached, had expressed a wish that further time should be given the House for considering the question. It would be very difficult for the Government to press the matter forward on that occasion in the face of such representations; but, at the same time, he must frankly state that it would be simply impossible, in the present state of public business, for a Government night to be given for the discussion of this subject. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), however, had made a suggestion that the Government would have the greatest pleasure in acceding to, and that was that they should devote some private night to the discussion of the matter; and Friday had been suggested. As a compromise between the House and the Government, he thought that the adoption of this suggestion would be very reasonable, and he would suggest that some Friday should be taken for the purpose. He might, however, remind the House that these Resolutions could not be brought on as Amendments on going into Committee of Supply, and if the course so suggested were adopted it could only be done by postponing the Committee of Supply until after the discussion upon the Resolutions had been held. Probably the most convenient day on which the discussion could be taken would be next Friday week.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was in error when he stated that the House had objected to the proposal of the Prime Minister to refer this matter to a fresh Committee. The fact was that while only two voices had been raised against that proposal, and before the general view of the House upon the subject could be ascertained, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had risen in his place, and had withdrawn his Resolution for the re-appointment of the Committee of last Session. In his opinion, the great majority of the House was in favour of the re-appointment of that Committee. He thought, however, that the Committee should be differently constituted. Further, it was within the knowledge of most Members that there were facts in connection with the proceedings of the Committee which made those proceedings so irregular that they had lost all claim to the consideration of the House. He would, he believed, not be using too strong an expression when he said that the question submitted to the Committee was not fairly dealt with by them. They were about to deal with one of the most important questions that could be brought before the attention of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) had truly said that it was a question of importance to independent Members of the House; and he would add that it was a most important question, not only for the House, but for the country at large. If this question were placed for discussion upon a private night it must necessarily come on at a time that it would not be possible to give it due consideration. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would not be possible to give a Government night for the purpose; but could it be said that the question was so unimportant that it was not worthy of having a Government night devoted to it? It was a Government measure, brought forward by the Government; and if it were not a direct attack upon the privileges of the House, it was at least a proposal to make such vital changes in the mode of conducting business that no more important question could be brought before them. He trusted that the House would not consent to discuss the question unless it were brought forward as the first measure upon a Government night.

said, he thought that the House had some reason to find fault with the course taken by the Government in respect of this question. It was the understanding last Session that the Government would endeavour to embody the recommendations of the Committee in their Resolutions. As one of the Members of the Committee, he might say that there were six Resolutions passed, but three of them had been utterly ignored; and of the Resolutions proposed by the Government, the second one had not been proposed by the Committee. The Resolutions that the House were asked to adopt were not those of the Committee, but some that the Government had evolved out of their inner consciousness. There was but one Resolution upon which the Committee were unanimous, and that was that no opposed business should be taken after half-past 12 at night; and surely if the Committee were worth anything the Government should have taken some notice of that. The only Resolution of the Committee that the Government had taken any notice of was that as to strangers withdrawing, and, under these circumstances, it was too bad to endeavour to entrap the House into a decision as if they were only carrying into effect the decision of the Committee.

pointed out that the debate was of rather an irregular character, and remarked that, as he understood the state of the case, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had practically abandoned the hope of bringing on these Resolutions that evening, and had, in accordance with a sort of vague desire to meet the wishes of the House—which had been ascertained in some unknown manner—proposed to fix the discussion on the Government Resolutions for some Friday evening. He (Mr. Bouverie) was afraid that when the appointed Friday arrived hon. Members who had Notices on the Paper would not be so ready to give up their rights as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to assume. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to fully appreciate the force of his own case, because the matter was one which concerned not only the House and the Government, but the despatch of the business of the country. If these Resolutions were required to facilitate the business of the country, he was sure that the majority of the House would assent to them; but he thought it desirable that the question should be disposed of upon a Government night, and as soon as possible, because if the consequences anticipated from the Resolutions should follow the Government would gat on with their business much more rapidly and efficiently than if this discussion were kept hanging over. The Government should take warning from what had occurred last Session with reference to this subject, because, although the Report of the Committee was laid upon the Table of that House on the 31st of last March, no time had hitherto been found for discussing the recommendations it contained.

said, he thought that there were two courses open to the Government in this matter—to regard the question either as one of the most important that could be submitted to Parliament or else as a Government matter, and in either case to bring it on on a Government night.

said, he thought the proper course would be for the hon. Member to bring forward his proposal in Committee.

observed, that the only question was whether they were to enter that evening upon this Motion, which really formed part of the subject which it had been agreed should be postponed; and, under the circumstances, he took it almost for granted that the hon. Member would not press his Motion, and that it would be withdrawn. It would be impossible for the Government to accede to the Motion; but if the Notice were left upon the Books and a Committee appointed to consider the general subject, it would be very proper that such a Motion should be brought under the notice of the Committee.

asked whether any of these Motions would be proceeded with that night, and whether the Government would take the opportunity of saying in a day or two what course they would recommend the House to pursue?

The Motions would not be proceeded with that night, and they would simply stand adjourned until Friday week.

said, he thought that Friday fortnight would be better.

said, he could not presume to accept the responsibility that had been thrown upon him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of moving the suspension of the Standing Orders on Friday week. If the Government wanted their Resolutions to be properly discussed, they ought to provide for the discussion being taken on a Government night, or else themselves move the suspension of the Standing Orders on Friday week.

said, that the only effect of fixing these Resolutions for Friday week would be that they would not be discussed on an earlier day. The question of postponing the Notices and the Orders on Friday week until after these Resolutions had been disposed of was another matter, and it was the great confidence of the Government in the influence of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and in his promise that he would exert himself to the utmost of his power to obtain a Friday evening for the discussion of the Resolutions, that had induced them to give up their chance of bringing on the subject that night.

said, he hoped that it would be understood that those who objected to the course of the Government would insist upon their giving a night for the discussion of these Resolutions, so that they should not be discussed in the scrambling way that they must be dealt with if the discussion should come on upon a Friday evening.

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the treatment of the Dungannon Bench of Magistrates by the Irish Government; and to move for Copies of the Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to hold an inquiry into the charges preferred against them, the inquiry having terminated on the 24th of August last; and, of Correspondence that has passed between the Magistrates accused and the Government in reference to the charges made against them, said, that there was no person in the House who was less disposed to bring under their attention merely local matters; but still he must at the outset admit that the matter now in hand was local, and referred to individuals not known to the general public. It had, however, a direct bearing upon the administration of justice, and upon this great question, whether gentlemen who in Ireland undertook the responsible position of magistrates were entitled to the support of the Government in the discharge of their duties. The character of the magistracy was public property, and anything calculated to affect their character for impartiality and a desire to do equal justice to all would prove seriously detrimental to the public interests. In fact, their character should not merely be pure, but it should be above all suspicion. It was, therefore, impossible to exaggerate the importance of a public investigation into the conduct of the magistrates. It was the duty of the Government, when serious charges were made into the character and conduct of gentlemen in the position of magistrates, to institute a searching inquiry into the subject; and, if those charges were sustained, to immediately take steps for their removal from the magisterial bench. If, on the contrary, those charges were found to be utterly baseless and untrue, it was equally the duty of the Government to give the accused the utmost satisfaction, and to make known to the world the results of their inquiry. Now, the circumstances of the particular case he had to submit to the consideration of the House dated as far back as seven and a-half months ago. At that time no less than seven honourable gentlemen were publicly charged with partiality in their magisterial capacity; and from that day to the present, they had been wholly unable to elicit from the Government an opinion, as to whether they deserved that serious imputation or not, although all the while allowed to continue their important and arduous functions towards the public. Nothing could be more prompt than the demand made by these gentlemen for a full and searching inquiry into the allegations against their character. He had the honour of being charged by those seven gentlemen, who felt themselves seriously aggrieved by imputations upon their character, to bring their case before the House. The facts of the case were these:—On June 23 an investigation took place in the town of Dungannon, arising out of a complaint made by a constable against the sub-inspector of the force, both stationed in that town. The circumstances of that complaint had, however, nothing to do with the magistrates whose case he now represented. In the course of the inquiry the evidence of Captain Ball, the stipendiary magistrate at Dungannon, was taken, and that gentleman, when cross-examined, stated, to the astonishment of all the gentlemen present—many of whom had acted with him for a considerable time previously in the most friendly and familiar manner—that, in his opinion, the magistrates generally sympathized with drumming parties who disturbed the public peace. That statement, charging partiality and partizanship, created a great sensation, and immediately attracted the attention of the seven gentlemen to whom it directly applied. Being all honourable men, they lost not a moment in taking public notice of it, and in demanding a Commission of Inquiry into their general conduct as magistrates. They wrote a letter on the subject to the Lord Chancellor, calling his attention to the case, and praying that high functionary to institute an investigation at once, as the charges made affected their personal honour, and also through them the administration of justice in their locality. The Lord Chancellor replied most courteously, expressing his regret that he could not interfere in the way requested, inasmuch as he had no jurisdiction over stipendiary magistrates, and referring the applicants to the Executive Government. The magistrates aggrieved then addressed a letter to the Lord Lieutenant, setting forth the whole case, and requesting his Excellency to institute a public inquiry. No notice whatever, as he was informed, was taken of this communication by the Lord Lieutenant. An intermediate letter, however, was received from the noble Lord the Chief Secretary, having reference to another transaction entirely. A second letter, couched in the same terms as the former one, was forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant. An answer was received on the 31st of July, in which he ventured to say there was evinced an evident disinclination on the part of his Excellency to allow the accused any inquiry or satisfaction. The noble Lord in that letter declined to call on Captain Ball to substantiate his charge, insisting that no charge had been made. A further correspondence took place, in the course of which a clear and forcible letter on the subject from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dungannon (Colonel Stuart Knox) was addressed to the noble Lord. Upon receipt of this the Executive no longer refused the demand upon it, and Captain Ball was called upon to support his charge before a Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate it as well as the allegations contained in a certain memorial to which he (Lord Claud Hamilton) would by-and-bye call the attention of the House. But he regretted to say it appeared to him that the noble Lord seemed to entertain little sympathy with the feelings of these magistrates, and to think that they might be assailed with impunity, and that no opportunity need be given to them to vindicate their conduct and character from the charges thus unfairly made against them. As a Member for the county he (Lord Claud Hamilton) felt himself called upon to put a Question to the noble Lord on the 6th July in relation to this matter, but failed to receive such an answer as could satisfy the magistrates of Dungannon. In justice to Captain Ball he must say that he had heretofore acted in a most gentlemanly spirit, and was, generally speaking, much esteemed and respected. He had never imputed improper motives to that gentleman, who from the first never attempted to deny having made these charges, nor ever disputed the particular words imputed to him. A Commission of Inquiry was ultimately granted—such Commission being constituted of two gentlemen who stood very high in their profession as men of great honour and learning. In the presence of that Commission, to the astonishment of all persons present, Captain Ball, in the frankest manner, completely withdrew the charges in the most ample and comprehensive manner. He had a legal adviser pro-sent of the name of Barry, who asked the following question: "Did you know, on the occasion referred to, what questions we were going to ask you?" To which he replied in the negative, saying that he had not the slightest idea of what they were to he. Captain Ball declared that he had not the slightest intention to impute the slightest partiality or corruption to the body of magistrates at large, or to any one of them in particular. Now, nothing could be more handsome, complete, and unreserved than the withdrawal of all those charges by Captain Ball. That gentleman admitted that he had committed an error of judgment, and frankly withdrew the offensive language he had used. Both the Commissioners, treating the charge as a grave one, expressed their satisfaction at the handsome conduct of Captain Ball in unreservedly withdrawing all his imputations. He (Lord Claud Hamilton), however, regretted to say that this withdrawal, however complete and unreserved, did not relieve the magistrates from the consequences that followed them. The wound was not cured by the withdrawal of the weapon that inflicted it—it still remained, and might prove even greater than the weapon which created it. There were two political parties in Dungannon, as there were generally in other Parliamentary boroughs; and though those charges were completely withdrawn, immediate steps were taken by one of those parties to make political capital out of them. A Mr. Hayden, a tradesman, who was the leading agitator on the side of the Liberal party in that town, immediately assembled his friends and told them that those charges afforded them a good opportunity to get up an agitation against the sitting Member, and called upon them to back up the statement made by Captain Ball. The memorial, although drawn up on Sunday, was ante-dated, and it was explained that it was done to make the memorial coincide with Captain Ball's statement. If it had stood alone the accused magistrates would not have asked for an inquiry; but the memorial was not got up as a real charge against the magistrates, but as a backing up of Captain Ball's paper. The inquiry having commenced it was necessary for the accused gentlemen to go into the several charges that had been made against them, and the principal charge was that the magistrates approved of, or if they did not approve of they did not discountenance, the objectionable practice of "drumming parties" in the neighbourhood of Dungannon; whereas, on the contrary, witnesses were called who proved that for years past those gentlemen had used every means in their power to stop this objectionable practice. But they were powerless as the law now stood. There was so much difficulty to decide where illegality commenced, that it was almost impossible for the magistrates to put the law in force against these practices or even to check them. The magistrates had frequently called Captain Ball's attention to the state of the law, and they had made attempts to get an alteration of the law, but without effect. They had done all that lay in their power to prevent these demonstrations; but it was impossible for them to check them until the law was altered. Captain Ball had, on former occasions, stated that he considered the magistrates had power to interfere by proclamation; but when examined he stated that he did not know what means there were at his disposal by which he could suppress them. A case had recently occurred in Londonderry in which no less a person than the Deputy Inspector of Constabulary, a gentleman of great experience, had been fined £100 because he rashly acted upon a proclamation of magistrates. It appeared that in anticipation of some disturbance the magistrates of Derry issued a proclamation which the Deputy Inspector of Constabulary thought had the force of law, and for acting upon that opinion he was fined. The trial of the case excited great attention and lasted several days. The Lord Chief Justice who tried the case expressed his opinion that the proclamation had not the element of legality; that a proclamation signed by magistrates could make nothing illegal which was not so before; and that magistrates could no more make a thing illegal by proclamation than they could build a house by proclamation. The defect of the law was that if these drumming parties took place in districts where the people were all one way of thinking, no objection was made to them; but it was only where there was a difference of opinion that offence was given and all these troubles arose. It was a constructive illegality. It was not the way in which the offence was committed, but in the manner in which it was received by the people, and hence the difficulty of drawing the line. It was, therefore, the bounden duty of the Government to amend the law. All these objectionable practices were dying out in 1864; but unluckily in that year the Government allowed an illegal monster meeting to take place in Dublin, under the excuse that it was in honour of the late Mr. O'Connell, when the law was violated in every respect except in the carrying of arms, but in reality its object was to show that the people were determined to march in large bodies with banners and emblems. So long as those illegal displays were permitted in the South of Ireland there would be counter displays in the North; but it was a most unfounded and unjust charge to make against the magistrates of Dungannon that they had in any way encouraged them in that district. A very gratifying feature of the case was that the evidence adduced to show how they had tried to put down those objectionable practices was, in a great proportion, given by Roman Catholics and Liberals who were opposed to them politically. These persons came forward to testify to the very high character of the magistrates and the zealous way in which they tried to put down those objectionable practices. For seven months and a-half they had been unable to obtain from the Government any intimation whether they considered the original charges had been proved or rebutted in the inquiry that took place before the Commissioners; but in justice to two of them who were mentioned by name in the memorial, it was right to say that the Commission had completely exonerated them. The charge against Mr. Lisle was that he had knowingly encouraged drumming parties by allowing them to assemble on his grounds, and that he had permitted bonfires on certain anniversaries; and so much reliance was placed on it, that the inquiry was twice adjourned for the production of a material witness named O'Neil. When he appeared and gave his evidence it turned out that what he referred to occurred 12 or 14 years since, and it was distinctly proved by a policeman that during Mr. Lisle's absence he took a drumming party through that gentleman's grounds to prevent a collision taking place in the town, and that with regard to the bonfire it was simply a few leaves and sticks which the gardener and Mr. Lisle's son had set on fire to commemorate the latter's coming home for his holidays. The Commissioner in expressing his opinion said that until the case was explained he did not wonder that some prejudice had been entertained against Mr. Lisle; but that immediately it was explained it seemed to him the imputation had been completely swept away. There was not, he added, the shadow of a shade for the charge, and that the witness's statement was a misrepresentation. Although the Commissioners stated that they would be able to make their Report in the course of two months, as long a period as five-and-a-half months had been allowed to elapse, and the seven gentlemen, whose character as magistrates was immediately concerned, were utterly unable to elicit from the Government any information whatever with regard to the result of the inquiry. It was a remarkable circumstance that at the conclusion of the inquiry the assailant of these gentlemen, Captain Ball, was removed from the office he had held, which looked very much as if the Government disapproved of the course he had pursued in the matter. He maintained that the Government were guilty of no little neglect in withholding any communication which should at once officially and completely exonerate these accused magistrates from the charges that had been brought against them, especially after their assailant had been summarily removed from his office. He asked the House to consider the position in which a number of gentlemen were placed, against whom were advanced charges so serious that, if founded in fact, they would instantly unfit them to hold the position of magistrates. He could not form the least idea as to the case the Government proposed to make out, or as to the nature of any new charges which they might prefer; but of this he was quite sure—and he would state it publicly—that the gentlemen whom he had the honour to represent were prepared to meet any charges that might be directed against them. In conclusion, he must apologise for having detained the House at so great a length, and he trusted that it would accept as his excuse the grave importance of the case.

could have wished that the noble Lord had sacrificed a little more to brevity instead of putting his case in a speech of an hour and a-half before the House, for if he had done so he might have secured a better attendance on his own side than the half-dozen Members who had stayed to listen to him. He would refrain from following the noble Lord through the greater portion of his speech, and especially with regard to the case as affecting the magistrates themselves, which it was quite unnecessary to consider at present. He could not help thinking that the noble Lord's purpose would have been adequately answered had he put a Question to him on the subject, or asked the Librarian for a copy of the Report of the Commissioners, which was already on the Table, and which would be in the hands of hon. Members as soon as the arrangements of the House would admit. In that Report the noble Lord and the House would find stated, not at such length as the noble Lord had done, but more clearly and succinctly, the opinions of the Commissioners as to the conduct of the magistrates and the charges brought against them. He would ask hon. Members, therefore, to wait a little until the Report was in their hands. The only part of the noble Lord's speech as to which he thought it necessary to say anything was that in which the noble Lord imputed to the Government—first an indisposition to treat this matter with the serious attention it deserved; and, secondly, the delay, which he attributed to their fault. He entirely denied that there was any indisposition on the part of the Government to take the matter up. The noble Lord had spent much time in trying to prove that he (the Marquess of Hartington) was inclined from the very beginning to underrate the gravity of the allegations made against the gentlemen whom he was pleased to call his clients, and quoted an answer which he had given to the effect that the matters complained of were not charges by Captain Ball, but merely statements. He did not intend to imply that the statements of Captain Ball did not contain grave imputations on the conduct of the magistrates. What he meant was that the charges had not been made by Captain Ball voluntarily, but in the course of inquiry upon his oath, and he drew the distinction between statements and charges in order to show that Captain Ball had not made any charges of his own accord. The noble Lord had said that there was great delay in having any inquiry at all. Now, speaking from memory, he could say that as far as the Lord Lieutenant and himself were concerned there was no unnecessary delay. As soon as it was determined that an inquiry should take place, no time was lost in appointing the Commission and giving instructions as to how it should act. The lapse between August and the present month certainly appeared long; but the noble Lord's surprise at this apparent delay would soon be diminished when he heard that the Report of the Commissioners was not received until the 28th of November. When the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) wrote to him on the subject he was informed that the Commissioners had not received from the shorthand writer the transcript of the evidence which they had to read over. When the Report was printed it was sent, as was customary in such cases, to the Lord Chancellor for his consideration. The Lord Chancellor read not only the Report, but the whole of the evidence, which took up about 200 closely-printed pages, and when the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton) reflected that the Lord Chancellor had some other things to do besides reading Reports of that description, he would not feel surprised to hear that the letter which the Lord Chancellor thought it his duty to write upon reading the evidence was not received until the 21st of January. Since that letter was received by the Lord Lieutenant copies of it were prepared to be sent to the several persons concerned, and in the course of a day or two would be despatched to the magistrates. He would remind the House that although it sounded extremely touching to hear from the noble Lord that seven honourable gentlemen had been kept waiting all this time for the decision of the Government upon their conduct, the practical grievance was not so very great. As had been proved by the speech of the noble Lord himself, the evidence received by the Commissioners had been already made public, and also the general decision to which the Commissioners had come. The magistrates were therefore aware that the only charge of a serious nature preferred against them had been completely and at once withdrawn, and also that the Commissioners were or opinion that the other charges had not been substantiated. It could not be said, therefore, that the magistrates were all this time resting under any imputation whatever. If the formal opinion of the Government had not yet been communicated to them, they must have felt that, based as it would be on the Report of the Commissioners, it would not be such as in any way to affect their character or honour. The noble Lord stated that the magistrates had complained over and over again of the delay; but he was not aware that any such complaint had been made, or if made, it certainly had not been received by him. The only letter he had received on that point was from the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), and that was answered immediately. The Report of the Commissioners contained matter of very great interest quite apart from those personal concerns, and would be well worthy perusal. He quite concurred with the noble Lord that the character of the magistrates could never be an object of indifference to that House.

considered it quite unnecessary to add any observations to those which had been so fully made by his noble Friend (Lord Claud Hamilton) in reference to this transaction; but he could not help expressing the belief that the House was of opinion that the magistrates interested had been completely exonerated from the charges which were most unjustifiably brought against them by certain persons in the borough of Dungannon. It was, however, only fair to expect from the Government a declaration that no stain whatever rested upon their characters. If the Government had shown any unwillingness to exonerate the magistrates he would have joined his noble Friend in pressing for the production of the Papers. He was glad that his noble Friend had brought the case forward, because those gentlemen felt that they were labouring under a painful imputation. The magistrates were engaged in preserving the public peace, and they knew that these unfortunate party demonstrations were the bane of the country. He was quite willing to accept the statement of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) as a complete exoneration of those gentlemen in the opinion of the Government from the charges of partiality which had been brought against them.

suggested that after the satisfactory exoneration of these gentlemen as conveyed in the explanation of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, his noble Friend (Lord Claud Hamilton) might withdraw this Motion from the Paper.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the further amendment and better consolidation of the Laws relating to the relief of the Poor in Scotland, said: I do not think I need at the present stage enter into any statement with regard to the provisions of this Bill. I think it is desirable that I should postpone that until the second reading, and I will take care to give ample time for their consideration before asking the House to come to any decision. I shall content myself now with simply stating that the Bill will be framed on the basis of the recommendations contained in the Report presented to the House last Session by the Committee on the Scotch Poor Law, over which I had the honour to preside, and which sat for three years to inquire into the subject. The Bill will not go beyond those recommendations, and it is possible that it may not include the whole of them. This matter is one of great importance, and so much did I feel the gravity and importance of the introduction of such a measure that it was my earnest desire that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate should undertake the task. I have conferred with him on the subject, and he seems to think that, on the whole, it is better that the matter should be left in the hands of the Chairman of the Committee. I have yielded to his suggestion; but I feel there are grave difficulties in the way. Among the recommendations in the Report there are demands for contributions from public funds on several grounds, and such matters would, I think, have been dealt with better by the Government than by a private Member. Besides, I should have preferred to submit for discussion in the House the recommendations with regard to the incidence of local taxation which were not approved by the majority of the Committee. If I bring in the Bill as Chairman of the Committee, I am bound to represent the Committee only in the recommendations which are submitted for the adoption of Parliament. Feeling this difficulty—feeling that by introducing the Bill myself, I should lose the opportunity of urging on the attention of the House a grave question which was submitted to the Committee upstairs—I should have been glad if the Bill had been brought in by Her Majesty's Government, and I myself had, like other hon. Members, been left free to raise any question that I pleased beyond those included in the recommendations of the Committee. But, on the whole, I feel that the matter is too important for delay, and that many of the recommendations of the Committee are of a very valuable nature, and if adopted would lead to considerable improvement in the law and its administration, and I have, therefore, yielded willingly to the Lord Advocate's wish that I should undertake the task of introducing the Bill. I hope that, as many of the recommendations were passed without any division in Committee, I may look for the support of the Lord Advocate and Her Majesty's Government in carrying forward what is, indeed, no light undertaking.

said, he rose, at the request of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the abolition of the Corn Laws—[Laughter]—he begged pardon—the Game Laws. He was thinking of the question which had given him his first acquaintance with political life.

asked the hon. Member for Brighton to postpone his Motion, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had a Bill on the Table on the same subject.

said, that it was usual to allow a Member to bring in a Bill for another Member when there was no opposition, but not when opposition was expected.

said, he was willing, under such circumstances, to withdraw his Motion.

said, he would withdraw his opposition.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the Prevention of certain Contagious Diseases, and for the better protection of Women, said, he rose in pursuance of the pledge given towards the end of last Session by Her Majesty's Government, to explain to the House what had been the result of the consideration they had given to the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the Contagious Diseases Act, and to propose a measure which seemed to them suited to meet the evils complained of. He need hardly say that the Government had entered on the subject with great anxiety. They were sensible of the serious responsibility which they incurred; whether, on the one hand, they opposed the wishes of a very large portion of the population, who, however unreasonable their opposition might have been, were backed by many persons of calm and serious habits of thought; or whether they proposed the repeal of the Acts, supported as they had been by far the largest part of the medical, naval, and military profession, as well as by a large part of the population—whatever part they took no doubt the Government felt they incurred a very serious responsibility. He thought he should facilitate explanation of the measure he proposed, if he took a short and rapid survey of the course of legislation on the subject. It was in 1864 that, for the first time, the Government, actuated by a desire to improve the efficiency of the naval and military forces, by removing one great source of disease and weakness, introduced a Bill which had for its object the prevention of contagious diseases in certain naval and military stations. The Act was confined in its operation to eleven naval and military stations. Its main provision was, that on a declaration, not necessarily an oath, to the effect that a woman who was a common prostitute and suffering from contagious disease had been within 14 days within the limits of the district instituted by the Act for the purposes of prostitution, she should be examined, and might be detained three months in a certified hospital. The Act passed in July, 1864. In October the same year the two great military Departments appointed a committee of medical men to inquire into the best means of diminishing the effects of disease in the Navy and Army. In consequence of their Report the Act of 1866 was introduced, which was based on the principle that compulsory examination should be applied to all persons who were living the lives of prostitutes. In 1868 a Committee of the Lords again inquired into the subject, and examined a vast number of medical and other witnesses. Their Report recommended that power should be given by Order in Council to apply the Act of 1866, first to all naval and military stations, and secondly to any locality the inhabitants of which should apply for it, provided there was adequate hospital accommodation, with due provision for moral and religious instruction, and a sufficient police force to carry out the provisions of the Act. In consequence of that Report it fell to his lot to move in that House a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Act of 1866, and in consequence of the Report of that Select Committee the Act of 1869 was introduced, which extended to further military stations the operations of the Act of 1866, but did not provide, as recommended by the Committee of the House of Lords, its extension to the civil population. There was no doubt that the proposed extension of the Acts to the civil population led to the agitation which, from that time almost to the present, raged throughout the length and breadth of the land. An association was formed, promoted by medical men, and having many branches all over the country, for the purpose of advocating the extension of these Acts to the civil districts of the country. Then the opposition arose, founded first of all on the opinion that these Acts invaded private liberty; secondly, because they appeared to give legal sanction to prostitution; thirdly, because they tended to promote immorality among men; and lastly, because they had a tendency still further to harden and degrade fallen women themselves. There was no doubt but that these objections elicited the sympathies of large numbers of persons of serious and thoughtful habits, but it was equally certain that many who opposed the Acts dealt in exaggerations and appeals which were calculated to give a false impression as to the manner in which the law was carried out. Statements were made on the authority of persons entitled to little belief, impugning the conduct of those who were charged with the administration of the Acts, and he would appeal to anyone who had read those wild and random charges, and who knew the readiness with which they were received, as to whether he was going beyond the truth in saying that the agitation was due mainly to a monstrous system of perversion and exaggeration; whilst on the other hand no one who knew the facts of the case but would bear him out in saying that the Acts had worked in a most satisfactory manner. It was owing in a great degree, therefore, to that monstrous system of exaggeration and perversion which had prevailed, that popular indignation had been excited against these Acts. However, there could be no question whatever that the public mind had been very deeply moved, and the Government were anxious, on the one hand, not lightly to abandon a course of legislation which, in their opinion, was working very considerable good, and, on the other, that proper inquiry should be made into their operation. They therefore appointed a Commission in 1870, which reported towards the middle of the year 1871. It recommended, by a large majority, first of all, the repeal of the clauses which authorized the periodical examination of women; secondly, it recommended the re-enactment of the Act of 1864 which had been repealed, because its operations were extended by the Acts of 1866 and 1869; but such re-enactment would have returned to the principle of compulsory examination, which the Committee had already decided against; it also recommended that other legislation should be passed—in fact, that the whole of this legislation should be such as might be rendered available by the civil districts throughout the country as well as the naval and military stations. A minority of 7, however, were in favour of preserving in its entirety the principle of examination, and not only of maintaining the Acts, but while amending them in some particulars, of gradually and cautiously extending the operation of the law throughout the country. This minority of 7, at the head of whom was the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) objected to the Report because they agreed with the medical profession that periodical examination was necessary, and that the Act of 1864 was more beneficial than the Acts of 1866 and 1869. He would say a few words as to the results. The Commissioners were called on to report not only on the physical results, but also on what appeared to them to be the moral effects of the Acts. On both points there had been, and still was, considerable difference of opinion. Not denying that there did exist grave objections to the Acts, some occasional incentives to immorality, and that the system of examination might have a hardening influence on women, he might say that the conclusion he arrived at was, that the effect in preventing women from entering on a life of prostitution was so great that the moral good prevailed over the moral evil. When he stated that as his own opinion, he must admit that many persons for whose opinion he had the greatest possible respect entertained a different opinion. Their objections to the Acts were not to be overcome by any advantages which might be pointed out as resulting from them, because they thought them morally wrong. But while there existed in the Commission itself, in the House, and throughout the country, that difference of opinion as to the moral effects of these Acts, he did not understand that there could be any difference of opinion as to the physical advantages they had produced. The evidence both of military and naval medical men was, he thought, conclusive. Since the Acts had been in operation, there had been among their soldiers and sailors a very great and remarkable diminution of disease. The evidence was equally clear that the effect had been greatly to reduce the amount of prostitution; and one of the best, if not the very best, effects of the measure had been to almost entirely put a stop to that most horrible form of vice—juvenile prostitution. In Plymouth and Portsmouth, where a large number of poor children, from one cause or another, had been led into this miserable life, juvenile prostitution had entirely disappeared. In Portsmouth, where last year there had been upwards of 200 juvenile prostitutes, none were now to be found. A great effect had also been produced on public order throughout these districts. The scenes described in some of these seaport towns had been of the most disgraceful character; there was now a marked improvement; order and decency prevailed where there had been nothing but disorder. These facts were present to the mind of everyone, but, notwithstanding, the Commissioners recommended "that exclusive legislation for the purpose of preserving the health of our soldiers and sailors among a civil population was not desirable, and whatever regulations were made should be equally applicable to the whole country." After giving the subject the most attentive consideration the Government had arrived at the same conclusion. They thought it impossible to maintain in certain limited districts and with a large civil population, a system of law that was incapable of extension to other parts of the country. The Government were of opinion that the system of compulsory and periodical examination could not be made the basis of general legislation. He would now refer to the part taken by successive Governments in the matter. It was said over and over again that these Acts had been carried by surprise; but that affirmation was totally unfounded, and it was not the fault of the Government or of Parliament that these measures were not fully discussed. The subject was not of a character to invite discussion, and did not class itself among those more inviting subjects which occupied the minds of those who took an interest in deliberating upon public questions, and the consequence was that this important and stringent legislation passed through the House almost without notice, and without that salutary and beneficial purification which discussion and opposition supplied. That was a great misfortune, for they were most stringent Acts, introducing novel principles, and they were introduced among a population utterly unprepared for their reception. That was the secret of the opposition they had met with. But although the Government were of opinion that the principle of these Acts could not be maintained in exceptional districts, they were of opinion that very much might be done towards the preservation of public decency and order, and for the protection of female innocence. The best results obtained by the operation of these Acts had been that they had cleared the streets of the more hardened and degraded women, and that they had, to a great extent, if not entirely, prevented the degradation of young children. With regard to the former class they did not come within the Vagrant Act, unless they behaved in a riotous and indecent manner; but the provisions of the Police Clauses Act in towns and the Metropolitan Police Act went somewhat further, because they authorized the punishment of those who importuned passers-by, provided it was such as to cause annoyance. Many magistrates held that unless the annoyance were proved by those who had been importuned, they were not justified in convicting; and owing to the reluctance of many persons to give evidence in such cases, that law in many instances became a dead letter. The Vagrant Act had also been interpreted in very different ways. In Liverpool lately it had been applied for the first time with very great vigour, and the result was of a very striking kind. He had before him a report recently issued by a committee of magistrates of the borough of Liverpool, which stated the steps they had taken to put down the more scandalous exhibitions of this kind. It was stated that the number of women convicted under the Vagrant Act up to 1870 varied from 65 to a maximum of 500; in 1871, however, the magistrates, acting on the direction of the stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Raffles, determined that the act of solicitation was in itself an act which justified the punishment of the offender, and the result was, that the number of women so charged amounted to no less than 3,388, and the change that had taken place in the appearance of the streets was very remarkable. It was proposed to enact by the Bill that any common prostitute who in any public street solicited or importuned persons should be held to be an offender under the Act. The Vagrant Act for that purpose would be extended to Scotland and Ireland. For the first offence, a person convicted under that Act would be held to be a disorderly person, subject to three months' imprisonment; for the second offence, he was considered to be a rogue and vagabond, and was liable to six months' imprisonment; and for the third, he was held to be an incorrigible rogue, and was liable to be committed to the quarter sessions and to be sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. In the opinion of the Liverpool magistrates the power of committal for a longer period would be useful, as helping to break off the habits which had been formed. The next provision of the Bill was borrowed from a recent clause in the later Poor Law Acts, which enabled the guardians when any paupers within the workhouse were discovered to be labouring under contagious diseases, to detain them until they were cured, and if they escaped they were subject to be taken up and imprisoned again. The Bill proposed to apply the same rule to women of the class referred to when committed to gaol. All such women committed under the Vagrant Act, or generally as disorderly persons, would, if found to be suffering under contagious disease, be liable to be detained in the prison infirmary or in some certified hospital until they were cured, or for a maximum period of nine months. No compulsory examination would in that case be necessary. Besides those who were committed to prison summarily as disorderly women there was a considerable number of women committed to prison for other offences, where the evidence showed that they were leading an immoral life. It was, therefore, proposed that the committing magistrate, in all summary cases where he was satisfied a woman was leading a disorderly life, should certify the fact, and in the event of the prisoner being found to be suffering from contagious disease she would be detained in the same way as the class of prisoners last described. He was not certain that it might not be expedient to extend these provisions still further, and to put prisoners sent to gaol for offences of any kind in the same position with respect to contagious diseases as paupers in workhouses. It was, however, better to proceed cautiously. There were special reasons why women of the class in question should not be permitted to return to their miserable calling while suffering from contagious disease, and, therefore, he limited his proposal to these two classes of cases. The prison surgeon would report the existence of disease, and the report would be sent by the gaoler to the justice, who would make an order for the detention of the patient. The woman thus detained in prison after the term of her sentence might by order of the justices be removed to a certified hospital, but if not sooner cured her detention would not exceed nine months. As an additional precaution, the chief medical officer of the prison infirmary or certified hospital would be required each month to transmit a certificate that further detention was necessary. The justice, however, would have the power of discharging a woman either from the prison infirmary or the certified hospital, although not cured, if he were satisfied she intended to abandon her former life. The expense of sending the woman from the prison to the infirmary, and from the infirmary to the hospital, and from the hospital to her home, would be borne by the prison authorities. He now came to that portion of the Bill specially devoted to the protection of women, the provisions dealing with which could be very briefly stated. The existing law made punishable with penal servitude for life offences of a certain description upon children under 10 years of age, and he proposed to extend the age from 10 to 12. The same offence committed upon a child between 10 and 12 was at present a misdemeanour punishable with penal servitude for 10 years, and he proposed to extend that protection to children under 14. At present the obtaining possession of a girl under 21 by false pretences or representations was a misdemeanour punishable by imprisonment for two years. He knew no reason for limiting these cases to women under 21, and he proposed that the punishment should equally apply when the offence was committed against women of any age. With regard to disorderly houses, the law at present was, that if the landlord of a disorderly house allowed women whom he had cause to believe diseased to frequent his house he was guilty of misdemeanour, and liable to a fine of £20 or six months' imprisonment. The recommendation of the Commissioners, which he had adopted, was that whenever a woman was found in a disorderly house, the landlord, whether he knew it or not, should be liable to the same punishment. After referring to the number of children of tender years who in certain districts became the victims of an immoral traffic which he could only describe as the slave trade, he requested the support of the House in proposing measures of the utmost severity against those who harboured these children. He proposed that the harbouring of children under 16 should be declared a misdemeanour punishable summarily before a magistrate by six months' imprisonment, or, upon indictment, with two years' imprisonment, in each case with or without hard labour at the discretion of the Judge. He also proposed that the parochial authorities should be enabled to prosecute the keepers of disorderly houses without its being necessary that they should first be called upon to act by two ratepayers. He also proposed to make the landlord of a disorderly house liable if he knew it to be kept as such, although he might not be resident in it, and although he might take no part in the management. He proposed further to give the landlord power summarily to determine the tenancy of a disorderly house, whatever the terms of the lease might be. The last provision of the Bill referred to common lodging-houses, the keepers of which would be deprived of their licences and subjected to punishment if they knowingly permitted them to be frequented by persons of immoral life. The greater part of these provisions were founded upon the recommendations of the Commissioners, and some had been suggested by an examination of the general law. He was not without hope that the effect of this stringent legislation might be to prevent the corruption of young persons, and at the same time to provide guarantees which did not now exist for public order. It might be asked why he did not extend this legislation to the whole country without interfering with the operation of Acts which were admitted to be doing much good. His answer was, that it was impossible to maintain laws which had not the sanction of public opinion. There was no wiser maxim than that of Burke—that legislation should not force, but should follow public opinion. At present public opinion had been rather forced than followed in this legislation. For his own part, he held that there could be hardly anything more mischievous than the continued agitation upon this subject. He passed no reflection upon anyone, but any good which might have been produced by these Acts could hardly counterbalance the demoralization and mischief which had been caused by the agitation against these Acts. The Government had seen with grief and sorrow how much the reserve and delicacy for which the women of our population were so distinguished had been broken through by these discussions, and a continuation of this agitation could not but produce the most disastrous results. If these evils were to be cured or greatly diminished, it could only be done by voluntary agency—by the active efforts and zeal of benevolent persons. These efforts, however, there could be no question, would be chilled and repressed so long as Acts of Parliament existed from which the public conscience revolted. These were the proposals of the Government. He confessed that for himself he had arrived at these conclusions with great reluctance; but he believed that if these Acts were passed they would form the basis of useful experience, and that if in the proposed Bill the meshes were made somewhat larger, the net itself would have a wider sweep. Nobody could for a moment suppose that if legislation such as was adopted in 1866 and 1869 were proposed at the present time, it would be accepted without objection in Parliament; and that being the case, and there also now being much, though unreasonable, opposition on the part of many good and excellent persons to legislation which then passed, it would not be wise to agitate the country by proposing similar enactments. It was now proposed to lay such a basis of legislation as would obtain the support of the country; and then, as they gained experience, they might make a strong endeavour to enlist a united action for the purpose of diminishing the evils of which they were all sensible. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department ought to be the object of the sympathy of the House, because it was his cruel fate to propose the repeal of Acts which he believed to have been highly successful. Fortunately for the British public the Commissioners appointed to investigate the matter did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, for they recommended the repeal of the Acts of 1866 and 1869, and although the Report recommended the continuance of the Act of 1864, yet the majority of the Commissioners dissented from what he (Mr. Bright) considered an infamous Act. The right hon. Gentleman said the great balance of medical testimony was in favour of the present Acts. He did not know on what authority the right hon. Gentleman made that statement. There was a memorial of some medical men of London, who moved in high society, and were a class not the most likely to be consulted as to what was the best legislation for the poor people of this country. The hon. Member for Liverpool had presented a Petition, signed by 107 medical men of that town, against these Acts; and he had in his hand a protest against the Acts, signed by 572 medical men of great respectability in their profession. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by attacking those who advocated the repeal of the legislation referred to, by remarking that they had been guilty of great misrepresentation and exaggeration; but had its defenders not been guilty of exaggeration and misrepresentation also? There had been ridiculous stories from Devonport and other places, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had on a former occasion shown that the official statistics were erroneous. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the altered character of certain towns through the operation of the Acts, and of the diminution which had occurred in the number of young prostitutes; but were there no other means to effect those objects other than by legislation which caused great scandal? Though the right hon. Gentleman expressed an opinion that the time would come when public opinion would support that legislation, it was to be hoped that the time would never come when the women of England would submit to legislation of so degrading a character, which could only be passed by a Parliament in which women had no representation. He (Mr. Jacob Bright) admitted that the repeal of the existing Acts would be a considerable gain, although a highly penal Act was to be substituted for them fraught with great injustice and inequality. There were provisions in reference to the behaviour of persons in the streets; but these provisions were to apply only to women, though it was well known that men also were guilty. The same observation applied likewise to diseased vagrants and paupers, and the power to detain them. That would apply to women only, whilst the men would not be interfered with. Although he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for proposing to alter the existing legislation, yet he could not conceal from himself that there would be considerable opposition to the present measure, owing to its one-sided character.

observed that he had not expected to hear that no laws of any kind ought to be enacted to lessen a crying evil, lest they might infringe the liberty of those who practised it. He thought there was a defect in the proposed Bill, if it was intended that a diseased vagrant committed to prison should be liberated on giving evidence of an intention to relinquish her immoral life; and, in a sanitary point of view, he should protest against the liberation from prison or hospital of a person notoriously diseased. One strong fact, which was proved before the Committee of 1869, was, that when a ship came into harbour to be paid off, bevies of half-cured women at once left the hospital. The hon. Member who had spoken last (Mr. Jacob Bright) talked of the unfair difference which was made between the two sexes; but the parallel could scarcely be called a just one, until it was shown that men in the state to which he was referring were found plying for hire at the corners of the streets.

said, there was no denying that the Acts which it was proposed to repeal had been productive of the most beneficial results in checking the spread of a disease which, from time to time, had well nigh decimated the population. Indeed, the united efforts of the various religious societies throughout the country had not done so much good in that direction in ten years as had been effected by those Acts during the three years they had been in operation. In the borough he had the honour to represent, the only complaint which had been made was that a sufficient opening was not afforded to those who were most anxious to return to profitable labour; and he must express his extreme regret that anything in the Bill under discussion should tend to a relaxation of the force of previous legislation, although in those provisions of it which would protect children against leading a life of prostitution he entirely concurred.

said, that he looked with dread at the prospect of doing away with the wholesome legislation of recent years. Though he could not say that he perfectly understood the nature of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, it was the earnest desire of himself and of those with whom he had been acting, that the Act of the present Session should be final—whether it was a satisfactory one or not. They intended to do their best to make it as satisfactory as possible; but be it what it might, it would be best that its effect should be ascertained by the experience of some years, rather than that this painful subject should still be kept as a subject of undesirable controversy before the public.

, having taken an active part on the Commission which sat on the subject, said, he could not help adverting to the impression which had been made on his mind by the evidence which had been given before it. He must do justice to the candour of his right hon. Friend's (Mr. Bruce's) speech, but he could not help, at the same time, sharing in the sympathy which was felt by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) for the position of a Minister whose opinions lay one way, while the legislation which he proposed went another. The course adopted by the Government on a subject very painful in its details, but deeply important to the health and welfare of the people, was, he thought, at once timid and unworthy. He looked upon it as a triumph of prejudice and clamour over reason and truth; nor did he believe it possible for any one who had heard or read the evidence taken before the Commission to come to any other conclusion. Nobody could have sat on the Commission without seeing very clearly the influences which were brought to bear on its proceedings, and he might add that the results at which it arrived were very different from those which were at the commencement of its deliberations intended. He must once more record his regret at the timid and unworthy course to which the House was now asked to assent.

said, he must also enter his emphatic protest against the course which the Government had thought proper to take on the subject. It was at once an irresolute and an unfortunate course. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) was very fond of fine words, and he had not hesitated to speak of the Act of 1864 as an infamous measure—a sort of phrase which it was very much in fashion with rhetoricians to use when they did not understand what they were talking about. With such persons everything they did not approve was as black as his Satanic Majesty; but he was not one of those who chose to be considered a party to an infamous Act, for it was he (Sir John Trelawny) who in Committee of Supply had first asked whether it was not possible to do something in connection with the subject. And if the hon. Member would only take the pains of inquiring into the results of the Act which he condemned, he would find that it was perhaps one of the most beneficial measures which had ever passed through Parliament. The hon. Member could not have read the evidence, and the reports of the doctors, for if he had it was clear the highest class of evidence had no influence on his understanding. [Mr. JACOB BRIGHT: I have read them.] Then the hon. Member's case was so much the worse, for the hon. Member could learn—which it was clear he had not done—from those reports what lamentable results were brought about owing to women being allowed to leave the hospitals before they were cured. A witness was asked before the Commission whether she would not take charge of a miserable child, if she had the power of doing so, and endeavour to cure her; and the answer was, she thought she would; while to the question whether she would keep her till cured, the reply was also in the affirmative. If you detained any woman till she was cured there was to that extent an interference with the liberty of the subject, and you also made vice easy by discharging her cured. The persons, therefore, who took that line were out of court, and gave the lie to their own theory. If a woman were charged with an offence against the law by soliciting in the streets, you had not only the right to cure her, if diseased, but in common humanity were bound to cure her. Yet the hon. Member dared to say that such legislation was infamous, and called its supporters the enemies of women. He began to think that this was one of the cases in which the Ballot was wanted in that House, to protect Members who were too timid to vote as they really thought upon this subject. There were six questions—he would not specify them—upon which it would be a good thing if secret voting prevailed in the House of Commons, and he regretted that the Government were adopting so weak and timid a course in proposing to repeal these Acts.

, as a Member of the Royal Commission, would venture to say to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) that he (Mr. Rylands) had given the most careful attention to the evidence of the Royal Commission, and that the conclusion he had come to was exactly the opposite to that of the right hon. Baronet. When the Commission met, the majority of the Members had a foregone conclusion in favour of the Acts as they at present existed. He (Mr. Rylands) had led the forlorn hope in the opposite direction, and in the end the large majority of the Members were compelled to own that their views had undergone a complete change. The truth was, that many of the facts supposed to be favourable to the Acts turned out to be no facts at all, when closely examined into; and advantages had been exclusively attributed to the Acts which were really owing to other and very different causes. Improved police orders and improved regulations in the Army and Navy had done more, in the five years preceding the Acts, to diminish the evil aimed at, than had been accomplished by the Acts themselves. He was convinced that the course taken by the Government would be fully supported by public opinion.

said, he must bear testimony to the beneficial effects of the operation of the Acts in the communities to which they applied. The case of the poor girls who were lured into houses of infamy was most pitiable before the Acts were passed. Once there, they seldom escaped from them, except to their graves. Those ladies who took so much interest in their fate assumed a deep responsibility. They took these persons under their protection, placed them for some time perhaps in a reformatory, where they were left to ennui, and told if they did not reform, they would go to a place which he would not name. But how differently were they treated under these Acts. They were sent to an hospital, where they had the best medical attendance, received the kindest treatment, and frequently sent home to their friends. He believed it was a fact that 38 per cent of these unfortunate young women were rescued from a life of shame, and he considered the Acts in question Christian Acts. He strongly condemned the conduct of those persons who had endeavoured to inflame the passions of the people against Acts from which, in his opinion, so much benefit resulted. To yield to the agitation on this question would show the greatest cowardice on the part of the Government.

said, that the statements of the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) were calculated to mislead the House and the country; for it was an undoubted fact, derived from the Reports of Commissioners and Committees, that quite as many, if not more, fallen women were reclaimed in towns in which the Acts were not in operation, as in those in which they were.

said, he shared in the views of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Henley), and was surprised to have heard the unmeasured and indecent terms in which the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) attempted to malign those praiseworthy women who were devoting all their energies to obtain the repeal of Acts which they considered degrading to their sex. In the borough which he represented (Chatham), and where the Acts were in operation, their effect as a remedial measure was quite in opposition to the hon. Baronet's experience; and although the opinions of the boroughs were not unanimous, there was a great preponderance in favour of a repeal of the present Acts. They must remember that they were legislating for women who had no opportunity of making themselves heard, except through the disinterested efforts of those of their own sex who had taken up their cause. When the Government were blamed for this measure, he asked whether no account was to be taken of the feelings of the country? It was undeniable that the working classes to a man were in favour of the repeal of these Acts; and, even in a sanitary point of view, he doubted their efficiency. He believed his right hon. Friend. (Mr. Bruce) would effect great good in repealing these Acts, and passing a Bill for the greater protection of women.

, in rising to move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the circumstances attending the seizure and sale of the steamship 'Redgauntlet,' then the property of one Charles Cameron, at the Island and Port of St. Thomas, in or about the month of August 1807; and that such Commission be directed to hold it sittings for the matter of such inquiry at the said Island of St. Thomas, in order to allow the said Charles Cameron to adduce evidence and give proof before such Royal Commission there of certain facts connected with such seizure and sale."

, in seconding the Motion, said, he considered that Mr. Cameron had made out a case requiring an answer and redress for the grievance he complained of.

said, this subject had occupied for a considerable time the attention of successive Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs. The circumstances extended over a period of five years, but all Her Majesty's Government had to do with the subject was in reference to Mr. Lamb's conduct as the Consul representing this country. The whole of the circumstances were referred by Lord Derby and the late Lord Clarendon, when Foreign Secretaries, to the Queen's Advocate, and he was of opinion that Mr. Lamb had acted legally and properly as Consul. That opinion had been forwarded to Mr. Cameron's legal representative in this country. The only other complaint against Mr. Lamb was that he was partner in the firm in Havannah, which had advanced £500 on a bottomry bond on the vessel. The proper notice for repayment was given, and as Mr. Cameron could not raise the money to pay that sum, the vessel was sold, and it was to be regretted that a vessel supposed by Mr. Cameron to be worth a considerable sum had not realized more than about £1,500. Mr. Lamb had acted strictly legal in detaining the register. There was nothing to prevent Mr. Cameron from enforcing any rights he might possess against Mr. Lamb for anything he might have done other than in his official capacity as Consul. The Queen's Advocate still maintained the opinion that Mr. Lamb, in his consular position, had done nothing to warrant censure; and concurring in that opinion, the Government must oppose the Motion for a Royal Commission to inquire into circumstances which took place so far back as 1867.