asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he can lay upon the Table any copy of a charge or address reported to have been delivered on the 18th instant to the grand jury of Deny by Mr. Justice Keogh; and, if there be no official record of that address, whether the report in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 19th instant may be taken as correct?

May I be permitted to intervene, in order to save the time of the House, and ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether it is true that the proceedings to which the charge or address referred were, to a large extent, a commemoration in honour of persons who have been tried for, or convicted of, treason or murder?

And, before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask, Whether the commemoration to which the charge refers did not take place on the Feast of St. Patrick, which has already been recognized as a legal holiday on the part of this House?

I will first of all say that there is no obligation resting upon Judges to furnish copies of their charges or judgments, nor are they in any way responsible to the Government. I therefore did not feel it my duty to make any inquiry upon this subject; and, as I have no means of testing the accuracy of newspaper reports, I had intended to have confined my reply to a statement of these facts. I, however, received a letter this morning from Mr. Justice Keogh, which, in justice to so highly-valued a public servant, I have no doubt the House will allow me to read. It is as follows:—

Sir, I have to say that the extraordinary length of the defence which has been read—["Order!"] —I am about to conclude with a Motion, and can put myself in excellent Order— a course I should not have attempted to pursue if the reading of that defence, in answer to my Question, had not been so very long, going into particulars befitting more a subsequent stage of this question than that of an answer to the House. Therefore, I regret that this has put upon me the necessity of taking a course which the House generally has an objection to pursue. I wish to take this opportunity of moving the adjournment of the House for the purpose of saying that it is not correct, according to The Londonderry Sentinel report, for Mr. Justice Keogh to say that he then referred to emblems and flags, for his words were "the commemoration of that day—a commemoration nothing but disgraceful." "The commemoration of that day" was the commemoration of St. Patrick's Day, the national festival of Ireland, which is a religious festival, honoured by Protestants. [A laugh.] I hear an English Member, whom I have the pleasure of knowing, laugh at the idea of this being a religious festival. As I said the other night, we have our religious festivals in Ireland, and we know how to observe them. But in Ireland we are not in the habit of celebrating fast-days by picnics of thousands to Epping Forest and other places. I am sorry to say that in the report of the matter now furnished, the Eight Hon. Mr. Justice Keogh has attempted an equivocation. ["Order!"] I am perfectly in Order, and if I were not, I should be called to Order by the Speaker. I will produce the report in the newspaper to which he has referred, and I will prove that the report in the paper is irreconcilable with the assertion made in his defence. He referred, according to the report of the newspaper he himself has named, to the commemoration of St. Patrick's Day, about which he said there was nothing to commemorate but disgrace, and he referred to other commemorations with glowing pride and eulogium, and said they were noble and good. Those to which he referred with praise were commemorations of the spilling of blood, perhaps most justly, in rebellion against an English King. They were deeds of war, bloodshed, and struggle; whereas the national festival of Ireland, then being celebrated, which he calls nothing but one of disgrace, was the commemoration of the conversion of our country to the Gospel and the truths of Christianity. We are not about to suffer this language to pass without challenge; and the House will have an opportunity in good time for saying whether it is conducive to the respect that ought to be paid to law in Ireland that from the justice seat the anniversary of the death of the Saint who converted our country to Christianity is to be spoken of as a disgrace. I now say the attempt to put a new colour on the statement by Mr. Justice Keogh in the letter just read to the House is irreconcilable with the words he uttered, and is only, I am sorry to say, an absolute evasion of the truth. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.

seconded the Motion.

Before putting this Motion, it is right that I should point out to the House that I have repeatedly called attention to the great inconvenience arising from moving the adjournment of the House when hon. Members are not satisfied with the answers they receive to Questions. That observation applies with special force upon the present occasion, when the conduct of an eminent Judge is called in question, not by a substantive Motion, according to the ordinary practice of the House, but on a Motion for the adjournment of the House.

Sir, I sympathize with your objection to Motions of adjournment; but I think the blame of this Motion should be placed upon the proper shoulders. Now, this is not the first time that Ministers have availed themselves of the opportunity of answering Questions to enter into debatable matter, which places hon. Members who may venture to put Questions in a very awkward position. I think the Motion for adjournment on the present occasion more excusable than any other that we have recently heard. This is not the first time that the conduct of Mr. Justice Keogh has been brought under the notice of Parliament. It is not the first time that evidence has been brought forward to show that a gentleman is permitted to occupy a seat on the Judicial Bench in Ireland who is nothing more than a religious and political firebrand. ["Oh! oh!"] I repeat the assertion deliberately. ["Order!"] Well, I presume if I am out of Order, I shall be called to Order by the proper authority. The career of this extraordinary personage may be summed up in a few words. He is a gentleman who obtained a seat in this House by the adoption of principles which, ever since he became connected with the Government, he has availed himself of every opportunity of denouncing in most violent terms. Mr. Justice Keogh obtained his seat as the champion of Catholicism.

I rise to Order. When the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) was speaking, I own I felt very doubtful whether some Member ought not to rise in his place to put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he was not entirely out of Order in a matter of this description? If he desired to challenge the conduct of a Judge upon the Bench, he should not have done it in this manner; but by a mode made to the House upon having before him the letter read at the Table of the House by the Irish Secretary. He should have moved, in the first instance, for the production of that letter. The hon. Member for Mayo, who has just spoken, will give me leave to ask him, and, if necessary, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether he can be in Order, upon a question of adjournment, to challenge the conduct of a Judge, without due notice, and describing him as nothing more nor less than a political and religious firebrand. I hope the hon. Member for Mayo will take an opportunity of withdrawing these words; for I certainly feel that expressions of this kind should not be allowed to be made without a distinct protest on the part of the House,

I am bound to say-that, in my judgment, the expression used by the hon. Member for Mayo was improper; and I consider that such an expression should be withdrawn. It appears to me that, when it is proposed to call in question the conduct of a Judge, the Member desiring to do so should take that Constitutional course which is laid down, and move an Address to the Crown.

I gladly, Mr. Speaker, withdraw any expression which you, in the exercise of your authority, declare to be improper, and express at the same time my regret at making use of it. If I had been afforded an opportunity of going briefly into the history of Mr. Justice Keogh, I think that the epithet which I applied to him would not, perhaps, have excited so much opposition. I might have quoted the testimony of one who was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; who, when certain words of Mr. Justice Keogh were once brought under his notice, said he had never heard anything which formed so distinct a recommendation to assassination as the words which Mr. Keogh used when he was utilizing the religious and political feelings of the Irish people in order to obtain a seat in this House. When he had obtained a seat, and when the Government offered him a reward, which he knew could only be the prize of his abandonment of his religious and political principles, he took it. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the many scandals which have arisen in connection with the administration of justice for which Mr. Justice Keogh is responsible, I rose for the purpose of saying that the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) was justified in the course he has taken.

I rise to Order. I venture to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is competent for a Member of this House to say of one of the Judges on the Bench that he was the cause of scandal?

I am afraid those who appear anxious to pro-coed with the ordinary Business are not going the right way to achieve their purpose. It is not my intention to speak at any length, as I shall take an early opportunity of proving every one of the accusations I have made, and then we shall see whether Mr. Justice Keogh is prepared to explain them.

If it is the intention of the hon. Member to make a Motion bearing upon the conduct of Mr. Justice Keogh, this discussion is certainly most irregular.

I wish to say one word. This morning I was in possession of a letter from Mr. Justice Keogh, in which he declares that he is perfectly prepared to meet the charges made by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), and if the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor Power) brings, as he says he intends to do, the case of Mr. Justice Keogh before Parliament, I am quite convinced there are many others, besides myself, who will be prepared to justify that distinguished Judge, and to do him that honour which he fully deserves, and show the honourable position which he holds in the feelings of the people of Ireland.

I beg to withdraw my Motion. I should not have made the observations which have fallen from me if the document of Mr. Justice Keogh had not been read at full length. I had not the remotest idea of raising a debate; but when a letter like that is read, which raises controversial matters, and which is so calculated to prejudice public opinion inside and outside the House, I felt it my duty to call attention to it.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, having regard to the frauds constantly committed by forged marks upon china, Her Majesty's Government will place itself in communication with Foreign Governments in order that manufacturers of porcelain or pottery may be compelled to place some distinctive mark thereon?

in reply, said, if the hon. and gallant Baronet would place himself in communication with the Board of Trade, attention would be paid to the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that a Consular Officer has been sent from Salonica on a special mission to Epirus and Thessaly; whether he has had any communication with the insurgent chiefs; whether any Report which he may make on the state of affairs in those provinces will be laid upon the Table of the House; whether Mr. Sandwith, along with the Consuls of other Powers, has intervened in Crete, and arranged an armistice between the Insurgents and the Ottoman Forces; and, if so, whether the text of the armistice and the Report by Mr. Sandwith will be laid upon the Table; and, whether Her Majesty's Government possess any information as to the reported release of Mussulman malefactors from the prisons of Janina and Larissa for the purpose of organizing incursions by brigands into Greece?

It is true that a Consular officer has been sent from Salonica to report upon the condition of the Provinces of Epirus and Thessaly. The mission, however, is not of a political character, but is only sent to obtain information. We have not heard whether Mr. Sandwith, the Consular officer referred to, has had any communication with the insurgent chiefs. His Report has not yet reached Her Majesty's Government, and until it has it is impossible to say whether it can be laid before Parliament. Mr. Sandwith was directed to offer his good offices between the authorities of the Porte and the insurgents. He has done so, and there is no doubt that, owing to his good offices, an arrangement has been come to between the insurgents and the officers of the Porte; but I have not heard whether any regular armistice has been concluded. We have not yet received his Report; but when it does come, no doubt it will be laid upon the Table with the rest of the Papers. We have heard from the Consul at Crete that the Turkish garrison and the Turkish governor have gone over to the insurgents, and we have also heard that there is no part of the interior of the Island of Crete that can now be said to be under the authority of the Porte. Her Majesty's Government have heard from the Greek Chargé d'Affaires that the malefactors referred to in the last Question of the hon. Baronet have been released. That report is confirmed by a Report of. the Consular officer in Greece; and Her Majesty's Ambassador at the Porte has been instructed to remonstrate with the Porte upon the subject.

asked, If it is true that a Provisional Government has been formed in Crete; and that, with the exception of two or three walled towns, the whole Island is in the hands of the insurgents?

in reply, said, the Governmenthad heard a statement to that effect from a London source, and the report had been somewhat' confirmed on inquiry by our Consular officers in Crete. Her Majesty's Minister in Greeco had been instructed to inquire. and report.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, under the special circumstances, the Treasury have consented to remit the deposit of the Bradford Tramway Company; and, whether they have laid down any, and, if so, what general rule with regard to the forfeiture of deposits?

in reply, said, the Treasury had, in the special circumstances of the case, consented to remit the deposit of the Bradford Tramway Company. For the future the Board of Trade and the Treasury had determined only to remit the forfeiture of deposits in very special circumstances, so as to give effect to the intentions of Parliament as indicated in the Amendment made last year in Standing Order No. 158, Clause B; but somewhat less stringency would be exercised in dealing with deposits made before the alteration of the Order than in dealing with those made after. It was proposed to secure due publicity for the change of practice to be adopted, by inserting a special form of words in Bills of this Session remitting forfeited deposits, by advertising in The Gazette, and by sending a Circular to agents having Bills this Session, warning them that deposits made this Session would not be treated with leniency.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Russian Government has communicated to the signatory Powers of the Treaty of Paris individually the Treaty of San Stefano; whether it is admitted by the Russian Government that each Power represented at the proposed Conference or Congress may initiate a discussion on any Clause of the Treaty of San Stefano in its relation to the Treaty of Paris, and invite the opinion of the Conference or Congress on the point; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have stipulated that the Treaty of San Stefano shall be communicated to the Powers assembled collectively?

The Russian Government has communicated to Her Majesty's Government, and, I believe, to the other signatory Powers of the Treaty of Paris, the text of the Treaty of San Stefano; and, I may add, that it will be laid upon the Table of the House to-night. With respect to a Question which has been asked, or Notice of which has been given, as to the maps, they also will be laid upon the Table; but I do not think they will be in the hands of hon. Members quite so soon. It is hoped, however, that they will be delivered to-morrow morning. With respect to the other Questions of the hon. Member, I hope that the hon. Member and the House will understand that I mean no kind of disrespect when I say that, relating as they do to matters of great importance, the communications as to which have not yet come to a close, I do not think it is expedient that I should answer them.

With respect to the maps referred to by my right hon. Friend, I may say that I gave directions that the large map should be marked with lines showing the boundaries contemplated by the Treaty of San Stefano, and that that has been done.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any recent Despatches with respect to the state of affairs in Bosnia and on the Dalmatian frontier; and, if so, whether they may be laid upon the Table without inconvenience to the public service?

in reply, said, that despatches on the subject referred to had been received; but he did not think they could be conveniently, in reference to the public service, laid upon the Table of the House at present.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has any reason to suppose that the Crown Agent for Scotland was employed in relation to the purchase of the Clockmill property?

Sir, I must apologize for a slight inaccuracy of expression in the remark that fell from me in regard to this property when the Estimates were under discussion. I should have spoken of the solicitor in Scotland of Her Majesty's Woods and Forests. It was the solicitor who was employed in the negotiations that were carried on.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the time has not arrived when the Public Business may commence at a quarter-past Four o'clock, seeing the advanced state of the Private Bill Business of the House?

in reply, said, it was an unusually early period of the Session to make the change referred to by the hon. Member, and he did not think the Private Business of the House was so far advanced as the hon. Member seemed to believe. It would be more convenient not to make the change suggested until after Easter.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any information as to the intentions of the Government of Spain with reference to the abolition of slavery in Cuba; whether the Moret Law has been or is now considered to be in operation in the island; and, whether there is any reason to believe that the measures for abolishing slavery in Porto Rico will be introduced into Cuba?

in reply, said, that more than a year ago the Government heard in an informal manner from the Government of Spain, that it was their intention to abolish slavery in Cuba; but since then they had heard nothing further on the subject.

I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has received any further information with regard to the terrible disaster which has happened to Her Majesty's ship "Eurydice" beyond that which was published in the morning papers, and which has caused such universal sorrow throughout the country?

I am sorry, Sir, that I cannot add much information to that which the country already possesses through the Press. The disaster has been a most mournful and startling one. The ship was returning home after a most useful and, as we thought, most successful cruise in the West Indies. She had arrived at the Isle of Wight, and was suddenly struck by a squall and went down. I have received from Admiral Fanshawe, the Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, a telegram dated March 25, in which he says—

"In reply to telegram 2 of this date, I hare further to report, in addition to former telegrams, that Admiral Foley has returned from wreck of Eurydice, and reports that he found mainsail sheets let go, as well as maintopsail halyards, starboard foretopsail sheet, and star-hoard topgallant sheets let go; topmast studding-sail in the act of being taken in. He is of opinion that men were on deck in the act of shortening sail. Everything seems to have drifted over to French coast. Shall I communicate with Consuls, or communication he made by Admiralty? A light vessel and buoys placed at wreck, and every precaution taken. Men clearing wreck, and in time propose taking her into Sandown Bay."

I am sorry to say that neither bodies nor men have been found in addition to those who have been picked up, and at the present moment all we can hope is that the two men who are at Bonchurch Hospital will recover. I have received a telegram from the hospital this afternoon to say they have recovered so far as to permit their leaving the hospital this afternoon, and I hope they will be in London to-morrow. I may add, Sir, that the Eurydice was an old 26-gun frigate of 921 tons. She was built by Admiral Elliot, and was commanded by his son, the present Admiral Sir George Elliot, and subsequently by Captains Ommanney and Tarleton in the West Indies. She was repaired and fitted out as a training-ship for ordinary seamen, and commissioned for that purpose in February, 1877, by Captain Hare. Her armament had been reduced from 26 guns to only two 64-pounder guns. She carried the same ballast as on former commissions, a large proportion of water —117 tons as against 102 tons—and her rig was the same as formerly. Her draft of water was 16 feet 6 inches, as against 16 feet 4½ inches formerly. It may be interesting to the House to know that the officers were specially selected for their competency and skill. The commander, Captain Hare, had been previously in command of the Boscawen, the training-ship for boys at Portland. Lieutenant Tabor had had much experience in sailing ships. He had been lieutenant of the Narcissus when flagship of the Flying Squadron, where most of the work was done under sail. He was afterwards first lieutenant of the Cruiser, training-ship for ordinary seamen in the Mediterranean, in which ship he served for three years and a-half. The other lieutenants were all selected for their promise as good officers. The crew consisted of the proper complement of officers and petty officers, who were permanent, and it was completed by as many ordinary seamen as she could carry, making in all about 300. Her complement formerly was 225. The ship had been on a cruise round the West Indies. She left England in November, 1877, so that her crew had been well practised in handling her. The wreck lies in 11 fathoms water, two miles and a-half E.N.E. from Dunnose—that is to say— off Sandown, Isle of Wight. From the examination made, it is concluded that the crew were shortening sail when the accident-happened, as the fore and main sheets were found let go, as well as the topsail halyards, and the studsails were partly taken in, I can only echo the expression of deep sorrow which has fallen from my right hon. Friend, and say that a greater disaster has scarcely ever befallen the British Navy since the unfortunate accident to the Captain.

said, that as he moved the adjournment of the debate last Thursday, he would remind the House of what the Question before it was. An Amendment had been proposed to the Motion that the Special Report of the Public Petitions Committee do lie on the Table, and that Amendment was—

"That the Report be referred back to the Public Petitions Committee, and that they inquire into the circumstances connected with the Petitions mentioned in the said Report, and make a Report thereupon to the House."

Now, it appeared to him that the question involved in this matter was a most important one. Two different views of Petitions might be taken. One view might be that they were altogether worthless, and to be considered as nothing more than waste paper. He was not going to take that view of the matter, though he did not say that it might not be attended with great convenience, and save a good deal of trouble. Moreover, if it were desirable that the House should take that view, they would know exactly where they were. But, on the other hand, it seemed to him that if they were to have Petitions sent to that House at all, they should secure that they really were what they professed to be. He thought that there were good grounds why the Petitions in question should be referred back to his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster) and his Committee, that they might make a further investigation into them. He would simply content himself with stating the facts which, he believed, could be proved if these Petitions were referred back to that Committee. In the Special Report, 12 Petitions from Dublin were reported upon; but there were in all 120 of these Petitions, which, he believed, upon inquiry, would be found to be mainly in the same handwriting. That was a strong fact to begin with. But, in addition to the Petitions presented from Dublin, there were 17 from Naas, the signatures to which would be found to be in a similar handwriting to that in which those affixed to the Dublin Petitions were. Then these Petitions were devoid of addresses. It was found that there were 93,000 names appended to these Petitions which purported to come from Dublin, and of that number there were only about 500 which had any addresses at all opposite to them. Now, out of these 500 names to which the addresses were appended, inquiries had been made into 39 of them, taken at random; and the result had been that no less than 22 had been found to be cases of forged or fictitious addresses. That was a pretty strong fact. But the remarkable thing was that there were 93,000 signatures to these Petitions from Dublin, and, according to the Census of 1871, there were only 79,000 male inhabitants in that city. But, besides that, there were another 25,000 persons who had given their addresses, but who had petitioned in the contrary way, which made the number of 93,000 even more extraordinary than it at first appeared; and when they remembered that there must be a great number of people who could not write, it became still more extraordinary. These were the facts upon which he grounded his support of the Amendment that these Petitions should be referred back again to the Public Petitions Committee. But he did so upon this further ground — that this was a most important and peculiar case. It was one, where, perhaps, it was more necessary than in any other that they should have a strict investigation into this matter; because these Petitions had been presented in reference to a Bill on which public opinion had been challenged. The opponents of the Bill in question told that House last Session that they believed the public opinion of Ireland was against it, and that if they had time they would take means to prove that statement. The House knew that there were only three important ways in which the state of public opinion could be arrived at. One was through the Press, another through the agency of public meetings, and the third by means of Petitions presented to that House. With respect to the Press, he found that there were only two daily papers in Ireland which were against this Bill, while all the others were in favour of it. As to public opinion, as expressed by public meetings, their opponents had been able to hold only 8 or 10 such meetings in all Ireland; whereas, as many as 100 had been held in favour of the measure. Now, it should be remembered that this was not the first time that a question of this kind had arisen. Three years ago a similar matter was brought before the House, and his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Public Petitions Committee (Sir Charles Forster) then told the House that there had been great irregularity, although they did not think they would be warranted in proposing to the House the adoption of any strong measure on that occasion. Under all the suspicious circumstances of the present case, it was due to the House, and still more to hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Bill, that these Petitions should form the subject of further inquiry. He was quite sure that those hon. Members who had based their case upon them would be the first to support the Amendment.

said, he would venture to say a very few words upon the subject. It seemed to him that it was of the highest importance to that House that they should guard, in every possible way, the right of petitioning; and certainly nothing could be more important towards guarding that right than the exercise of proper vigilance to prevent it being abused, and the right of petitioning itself suffering from the abuses to which it might be exposed. Now, undoubtedly, the Committee on Public Petitions had only reported to that House two cases of forgery out of a very large number of signatures; but, still, it was not always easy to discover the cases at first sight, and it was quite possible that there might be reasons why there should be a more full investigation into the circumstances connected with these Petitions. Under these circumstances, and considering the importance of not appearing to trifle with what was a most serious offence— namely, attaching false signatures to a Petition—he thought that the House would do well to assent to the Amendment, in order that the Committee, if they were willing to undertake the duty, might inquire into the circumstances connected with these Petitions, and make a Report upon them.

said, he should like to know why they should depart, in this instance, from what he understood was the usual practice with reference to Petitions to which were attached signatures that were not genuine. He understood that the more usual practice was to discharge such Petitions. As only two signatures out of 686 had been found to be forged, he did not think it was desirable that a Public Committee of that House should be charged with a roving commission to inquire into the genuineness of a large number of signatures. If it were proved to the satisfaction of the House that even one signature had been forged, he thought that by far the simpler plan would be, as he had said, to discharge the Petition. Because, if the Committee were to sit to inquire into this matter, they would be asked to hear a very large amount of evidence, and thus a considerable portion of the Session would be consumed in a futile investigation. He did not think that the House ought to allow such a battle as that of Sunday closing in Ireland to be fought out upon Petitions in a Committee upstairs. Again, he would ask whether the more usual practice was not to discharge the Petition by rescinding the Order that it do lie upon the Table?

remarked that, on the part of the opponents of the Bill, he was prepared to support the Amendment on condition that all Petitions, both for and against the measure, were inquired into. He would show the House that it was not alone to Petitions against the Bill that fictitious names had been signed, but to Petitions in favour of it. He held in his hand affidavits to prove that people whose names appeared to the latter had never signed them. He found from the Report that there were two names which appeared to have been forged out of 96,000. But the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had told the House that there were 22 forged and fictitious names. The hon. Member had, however, mixed up the 20 that were fictitious with the two that were forged, and had thus made it appear to the House that there wore a large number of forgeries. He thought it would be very unfair if the House, by its Committee, were only to inquire into the Petitions against the Bill, and not into those for it. He need not tell the House, in reference to Petitions emanating from a large city like Dublin, and laid out, it might be, in 15 or 20 different places, how easy it would be for any smart man to go and put down any names he wished on these Petitions. And, perhaps, the House was not aware that the advocates of Sunday closing had most of the smart men in Dublin in their employment. Not that he said they would send a man specially for that purpose; but he was himself surprised that the names of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Lieutenant, and even of the Recorder, were not put down against the Bill. He would tell the House what he knew of a Petition which had come from his own neighbourhood. He knew as a fact that a Petition had come from his neighbourhood signed in the names of two children, one being an infant in arms, and the other being only four years old. Yet those two names were signed in favour of this Bill. He would ask the hon. Baronet and the House whether they considered that a case of forgery? It was not fictitious, for the children were there; but one was 12 months and the other four years old, and they were both put down as students. He had seen another Petition from his own neighbourhood, and he knew there were certain signatures to that of persons who could neither read nor write. A lady who had put her name down, when asked why she had done so, replied that a man came and continually annoyed her, and at last she told him that she could not write, think- ing to get rid of him, whereupon he said he would write the name for her. Another man, who had been very much annoyed by being asked to sign a Petition in favour of the Bill, had said in excuse that he would rather sign nine times than submit longer to these impertinent people. He knew how a great many of these Petitions were got up— it was by people who belonged to the Moody and Sankey class. A Petition had been sent to a school in his county, and a large number of signatures were got up in favour of it; but upon inquiry he found that, although it was supposed nobody under the ago of 16 signed the Petition, yet 60 per cent of those above that age in the school could not write their names. No doubt that was a strange statement to make, and he confessed he was ashamed of it; but he could prove every word of it. It was for such reasons as these that he asked the House to refer the whole of this question to the Committee, and not merely one side of it. He wanted both sides to be dealt fairly with. They had heard about the Dublin Petition, and he held in his hand two affidavits, duly stamped, in reference to that Petition. The following wore copies:—

"County of the City of Dublin, to wit—I, Patrick Flood, residing at 2, Queen Street, in the city of Dublin, shopkeeper, do solemnly and sincerely declare that, to the best of my recollection, about the 1st of February, 1878, a man called at my shop with a Petition in favour of the Bill at present before Parliament, known as the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, and requested me to sign the same. I say I peremptorily refused to do so, and ordered the man to leave my shop. I say I have been informed and believe that my name appears as one of the signatories to the said Petition. I positively say I never signed any Petition in favour of the said Bill, and that I never authorized any person to do so on my behalf. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of an Act made and passed in the sixth year of his late Majesty, &c, PATRICK FLOOD. Made and subscribed before me, a justice of the peace for the said county, at 30, Now Road, this 24th day of March, 1878.—H. O'RORKE, J.P.

"County of the City of Dublin, to wit—I, Patrick Timmons, residing at 35, Bridgefoot Street, in the city of Dublin, shopkeeper, do solemnly and sincerely declare that I never signed any Petition in favour of the Bill at present before Parliament, known as the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, and never authorized any person to do it on my behalf. I am informed and believe that my name appears as a signatory to a Petition in favour of the said Bill. I believe my name was signed thereto by my wife, Margaret Timmons, but the same was done contrary to my wish and without my authority. And make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, &c.— PATRICK TIMMONS (x), his mark. Made and subscribed before mc, a justice of the peace for the said county, at 30, New Road, the 24th day of March, 1878.—H. O'ROBKE, J.P."

The Committee on Public Petitions had reported that there were only two forgeries out of 90,000 names in the Petition against the Bill, and he thought that fact did not afford sufficient ground for referring the Petition back to the Committee. At all events, it would be most unfair if there was to be inquiry into the character of Petitions on the one side, and they were not to have inquiry into the Petitions on the other. He courted the most public inquiry into the whole matter.

considered that much of the responsibility in this case rested with the hon. Members who presented the Petitions. An hon. Member presenting a Petition need not necessarily join in the prayer of it; but when there was any apparent exaggeration in connection with the signatures appended to the Petition, he ought to take some responsibility in regard to it.

said, what the Committee on Public Petitions desired to do was to carry out the views of the House; and, therefore, if this Motion was agreed to, and the Petition remitted back to the Committee, they would be prepared to undertake the duty assigned to them. It had been said that the proper solution of this question would have been to have proposed to discharge the Order for the Petition to lay upon the Table; but the Committee, in the first instance, were restrained from taking that course, because, in spite of a few forgeries, the Petition was otherwise very largely signed. The Committee were quite alive to the importance of suppressing fictitious Petitions; and although, as the matter originally stood, they did not think it right to propose to take any farther action, yet if the House now entertained a different view, the Committee would willingly carry out any wishes which they might express.

said, it was very desirable, in order that the people of Ireland might be kept right in regard to this matter, that the whole of the Petitions—and not those merely referring to one side—which had been presented during the present Session, should be referred to the consideration of the Committee. He would not go so far as to say that they were to examine into the whole of the Petitions; but if the whole of them were referred to the Committee, they could exercise their discretion and deal with those which it appeared desirable to investigate.

said, the argument that the Petitions of both sides should be referred to the Committee seemed, at first sight, very equitable; but, upon consideration, it would be found that there was no argument to support it. What might fairly be asked was, that all Petitions which the Committee had reported as being irregular should be sent back to them; but this proposal went beyond that, and asked that Petitions, in reference to which the Committee had made no Report at all, should be referred back to thorn. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) had said a good deal which would, no doubt, be excellent information for the Committee, and might induce them to report against other Petitions; but as yet the Committee had not so reported. It had been stated that there were only two forgeries out of the 90,000 signatures. It should, however, be remembered that there were only 500 addresses set forth, so that in the rest of the cases they could make no specific inquiry. What they did was to take at random 32 of these names and addresses, and out of these they found two absolute forgeries, and irregularities as regarded the others. If they were to go over the whole 500 names having addresses, he had no doubt they would be able to satisfy his hon. Friend that there had been a large manufacture of signatures. He spoke a little sorely on this subject, because his own name had been forged to a Petition against the Bill, together with the names of some 30 to 40 other advocates of Sunday closing in Ireland. The signature of his own name by the promoters of these anti-Petitions was certainly no oversight, though the Secretary of the Dublin Licensed Victuallers' Association had come forward and stated in a letter to the newspapers that a Mr. Andrew M. Sullivan had signed the Petition. Unfortunately, however, for' his friends, the A. M. Sullivan who signed the Petition put M.P. after his name. The names of Mr. Alderman M'Sweenoy, and other prominent public supporters of Sunday closing, were also forged to the Petitions against the Bill. Let the House remember that they had only appealed to thorn as a last resort; because this was not the first, or the second, but it was the third occasion when this kind of thing had happened; and they now asked that an effort should be made to find out who the parties were who had been committing such a breach of the Privileges of the House as that of manufacturing signatures to Public Petitions.

said it appeared to him that difficulties of this kind would arise whenever a great public question was before the country, and the best way would be to require in future that there should be appended the ad-dross of every person who signed a Petition. In this particular case, the large proportion of signatures had no addresses attached to them; and he believed it would be very useful if the Committee were to recommend some such alteration as that which he had just suggested. The hon. Member (Mr. O'Sullivan) had said that some person signed the Petition because he wished to get rid of the man who solicited him. That reminded him of the Irish lady who, after being proposed to 17 times, accepted her suitor for the purpose of getting rid of him.

desired to say a few words, because these Petitions had emanated from Dublin. He opposed the Bill to which they referred, and he told the House, if they wished to maintain an attitude of total impartiality, they must not be content with sending back the Petitions of one side, but must remit, also, those which had been presented on the other. The working men of Dublin conceived that this Bill was intended to restrict their liberties; and great dissatisfaction would be created if the character of the Petitions which had been presented in favour of the measure was not investigated as well as that of the Petitions which had been presented against it. Being in favour of an impartial and full investigation, he should like to move an Amendment that all the Petitions on the subject of the Bill should be referred to the Committee.

wished to point out that there was an Amendment now before the House, and until that was dis- posed of, it would not be competent for any other Amendment to be proposed.

thought it would be extremely unfortunate if this question was considered simply as regarded Petitions in favour or against a particular Bill. The House ought to consider the matter upon entirely different grounds. In this case, there was no doubt the Privileges of Parliament had been infringed, and it might have occurred in reference to other questions than that of the closing of public-houses in Ireland on Sundays. The Committee on Public Petitions had reported that a Petition had been presented which contained certain forgeries, and it would not be consistent with the respect due to themselves, or to the Privileges of Parliament, if they were to allow a Report of that nature to pass without some notice. Let them deal with the question entirely apart from the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, or any other Bill. It was a question which involved principles far beyond Sunday closing in Ireland; it affected the due expression of public opinion in this country on every subject; and if they were to allow such irregularities as these to occur, they would interfere with one of the most important Privileges of the House. If the Committee, acting within their province, could recommend any course which would prevent a recurrence of these irregularities in future, he hoped they would do so. The hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) seemed to think the affair was a trivial one; but he (Mr. Rylands) considered a very grave offence against Parliament had been committed, and that it was not sufficient to remove the Petition merely from the Table. They must endeavour to make people more careful as to the way in which they got up Petitions. He believed he should be supported in saying that whenever there was a large agitation in connection with any public question, the opponents of a Bill got up opposition Petitions at the instance of some wire-pullers in London and elsewhere. Now this was a danger which they were anxious to avoid in future, and it was most important that they should endeavour to protect this great right on the part of the people.

said, the House ought to confine its consideration to those Petitions respecting which the Committee on Public Petitions had made a report. The hon. Member (Mr. O'Sullivan) had read two affidavits not referring specifically to those Petitions, and on those affidavits he had urged that all the Petitions for and against the Bill should be referred to the Petitions Committee. It seemed to him that this would be imposing upon the Committee a very heavy and serious responsibility; and he thought the proper course for the hon. Member to adopt would be to move that the Order relating to the Petitions to which the affidavits referred be discharged, on the ground that they contained forgeries.

said, it-seemed to him they ought to consider the question immediately before them, and not enter into a discussion of other matters. The Committee had reported that there were forgeries in two Petitions; and, as regarded 10 others, a certain number of addresses were either such as did not exist, or were not the addresses of the persons they purported to be. The question was, whether they should be content with this Report, and take no further action; or, whether they should agree to an Amendment which had been moved, that the matter should be referred back to the Committee for further consideration? He confessed that, to his mind, a case for further reference had been made out; because this subject affected the whole question of whether future Petitions were to be looked upon as worth anything or nothing. These Petitions purported to be signed by 90,000 working people in Dublin; whereas the whole total male population of that city, he understood, was only 70,000, and it was known a considerable number of these had already petitioned in favour of the Bill. This was an allegation which pointed to a very large number of fictitious signatures; and it seemed to him that if they were to consider Petitions as expressing any opinion at all, sufficient had been said to prove the importance of sending the Petitions under consideration back to the Committee for a further inquiry and Report. As he understood the matter, the Committee had not, up to the present, gone into the particular allegation of forgery which was levelled against these Petitions. But, then, some hon. Members wished the House also to remit for inquiry certain other Petitions to which, as they said, fictitious signatures had been appended. There could be no doubt that inquiry as to such Petitions would be perfectly proper if they stood in the same position as the Petitions concerning which the Committee had already made a special Report. But they did not; and until the Petitions Committee reported, in reference to the second set of Petitions, the House could not, in his opinion, take any action in regard to them.

said, there was some fallacy lurking in the minds of hon. Gentlemen as to the way in which the Dublin Petitions against the Bill had been got up and signed, and also as to the persons whose names were appended. It seemed to be forgotten that there was a county as well as a city of Dublin, and that the Petitions emanated not from the city alone, but from the whole of the metropolitan district, which included Kingstown, Rathmines, Pembroke, and other smaller places. He would, therefore, move to amend the Amendment, by adding the words after the word"Report"—

"And all other Petitions presented to the House during this Session for and against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill."

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Eorster) had stated that there would be good ground for urging that the Petitions in favour of the Bill should be referred to the Committee when primâ facie grounds had been made out in support of the statement that they bore forged or fictitious signatures. Was the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that two affidavits had been read to prove what he desiderated as a preliminary to inquiry was actually the fact? In addition to that, he had himself received innumerable complaints from residents in Dublin, to the effect that their names had been apended to the Petitions without their consent.

said, the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Brooks) had urged in support of his Amendment the fact that the signatures to the Dublin Petition against the Sunday Closing Bill, were not confined to the city, but included the county and the whole metropolitan area. He thought it would be in the recollection of the House, that when the hon. Member presented the Petitions, he claimed for them that they were solely signed by the working men of the city of Dublin. He would remind the House that, according to the Census of 1871, the whole male population of Dublin over the age of 15 years, including the soldiers in the garrison, was only 70,000; yet it was said that' over 90,000 signatures of males were appended to the Petitions presented to the House by the hon. Member for Dublin. They had been told, over and over again, that the Irish people were opposed to the Sunday Closing Bill; but if the feeling of the people was to be judged by the so-called working-men's Petition from Dublin, there could be little doubt concerning it. He was, however, inclined to think, after all, that it would be the better course for the House to discharge the Petitions, and pass the Bill in the present Session, than to put extra work upon the Petitions Committee by referring the Petitions back to them.

said, he could not understand the grounds on which the hon. Member for Dublin had moved his Amendment; because the Motion before the House had no particular reference to the Sunday Closing Bill, but related simply to certain Petitions concerning which the Committee had made a special Report. The question really was whether certain Petitions, with regard to which the Committee had reported that forgery had been committed, should be further inquired into or not, and this had no connection with any particular Bill before the House. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) had mentioned the case of another Petition to which certain forged signatures had been appended. Why, instead of mentioning the fact now, did not the hon. Member bring the circumstances to the knowledge of the Committee on Petitions? If he did this, and the Committee were of opinion that the case was one for a special Report, he had no doubt they would make such Report and that the House would at once deal with it. As far as he was concerned as one of the promoters of the Sunday Closing Bill, he should have no objection to the fullest possible investigation with regard to any or all of the Petitions; but the Petition should be first reported against before the House would deal with it.

assured the House of Commons that, if this proposition were agreed to as it stood, the idea would necessarily go forth, both in England and Ireland, that something approaching to injustice would be the result. So far as he could understand the matter, it was now quite rightly proposed by the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Brooks) that the whole case—or both sides—should be fully heard and investigated. He ventured to say, moreover, that the proposition made by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was got up by what he might call "The Teetotal Anti-Petition Party." He disagreed with the statement that this movement had emanated from the wage-classes of Ireland, either as expressing their wishes, or as having any spontaneity about it; for they must all be aware— at least he cared not who knew it to be his (Mr. Wheelhouse's) firm conviction —that this movement was one got up nearly, if not absolutely wholly, by Teetotalers and Sabbatarians, and that the entire thing emanated from a certain class of people who held Teetotal views. Besides, it was perfectly well known that, on certain occasions, there were men who were engaged, day by day, occasionally, in obtaining signatures to Petitions such as those in favour of this Bill, who, having possessed themselves of a tub or a barrel—he did not know which they called it in Ireland — pens, ink, and paper, were paid a certain sum for their day's work, or for the number of signatures appended. He, therefore, was convinced that, unless the whole of this matter, on both sides, was fully presented to the notice of the Legislature, the idea he had named would not only go forth, but would be alike strongly and correctly entertained by the public at large. All he wished and all he said was, let the Petitions on both sides be examined, and then they would see the precise value of this kind of petitioning—or rather, of a fashion, which came very close to something that might be called "manufacturing Petitions."

said, the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) entirely misapprehended the question before the House, which had nothing to do with the merits pro or con of the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. The question was simply whether a Report of the Committee on Public Petitions should or should not be referred back for further inquiry. The Committee had already presented a Report; but it appeared to him, as to many other hon. Members, that further information, which could only be obtained by means of further inquiry, was necessary.

entirely agreed in the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson). The only object the House could have in view in referring the matter back to the Committee was to protect the Privileges of the House in the matter of Petitions, and not to raise in any way, either directly or indirectly, the question of the strength of Parties upon this particular question. In the course of the discussion, the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) had brought forward an argument which, on the one hand, was a strong additional reason for referring the question back to the Committee, and, on the other hand, furnished matter for a further inquiry which it might be necessary to make. The two affidavits which the hon. Member had read to the House showed the necessity for further inquiry as to the matters already reported upon; because it showed, presumptively, that there had been forgery of signatures on both sides. If the hon. Member would bring the matter of his affidavits before the House in the proper and formal way, he had no doubt that the Committee would inquire into it; but the present was not the proper occasion for so doing. He would, therefore, suggest that the hon. Gentleman should consult with the Chairman as to the proper course to be taken, and he had no doubt that all he wished in the way of inquiry would be done.

said, that unless the Petitions on both sides were examined by the Committee, a feeling would inevitably arise that justice was not being done by Parliament on a question to which considerable importance was attached. He was perfectly well aware of the fact that some people were paid so much per hundred for signatures to a Petition; but he would ask the House to remember that whereas on the Motion of the hon. Member for Dublin they had only a verbal statement, in his possession was a sworn affidavit of two persons to state that their signatures had been appended to the Petitions without their consent. The House must also recollect that this was a piece of class legislation. ["Order, order!"]

It is right I should point out to the hon. Member that he should confine himself to the question before the House.

remarked, that he did not intend to go into the merits of the Bill.

said, that in view of the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should withdraw his Amendment.

asked whether the Secretary of State for War would take this opportunity of stating the course he intended to pursue, with reference to the Bill? There were some points in it which required to be altered, while it contained clauses which had now become obsolete. One related to the billeting of the Guards in Westminster. That was entirely obsolete, seeing that there were two large barracks, and in all probability that system would not again be resorted to in that part of London. Then there were the clauses referring to the punishment of officers and soldiers for going out without leave. The clause which gave courts martial the power of inflicting corporal punishment on soldiers was contradicted by Clause 72, which said that no court martial could subject any soldier to corporal punishment. Two of the most important recommendations of the Royal Commission, which sat in 1869, had not been carried out; one was that the power of imprisonment given to commanding officers should be extended from seven days to 21 days, and the other was that cases of embezzlement which were not tried by the Civil Courts should be relegated to military tribunals. Last of all, there were cases of desertion. He would be very much gratified if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would inform the House as to the mode in which he intended to constitute the Committee for the revision of the Mutiny Act, and also what were the powers which would be entrusted to it?

said, he had intended, on the postponement of the Preamble of the Bill, to have made the explanation now called for; but the present moment was quite as opportune. It would be remembered that last year Sir Colman O'Loghlen had called his attention to the necessity of revising the Mutiny Act, and the question had also been considered in the time of his Predecessor by the War Office, but no conclusion had been arrived at. It seemed to him an extraordinary objection to make, that the subject was not a proper one to be referred to a Select Committee, as the Bill must go through a Committee of the House; and, when it was appointed, what he proposed to do was to submit to the Committee, through the Parliamentary draftsman, the draft of an efficient and practical measure thoroughly sifted by the legal and military authorities. When revised by the Committee, it would then come before the House with the additional weight of their authority. It was quite true that in some respects the Mutiny Act did require revision; and, for one thing, he thought it very desirable that the Committee should take into consideration the best mode of dealing with the question of its annual renewal. There were many portions of the Act which did not require annual renewal. The points which had been adverted to by the hon. and gallant Member might also be fairly considered by the Committee. There was not, however, time for inquiry this year, as it was essential that the Bill should be passed by the 25th of April; and he appealed to the House, as there would be full opportunity at another time of bringing forward Amendments, to take the Bill this year without Amendment. For this reason, he had himself put down no Amendments, as he had thought that any Amendments which might be proposed by the War Department should go before the Committee, along with those which hon. Members might desire to make on their own account. Next year, after the Bill had been before a carefully - selected Committee, it could receive whatever discussion the House might think proper to give it, before coming to a conclusion, for the permanent government of the Army. The poaching clause was designed to prevent officers taking game wrongfully when they were located where it was preserved, even though they had certificates, and he did not think that clause exposed officers to any hardships; but this question, and the expediency of relegating trials for embezzlement to civil tribunals, might safely be left to a Select Committee. With regard to the question of deserters, that was one which must be carefully considered, and a Committee would be able to investigate the different forms which desertion took. He thought that the number of men who wore at present imprisoned for offences which were not of a disgraceful character was excessive; and it would be an advantage if they could be sent to some useful employment, and kept, of course, under strict discipline, instead of being sent to prison. He trusted they might strike a Committee which would give satisfaction to the House, and to those most interested in the amendment of the Mutiny Act.

remarked, that it was satisfactory to know that the Mutiny Act had at length engaged the attention of the authorities at the War Office. As far as he was aware, it had never been the practice to submit the provisions of an Act of Parliament for consideration to any other tribunal than a Parliamentary Committee. There was one point to which he wished to direct attention. The Commission, which in 1869 inquired into the subject of courts martial, recommended that when non-commissioned officers were reduced to the ranks, and subsequently, in consideration of their good conduct, re-instated in their former position, they should not forfeit any advantage they might have derived during the time they had been non-commissioned officers. That was a point which should receive attention, for one of the great difficulties with which they had to contend in the Army at present was to get good non-commissioned officers. Great consideration should also be given to all the provisions in this Bill which affected these officers. He wished to make an appeal to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gal-way, who had an Amendment on the Paper. He understood that another Irish Member intended to move some 40 Amendments; but he hoped that it might turn out that he had been misinformed. He thought that the wisest course to pursue would be for the House to go into Committee at once and pass the Bill through, and defer the consideration and discussion of Amendments until the Act was referred to the Select Committee. He would, therefore, earnestly appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for Galway not to persevere with his Amendment.

said, he could not withdraw his Amendment, as when he had done so on previous occasions the Government had ignored the question altogether. He was sure that before long the country would agree with him on the matter; and, therefore, as he should lose his chance if he did not bring it forward that evening, he could not adopt the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

thought before the Speaker left the Chair the House should be asked to realize the position in which those who desired to oppose the Bill were placed by the present stage of the Bill. An hon. Friend who desired to offer some Amendments was told the other night at the Table that he could not put them down, as the Bill was not marked for Committee. Considering that the second reading was taken unexpectedly at 12 o'clock on Friday night, no opportunity had been offered for putting down Amendments. This was very much to be regretted; because those who heard the protracted discussions on the Mutiny and Marino Mutiny Bills last year must be aware that considerable feeling existed in the country as to the present state of the law for the punishment of soldiers and marines. The Secretary of State for War recommended that they should at once go into Committee, and then out of Committee to pass these Bills. He stated that in future the Bills would be left to a carefully selected Committee, and that the House was not expected at any time to go minutely into the character of these Bills, as they came from the hands of persons skilled in the working of martial law. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) could only say that the condition of the Mutiny Acts, as they had existed for the last 40 or 50 years, was certainly not calculated to inspire confidence in any persistency in what the right hon. Gentleman would call the dual course. They had found that any attempt to improve these Bills, except by full and ample discussion in the House of Commons, had not been successful. If they went into Committee, he should be inclined to propose 11 or 12 Amendments. So far as words went they were very simple; but they were all in the direction of those reforms which they called for last year, and which were resisted by the right hon. Gentleman. He did not intend to refer to the case of the military prisoner, whose sudden death after his release created such deep public feeling in Ireland. He observed that the morning papers expressed a hope that they had heard the last of the case, but they had not heard the last of it. When the hon. and gallant Member for Galway had an opportunity of calling attention to the subject, he would be able to show that it was a very serious case, and that the inquiry which took place with regard to the ill-treatment of M'Carthy, who wasamili-tary prisoner, could not be looked upon as a satisfactory inquiry. Some years ago, when an inquiry arose as to the treatment of O'Donovan Rossa, and two other prisoners, two police magistrates were appointed to inquire as to whether O'Donovan Rossa had been handcuffed for 35 days in prison. The gentlemen hurried back with a Report that the statement was utterly unfounded. Later on the Government were obliged to appoint a Royal Commission, and their Report stated that it was perfectly true that O'Donovan Rossa had been handcuffed for 35 consecutive days. These Motions were fully discussed last year; and he, for one, fully expected that the right hon. Gentleman, during the Recess, would be able to devote some of his valuable time to the suggestions then made, and that the Bills introduced this year would have come before them with several of these barbarous provisions eliminated from them of which they complained—provisions in respect to flogging and prolonged solitary confinement. It would not be fair to omit reference to the statements of our military prisoners who had just been liberated. There was the case of Thomas Chambers, who had published a statement of the punishments which were inflicted. Before quoting that statement he would remark that, as the law now stood, there appeared to be no distinction made as to the offences for which soldiers were imprisoned. Insubordination and theft were offences differing widely in their character, and yet there was no distinction to mark the degree of irregularity involved. In these offences the only distinction was that for a certain class of offences you got a moderate punishment, and that for more serious offences you got a severe punishment. Insubordination had not attached to it the same moral stain as drunkenness or theft, and he contended that some distinction ought to be made. Soldiers convicted of insubordination pure and simple should not be made to herd with soldiers convicted of the more criminal and disgraceful offences—of theft and drunkenness. He also referred to the statement of Thomas Chambers, who averred, among other things, that he was refused permission to see either a Catholic priest or a Protestant clergyman. There never was a time when Her Majesty's Government should be more anxious to attract to the Army men who were not the scum of the great towns, and who from their high spirit were not unlikely to be guilty of offences which did not involve the moral stain which attached to those with whom they would, if imprisoned, be compelled to herd. Unless the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War showed that he was fully alive to the necessity of altering the existing state of things, great disappointment and dissatisfaction would be felt amongst the Army and Navy.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the recent Correspondence from South Africa, which had been laid on the Table, to the recommendations of Sir Arthur Cunyng-hame and Sir Bartle Frere, that the local forces should be placed under the Mutiny Act?

said, that in the case of the Cape such a provision would be inoperative, that Colony having its own Legislature, with which it rested to make such a regulation.

observed, that some years ago a clause was inserted in the Mutiny Act under which a soldier was rendered liable for the support of his wife and children. As the Act now stood, however, that provision was practically nullified by a subsequent one. Now, as the Mutiny Bill was to be submitted to the consideration of a Committee, which he had no doubt would be carefully chosen, next year, and as the question to which he referred would, as a matter of course, be submitted to that Committee, it would, he felt, be a waste of the time of the House to enter further into the subject on the present occasion.

complained of the advantage taken by the Government in reading the Bills a second time on Friday night, when many hon. Members were under the impression that they would not be proceeded with until the time fixed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The practice of pitching Bills headlong into Committee prevented hon. Members maturing their Amendments. He himself did not see the utility of waiting for the Eeport of the Committee when many of the anomalies were so apparent that they ought to be removed at once. He would suggest that, as there were many hon. Members who took an interest in the provisions of the Bill, the Committee upon it should be postponed until Thursday next, especially as the Government might proceed with the Civil Service Estimates at once, and no time would thus be really lost.

thought the Government had not been well advised in pursuing the course which they had followed in regard to the Bill, and expressed his disapproval of the policy of submitting questions of great public importance to Private Committees. The Bill had attracted considerable attention for some years past, and it was impossible to discuss the Amendments to the Bill until those Amendments were on the Table. There had been an unfortunate misunderstanding as to the course of procedure on Friday; and many hon. Members were under the impression that the second reading of the Mutiny Bill was not to be taken on that day, but on Monday. It would greatly facilitate the progress of Public Business to go into Committee now as a matter of form, and then report Progress, with the view of taking the discussion on Thursday.

explained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer never intended to mislead the House. He had been asked what would be the Business for Monday, and he replied the first thing taken would be the Mutiny Bill, moving the Committee, as the second reading was on the Orders for the night on which he made the statement.

observed that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer fixed the Mutiny Bills for Monday, many hon. Members were under the impression that they would not be taken on Friday.

said, he wished to propose an Amendment to the clause on page 2, to leave out from line 13 to the end of the clause. An exception was made there that the Mutiny Act should not in any way control the decisions of the Indian Government. In fact, the Government of India was left almost perfectly free to make provision of the nature made by this Act for the Indian Army; but they were exempt from the control of that House and of Parliament. One of the provisions of the Mutiny Act said—

"Provided, also, that nothing in this Act contained shall affect any Articles of War enacted or in force under the authority of the Government of India."

So that, in regiments commanded by Native officers, reference was to be had to the Articles of War framed by the Government of India. He did not think it was desirable that the Indian Government should get complete authority in this matter, and therefore he would move the excerption of this provision from Clause 1.

said, that the Department of War in England had no control over Indian forces—Natives of India. Therefore, it would be a most improper thing for them to legislate for an army of which they could not know anything and could not take under their own control. The Viceroy made Articles of War for the regulation of the Natives. With regard to English soldiers in India, those came under the Mutiny Act.

remarked that the Indian Government paid these soldiers; and, of course, if they paid these soldiers, it was necessary they should control them. It would be a monstrous proposal if the hon. Member understood the question he was dealing with; but it seemed to him that the hon. Member utterly misunderstood it.

said, there could be no doubt that at present and for past years the situation in India had been as represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War; but he did not know that that was any reason for maintaining the existing provisions. He took it that if that House wished to extend the provisions of its own Mutiny Act to the Native Army in India, this House of Parliament would have quite sufficient authority fully to carry out their intention. It was hardly true, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken (Colonel Mure) had said, that the Indian Government paid for the Indian Army. Taking it as more exact that the Indian people did pay for that Army, the question was whether this House, having certain respect for Constitutional rights and the liberty of the subject as parts of our great traditions, and being desirous of protecting those traditions—the question was, whether this House would not be a much better judge of the rights of Native soldiers in India than the Government of India? It was said that this House knew nothing about the condition of its Native Army in India. If this were so, and the authorities of this House and the Government did not know enough of the Native Indian Army to be able to lay down some principle of rule in dealing with Native soldiers, it must be extremely difficult for some gentlemen or noblemen whom the Government chose to send out there as Governor General, and who could have only five years' experience of a country of 200,000,000 of people. It would be very strange, indeed, if these gentlemen could know so much more of the wants of the Native Army than this House, which had opportunities of obtaining information from the accumulated experience of many generations. Besides, many events had happened to shake the confidence of the House in the good government of these gentlemen. He might remind the House, also, that, on general principles, the officials and the Government in India were much less suited to deal in the last resource with the Natives of India now than they were some time ago. The mere economic changes, the mere progress of science and invention, had rendered the Government in India much less suited to deal with such important Indian questions as the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had raised than former Governments and former officials in India. Gentlemen in India no longer looked upon India as a second home. They no longer thought of spending their whole lives there. They were no longer bound up with the people of India in the manner they used to be before rapid passages by steam enabled them to run home so often that they never formed any abiding tie with India. They always possessed more of the home feeling of Englishmen than of the Indian feeling of Indians in the sense of fellow-countrymen. If he were to remind that House of something very startling, he could only throw in a distant way a light on the present situation. But he would beg to remind the House that, under the military authority exercised in India during the Mutiny, severities were practised by Indian military authorities, the undying effect of which had been to embitter the races of India against English rule. He was quite sure that a good effect would be produced if the government of Indian military matters was subject to that House. There would then be no more of those frightful butcheries and blowing away from cannon, which alienated the population from military rule.

rose to Order. He thought these allusions were rather beside the subject at issue, and did not come within the scope of the Mutiny Bill.

It is no part of my duty to say whether the arguments of hon. Member for Dungarvan are reasonable; but it appears to me he is not out of Order in discussing the punishment inflicted on mutineers in the Indian Army under a clause for excepting India from the jurisdiction of the Mutiny Act.

said, it was, of course, no part of his object to unduly fetter the hands of the Indian Government in case of emergency. That being granted, the concession did not exonerate that House from what he considered to be its duty in exercising such political control over the forces in India as would ensure for the Native soldiers in the Army in India that regard for the fundamental rights which was the birthright of every subject of Her Majesty. At present, this clause expressly exempted from the presumably humanitarian and just provisions of this Act the entire Native Army of India; and he did not think that at this time of day the House could allow that to pass with- out very considerable protest. The division between the European and Indian inhabitants of India was quite sufficiently broad and deep, without any artificial distinction of this kind being created. If, in the course of the discussion of this Bill, the Government could give any reasons for this exemption, he, as a Member of the House, would be ready to take these reasons of the Government into consideration. The Bill asked the House to exempt the Natives of India from the benefits of this entire Mutiny Act.

rose to Order. This was not an Indian Mutiny Act, and yet they were discussing Indian troops who were not under this Act.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman appears to be not aware that the present clause lays down the exemption of the Indian Army from these Acts, and the observations of the hon. Member appear to me to be pertinent to that question.

observed, that the hon. and gallant Member was under a misapprehension as to the scope of this Bill which had just been corrected. It seemed to him that the Government should show the necessity for exempting the whole Native Indian Army from British legislation. Some effort should be made to equalize the rights of subjects of Her Majesty who happened to be in England, Ireland, or Scotland, and the same subjects of Her Majesty who happened to live in Bombay, Madras, or Bengal. Military administration in India produced a military catastrophe which was very nearly depriving Her Majesty of her Indian Dominions. Yet 20 years had been allowed to pass without subjecting the Indian Army to a proper Act. Hon. Members who recollected the utter incapacity of officers on Indian affairs during the Indian Mutiny would not, he hoped, be so completely misguided as to hand over the Army unchecked to the Indian Administration. On the grounds of common sense and public justice, he could see no reason why this exemption should be maintained. He hoped the Government would give some intimation of its intention to render the provision less sweeping, and would say that it did not intend to hand over the entire control of the Native Army in India to supreme officials, who were more ignorant even now than many Members of that House. He would not say that such a proposal was ridiculous; but it would be as nearly ridiculous as anything could be that was uttered by an hon. Member of that House. The gratitude of India would not be gained by this indifference to the rights of her people.

said, he would not have risen but for the remark that the Mutiny was due to military incapacity. He merely rose to defend that military system and those officers, and to give them credit for the way in which they overthrew that Mutiny. It was not necessary to go into discussion; but he should be sorry if any remark in that House went to show that the House did not appreciate the services of those officers. It should be remembered that the Rules for the Army were not laid by officers, but by the Governor and Council and the Commander-in-Chief, by whom military affairs were thoroughly well discussed. This Mutiny Bill was made at a time when there was scarcely any Indian Army, and never was intended, even in a small degree, to apply to the Army in India. If separate clauses were to be introduced into this Bill for the Army in India, the Mutiny Bill would have to be much larger than it was at present. He could not but think that the remarks of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. O'Donnell) were out of place. When the Mutiny Bill was first passed there was scarcely any Indian Army, and what troops there were in India were under a separate jurisdiction and a separate military system. If regulations were introduced into all the clauses to meet the case of the Native Army in India, the Mutiny Bill would become three or four times longer than it was now.

said, it was the duty and the privilege, and it was also to the interest of England, that the penal laws imposing punishments upon the Native soldiers in India should be as moderate as possible. If a small sprinkling of civilians were added to the Military Council, it would temper their decisions with moderation. The use of unnecessary severity would tend to alienate the Indian soldiers from the interest of this country; but it seemed that the sole object of hon. Gentlemen connected with the Army was to make the Service as unpopular as possible. The most un- reasonable and absurd rules had been imposed upon the Native Indians; and, at times like the Indian Mutiny, scandalous severity, such as blowing from guns, was used. The Indian officers acted as if they had not, in a very high degree, the honour of England at heart, but thought more of gratifying their revenge.

observed, that the regulation of the Native Indian troops was a subject upon which the House might fairly legislate. The Mutiny Bills for the Army and Navy had been introduced year after year with little alteration; and, if the matter were undertaken, there would be little difficulty in framing laws for the Native Forces in India similar to those provided for British European troops in all parts of the world. It was necessary that there should be some provisions for the preservation of discipline in the Military and Naval Forces. But when they came to consider the position of the people of India with regard to the question, there was necessity for a very careful and cautious application of the Mutiny Acts to them. By the clause in question, the House handed over the right of dealing with these very serious matters to the Governor General and Council. The recollection of the manner in which the Indian military authorities suppressed the Mutiny must be in the minds of all men; and, though the gallantry of the European troops was incontestable, yet there was no justification for some of the retaliatory measures adopted by them. Such punishments were not authorized to be inflicted on European soldiers by the Bill; yet the Indian officials were empowered by it to impose any punishment they pleased on the Native troops. The House would fail in its duty if it neglected that opportunity of providing for the proper maintenance of military discipline in India. He begged to support the Amendment, and hoped the question would receive the attention of the Select Committee, which, he understood, had been appointed to consider the whole matter.

had heard nothing from hon. Members, either on the Treasury Bench or elsewhere, which could induce him to abstain from going to a division upon this question. He knew well from experience that his following in the Lobby would be but small; but he was willing to bear the odium of the minority, as he considered that the arguments he had raised had not been fairly answered on the other side.

said, the Mutiny Act was most fully debated last Session. The Secretary of State for War had also promised that a Select Committee should be appointed to go thoroughly into the whole subject of the administration of military law. Under these circumstances, he thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite, might leave the matter to be dealt with when the proper time arrived. He might mention, for the information of the House, that the Indian Mutiny Act was a more lenient one than that enforced in this country. As an instance, corporal punishment was done away with in the Indian Army in 1832 by Lord William Bentinck, more than a quarter of a century before the same course was adopted, in the English Mutiny Act. In other respects, also, the discipline had not been so severe, which, in the opinion of many officers, was one cause of the Mutiny in Bengal.

was quite unprepared to say whether the Mutiny Act should be applied to India without having a great deal more information on the subject. India was one of the countries held by conquest, which was not represented in Parliament, and whose condition could not be considered at the same time as that of England. He did not at all know that, considering caste and religion, the present Mutiny Acts would be at all applicable to India. If the Amendment were pressed, he should not vote for it; and it would have been much better if the subject could have been adjourned until Thursday, when Members could have had Notice of the Amendments that were to be proposed.

remarked, that at the time of the Indian Mutiny the European troops rather erred on the side of mercy. In his opinion, the Amendment proposed was a mere piece of obstruction.

said, that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had referred to India as a conquered country, and had given that as a reason why the same Constitutional law could not be applied there as was enforced in England. The same argument would apply to Ireland, which was as much a conquered country as India. He submitted that what had just fallen from the hon. Member for Galway was entirely inconsistent with every utterance he had yet made in the House. The course which the Government had taken in pressing the Bill into Committee was exceedingly inconvenient, and did not afford opportunities for discussing the principles of the measure. Moreover, the second reading was taken unexpectedly on Friday night. He hoped the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) would press his Amendment to a division.

had always understood that Ireland was not a conquered country, and that, therefore, she would not submit to the laws which were imposed upon conquered countries. He should understand that Ireland was in the same position as India, when he found India returning Representatives to Parliament. It was unreasonable to ask that the crude notions of hon. Gentlemen with regard to this Bill should be applied so as to affect the position of the Native Forces in India.

was unwilling to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mayo, but wished strongly to deprecate the language used with reference to it by the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew (Colonel Mure). As he understood the language used, it amounted to this—that he would consider the Amendment worthy of his attention if the hon. Member for Mayo understood anything about the question; and he further added that he looked upon his proposition as monstrous. That was not the first time language of a similar character had come from the same quarter; and it would tend to raise a good deal of obstruction to the progress of the Bill. Though personally he could not support the Amendment, he felt bound to say that, so far as he had seen, the hon. Member for Mayo never spoke on a subject that he did not fully understand. If the Ministry felt flattered by the support of the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire, he, for one, feared they made a mistake.

said, the only object of proposing the Amendment was to point to what the framers of it believed to be defects in the Bill.

remarked, that it was unfair to ask the House to apply the present Bill to India, without first explaining what was the present state of the law in India.

said, that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. -Mitchell Henry) did not appreciate the scope of the Amendment. What the hon. Member for Mayo objected to was not the existing state of the Indian law on this subject, but the withdrawal of the military law from the cognizance of Parliament. He could not conceive why the hon. Member for Galway deserted his own principles in this flagrant manner. The hon. Member objected to different races being mixed up under the same rule; but that hon. Member was in the constant habit of urging Irish Members to seek to extend to Ireland Bills adopted for England. It was quite certain that England would never give any other country better laws than she adopted for herself. It might, therefore, be assumed that the Indian Mutiny Act was worse than the English law on the same subject. Having denounced the conduct of the English authorities in the suppression of the Mutiny, in regard to blowing from the guns, in condemning condemned men to act as hangmen and otherwise, the hon. Member said that these things rendered it necessary to supervise closely the conduct of the Indian military authorities. With every admiration for the military virtues and conduct of our troops in India, it was necessary to take precautions against the repetition of cruelties such as those he had mentioned. It was most important that they should extend, both to the English Army in India and to the Native Army, those improvements in military administration and the administration of military justice which had been introduced into the Mutiny Act with reference to the English Army at home. The provisions of the Mutiny Act had lately been adapted to the Colonial Forces in South Africa; and he did not see why that in this case it should not also be extended to Ma-hommedans, Radjpoots, and Gourkas. If they could pass over diversities of race in South Africa, he did not see why they should regard them in India, in regard to subjects of the Queen, serving under the same flag. The exception of India from the operation of this Act was inconsistent with the general extension to the Army of the Queen.

said, that he had heard no reason yet why the Mutiny Act should not apply as well to soldiers in the Indian Service, as to those who were in our Home Service. It would be a wise measure if there were one and the same military law for India and for the United Kingdom, and he should support the Amendment unless he heard some good reason why different laws should prevail in the two countries. He was surprised, also, why this Bill should have been forced on by, what he would not call "sharp practice" on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, but by what he considered an undue exercise of a course that he could not commend. The conduct of the Government last Friday was one that was open to observation. It was perfectly well known that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had an Amendment on the Paper, to which both he and other Members attached importance. In his temporary absence, without any notice, and to the surprise of everyone, the right hon. Gentleman had suddenly carried the second reading of the Bill, and had thus got it smuggled into Committee without debate. If this had not been done hon. Members would probably have been more inclined to give way. At present they felt that they had not been fairly treated. Hence, they felt that they were fully entitled to use all means, not of obstruction, but of legitimate opposition. He himself was opposed to this clause on the broad ground that the time had come when the people of India, military as well as civil, should be legislated for in the same manner as the people of England; nor could there be any real loyalty in India until this was so. The people of India had not the same boundless faith in the Indian Government which might be desired. On the contrary, he believed that the whole of Hindostan was at this present moment in a state of hidden disaffection, if not of smothered rebellion, and that it only waited for the right hon. Gentleman to be at war with Russia for that feeling to break out in a dread explosion. Our insolence, our injustice, our tyranny in Hindostan would produce fruits of blood. He was sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) speak of India as a "conquered country." Without expressing any opinion as to how that may have been, he hardly thought it wise, just now, to anger the Natives by thus wounding their pride, and reminding them that they were slaves. Language of this kind, impolitic conduct, and perhaps gross ignorance of the East Indian Government, coupled possibly with Russian intrigue at the bottom, had forced India into revolt before; and our present management of that great Dependency was well calculated to do the same again. He repeated his belief that the right hon. Gentleman had brought the whole of this opposition on himself by smuggling the Bill through as he had.

deprecated the tone in which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Dr. Kenealy) and the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had approached the consideration of this measure. The only conclusion he could come to upon hearing their remarks was that they had not mastered the A B C of the question. So far as there was anything like consecutiveness or relevancy in the remarks made by the latter hon. Member, he gathered that he believed our Indian Forces were excluded from the operation of this Bill because they were subjected to a code of discipline heavier and more severe. But exactly the reverse of this was the case. The soldiers in our Indian Army were in a totally different position from the rest of our Forces; and if their opinion were asked upon the matter, it would be found that about the last thing they would propose would be to be brought under the operation of this law. The regulations under which our Indian soldiers served were in all respects more lenient, more genial, and more paternal than those applied to English soldiers; not because there was any invidious distinction between soldiers serving in India and England, but because, from the industrial conditions of the two countries, it was found that while here we had difficulty in maintaining the number of our soldiers at the proper complement, the state of civil life being so prosperous; whereas there, there was not seven, but 14, men waiting to enlist upon the occurrence of every vacancy for a private soldier. A good deal of unnecessary excitement had been expended by certain hon. Members upon this Bill, not, so far as he could see, by reason of any concern they might have in its merits; but because, by a lapse of their own, they found it necessary to explain to their constituents why, although the second reading of the Bill was taken at an early hour comparatively on Friday night, they were not in their places to raise their promised debate. But that was not the reason why their Amendments were not now received by the Committee—the Amendments themselves were utterly impracticable and without weight.

felt bound to express his obligations to the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) for the attention with which he had condescended to notice the part he had taken in the debate. Doubtless the hon. and gallant Gentleman, not having placed his sword at the disposal of the Emperor of Russia, thought it right to occupy his leisure in lecturing Members for Irish constituencies upon the position they should assume in matters coming before that House. He would not say, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member's statement, that laughter was the fitting answer to him, or that "empty laughter betokeneth the empty mind;" but he would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the manner in which he had contributed to the debate would not be likely to raise his character for calmness and statesmanship. The fact was adduced that there were many candidates for every vacancy in a regiment in India. But one of the reasons which was more than suspected to lie at the bottom of the applications for service in India was the increasing desire of the warlike caste to pass through that very efficient school of military skill and science—the British Native Army of India. If hon. Members would consult some of the most recent works on military administration in India, they would find that men desired to pass through the Native Army of India, because, having done so, they were eagerly sought for by Native Potentates, who gave them high positions in their armies. A dangerously large element in the Native independent armies of India was composed of men who had entered our Service for the purpose of qualifying for service with Scindiah, Holkar, and the Nizam. It was said the administration of India was of a paternal character; but that was simply the smooth word for arbitrary government, which was one of the very things from which they desired to relieve the Native Army of India. Why was it that Colonial and Native Forces in our Dominions in other parts of the world, composed of races as diverse from our own as any represented in India, were to be brought, or might be brought, under the operation of the Mutiny Act, when the Natives of India were excluded from it? This was not all. The British officers in the Native regiments could appeal to a different code of law, and be tried by a different procedure, from those applicable to their brother officers of a different colour. Thus, officers of British birth were separated by this exclusive legislation from real comradeship with their brethren in arms. Native officers complained of this discrimination, and he appealed to them to remove the complaint by removing the grievance.

said, he did not know what right the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) had to set himself up as lecturer or monitor-general to Members of that House. Neither his military nor political position entitled him to do so. He presumed to attack Gentlemen who were no place-hunters, who were not political adventurers, nor hunters after mean and miserable promotion. On the contrary, they were persons of honour, of independence, of patriotism; and they were as proud of hating Russia as the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland was of being her devoted admirer. Yet the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland had presumed to warn them as to what their constituencies would do when the Election time came. He knew a little of Sunderland, and he conveyed a similar warning to its Member, whose constituents, he believed, were considerably disaffected towards him, and would let him know what they felt at the proper time. The course which he had pursued with reference to Russia had excited a feeling of disgust among his constituents which he would find to his cost at the next Election. The language used in that House by the hon. and gallant Member showed what sort of persons were in the Indian Army, and what they might do there, when they thus spoke here.

The hon. Member must know that he cannot, on the Question now before the Committee, use language impugning generally the personal character of officers in Her Majesty's Service.

said, he was not impugning the character of officers in Her Majesty's Service; he merely spoke-of the language which had just been used by the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland.

The hon. Member has used language which appears to be disrespectful to the general character of the officers of the Indian Army. I must require the hon. Member not to repeat that language.

said, he was sorry if he had been out of Order; but he must maintain that the whole conduct of the officers of that Army during the Indian Mutiny was calculated to do the greatest possible injury to the interests of British rule in Hindostan. ["No, no!"] The hon. and gallant Admiral called "No." Perhaps he had not studied the subject very deeply. The hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland had followed the assertion of the hon. and gallant General the Member for Brighton (General Shute), that the Indian Mutiny Law was milder than our own; but he had offered no proof of that extraordinary statement. For his own part, he could not credit it. And if it were true, to what did it amount? Why, to this— that our own soldiers were so much worse than the Native soldiers that they required more severe, stern, and cruel discipline. A worse censure on English soldiers could not be passed. This debate was not calculated to serve us in the East. When he was interrupted he was about to show how the people were insulted in India, as exemplified by the language of the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland—language which did not certainly come from any great military authority; for although the hon. and gallant Gentleman bore a great name, he would pardon him for reminding him that he was only a very small shadow of that great name. The arguments which had been advanced in this discussion had, he might add, received no answer from the Treasury bench, whose occupants were greatly mistaken if they thought that they derived any particular honour or advantage from the peculiar style of oratory, or the services of the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland.

did not think it necessary to take up the cudgels for the Services assailed, for they re- quired no defence at the hands of anyone. Nor would he follow the hon. Member (Dr. Kenealy) further, than to say this. The hon. Member (Dr. Kenealy) assumed to know the feelings at Sunderland. He had reason to know something of them; for on a late occasion he encountered a reception there which proved to be the harbinger of many similar receptions he had met with all over the country. He (Sir Henry Havelock) was never prouder of the people of Sunderland than when they thus treated the hon. Member according to his merits. As for himself, believing that he understood his constituents on this question, he should meet them with pleasure whenever it was necessary.

said, that on Thursday last he entertained apprehensions that the engagement entered into on behalf of the Government would not be kept. On Thursday night he went to the Clerk of the House, and asked that official to take some of his Amendments in Committee.

interposing, said, the hon. Member for Meath had not thought it inconsistent with the duties of an hon. Member to say that he understood and felt that the Government would not keep an engagement which they had made. He denied that the supposed engagement was made; but if the hon. Member for Meath used such language, he must call upon the Chairman to put an end to it.

said, he had not understood the hon. Member for Meath to say so. If the Chairman's recollection were the same as his own, he would ask him to rule that the Secretary of State had not sustained his point of Order.

observed, that the hon. Member who had just spoken desired to raise a different issue from that which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman, rising in his place, objected to certain words which appeared to him to impute a deliberate breach of faith to Her Majesty's Government. He thought the words used would bear that construction, and in any such sense he must require the hon. Member for Meath to withdraw them.

wished to know whether it was out of Order to attribute a breach of faith to Her Ma- jesty's present Government, or whatever Government might be in power? His recollection served him perfectly, and he could state that the noble Lord now at the head of Her Majesty's Government had repeatedly, in his hearing, attributed in that House deliberate breaches of faith to the Government in the conduct of the Business of the House. He had heard the noble Lord do this over and over again.

said, he could offer no opinion on the matter just referred to by the hon. Member for Galway. He desired to point out, however, that if any language wore used attributing a breach of faith to any Gentleman in that House it was out of Order.

objected altogether to being placed under the disadvantage of having his point misunderstood. His hon. Friend did not attribute any deliberate breach of faith to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. His hon. Friend spoke of the Government, and of the Government only. To say that the Government itself had not kept faith with the House was a totally different thing from saying that a particular Member of the Government had been guilty of a breach of faith. There was a great distinction to be drawn between a Government and the individual Members of which it was composed. His hon. Friend said he believed the Government had no intention to keep their promise to give him facilities for the discussion of this Bill. In his judgment, there was in this nothing personal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War.

said, the hon. Member for Galway might take his own view of what was insulting. The hon. Member for Meath had said that he (Mr. Hardy) had personally given an engagement, and he added that he foresaw it would not be kept. He took that as an insult. He was perfectly satisfied with the position in which the matter stood, and he now asked that the debate might be proceeded with.

observed, that in stating the reasons why his Amendments were not upon the Paper, he explained that he felt apprehensive on Thursday last that the engagement would not be kept which he understood the Govern- ment had entered into in reply to a Question put by him early in the Session to the Secretary of State for War. That engagement, as he understood it, was that the Government would afford an opportunity of discussing the principle of this Bill on the second reading. The right hon. Gentleman now stated that he never entered into such an engagement. That being so, of course he had nothing more to say on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had the best right to interpret his own words, and, of course, he must now consider that the right hon. Gentleman did not enter into the supposed engagement.

said, he must point out to the Committee that the language used by the hon. Member for Meath was of a somewhat ambiguous character. It was interpreted by the right hon. Gentleman as conveying a direct personal affront to himself. For his own part, he was of opinion that the words did not necessarily bear that construction. The Committee would remember that, when appealed to on the subject, he placed the matter before the hon. Member for Meath in such a manner as to afford him an opportunity of disavowing any intention to give personal offence. He understood that the hon. Member for Meath did make this disavowal.

said, he did not give an engagement that the Bill would not come on on Friday last. It came on at a quarter-past 11 o'clock—? not a time unsuited for discussion—and it must be borne in mind that he was not responsible for the Bill not being discussed.

asked, whether he must understand that no such thing as a breach of faith on the part of an English Government was possible? Let the Bill about the Transvaal last year answer that question.

remarked, that the matter had resolved itself into a difference of opinion between the Secretary of State for War and himself. He did not think a quarter-past 11 was a right time to bring on such a Bill as this on a Friday night.

said, it was admitted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Mutiny Bill would be taken on Monday. It had been explained to-night that the right hon. Baronet meant that it would be taken in Committee on Monday. But surely, when hon. Members heard it announced that a Bill would be taken on Monday, they had a right to assume that the second reading would be taken on that day.

I said the Mutiny Bill would come on to-day—that was, of course, in whatever stage it happened to be.

was referring to this subject, when—

said, the question raised on the point of Order was as to certain words which had been used by the hon. Member for Meath. It was out of Order to discuss answers given by different Members of the Government.

said, it was not quite clear how far the Militia would be affected by this clause, even when they were not actually embodied. It appeared to him that it was very injudicious to include the Militia in a clause of this character, and to place them under the provisions of this Bill. He therefore moved the omission of the words "or the Militia," the effect of which Amendment would be to exclude the Militia from the operation of the Bill.

hoped the Secretary of State for War would give some explanation of the meaning of this clause, which, he believed, was introduced for the first. time last Session. He did not see much objection to the clause if it only extended to the Militia when they were embodied.

called attention to the fact that a large number of persons who were practically civilians — store directors, surveyors, draftsmen, storekeepers, veterinary surgeons, medical storekeepers, apothecaries, and other non-combatants —? were apparently included in the provisions of the Act. He wished to know whether this ought to be the case, and whether such persons ought to be under the ordinary laws of the Army in time of peace?

said, the persons referred to were parts of the Army just as much so as the combatants who were engaged. He might add that these persons would feel themselves aggrieved if they were not so regarded.

said, he noticed that the clause applied to all soldiers who were enlisted in distant parts of the Empire with the exception of India, and he wanted to know why they also were not included?

replied that wherever Her Majesty's officers raised a contingent abroad they were treated as parts of the Regular Army, just in the same way as though they were English, Irish, or Scotch.

could not see why the same rule should not apply to the Native troops employed in the Indian Army.

wished for information as to the exact powers of the Maltese Army, enlisted and enrolled on the Island. He asked this mainly in view of officers in that force being chosen to sit upon courts martial.

replied that the officers in the Maltese regiment, whose pay was provided for in the Parliamentary Estimates, were members of the Regular Army of the Queen to all intents and purposes. It followed, therefore, that any officer in the Maltese regiment was perfectly competent to sit as a member of a court martial.

moved, in page 6, line 8, to omit the word. "seven," in order to insert the word "five." The hon. Member said, his object was to reduce the number of officers who should form a court martial. He thought a court of five would be sufficiently large to meet all the ends of justice, and that a court so constituted would be much less expensive than a court of the larger numbers. The appointing officers to courts martial, also, had the effect of withdrawing them from their regimental duties, and the regiments suffered in consequence. This was the more important by reason of the fact that many of the regiments were short of officers, owing to the working of the depot system, which had disarranged the whole service of the Army. He thought it ought to be left to the Generals in charge of districts to fix the number of officers at either five or seven who should form district courts martial, such determination to be fixed in accordance with the number of officers who could be spared.

opposed the Amendment, as being one which had simply been drawn in order to relieve officers from some of their duties which they found rather onerous and disagreeable. He did not know what officers would do in time of peace if they were not employed in looking after the discipline of the Army. He protested strongly against any diminution in the number of the tribunals before which the gallant fellows who served the Queen should be tried, and by whom they might be deprived of liberty and degraded in rank. It was found convenient to empanel a jury of 12 men for the trial of a civilian charged with a criminal offence, and he saw no reason why a soldier should be tried by a jury of five without a Judge. The Amendment was a reactionary one, and was altogether opposed to the principles of modern reform.

also opposed the Amendment, on the ground that the powers given to garrison and district courts martial were too wide to be exercised by a smaller number of officers. He should certainly have thought the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) would have striven rather to increase than to diminish the number of a court martial.

did not think the private soldiers would be aggrieved by the fact that they were tried by a court smaller in number than seven. It had not been the custom of late to include young officers in courts martial; and it was not, therefore, necessary to put on old and experienced officers to instruct them in their duties. To decrease the number of officers would save much trouble and expense, and would also set many officers free for the instruction of the men.

called attention to the number of successive days on which solitary confinement might be inflicted upon offending soldiers, and moved, in page 9, line 8, to omit the word "seven," in order to insert the word "three." The effect of the Amendment would be to render it impossible to inflict solitary confinement on more than three successive days.

was sorry he could not accept the Amendment, particularly at the present time, when it was intended to refer the whole subject-matter of the Bill to a Select Committee. What was called solitary confinement, he was informed, as it used to exist, existed no longer. The prisoners were kept in separate rooms; but persons were admitted to them for all kind of purposes, and they were not kept in extreme solitude. All he could now say was, that the provisions in regard to discipline would be under the General Prisons' arrangements.

said, this had not been done at present, although the regulations under the Prisons Act had been issued. There was also a considerable difference between solitary confinement inflicted as the consequence of a court martial, and the same class of punishment when it was inflicted for a breach of prison rules. If the punishment was to be similar to that inflicted in penal-servitude establishments, it would be very severe indeed. Mr. Michael Davitt, who had recently been released from penal servitude, had given an account of his experiences, which showed that except a prisoner was, physically, very strong, he could not endure the punishment without suffering terribly in health. One solitary spell of such discipline inflicted for a single offence was vastly different from several spells of seven days' each, with only seven days of interval, extending over a long term of imprisonment or penal servitude. He hoped the Select Committee which was to sit upon the question would carefully consider the matter, and would see their way to making some humane suggestions which might prove acceptable to the Secretary of State for War. He would, therefore, suggest as a temporary means of settling the question, that there should not be more than seven days of solitary confinement in any period of 28 days' imprisonment. This would, he thought, be a sufficient concession, without substituting, as it had been proposed to do, three days for seven as the period for which solitary confinement could be inflicted.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would postpone the clause, in order that an inquiry might be made as to what was the real nature of solitary confinement; because the right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that this punishment was not what it used to be, and that it was not by any means of so severe a character as some hon. Members seemed to suppose. But, on the other hand, his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell), who had made himself acquainted with this subject, stated that solitary confinement meant solitary con- finement as it was ordinarily understood—namely, absolute seclusion in a cell, with bread and water for diet, and without the prisoner seeing any human being except the person who brought him food. That description did not accord with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of the nature of the punishment; and if his hon. Friend's account was correct, surely the right hon. Gentleman would admit that three days was quite a sufficient period for such torture as that. This question of solitary confinement had been thoroughly investigated in America, at the instance of philanthropists, and it had been given up there, because the severity of the punishment drove so many prisoners into insanity. If it was the fact that the sentence of solitary confinement meant a solitary cell, water, and 15 ounces of bread for each day, and no communication with a human creature, he put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether that was a punishment which he would wish to be prolonged beyond three days? Under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the postponement of the clause.

observed, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mitchell Henry) seemed to suppose that there had been no inquiry upon the subject. The fact was, that he had, as Secretary of State for War, made inquiry of the Director of Convict Prisons, who informed him that, for a very long time, what was called "solitary confinement" was really not different from the punishment of the other prisoners, with the exception of the exercise being taken alone, and not with the other prisoners. He understood the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to refer to the punishment for prison offences, with which this had nothing to do. He had not made inquiry into the punishment for prison offences. The sentences given by the courts martial were treated separately.

referring to the last remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, reminded the Committee that flogging was one of the punishments inflicted in convict prisons. The object of the clause was to enable courts martial, in addition to the term of imprisonment, to determine that that imprisonment should partake of solitary confinement. He could not accept the statement of the Secretary of State for War exactly as the right hon. Gentleman had given it. His reason for not accepting that explanation was, that he had himself been to see the cells at Chatham, where prisoners had been recently confined. During his visit there, his attention was drawn to one of the cells. "Solitary" was the term applied to those cells, and they had been accurately described by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), with this addition—that the cells were almost completely dark, the windows being covered over, save a few perforations in the iron shutter, through which very little light indeed was admitted. Courts martial might not only order a man to be flogged, but they could also add this most extraordinary and painful solitary confinement described by the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell). The Secretary of State for War had stated that he would undertake that the punishment should be carried out according to the Prisons Act passed last Session, or in compliance with the Rules framed under that Act. Those Rules had been recently printed; and, for his part, he must confess, after looking over them, that he had no confidence in the Home Secretary's desire to introduce rules on this subject. After all the discussions which had taken place in the previous Session, the Prison Rules laid on the table of the House afforded no guarantee whatever, to his mind, that the punishment of solitary confinement, whether in the Army, Navy, or anywhere, could be safely regulated according to the principles embodied in the Rules. Therefore, he thought he and his hon. Friends would be justified in taking the opinion of the Committee on the question. This clause was of a most serious character, for it provided that offenders might be ordered to be kept in penal servitude for any term not less than five years, or to suffer a less term of imprisonment with or without hard labour or with or without solitary confinement. Take the case of a military offender. He was sent to Chatham, for instance. The sentence was five years' penal servitude; but the court martial said a portion of the time should be spent in solitary confinement. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman would admit that it was fair to assume that solitary confinement at Chatham would be carried out according to the practices and rules of that prison. If so, the inference was perfectly clear that the solitary confinement contemplated in this clause was of a very severe and painful character. If the Committee had before them a list of the number of men who had been driven mad from the effects of this punishment they would be astounded. The only word in the English language that fitly expressed this kind of punishment was"torture"—it was a system of torture, which he, for one, strongly denounced; a system which neither reformed the criminal actually brought under it, nor deterred the intending criminal. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had not yet seen his way to the adoption of an Amendment which would meet the views of the Committee on the subject.

said, the statement of the Secretary of State for War, that solitary confinement did not, in fact, mean solitary confinement as ordinarily understood, was, to a certain extent, less unsatisfactory than might be expected. The Secretary of State for War did not seem to know what was the treatment received by soldiers and marines who were sentenced to solitary confinement. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that he had been assured by the Director of Convict Prisons that it meant separate confinement—that the treatment was that which prisoners received who were sentenced to separate confinement. In the Rules laid on the Table by the Home Secretary, there were not any relating to penal servitude establishments, and the Committee were, therefore, entirely in the dark as to what this particular treatment really was to be, when a prisoner received sentence of solitary confinement. Members were entitled to the information. Would, therefore, the Secretary of State for War lay on the Table Copies of the Rules which regulated the treatment of prisoners sentenced by courts martial to periods of imprisonment accompanied by solitary confinement? When such Rules were laid on the Table, the House would have an opportunity of considering them. If the right hon. Gentleman would assent to that course, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) would not object to withdraw his Amendment. They knew some instances of the effect of the treatment of which they complained. One example was the case of Gunner Charlton, who was sentenced to solitary confinement, whose feet were bitten off by frost, and who afterwards died in the streets—a victim of this kind of punishment. The Committee knew, also, what solitary confinement meant as a punishment for breaches of discipline; but they did not know what it meant as part of the sentence of a court martial under this Bill. That was the information which they wanted.

said, the Committee seemed agreed on this point, that solitary confinement was too severe if the punishment extended over a lengthened period. Therefore, it was suggested that the period should be diminished, if solitary confinement meant what was ordinarily understood by the expression. If, on the other hand, it meant, in this instance, only separate confinement, that entirely altered the question. The Committee ought to be distinctly informed what solitary confinement really was in the present instance. Probably the period defined by the Act of Parliament was a very proper period for separate confinement, as explained by the Secretary of State for War; but many hon. Members agreed that the term was too long for solitary confinement, taking that expression in its common acceptation. Therefore, it was only reasonable that the right hon. Gentleman should give clear information on the point, and set the minds of hon. Members at rest.

suggested that, if the description of solitary confinement, as given by the right hon. Gentleman was correct, the difficulty might be met by simply substituting the word "separate" for "solitary."

asked the right hon. Gentleman to explain the distinction between separate and solitary confinement. How could they justify solitary confinement, as described by hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, for seven days, during which time the prisoner was entirely separated from all human society, and fed with 16 ounces of bread and water every 24 hours? At Chatham it meant being incarcerated in a dungeon, into which light was admitted only by a small aperture, so that the prisoner was not only half-starved, but kept in darkness for a whole week. The state of the case, however, was rendered far more lamentable when they were told that the tendency of solitary confinement was, after a certain time, to induce insanity. In America solitary confinement had been discontinued for that very reason. He joined in the appeal for the postponement of the clause until some investigation was made into the subject. In every county in England lunacy and insanity had been on the increase; whether that fact was due in any way to the number of prisoners kept in solitary confinement he did not know; but he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, on the grounds of humanity, to consider the request now addressed to him. The right hon. Gentleman would suffer no loss by allowing the matter to be deferred.

could not agree with the hon. Member who had last spoken, that he would lose nothing by delaying this matter until the Report of the Committee. On the contrary, from the view which appeared to be taken of this Bill by some hon. Members, he did not know that he had a moment to spare in pressing it on. Therefore, instead of postponing any clause of the Bill, he thought it would be necessary for him to ask the House to take some steps for an extra Sitting, in order that the Bill might be passed in time. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), he was sorry that he could not accede to it. There was no such term known in prison regulations as "separate confinement." He had made careful inquiry as to the mode in which these prisoners were dealt with who were subjected to what was called "separate confinement." They were not, as some hon. Members seemed to suppose, shut up alone in their cells and left entirely to themselves; but were treated, visited, and fed in the same way as other prisoners. They took their exercise solitarily, and not with the others, and that was the only difference— so he had been assured by the Director of Convict Prisons; and, such being the case, he must insist upon the passing of the clause as it stood.

speaking from some little experience in connection with prisons, said, that solitary confinement was a practice observed in Ireland, for he had heard a governor threaten prisoners With "solitary" for a week if they committed a breach of the rules.

explained, that he had admitted that solitary confinement was a punishment applied for prison offences.

urged the right hon. Gentleman to introduce into the clause some Amendment which would embody his own view of solitary confinement under this Bill.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had remarked that the word "separate" was not expressed in the Prison Rules. If it was not, surely it could be expressed as easily as "solitary." He was surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's perseverance in opposing this most reasonable Amendment.

thought the Government were not treating the Committee fairly in connection with this matter. There were hon. Members on that side of the House who were as anxious that the Mutiny Bill should pass as hon. Gentlemen were on the opposite benches. For his own part, he had dissociated himself from those hon. Members with whom he usually acted, and had voted with the Government because he thought the Amendments, on. which the Committee had divided, were unreasonable proposals. But now it appeared that the Government had made up their mind that the Bill should pass verbatim et literatim; and, that being so, they could not be astonished at the opposition which they had provoked. The right hon. Gentleman had now informed the Committee that solitary confinement differed from ordinary punishment only in the fact that the criminal took his exercise alone. Why was not that explanation given before? If that was the meaning of solitary confinement— and the right hon. Gentleman, he was sure, believed it was the correct meaning—he would be quite content, for his own part, to let the clause pass; but he did beg the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact, that in Chatham there were a number of military prisoners confined; and his belief was that solitary confinement there did not mean merely that the man took his exercise by himself. When this clause passed, he hoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Connor Power) would take the earliest opportunity of moving for a Return on the subject, showing the exact nature of the punishments inflicted in all military prisons, whether by solitary or separate confinement.

thought the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that the term "separate" was not understood in prison parlance. As a matter of fact, Millbank Prison was entirely devoted to separate confinement; and if solitary confinement meant, in the present Bill, only separate confinement as adopted at Millbank Prison, he should be satisfied; but what it really did imply should be stated, in black and white, in this Bill. Every prisoner sentenced to penal servitude underwent a probationary period of separate confinement—that was to say, he was confined in a separate cell for nine months. The Secretary of State for War seemed to indicate that that was the confinement which these military prisoners received when they were sentenced to solitary confinement. If the right hon. Gentleman meant nothing more than that, then let it be stated in the Bill. The objection of the right hon. Gentleman to any change of the term appeared to be, not that the punishment would be changed, but that the term itself was not known. Then, let it be known, for what objection could there be to the term being known? This Act was administered not only in convict establishments under the immediate supervision of the Home Secretary, but in every part of the world wherever there was an English soldier liable to be sentenced to imprisonment accompanied with solitary confinement; and there, he believed, solitary confinement, as ordinarily understood, would be the punishment inflicted, and not seperate confinement, as explained by the right hon. Gentleman. A concession on this point would more materially facilitate the progress of the Bill than an extra sitting of the Committee.

said, that the term separate confinement did not appear to be well understood—its former meaning having been altered, and the right hon. Gentleman had explained to the Committee what it meant. Therefore, if it was not a well understood term—and the right hon. Gentleman had explained the meaning of it—the explanation might be accepted and introduced into the Bill.

thought it would be far better to leave the question until the Committee which was to meet had had an opportunity of considering the whole of these punishments and into the general question of Prison Rules. That Committee was about to sit, and the moment this Bill became an Act, it would have an opportunity of considering all the suggestions which hon. Members had made, and of bringing them before the House in a satisfactory shape. At present, his information was that these punishments were not of that severe character which some hon. Gentlemen seem to suppose them to be. The Director of Convict Prisons did not think they were unnecessarily severe.

said, the question was not what was satisfactory to the Director of Convict Prisons, but whether the matter was not one which the Committee ought fully and fairly to consider. The right hon. Gentleman, who had stated his view of the question succinctly to the Committee, had not, he believed, objected to the use of the word "separate;" and he could not understand why the fact of the introduction of the word "separate" into the clause should not meet the wishes of those who were opposed to the present system of solitary confinement, and thus facilitate the passing of the Bill.

thought it was perfectly clear, from the language of the clause itself, that it was the solitary system to which it was intended recourse should be had under the operation of the clause. It was also of importance that it should be borne in mind that the clause would have to be put in force in prisons which were not arranged on the modern principle, but which were furnished with separate cells, in which sometimes healthy, strong men were confined, only to leave them perfectly broken down. It seemed to him, he might add, that some hon. Members were disposed to take too lenient a view of the offence of insubordination; but, for his own part, he did not think a soldier could be guilty of a much more serious offence.

had no wish to offer any unnecessary opposition to the Bill. He should like, however, to know whether, if the word "solitary" were allowed to remain in the clause, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would undertake to pre- pare Prison Rules which would define the nature of the punishment which would be inflicted under the name of solitary confinement. If he would do that, the Bill might stand as it was; while there might be such a definition of what was meant by the words "solitary confinement" as would meet the views of his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment.

thought it better that the question at issue should be frankly dealt with at once. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had stated that the words "solitary confinement" did not mean that sort of punishment to which he and his hon. Friends near him so strongly objected. That being so, why should not the right hon. Gentleman give effect to the noble and humane view which he entertained by embodying it in the Bill itself?

(amid loud cries of "Divide, divide,"and "Order, order!") said, he was quite willing that those who only contributed to the debate in the manner they had just heard should have an opportunity of gratifying their feeling. He did not object to the contribution the hon. Baronet (Sir James Elphinstone) had given to the debate. He merely rose for the purpose of reminding the Committee that they were constantly hearing from Ministers profusions of sympathy with their views—professions of humanity. Really the Secretary of State for War had been routed from every position which he had taken up in the present discussion. [Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE: No, he has not.] He left the hon. Baronet to make good his position; and if he could cover the retreat of the right hon. Gentleman in right honourable fashion, he would be- glad for the reputation both of the Army and the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman had given the Committee his definition of solitary confinement, but when asked to embody the definition in the Bill he refused. The Secretary of State for War, he might add, had no authority whatever to frame the Prison Rules. That was a duty which devolved upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department; so that the Committee would really have no security that those rules would give effect to the wishes of those who were opposed to the form of punishment prescribed by the clause. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would agree to the very reasonable Amendment which he proposed.

said, that if the Secretary of State for War would draw up a minute which would make it perfectly clear to the prison authorities that what was really meant by solitary confinement was that which the right hon. Gentleman himself had stated, he should not like to persevere in opposing the Bill. Otherwise he thought the Committee would be stultifying themselves if they allowed to remain on the Statute Book words conveying a different meaning from-that which the right hon. Gentleman desired to put upon them.

pointed out that there existed at present no rules by which the proper treatment of prisoners could be secured, and that the whole matter would seem to be left entirely to the discretion of the prison authorities. Prisoners were consequently left very much at the mercy of the warders. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would lay upon the Table of the House Rules bearing upon the treatment of those prisoners who would come under the operation of the Punishment Clauses of the Bill.

said, he considered the statement which had been made to him by the Director of Prisons as to the alleged harsh treatment of prisoners was one upon which he was bound to rely. He had no power, he might add, to frame Rules for the prisons in question. They were not under his jurisdiction. They were the general prisons of the country, and the military prisons were occupied for short periods. The latter, even, were practically speaking, not under his jurisdiction, but under that of the Inspector General of Convict Prisons. He would, however, confer on the subject with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who might, in conjunction with Sir Edmund Du Cane, be able to give effect to the wishes of the hon. Gentle- man and his Friends, so that they might be assured that the punishment of solitary confinement was carried out in the way in which it had been represented to him it was.

said, he was perfectly willing to communicate with Sir Edmund Du Cane on the subject. He could assure hon. Members that things not only were as they had been represented to his right hon. Friend, but that they would continue to be so.

said, he was very glad to have the assurances which had just been given to the Committee by the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for the Home Department; for though he might trust them, that was an entirely different thing from trusting Sir Edmund Du Cane, whom he considered entirely unworthy of confidence.

rose to Order. The hon. Member had stated in that House that a man holding the very responsible position which Sir Edmund Du Cane occupied was unworthy of that position, without alleging any reasons to justify such a statement. He should like to know from the Chairman whether the use of such language was not an infringement of the rules of debate?

said, the point to which the hon. and gallant Member referred was one which frequently occurred in the course of debate. Hon. Members on their own responsibility—and, it must be presumed, with a full knowledge of the circumstances of the case—made charges against a person who was in the employment of the Government, and who was not present to rebut those charges; but he was bound to add that the House had accepted, on the part of its Members, the belief that they would not make such charges without a full sense of the responsibility which they incurred. He need not point out to the hon. Member for Meath that there were other occasions for making such charges when they could be made the subject of debate, which they could not in the present instance; but if the hon. Member believed the charge was one which he would not wish to withdraw, he could not say that the language which the hon. Member had used was contrary to the Rules of the House.

said, he could not allow the statement which the hon. Member for Meath had made with regard to Sir Edmund Du Cane to go forth to the public without giving it a complete contradiction. He had watched Sir Edmund Du Cane ever since he had the honour of holding the office which he now occupied, and he did not believe that a more humane man existed, or a more valuable public servant. But as a Commission was at present sitting to inquire into the conduct of convict prisons, it would, he thought, have been wiser, more charitable, and more in accordance with the feeling of the House, if the hon. Member had waited until the Re-port of that Commission had been presented to the House before making such a charge. He could not, however, permit it to be made without assuring the Committee that he did not believe a better officer than Sir Edmund Du Cane existed.

said, that, while he was willing to accept the assurances of the Secretary of State for War and the Home Secretary without the slightest reservation, he was at a loss to understand what the charge was which the Chairman seemed to think his hon. Friend the Member for Meath ought to withdraw.

said, that the point of Order which had been raised had been decided in this way—that the hon. Member for Meath, acting on his own responsibility, was at liberty to withdraw or adhere to the charge which he had made against Sir Edmund Du Cane. It was not, he might add, for the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken or any other hon. Member to enter, on the present occasion, into a discussion of the motives or the assertions of the hon. Member for Meath.

wished to know, for the information of the Committee, what the charge was which the Chairman said it was for his hon. Friend the Member for Meath to withdraw or adhere to? He was not aware that his hon. Friend had made any charge.

said, that he had already stated twice to the Committee that he did not call upon the hon. Member to withdraw the charge.

thought the hon. and gallant Member who had risen to Order (Colonel Mure) had entirely misunderstood what he really had said. What he had said was, that although he could put confidence in the statement of the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the Secretary of State for War, yet he did not feel himself called upon to extend the same confidence to Sir Edmund Du Cane. He would not go fully into a question of the kind on that occasion. An opportunity would shortly be afforded him of entering into the subject of convict treatment, and of that opportunity he meant to avail himself to the fullest extent, to prove the justice of that which he had stated that evening. The Committee had, he might add, received an undertaking from the Secretary of State for War that he would take care that the treatment of prisoners sentenced to solitary confinement should be such as it had been represented to him by Sir Edmund Du Cane to be. He did not exactly know what representations Sir Edmund Du Cane had made; but he wished to be satisfied that the prisoners received the ordinary prison diet who were placed in separate confinement, and that they were not put on short rations of bread and water.

said, he knew from experience what solitary confinement meant; and his belief was that no man, however strong, could endure it for a period of seven days without material injury to his constitution. The period of such punishment should, in his opinion, be reduced to two or three days at a time, or the punishment itself should be altogether abolished.

said, the Secretary of State for War had described, in distinct and positive terms, what was the kind of solitary confinement which he understood was inflicted in the prisons in question, and had stated he would feel bound to see that the description of it which he himself had given to the Committee would be carried into effect. That being the case, any further discussion of the question was, he thought, unnecessary, and he hoped it would not be prosecuted any further, for he had the fullest confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's assurances.

said, he could scarcely give his assent to what had been stated by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He must inform him that it was not open to Sir Edmund Du Cane to violate the Prison Rules, and that solitary confinement was what it had been described to be by his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). There was no use in fencing over the matter. Solitary confinement meant a diet of bread and water. He therefore could not, for one, assent to the clause, and must record his protest against such barbarous legislation. As to the manner in which Sir Edmund Du Cane discharged his duties, perhaps, as the Secretary of State for the Home Department had undertaken to defend that officer, the Committee would allow him to call their attention to the evidence of one of the witnesses mentioned in Sir James Ingham's Report. Corporal Thomas Chambers who, when he first was sent to prison, was a strong, healthy man, stated that his health had become so broken by the treatment to which he was subjected there that he could scarcely, when writing, guide his pen. The witness added that he had several times petitioned the Secretary of State for the Home Department to order an inquiry to be made into the exceptional treatment under which he suffered, but that he had always received "no ground" for an answer. Another man had been done to death by the treatment which he had received. He might be told that the police magistrate's report entirely contradicted that statement; but he would remind the Committee that the report, which stated that it was incorrect to say that O'Donovan Rossa had been handcuffed, was afterwards shown to have been completely unfounded.

said, that the case of O'Donovan Rossa had nothing to do with the conduct of our military prisons.

said, the prisoner from whose evidence he had been quoting had been confined in a military prison, and that he had referred to his case in order to let the Committee see what value was to be set on the reports of police magistrates. Corporal Chambers' evidence went on to show that complaints made to the governor of the prison were entirely useless, and that they only led to the infliction of extra suffering. That was really the state of the matter; and he could assure the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the system of denying every statement of the kind which was brought forward in that House was a fatal system. He, for one, was not prepared to accept such denials, because the facts in opposition to them were overwhelming. Ha hoped, he might add, that with a view of effecting an improvement in a barbarous enactment, the Committee would vote against the clause.

said, he trusted no further obstruction would be offered to the passing of the clause. He, for one, was perfectly satisfied with the assurance which had been given by the Secretary of State for War, and should feel it to be his duty not to vote against it.

said, he could not possibly record his vote against the clause, inasmuch as he would thereby be doing what in him lay to do away with the power possessed by a commanding officer of commuting the sentence of death.

said, he thought the Committee ought to be satisfied with the assurance of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that for the future what was known as separate, as opposed to "solitary," punishment should be carried out.

said, he quite concurred with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) in the opinion that in voting against the clause the Committee would be recording its decision against the power of a commanding officer to commute the sentence of death. He must, at the same time, observe, that he did not think any hon. Member by voting against the clause would err very much on the side of cruelty, for a soldier in the French Army would prefer to be shot rather than to be flogged or confined, as soldiers were in England.

said, he had in the last division voted with the minority; but he should now, after the assurances of the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, vote with the Government. He felt confident that these assurances had not been given without the sincere intention to carry them into effect.

said, he merely rose to protest against the language of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) with respect to the prisoner M'Carthy. If M'Carthy had been murdered at all, it was owing to the over-kindness of his friends in Dublin.

said, that so long as the Prison Rules remained as they now were, it was not in the power of the Government to make any such concession as some hon. Members seemed to think had been made. If, he might add, the clause were passed in its present shape, nothing could be done for the next 12 months in the way of altering that odious form of prison discipline against which he and his hon. Friends near him had over and over again protested.

said, it must not go forth to the public that he and those with whom he acted were refusing to accept a reasonable concession. It was, in reality, the Government who were open to that charge. It was for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to give an undertaking that he would lay on the Table of the House Rules regulating the treatment of the prisoners in question while suffering solitary confinement. If the right hon. Gentleman would do that, in conformity with the assurance of the Secretary of State for War on the subject, he, for one, would be satisfied.

said, any further opposition to the clause ought, in his opinion, to be waived, for he entertained no doubt that the assurance which had been given by the Government would be faithfully carried into effect. The Secretary of State for War would, perhaps, before the third reading of the Bill, lay on the Table of the House a Minute embodying the view on the subject which he had stated that evening.

said, the Committee seemed to him to be placed in a somewhat awkward position. The personal assurances which had been given by Ministers in the course of the discussion, though made no doubt with perfect sincerity, were, he thought, entirely unsatisfactory. The Director of Prisons must obey the Rules laid down for his guidance, so that the emendation suggested by the Secretary of State for War could not be carried out without a change of those Rules. That being so, the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had suggested that a Minute should, before the third reading of the Bill, be laid on the Table of the House, embodying the proposed emendation; but, notwithstanding all that had been said by him and other hon. Members, the Government sat dumb. When the right hon. Gentleman gave them to understand that he was going to bring some influence to bear upon Sir Edmund Du Cane, they knew right well that the only way in which those suggestions could be acted upon was by embodying them in a binding rule. His words were straightforward enough; but why did he not make his acts to correspond?

asked his hon. Friend not to press this Amendment to a division, because, if they succeeded in rejecting this clause, they withdrew from the commanding officer the power of remitting the punishment of death.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had made an impracticable suggestion. The Home Secretary had told them that he was obliged to lay the Prison Rules upon the Table of the House 40 days before they became law. Last year they endeavoured to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman a pledge that he would obtain the sanction of the House to these Rules; but he resisted, and said he would leave them on the Table 40 days before they became law, and then any objection could be raised to them; but everybody knew how futile it was to expect that a small minority could alter the Rules, and get the right hon. Gentleman to accept their terms. If they allowed this clause to be passed in its present shape, nothing could be done to improve the punishment of this class of offenders for the next 12 months; and what guarantee had they that anything would be done then? None whatever. The hon. Member for County Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) had repeated the expression of the hope entertained by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) that they should not deprive commanding officers of the power of commuting death sentences. It was merely a question of whether a man was to be shot and die in five minutes, or whether he was to be subject to a daily death for 12 or 15 years. It was no mercy at all to commute the death sentence; and, therefore, not one of these appeals should have weight with those who wore anxious to oppose the clause.

thought this opposition to the clause was rather unfair after the Ministerial assurances which had been given. The Secretary of State for War had told them that "solitary" meant "separate" confinement, and that the only way in which it differed from ordinary imprisonment was that the prisoner took his exercise by himself and not with other persons. Then, the Homo Secretary, who had to make these Rules, had also given his personal assurance to the Committee that this Rule, as stated by the Secretary of State for War, should be carried out. How was the Business of that House to be carried on if they were not to accept the assurance of two of the principal Members of the Ministry, given personally before the Committee on a matter of that kind? For his part, he should, of course, vote with the Government if the question was unwisely pressed to a division. If, when fair concessions were made, they were not to be accepted, he could not see any hope of doing any real good in that House, as they would turn every hon. Member against them.

said, the doctrine of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) might be suitable for an evening tea-party, but not for obtaining concessions from the Government or the House. The hon. Member was actuated by the best intentions; but they all knew where such intentions generally led to. His hon. Friend had a great belief in the Government; but why did not the Government show some little belief in itself? All that he, and those who acted with him, asked was that the views and intentions of the Government should be put in the form of a Rule and laid on the Table of the House, so that they might know what their views and intentions really were, and not have to wait until another military prisoner died by slow torture in penal servitude. This might be called a course of opposition; but he said it was a reasonable course of opposition, and one in which they would persist, whenever the Mutiny Bill was brought forward in its present fiendish shape.

ventured to observe that, so far, the declarations of the Secretary of State for War and the Home Secretary were satisfactory. They were deliberately choosing an unconstitutional method of carry out their reforms. They declined to introduce a necessary Amendment in terms into this Act; but they engaged, without the sanction of the law, so to interfere with the carrying out of the Prison Rules that, in practice, there would be nothing to complain of. To maintain a bad law on the condition that that bad law should not be acted upon in its bad features, was a most unsatisfactory and unconstitutional manner of meeting the requirements of the country. No matter how humane the Secretary of State for War or the Home Secretary might be, they ought to take steps to show their readiness to meet the wishes of hon. Members around him in a legal manner, and not leave them dependent upon mere personal assurances.

asked what was the necessity for including minor offences in the provisions of military law? He thought that mere petty offences— such as felony or embezzlement—should be dealt with by the civil tribunals, except when in case of war there were no civil tribunals at which the soldier could be tried.

said, it must be obvious to everyone that' the discipline of the Army could never be maintained at all unless there was rapid punishment for soldiers guilty of felony and embezzlement.

proposed to add the words—

"Provided, always, That soldiers convicted for military offences shall not he imprisoned and shall not undergo their term of penal servitude in company with ordinary prisoners."

He urged the principle, which was becoming more and more generally recognized amongst all civilized people at the present day, outside the ranks of the Government Party, that there should be as much classification of criminals as possible, so that criminals guilty of very slight offences should not be thrown into the company of hardened convicts—that persons guilty of an offence which, however serious to the State, was not a degrading offence, should not have to work out his punishment under degrading and brutalizing conditions fit only for the ordinary ruffian. He would remind the Committee of the evidence coming before the House in connection with Sergeant M'Carthy, as to how far his death was accelerated by his prison treatment. M'Carthy was almost a perfect type of the brave, loyal, and discipline-abiding Irish, soldier. No one, however opposed to the principles for which M'Carthy sacrificed everything, even his military obligations, could read the simple medical account of his wounds received in defending the British flag, and in the performance of acts of valour, without feeling that such a man deserved personal respect. No doubt, he had laid himself open to punishment. The ordinary military mode of execution—that of having a man shot by a platoon of his comrades?—? was consonant with the military character; but what could be said to making a stainless soldier—a man of brilliant valour like M'Carthy—herd with the lowest and vilest criminals, the scum of civilization? Why, everyone must admit that it was an uncalled-for aggravation of his punishment, which it was neither common justice nor Christian charity to inflict. If hon. Members would consult the report—the very imperfect report —of Sir James Ingham, with reference to the treatment of M'Carthy, they would see that this political soldier had had to perform the basest and most menial offices, in company with burglars, commuted murderers, ravishers — in short, every species of the worst scoundrels. One of his tasks, for instance, was to remove the night slops of the filthiest ruffians. Surely, every honest man must feel that that was not a punishment which really met the objects contemplated by the Legislature, or which ought to be inflicted on a soldier guilty of a purely political offence. So far from acting beneficially, it was calculated to excite sympathy with the offender, and to deepen the popular detestation of a Governmental system of punishment which had to rely upon such abominable methods. What he wanted was a classification of offenders, which should not shock that natural sense of justice which forbade us, no matter at what Governmental dictates, to associate a military offender with an ordinary ruffian. Here he -would give the Government a little historical reminiscence. However dangerous military offences and military treason might be, they had, in their day, done good service to the cause of Constitutional freedom in this country—as, for instance, in the Revolution of 1688. He begged to move a Proviso to the effect that soldiers convicted of purely military offences should not be imprisoned or undergo terms of penal servitude in company with ordinary criminals.

having already expressed his opinions on the subject of the classification of prisoners, would not weary the Committee by a repetition of them. He would only express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to take some step in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell).

also trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to the subject, which was one of great importance. It was a great anomaly that there should be no attempt in this Bill to distinguish military from civil offenders, or, rather, military from civil offences—for, of course, there was a great difference between the soldier who was guilty of a mere breach of discipline, and one who robbed his officer's quarters. Considering the great variety of offences, some system of classification was clearly required. He did not say that the Amendment proposed was exactly the right one — but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the subject.

said, some system of classifying prisoners would, no doubt, be adopted. However, he entirely objected to the Amendment. The hon. Member seemed to consider military offences as quite different from other offences; whereas military offences were sometimes marked by the worst characteristics, and did not entitle their perpetrators to treatment at all different from that of ordinary criminals.

thereupon moved to report Progress, seeing that they had been discussing the Bill since 6 o'clock. The perception of hon. Members was not improved by these long sittings; and he thought it would be well if they came fresh to the consideration of the remaining clauses of the Bill. No doubt, the necessity for passing these Mutiny Bills was urgent; but he believed he was correct in saying that no harm would be done if they passed any time before the 25th of April. There was no class of Bill which it was more undesirable to press through at a late hour; and, as they had still two weeks before them for discussion, he trusted the Committee would not object to his Motion.

said, no one was more conscious than he of the number of hours spent over this Bill. Without imputing motives to anyone as to the reasons he might have had for opposing it, he would undertake to say that on no occasion, or, at all events, very rarely, in the history of Parliament had opposition of such a kind been offered. Certain hon. Members had spoken eight or nine times on the same point, not merely to call attention to it, but in long speeches, embodying arguments that had already been used; and if those hon. Members thought proper to continue to discuss the clauses of the Bill in the same manner, there would hardly be an hour or a minute to spare of the time available for discussion before the date at which the Bill must pass. On Friday night the Committee on it was fixed for Monday evening. Then, as hon. Members knew, it was objected to, because somebody or other was absent. But was the Business of that House to be regulated by two or three people? Was a Committee to be postponed to suit the convenience of some hon. Member who might be in a distant part of the country? It was not his (Mr. Hardy's) business to inquire whether hon. Members were present or not—his business was to put the Notices on the Paper, and to act on them; and he felt bound to say he had been much surprised at some of the language used respecting him, because he had simply followed the ordinary course of proceeding. In consequence of the objections raised by certain hon. Members to this Bill, which had previously been regarded almost in the sense of Supply, he had promised that a Committee should investigate the whole subject of the Law of Mutiny and Discipline in the Army, and that their conclusions should duly come before Parliament in the form of a Bill. Yet he was met by just the same opposition as last year—an opposition which had surprised him even from some of the hon. Members who offered it. Amongst other things, it was proposed—he could hardly mention it without smiling—that the Bill should be applied to the Native Army in India, without any attempt being made to show ground for such a step, or for the extension of a system which one hon. Member had said made it disgraceful to enter the English Army. He was not going to put the Committee to the inconvenience of walking to and fro in the Lobbies as before. A time might come when such a course would be necessary. It might be necessary, indeed, to take further steps. At present, however, he would content himself with proposing to take the present clause, and the succeeding ones, until an Amendment was reached, when Progress would be reported, and a Morning Sitting fixed for that day.

reminded the right hon. Gentleman who had just brought so serious an indictment against hon. Members, that last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised that the Mutiny Bill should not be taken till Monday, whereas it was read a second time on Friday night.

explained, that what passed was this. On Friday night he was asked what Business would be taken on Monday; and his reply was the Mutiny Bill and Supply. Now, that was exactly what had been put on the Paper. The Mutiny Bill stood for second reading on Friday night; and, assuming that the second reading would be agreed to, he said a discussion upon it would take place on Monday on going into Committee, which was the fact.

contended that the natural interpretation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on Friday was, that the next stage of the Bill— namely, the second reading—would be taken on Monday. At all events, that was the understanding on his—the Opposition—side of the House, and the consequence was that hon. Members had not been able to put down the Amendments the Committee had been discussing that evening. He did not approve of the conduct of certain hon. Members; but he did not think they were altogether open to the serious imputations made against them by the Secretary of State for War.

thought it due to the Government to say that he and other Members on that—the Opposition—side of the House had fully understood that it was the next stage of the Mutiny Bill after the second reading which was to be taken on Monday. The second reading on Friday night was moved at a reasonable hour; and hon. Members, in his opinion, had had ample time to put down Amendments.

did not understand what motive the Secretary of State for War had in giving them such an extraordinary summary of the Business as he had done. It had been stated that hon. Members on that side of the House had misunderstood the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday evening; but the Secretary of State for War entirely ignored that fact for the purpose of creating a prejudice against certain hon. Members. Now, he (Mr. O'Connor Power) protested against such conduct. The right hon. Gentleman, furthermore, said that no reasons had been given in support of the proposal to extend the Bill to India. Now, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) proved in his speech that he knew more of the subject than the Secretary of State for War, and all the hon. and gallant Gentlemen present. During his speech, the hon. Member for Dungarvan was improperly called to Order by two hon. and gallant Gentlemen, whose notions on the subject were evidently very confused.

pointed out that the hon. Member was travelling away from the question before the Committee.