asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to an inquest into the circumstances attending the death of Mary Ann Nash, held by Mr. Humphreys on the 6th instant; whether it was stated in evidence that the deceased was in receipt of £5 a-year from the Cord-wainers' Company, which was to be forfeited in the event of her receiving parochial relief; whether the medical man stated that the cause of death was starvation, and that he had never known a worse case; whether the jury returned a verdict to that effect, adding that the regulations laid down by the Company compelled a family to starve, and requesting the coroner to write to the Company on the subject; if the coroner has complied with the jury's request; and, if there would be any objection to lay a Copy of his Letter before the House?

in reply, said, he believed it was true, as stated at the inquest in question, that the deceased was in receipt of £5 a-year from the Cordwainers' Company, and the medical man did state that the cause of death was starvation; but it was untrue that the regulations laid down by the Company had anything at all to do with the case. The sum so allowed the woman was out of money which they had to dispose of under charity trusts, subject to and under direction of the Charity Commission; but certain clauses of the will bequeathing it to the Company specifically stated that such allowances wore not to be made to those who were in receipt of parochial relief. No further application was ever made to the Cordwainers' Company for any sum out of their ordinary funds, and they had no power to alter the conditions under which the sum allowed was given.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- ment, Whether his intention has been called to the mysterious death of the late Mr. George Wood, of 296, King's Road, Chelsea, as disclosed in the "Whitehall Review" of the 31st March last; and, whether it is his intention to take any steps to obtain a full investigation into the circumstances of the case?

in reply, said, he had that day seen the copy of the depositions taken at the inquest, and he should be glad to show them to the hon. and learned Member if he desired it. The coroner reported that the jury were unanimous, and that he agreed with them in their finding. He (Mr. Cross) had no reason to suppose that the coroner had conducted the inquiry in an improper manner.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been directed to some passages in a speech delivered by the Viceroy of India, at a Convocation of the Calcutta University, in which Lord Lytton expresses views regarding a new classification of civil appointments, and the necessity for the stoppage or rigid restriction of the present system of supplying young civil servants from England; and, if he can say whether the views of the Viceroy had the concurrence of the other Members of the Government of India and of the Secretary of State before being thus publicly announced to the Native Community?

Sir, I have read with great interest the speech alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, and in order to explain the purport of that speech, it will be necessary very shortly to state what the law is as regards these appointments in India. By an Act passed in 1861 Parliament specially reserved certain classes of appointments for the Indian Civil Service, entrance into that Service being by competition alone. In 1870 another Act of Parliament was passed, by which special facilities were given for the employment of Natives of India in offices and places hitherto reserved for the Indian Civil Service, subject to rules to be prescribed by the Governor General in Council and sanctioned by the Secretary of State in Council. Some necessary delay occurred in framing these rules, but they were finally agreed to in May, 1875. Such being the law, Lord Lytton took an appropriate opportunity of alluding to it at some length. He pointed out the practical difficulties of carrying out the latter Act, and the necessity of acting cautiously in "a matter in which one false step might be irrevocable and the mischief of it beyond calculation." He also pointed out that whatever was done should be carried out in such a way as to affect as little as was possible the promotion of the Civil Service; and he concluded by saying that if Natives were to be admitted to certain of the posts hitherto reserved for the Civil Service, it would be in his view advisable to reclassify the appointments, in order that the annual supply of civil servants from England might be properly regulated. The objects the Viceroy had in view seem to the Secretary of State to be in conformity with the intentions of an Imperial Act of Parliament. At the same time, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no reduction upon the supply of young civilians now sanctioned is in immediate contemplation; and that if in future years any such reduction is necessary, it will be carried out in such a way as to avoid impairing the efficiency of the Service, or the quality of the candidates competing for that Service.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it has been definitely decided that from next year candidates for the India Civil Service are to go up for examination between the ages of 17 and 19; if so, from what date this rate would take effect; and, whether the candidates passing the first examination on those terms are to be allowed, as heretofore, £150 a-year for two years while at the universities, on the condition that they subsequently successfully passed the final examination?

There will be two examinations in 1878, one for the last of the candidates selected under the older system, the other for the first of those who come under the new. To this last examination all candidates will be admitted who are 17 years of ago and are under 19 years of age on January 1 previous. In future years the candidates must be under 19 on June 1 of the year in which they are examined. With respect to the second part of the Question, I have to answer it in the affirmative. I cannot say at what date the first examination under the new system will be held.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true that cattle are kept in the dairies in London, or premises appertaining thereto, in places defective in light and air, and not favourable to the health of the animals; and, whether he has considered the desirability, having regard to the existence of cattle plague for three months in and about London, of forbidding the keeping of cattle within the Metropolis, and, if necessary, of obtaining powers from Parliament for that purpose?

Sir, a large number of cowsheds in London are, I fear, as the hon. and learned Baronet says, in a very defective condition in regard to sanitary arrangements—a condition of things not altogether unknown, I am afraid, in other districts, both town and country. The question, however, of prohibiting the keeping of any cattle whatever within the metropolis is a very large one, and though the Government are taking very stringent measures to deal with the cattle plague in London, we are not prepared, with our present information, to propose to Parliament to take the extreme measure of forbidding all cattle being kept within its limits.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Why the Memorial, dated 12th February 1873, endorsed by the note of the Right honourable Richard Assheton Cross, and signed by Sir Thomas Bazley, M.P., and Mr. Henry Brinsley Sheridan, M.P., on the case and claims of Mr. John Clare, the inventor, patentee, designer, promoter, and upholder of the Metal Ship-building of the State Navy since 1853, and the plaintiff in "Clare v. The Queen," has neither been replied to nor acted upon by either the Admiralty or Treasury departments, and that after Her Ma- jesty the Queen's command, bearing date 13th May 1874, to Mr. Clare "to apply to the Government departments "for the liquidation of his claims on the British Nation; and, whether he has any objection to lay the said Memorial, and the Letter that accompanied it to the Right honourable W. E. Gladstone, upon the Table of the House?

in reply, said, that Mr. Clare brought an action against the Crown in 1873, and a verdict was then given against him. Subsequently a letter to the late Prime Minister, and a memorial, undated and unsigned, were sent, but no answer to either was given by Mr. Gladstone. Under those circumstances, the present Government did not think it necessary to take any further steps in the matter; but there was no objection to that memorial being laid on the Table.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to an account in the "Liverpool Daily Post" of an inquest on the body of a prisoner recently discharged from Walton Gaol; and, if so, whether he will direct a post-mortem examination of the body to be made, and a fresh inquiry to be held?

in reply, said, it would be impossible to order a post-mortem examination; and, if it could be done, no good would result from it. The unfortunate prisoner died as long ago as the 18th of February of virulent small-pox. An inquest was held by one of the most experienced coroners in the country, who -took the precaution of having a perfectly independent medical gentleman called in order to give his opinion of the case before the jury. The jury were a most intelligent jury, and gave patient attention to the case, and the result of their verdict was that the boy died of virulent small-pox, which apparently came on very suddenly. The visiting justices made a searching inquiry, and said they could find no trace of any treatment in the gaol which called for any remark on their part. Under these circumstances, I consider it is not desirable to hold another inquiry.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in consequence of the admitted evasion of the Wild bowl Preservation Act, 1876, he will place that Act in the same relative position as the Salmon Preservation Act, 24th and 25th years of Victoria, chapter 109, section 19, whereby the burden of proving the commodity exposed for sale during close time is imported is thrown on the salesman? He further asked, if the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to two cases reported in the "Times" of that morning, where the presiding magistrates appeared to have come to different conclusions?

in reply, said, his attention had been called to the two police-court cases reported in The Times of that morning. He hoped the question raised would be settled in one of them by a Superior Court, and until some decision was arrived at he did not think it would be expedient to legislate with the object referred to in the Question.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to grant a medal in recognition of the arduous and gallant services of the Officers and Troops engaged in the late campaign in the Malay Peninsula?

Sir, while I am willing to give the greatest credit to the gallantry of the troops employed in the Malay Peninsula, it is not thought to be of a character to require a medal.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, What steps, if any, are being taken by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company to remedy the dangerous condition of Harrison 's level crossing, by which five lives have already been sacrificed?

in reply, said, that an inquiry was being held, and when the Report of the Inspector was received, he would lay it on the Table of the House.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If a treaty has been signed by England and Germany with Spain in regard to the Sooloo Islands; and, if so, to state the nature of it, and lay a Copy of the same upon the Table of the House?

in reply, said, that a Treaty had been signed at Madrid by the Representatives of Germany, England, and Spain; and the Protocol as well as the Despatches relating to it would be laid on the Table of the House tomorrow.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has been received respecting the case of the student alleged to have died in the circumstances telegraphed to the "Times" last week, contradicted by Musurus Pasha, but described more fully in a letter published in the "Times" that morning?

Sir, my hon. Friend has no doubt seen the explanation which Musurus Pasha has given with respect to this matter, and which has been published in The Times newspaper. We sent a telegram on the subject to Mr. Jocelyn, and he has ascertained that no student at the Military School was bastinadoed.

asked, Whether the Government has received any information of the fact stated in the "Morning Post" of to-day, that on the 3rd instant, while Russia was insisting upon the immediate disarmament of Turkey, the Russian Colonel Miloradovitch, together with four other Russian officers, was engaged in Servia in reorganising the lately disbanded corps of volunteers for the service of the Russian Government?

Sir, we have heard that an agent of the Moscow Slav Committee has been endeavouring to procure recruits in Belgrade to join Despotovitch, the insurrectionary leader in Herzegovina, and has been especially trying to get volunteers from the disbanded corps which served during the war with Turkey under Colonel Miloradovitch; but we have not heard that the latter was himself engaged in recruiting. By the last reports it appears that the office of this agent had been closed.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When it is likely that the account of arrests, sentences, and execution of sentences, on account of the Bulgarian rising and its suppression, for which Her Majesty's Government telegraphed to Constantinople on or soon after the 12th of February, will be in the possession of the House; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of any information proving that, at the commencement of that rising, six Turkish policemen were burnt slowly to death in quicklime by the insurgents?

In reply, Sir, to the first part of the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to the account which we have been endeavouring to get for some time in consequence of a Return which he moved for, I have to state that we have received the Returns with regard to the sentences and executions of the prisoners under the commissions held at Philippopolis, Sophia, and Adrianople. Mr. Jocelyn has been using his best endeavours to get at the facts, and we have received several telegrams from him on the subject of obtaining further information as to other places. The Returns which we have already received will be laid on the Table whenever the right hon. Gentleman expresses a wish on the subject; the others will be as soon as possible. In regard to the second part of the Question, the House is, no doubt, aware that in the Blue Books that were presented last year, Mr. Monson reported to our agent at Ragusa, in April, 1876, that it was stated in that place that some Zaptiehs had been burnt alive; but that relates to a different part of the country to that which the right hon. Gentleman referred to. With regard to Bulgaria, we did hear that in September last, at Bilovar, some Zaptiehs were killed at the time that the burning of the station took place. There was also a report, which was mentioned at the time, that some Zaptiehs had been covered with petroleum and burnt; but it will be in the recollection of the House that Mr. Baring's remarks upon that subject showed the story to be utterly untrue. In regard to Zaptiehs being burnt to death in quicklime, I cannot find anything in the Papers relating to the subject that have been presented to the House.

I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman, in regard to the particulars mentioned by Mr. Monson, referred to in the report regarding the affairs at Ragusa, Whether he has provided us with all the information, which seems to have been rather undefined, as to time and place; and whether he has been able to verify or to disprove that report, or can afford any clue by which we may clear up those points?

No, Sir. The only information is contained in the despatches to which I have already referred, and in those despatches it will be remembered there is an explanation by the Turkish Government of the reasons for their having been obliged to resort to the appointment of Bashi-Bazouks.

moved, as an Amendment, in line 7, after "passed," to insert the words—

"Provided, That no Militia officer shall be eligible to command any portion of the Regular Forces, unless such officer belongs to a regiment or corps which is at the time embodied for service or assembled for training."

said, as he did not wish to put any slight on the Militia officers, he could not assent to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant General, because it provided for a contingency which was not likely to happen, and which could not happen without the cognizance of the military authorities. He could assure the hon. and gallant General that the military authorities would take care that the Regular Troops should always be commanded by officers I of the Army. He should not like, there' fore, to insert a provision which might be thought to cast a slight on Militia officers.

thought that the feelings of the Regular Forces as well as of the Militia should be considered.

objected to the Amendment, and hoped that the Secretary of State for War would not give way.

in moving, as an Amendment, in page 63, line 23, to leave out "may," and insert "shall thereupon," said, he did it in order that the clause should have the effect of rendering more effective the provisions in reference to soldiers' liability for the maintenance of their families. In past years this Bill did not excite sufficient attention, and the result was that a clause crept into it, exempting soldiers from liability to the support of their wives and children. That was the case for many years, and, although some alterations had been made, they were so qualified that they did not effect any real improvement. Under existing regulations a magistrate's order upon a soldier to contribute to the support of his family might be overruled by the War Office, and if summonses were granted at the instance of soldiers' wives against their husbands who were stationed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court from which the summonses issued, service of such processes would be invalid unless the soldier summoned was provided with sufficient money by his wife to enable him to appear at the Court, and, after the hearing, to return to his quarters. This, he contended, would in many cases deprive starving wives of any remedy against their defaulting husbands. By a Return laid on the Table of the House, he found that during the last year there were 629 wives of soldiers and 1,241 children receiving relief from the poor rate, which, he contended, was a great injury to the ratepayers. The law also as it stood prohibited a soldier, if he married without leave, from giving any support to his wife and children. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.

opposed the Amendment on the ground that the soldier had no legal redress for his pay against the Secretary of State for War, and where the primary claim of the soldier could not be enforced, à fortiori, a secondary claim could not. If the Amendment were carried, it would come into conflict with the 177th Article of War, which empowered the Secretary of State, if he thought fit, to withhold a portion of the soldier's pay. For seven years past, under the provisions of that Article, there had been a perfect administration of the soldier's money, and a soldier's wife who was of good character was not put to any cost in enforcing her claim. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, inasmuch as this subject had been already fully discussed. The practice at present was that when a wife or when Guardians of the poor applied to the War Office, the question was referred to the commanding officer of the soldier. If the soldier did not object, the stoppage was made at once; but if he did object, the character of the wife was inquired into, and if the inquiries were satisfactory the stoppage from the pay was immediately enforced. In cases where a soldier married without leave, no step whatever was taken in this matter.

moved the insertion of the following Clause:—

(Return showing the number of soldiers actually maintained to be laid before Parliament.)

"And in order that Parliament may be in.. formed as to whether the numbers maintained during the year have been below or above the total numbers provided for in the Preamble Be it further Enacted, That the Secretary of State shall annually present to Parliament, as early as the same can be done, a certified statement of the effectives of the several arms on the first day of each month of the previous year, showing the numbers of the respective arms in the United Kingdom, in depots, in Her Majesty's Possessions, and in India, and totals thereof, with a separate column to show the numbers in excess or below the numbers in the Preamble."

said, the Returns were given already in the Estimates, and also in the Report of the Inspector of Recruiting, and the adoption of the clause would involve an unnecessary multiplication of Returns. He therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon it.

said, that notwithstanding what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it was impossible to obtain in this country information in a shape corresponding to that in which similar information was regularly published in France.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 12, after "numbers," to leave out "serving," and insert "according to the establishment fixed for," his object being to revert to the terms of the Mutiny Act in the time of the East India Company, so far as to limit the number of men at any time in England belonging to the Indian Establishment. If it was necessary to make up the depôts in India the men, instead of being taken from those serving in India, should be drawn from the depôts at home.

said, the proposed Amendment was useless, and would not improve the Preamble in the sense intended by the hon. Gentleman. The numbers in the depôts in India were known, and if the Amendment were adopted they could not be very accurately computed.

said, that the words "belonging to regiments in India" had always been used in Mutiny Acts, and he believed it was only in 1863 that the phraseology had been altered. He thought that the words he proposed were more in accordance with the good government of the troops.

said, that all the depôts were now merged, which necessitated an alteration. The Preamble as it stood was in conformity with the mode of payment which was adopted as between this country and India.

said, that, having brought the subject forward, and being opposed by the Government, it was useless his forcing the House to a division. He would therefore reluctantly withdraw his Amendment.

gave Notice he would propose that the Bill be considered as the first Order on Thursday, and that it receive its final reading then, in order that it might go up to the House of Lords without further delay.

moved, as an Amendment, the insertion of a clause to follow Clause 17, providing that in all trials by courts martial prisoners who desired it might have the assistance of counsel.

said, that the Amendment well deserved consideration; but he was not, at present, prepared to accept it, because it would make so great a change in the procedure of courts martial. If it were adopted in the Navy, it should also have a place in the Army Mutiny Bill, and in that case it would be necessary to make other alterations in both Bills, so as to make their provisions conformable to it. If, however, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would withdraw it, he would confer with the Secretary of State for War and see whether some such change could not be introduced next year into both Bills as would virtually carry out the desired object. It was too late now to introduce it, as a similar clause had not been introduced in the Army Mutiny Bill that had just passed through the Committee.

said, it might be in the recollection of the Committee that he drew attention to a similar clause in the Army Mutiny Bill, and pointed out that there were many offences in the clause which he thought ought to be punished by a sentence of penal servitude. He referred to the higher classes of military offences, such as joining in any mutiny, or not using the utmost exertion to suppress such mutiny, or conspiring with any person to cause such mutiny. He had pointed out that many of the offences in the clause were of such a character as ought not to be at- tended with reformatory discipline which was intended for the criminal classes who had led immoral and depraved lives, and whose natures had become hardened by constant contact with others like themselves. He would suggest that there should be some classification of offence in the clause, and that any offences which did not involve any moral depravity, and which did not involve any injury to an officer or to any other person, might be punished by imprisonment, with or without hard labour, instead of penal servitude, which was necessarily a punishment of a reformatory character. It was not his intention to move an Amendment until ho had more time to consider what shape that Amendment ought to take. He would move his Amendment on the Report of the Bill, and would content himself meanwhile by directing the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the matter.

said, that the matter had been fully discussed when the Army Mutiny Bill was before the Committee, and he must abide by the decision that was then come to.

said, that the answer was not at all satisfactory. He must deny that the matter was discussed at all, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War seeming to treat it with contempt. He could easily imagine circumstances in which such extremely degrading penalties would be quite undervalued. How would the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) himself like, supposing on those occasions, when he unfortunately fell asleep at his post, he incurred the penalties of penal servitude, death, or imprisonment? Why then should such extreme penalties be allotted to a soldier who fell asleep at his post?

moved to insert the words—

"Provided always, That the solitary confinement hereinbefore mentioned shall in no case exceed seven days, at intervals of not less than 14 days between each period of such confinement."

supported the Amendment, pointing out that the effect of the clause as it stood was that the commanding officer could inflict solitary confinement during the whole term of a prisoner's confinement. That was such a fearful, horrible punishment that it could scarcely be the intention to inflict it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the proposal.

said the Bill in this particular only followed the lines of that the Committee had just passed.

urged that the Amendment would simply place those prisoners whose sentence had been commuted upon the same footing in regard to the punishment by solitary confinement as those prisoners undergoing the original sentence of penal servitude from a court martial.

supported the Amendment.

pointed out that Clause 38 limited the term of solitary confinement to 14 days, and from the wording of the clause he was disposed to think that that limitation extended to the whole of the Bill. [Mr. O'CONNOR POWER dissented.] His hon. and learned Friend near him thought it did so apply. It was inconvenient that an Amendment of the kind should be brought forward without Notice, and if hon. Gentlemen wished to raise the question, he hoped they would raise it at a future stage.

understood there were differences of opinion on the subject on the Treasury bench. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that the limitation in Clause 38 reflected upon Clause 21 there could be no objection to the Amendment.

agreed it was desirable to give Notice of Amendments, but it was not the custom to bar Amendments unless that was done, and he regretted the right hon. Gentleman did not seem perfectly acquainted with the Bill.

said, he was unwilling to accept the Amendment without more consideration.

commented upon this as a most unsatisfactory answer, and said there had been no argument against the Amendment.

admitted that the power of inflicting solitary confinement ought to be limited; but, at the same time, it was impossible at a moment's notice to accept the Amendment without reference to the Legal Advisers of the Government. There might be no discussion on the Report, but he found it desirable to introduce a limitation such as that proposed. The Bill should be re-committed for the purpose.

said, there was a strong feeling that, as corporal punishment had been practically got rid of in the Army, it was desirable to abolish it also in connection with the Navy. He should move, as an Amendment, that so much of the clause as related to corporal punishment be omitted.

said, that the same words occurred in the Army Bill, and the hon. Member ought to have raised the discussion upon that. He ought, moreover, to have given Notice of his Amendment, which he had not done. In consequence he (Mr. Hunt) could not immediately decide as to what course he should pursue. He would, however, promise the hon. Gentleman to give the question a careful consideration.

moved an Amendment providing for the reduction of the number of lashes which might be inflicted under the clause from 50 to 25, in order to mitigate the punishment of flogging which the Committee had refused to abolish; but which, in his opinion, was not at all necessary. He confessed he saw no reason for inflicting 50 lashes on any man, for, unless the victim was possessed of an unusually good constitution, he lost consciousness after the first 10 or dozen strokes.

hoped the hon. Member did not mean to refuse to the Navy a power of punishment which was exercised in civil life. By an Act of 1863 persons committing some offences in civil life were liable to be sentenced to 50 lashes, and surely that was not too great a punishment to hang over the heads of desperate men who, in time of war, could not be restrained by any other means from the gravest breaches of discipline.

avowed himself an opponent of flogging civil offenders as well as soldiers and sailors.

spoke in favour of the Amendment. The maximum punishment was never inflicted, and if corporal punishment was to be retained he thought the punishment authorized by the Act should be brought more into harmony with that which was usually inflicted. The old Mosaic dispensation, with its principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, was not very remarkable for leniency, yet there the amount of flogging was 40 stripes, save one, while the Bill gave that number, and 11 in addition. It should be further remembered that the punishment of flogging exercised a strong influence in deterring men from entering the Naval Service.

said, as the application of the "cat" had a wholesome effect on garotters, there was reason for retaining it in cases where men disgraced Her Majesty's Service.

denied that the crime of garotting had in any way been affected by corporal punishment.

said, it would be time enough to discuss the amount of flogging for garotters and wife beaters when that subject occupied their attention; but it was surely not desirable that our gallant sailors should be classed with those criminals. He considered that flogging ought not to be inflicted for the offences of insubordination, drunkenness, or desertion. If there was one thing which had made a great impression on him in reference to this subject, it was reading the account an officer gave of the first time he witnessed the punishment inflicted on as good and brave a soldier as ever stepped in uniform. The man had gone through the Crimean War, the Kaffir War, and the Indian Mutiny; but, because he was carried away by that desire for drink, so common to cold climates, he was lashed to the triangles and flogged in such a way that strong, healthy men fainted at the sight. He (Mr. Parnell) denied that even a garotter ought to be flogged, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would yield to the dictates of humanity and consent to this inhuman and disgusting punishment—which it was seldom necessary to inflict on our gallant soldiers—being altogether removed from the Statute Book.

pointed out to the Committee that the question had not reference to flogging in the Army but in the Marines.

thought that it was scarcely creditable to the House, when we were on the brink of a European war, to be discussing the question of the torture of our Marines. If it was necessary, in order to preserve order, to have a torture of some kind, he would suggest that Her Majesty's Government would find the thumb-screw and the "scavenger's daughter" far more efficacious than the lash. We might disguise the fact from ourselves as much as we chose, but it was evident that we were equally barbarous with our forefathers, seeing that we merely changed one instrument of torture for another, which was just as bad and more degrading than the "scavenger's daughter" or the thumb-screw. Indeed, it was a disgrace when Russia had flung down the knout that England should retain the cat.

moved an Amendment restricting the duration of solitary confinement to seven days. The other evening he took a division upon the Amendment restricting the time to three days in the Army. The Committee, however, had adopted seven days, and he did not wish to lay himself open to the charge of obstruction by proposing three days again. He, therefore, proposed that the limit of solitary confinement should be seven days, and intervals between such confinement of not less than 14 days. To many temperaments solitary confinement was a more fearful punishment than the cat, and, indeed, temporary insanity had been known to ensue. He would provide that out of each 336 days of penal servitude in no case should a prisoner suffer more than 49 days' solitary confinement.

pointed out that to agree to the Amendment after the course that had been taken upon the Army Mutiny Bill would be to make an invidious distinction between the treatment of soldiers and sailors. This he did not think the Committee would consent to do.

thought the objection made by the First Lord of the Admiralty was absurd and illogical, and that it was not because the Mutiny Bill had slipped superficially through the Committee that the Committee should refuse to entertain the Motion he now proposed.

observed that the hon. Member for Meath was prejudicing his case by urging a Motion on a subject now which had not been thoroughly considered in itself. The present was not an opportune moment for raising so large a question, and the hon. Member would do well to bring it forward in an abstract form after information on the subject had been obtained concerning it from the medical and other officers of military and naval prisons.

said he had brought forward the Motion because he believed that the prolongation of solitary confinement was a cruel and inhuman practice. The matter had been so long before the country that no further information could be required with respect to it. It was very difficult for private Members to get an opportunity of raising such questions, and entertaining the strong opinions he did with respect to it, he must press the Motion to a division.

maintained that the Bill strictly proportioned the term a solitary confinement to the length and severity of the imprisonment. That was exemplified in Clauses 21, 29, 30 and 37.

said, that the facts were not so, but he agreed with the principle stated. Where the period of imprisonment was short, the period of solitary confinement was also short; but then, where the period of imprisonment was long, the period of solitary confinement was also long. Now that was inconsistent with the principle contended for by the last speaker—that the less severe the sentence of imprisonment, the larger might be the proportion it passed in solitary confinement. It seemed to him to be very cruel to sentence a man both to a long term of imprisonment and to a long period of solitary confinement.

supported the Amendment as one required in the interests of humanity. He would remark, with reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ponte-fract, that the surgeons always reported in favour of increased punishments.

said, that in his opinion, founded on his own experience, these severe and cruel punishments instead of being deterrent, had a directly opposite effect. He should certainly vote for the Amendment. He had once ordered a man to be flogged, and he should never forgive himself; but he had known a whole ship's crew flogged. If they had a man so bad that it required him to be sentenced to seven days' solitary confinement, in addition to a term of imprisonment, they had better dismiss him the Service.

would like to hear the opinion of some medical Member of the House present in Committee on the subject. Solitary confinement was a form of torture to a Marine or seaman accustomed to active life and to the society of his messmates. Nothing could in fact be more injurious to a man's mind than to have seven days' solitary confinement, followed after an interval by a further period. He believed that the effect of solitary confinement in our prisons had been most disastrous; for when protracted, it would injure the mind of any man of active temperament. Now, although he did not wish to detract from the severity of the punishment given to criminals, he did not think it should be pushed to an extent which would have this effect. It ought to be given with such intervals as would leave the offender fit for his duties. He should, therefore, vote with the hon. Member for Meath.

supported the Amendment. That was the most appropriate time for bringing forward the Motion.

moved that in the term of imprisonment contemplated by the clause, or inflicted under it, no period of solitary imprisonment should follow another at a less interval than 14 days. As the principle of this Amendment was that which he had moved but a short time ago, he should not trouble the Committee with any observations, but should content himself with simply moving the Amendment.

moved to insert after Clause 30—

"Provided always, That the lashes aforesaid shall not be administered by any instrument save one approved and duly stamped by the Lords of the Admiralty."

asked whether the hon. Member was in Order in proposing the imposition of a "stamp" on the subject? It depended on the nature of the stamp.

observed that it was perfectly competent for the hon. Member to propose the imposition of the kind of stamp which the Amendment appeared to contemplate.

thought that the addition proposed by the hon. Member for Louth should not be made to the clause, unless it could be shown either that the "cats" now employed in the Navy were in themselves unfair instruments of punishment, or that captains used them in an unfair and unfeeling manner. Indeed, he could not but regard the Amendment as a direct slur upon the humanity of the captains of our Navy. He had not had a great deal of communication with those gentlemen; but, so far as he knew anything of them, he believed that they were humane and honourable men, and he was sure that they would scorn to take advantage of a poor wretch by using an instrument that was unusual or cruel. Of course he was opposed to the infliction of such punishment altogether; but while it remained in force he objected to such a slur being cast on captains in the Navy.

said, the hon. Member for Newry had had very little experience of this matter. The hon. Member had never seen a man flogged in his life but once under his own sentence, and to his great honour he had regretted it ever since. As he (Mr. Sullivan) understood, there were two different cats used in the Navy—one called the "thieves' cat," the other the ordinary cat—showing that it was necessary his Amendment should be adopted. He was also told that when a victim was flogged by a left-handed man that the whole thing was so botched that it was abhorrent to all who were standing by at the time. He should like to see specimens of both sorts brought into the House to show hon. Members what they were like. There was a great difference in the severity of the punishment inflicted by the two, and he had seen gentlemen of the press in Dublin who had come away from witnessing the worst form of punishment with their faces bespattered with the blood and torn flesh of the victims. ["Oh, oh!"] He was delighted to hear that there was humanity there if not elsewhere. He stated solemnly what had been recorded in the newspapers of his native city. He insisted that this matter of flogging should be subjected to the closest scrutiny. He had no objection to leave the selection of the instrument to the humanity and honour of the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty; but he objected to its being left to the caprice of any commander in the Navy.

said, that if they were to rely upon the humanity and honour of captains in the Navy, why need they fix a limit of 50 lashes? Unfortunately, they could not trust to the clemency or humanity of officers in the Navy or Army. They were human, and were as liable to be swayed by passion as other men, and were consequently capable of performing acts of cruelty. Although they had been beaten several times in divisions, he believed they were engaged in a work which would yet be of great benefit to the Army and Navy.

said, that having served in the Navy for many years, he voted for the abolition of flogging in the Navy from a conviction that it was unnecessary for the preservation of discipline. He entered the Navy at 13 years of age, and he had frequently seen three and four men flogged before breakfast, and some with the thieves' cat. The common cat had nine lines of white cord. The thieves' cat had three knots on each line, and so severe was the pain inflicted by it that it was very properly only administered when a thief was discovered on beard ship, who, he need not say, was a man cordially detested by every blue-jacket. It was his sincere conviction that the discipline of the finest Service in the world, to which he was so proud to belong, would be improved by the abolition of this accursed practice.

said, that not having had Notice of the Amendment, he had not been able to make inquiries; but he was under the impression that the cats were supplied to the Navy from the dockyards according to a certain pattern; and if that was the case the pattern must have been approved by the Lords of the Admiralty, so that the Amendment was unnecessary.

said, the less the cat was used the better, and the Navy in that respect should be put under the same rules as the Army. In that Service, the punishment of flogging could not be inflicted except upon the sentence of a court martial upon sworn evidence, whereas, as he understood, it might be still inflicted in the Navy on the order of one man.

denied that such was the case. At least two officers had to decide on the matter.

said, that it was notorious that some captains were much more severe in their discipline than others, and he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth was a perfectly reasonable one.

supported the Amendment. He thought it would have a good effect to see Members of the Board of Admiralty sitting in grim judgment upon the cat, and perhaps in playfulness trying its effect upon each others shoulders.

said, that no doubt the punishment was both a severe and disgusting one. He would, however, remind the Committee that the clause did not apply to the Navy, but to the Marines; and no Marine could be flogged except for some such offence as rendered civilians liable to the same punishment. Yet all civilians did not feel degraded thereby. Under those circumstances it would be just as reasonable to ask the learned Judges of the land to try upon each other the effects of the cat used in the common gaols.

would wish to see the punishment entirely done away with; but if the time had not come for that, he thought the object of the hon. Member for Louth would be met if the First Lord of the Admiralty would accept the proposal that there should be a standard cat adopted for the Service. It was hardly worth while for the right hon. Gentleman to oppose the Amendment, seeing that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. F. Egerton) "was under the impression" there was a pattern cat approved of by the Admiralty, and that therefore it should appear in the Mutiny Act seemed almost necessary—as, whilst this punishment was in force, it could not be contended that commanders should choose the instrument with which it was to be inflicted.

objected to the proposal that the cat should be stamped, but suggested that the hon. Member for Louth's (Mr. Sullivan's) purpose would be equally effected if the cat used were one authorized by the Department. The question might be settled by a Committee or a Board.

approved of the suggestion of the hon. Member who had just spoken, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) would adopt it. When he or his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract were in office they did not see their way to doing away with the cat, and they would not in opposition vote differently to what they did when in office.

suggested the withdrawal of the Amendment and the substitution of another proposing that the cat used should be of a regulation pattern.

thought that if the proposal made was merely to have a "cat" of the same pattern as to length and thickness for all cases, there could be no difficulty in carrying it out. In fact, that was practically done already.

pointed out that if a captain violated the Admiralty regulations by using a cat different from that sanctioned by the authorities, he could only be punished by the Admiralty; but if he violated the Act of Parliament, he would commit a crime, and render himself liable to a criminal prosecution or an action-at-law. He there- fore could not advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

said, he did not think any necessity existed for putting any words about the cat into the Bill. It was right that the cat should be of a regulation pattern, and he thought it was so; but the matter was one that could be dealt with by the Admiralty regulations, and he was willing to deal with it in that way. He could not agree to the Amendment proposed for the stamping of the "cat."

offered to omit the words "and duly stamped."

appealed to the First Lord of the Admiralty not to persist in objecting to the Amendment as it had been modified.

said, he had an Amendment to move to the clause. The clause provided that a garrison court martial must sentence a Marine to imprisonment with or without labour. He wished to point out that the clause gave him an opportunity of settling the principle, that where a long term of imprisonment is given the amount of solitary confinement should be small. He thought it was important that a man sentenced to a long term of imprisonment should not be subjected to a long period of solitary confinement. By the clause power was sought to give a man sentenced to a year's imprisonment solitary confinement for a period not exceeding 14 days, and not more than 84 days in one year, he proposed to substitute seven days for 14 days and 49 days for 84 days.

ruled that the two Amendments could not be put together.

moved to substitute seven days for 14 days.

said, the clause regulated the billeting of Royal Marines on shore, and, according to the present system, the officers were not compelled to pay for the night's lodging where they were billeted. This was a matter which affected Ireland more than England, because in Ireland the accommodation was very limited. He therefore moved to amend the clause by leaving out the words "Provided always that no officer shall be compelled to pay for the lodging on which he may be billeted."

having put the Question—

complained of the want of courtesy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty in not giving an explanation.

said, he had not risen to give any reasons to either this or the preceding Amendments of the lion. Member, because he considered they had been only proposed to obstruct the progress of the Bill. The innkeepers did not object to receiving officers on those terms, because if they did not pay for their lodgings they paid for a good many other things.

said that innkeepers in England might not object, but they certainly did object in Ireland.

gave Notice that he would take the Bill as amended into consideration on Thursday, when he hoped to be able to pass it through its final stage.