said, the course taken by the hon. Member in moving the rejection of the Bill on the second reading was a very unusual one. In point of fact, the speech of the hon. Member was in favour of the second reading of the Bill; for all he wanted was a revision of the fares of the Company, and certainly the House could not be prepared to say what the fares should be from one part of Dublin to another. Surely it was a question for the consideration of a Committee, and of Gentlemen specially told off for that purpose, who would hear evidence on the subject. It must not be forgotten that a Bill had already passed a second reading, with the assent of the Corporation of Dublin, for the Construction of Tramways in Dublin, and it was not unreasonable on the part of the promoters of the present measure to expect that their Bill would be referred to the same Tribunal. These two Companies, one the old and the other the new Company, had competing lines; and, although the hon. Member was strongly in favour of 1d. a-mile rate as the maximum that should be charged, yet the Dublin Central Bill, which had already been read a second time with the assent of the Corporation, fixed the maximum at 2d. per mile. He could not understand why, under such circumstances, the Corporation could ask the House to restrict the promoters of the present Bill to 1d. The Bill had passed the Standing Orders in both Houses of Parliament, notwithstanding the opposition of the Corporation, and he hoped the House would now allow it to take the usual course. The hon. Member was in error in saying that there was only one workmen's train per day. Provision was made in the Bill for two in the morning and two in the evening. He believed the usual arrangements were made in regard to workmen in every respect, whether the workmen used them or not, and there were certainly trains running twice in the morning and twice in the evening.

hoped the House would not consent to entertain the second reading of the Bill, if for no other reason, because it was undesirable to continue a monopoly affecting the citizens against the wish of the Corporation of Dublin. He complained of nothing unfair on the part of the gentlemen who promoted the Bill. They were, no doubt, struggling for the interests of their own Company; but, inasmuch as those were the interests of capitalists who made a very good thing out of the existing tramways, he did not think their interests ought to be allowed to stand in the way of the general interests of the public. It was one of the misfortunes of Dublin—in fact, a misfortune which it shared in common with other parts of Ireland—that the measure of self-government which it enjoyed was rather scanty. He did not believe for a moment that the House would entertain a Bill for a tramway through the City, which was opposed by the Corporation of London, and which proposed to grant a new and a fresh monopoly. Therefore, if he took no other stand than this—that this was a Bill opposed by the Corporation of the city of Dublin and all the local authorities—that it was a Bill which ignored the right of the citizens of Dublin to make terms for themselves beforehand—that was to say, before they were made the unwilling parties to the creation of a monopoly—he was satisfied that that ground and the arguments based upon it would sufficiently commend themselves to the House and ensure the rejection of the Bill if it were now pressed to a division.

had no interest in the question, but believed that the simple object of the Bill was to extend a system of tramways originally authorized in 1871 and extended in 1873. That was an object which the House was unable clearly to go into, and it ought to be referred to a Select Committee.

remarked, that although he was a member of the Corporation of Dublin, and had a good deal of interest in the prosperity of Dublin, he could not take the same view of the matter as the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Brooks) did; but, of course, in this he only spoke in his individual capacity. The hon. Member for Dublin represented the opinion of the Corporation on the matter. The Corporation granted their original assent to the Company for the construction of tramways, perhaps, on terms that were too favourable. They did not realize how valuable tramways were to become, and did not make the advantageous terms they might have made. They would have done better if they had the gift of prophecy; and, if on this occasion, the Corporation had opposed both of the Tramway Bills now before the House, he would have been able to understand their position and to go with them.

said, there were Petitions from the Corporation against all the Tramway Bills.

said, they were merely Petitions to obtain a locus standi and not against the Preamble of the Bills. The Dublin Central Tramways Bill proposed to run over a number of streets in the boundaries of the city, and over the same ground as was proposed by this Bill, and it had not been opposed, although it did not propose to give greater concessions in the way of low fares than the present Bill. He, therefore, failed to see any justification for the exceptional course proposed to be taken now in opposition to the second reading of the Bill. To kill this Bill was to ensure the passing of the other, without any special advantage to the public. If the Corporation had opposed every Bill and had said, for instance, that they wanted to wait until they saw whether steam would be introduced or not, he would have admitted that their position was tenable; but they had assented to the Bill of one Company at fares equally high, whose line was to be laid over the same ground, and he did not see why the two Bills under the circumstances should not proceed pari passû.

said, he should like to know on what principle of Home Rule hon. Members would justify the speeches made there to-day. They ought to be considering the Mutiny Bill, and they were listening to a discussion which ought to be settled by the local autho- rities in Dublin, as to whether Dublin ought or ought not to have this particular Tramway Bill. They could not by this Bill concede Home Rule to the City of Dublin; but they could virtually, in practice, by deferring to the decision arrived at on the merits of the case by the local authorities, who knew most about the whole affair. All the local authorities, whether the Corporation of Dublin or the Commissioners of Rathmines, were unanimous in their opposition to this Bill. The case was not at all a matter of fares. He had had something to do with the introduction of the tramway system into the city of Dublin, and he would tell the House what it was that was underneath the Motion made to-day. The Corporation of Dublin gave this Tramway Company, the first that went to them, full powers to make 21 miles of tramways, and having got a monopoly they took, so to speak, the cream of the streets and the traffic, and made exactly 11 miles out of the 21. From that hour to this they could not be induced to make another mile in the streets that required it just as much as those which the Company had scooped out from the richest part of the city. Last year another Company came in to do what this Company would not do, and which they never thought of doing until another Company came in. Now this old monopoly Company came forward with an unreal Bill, and the Corporation of Dublin asked the House to throw it out, on the ground that it was brought in to defeat the endeavour of a new Company to break down a monopoly. The Corporation of Dublin, the Town Commissioners of Rathmines, and the whole of the frontagers were unanimous in opposing the Bill, and he hoped the House would reject it and not tolerate such an attempt to defeat a bonâ fide measure.

thought the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) had put the question in the clearest and most forcible manner before the House. He did not for a moment mean to say that the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Brooks) was not exercising his full right in raising an opposition to the second reading of the Bill. The hon. Member would, perhaps, not have done his duty if he had not given the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the measure; but, although it was a perfectly legitimate opportunity for expressing the dissatisfaction of the local authorities in regard to the proceedings of a Tramway Company, at the same time it was for the House to weigh how far they ought to take a step contrary to precedent, and which might lead to inconvenient consequences. If the question had been simply the one raised by the hon. Member for Dublin, the House might have been disposed to pause before reading a Bill a second time which was opposed by the local authorities. That was a ground well worthy of consideration; but, as the hon. Member for Tipperary had pointed out, there was another scheme competing with this which also proposed to construct tramways. That scheme had been read a second time without opposition from the Corporation of Dublin. That being so, he did not think the House ought to take upon themselves functions which would be better exercised by a Committee upstairs, who would have a much better opportunity of weighing all the merits of the two competing schemes. He believed he was not wrong in saying that the other scheme had received the sanction of the Corporation of Dublin as the local authority, and that the present scheme had not; and that there had consequently been in this case a relaxation in the Standing Orders, the Committee being of opinion that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, a competing Bill might fairly be entertained. He did not think the House was a fit tribunal to decide upon questions of this kind, which would require maps and a plan of the district to guide the investigation. At the same time, it must be admitted that the Dublin Corporation were only fair in asking that, with regard to fares, the city of Dublin should be treated with the same liberality as London and Edinburgh. He did not, under the circumstances, think the House would act wisely in accepting the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for Dublin at this stage of the Bill; and he hoped that the hon. Member would withdraw it in order to enable the Committee upstairs to form an estimate of the advantages of the scheme, as compared with that of the Dublin Central Company.

thought the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had made out a strong case in favour of the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. In 1871 the Company obtained large powers to enable them to make tramways for the accommodation of the public, and one of the inducements on which concessions were made to them was that they would extend their system into the suburbs; but, instead of doing so, they had constructed their lines through the principal streets, and had left the suburbs entirely unprovided for. The same thing had occurred in Belfast; and, as the present Company originally had obtained power to make 21 lines of tramway, and had only made 11, they had broken their contract, and were not entitled to further consideration at the hands of Parliament.

said, that, as to the appeal which had been made in the interests of the suburbs of Dublin that the Bill should be thrown out, he desired to mention that he had that morning received a letter from Mr. Vernon, who wrote as Chairman of the Pembroke township, in which he asked him to resist the Motion of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Brooks). He did not inform him of the grounds of opposition, and he must confess he was not prepared to go fully into the arguments which had been adduced on the question. But he would say that, from the information which he had, there was a feeling that the Bill should have a fair hearing. And why should it not have a fair hearing? And why should not the objections to the Bill which had been raised be fairly gone into before the Committee, with a view of seeing how far the accusations against the Company were well founded? He thought that course the most desirable one, and readily gave his support to the Motion brought forward by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

reminded the House that this was a case in which the citizens of Dublin appeared before it through the Corporation, and in which important townships, like Rathgar and Rathmines, had complained that they had been neglected by this Company. Rathmines was a large and important township in the vicinity of Dublin—so important that they—the people of Rathmines—considered that in this particular they laboured under a great grievance. What were the facts? The Dublin Tramways Company some years ago obtained powers to construct 21 miles of tramway in Dublin and its vicinity. In consideration of the promises they gave, Parliament conceded to them privileges which were not enjoyed by any Tramway Company in England or Scotland. He was told that, among the other privileges, they obtained a right to a perpetual lease of the ground on which they were to lay down their tramways. Leases for this purpose on English or Scotch lines of tramway were not unlimited, as in this instance, but were terminable, under certain conditions, from, time to time. They also obtained the right of levying a high rate of fares—higher than those paid in England, not because the people of Dublin had in general larger means, but because the English and Scotch Tramway Companies, though they had obtained powers to levy the same fares as the Dublin Tramways Company, had, after a time, reduced those fares from 2d. to 1½d. But the Dublin Tramways Company, unmindful of the public interests entrusted to them, prevented the public from deriving the benefits they were entitled to expect. What were the objects which the Bill sought to promote? It was not a Bill for constructing new lines of tramway, but for abandoning others which the promoters were bound to provide, and they made no move in the matter, in pursuance of their promise, until another Company came forward and proposed to run a line for a certain number of miles, for the benefit of the people of Dublin, and to charge lower fares. When this Company did that, the Dublin Tramways Company, like every other dog in the manger, said—"We will not do this ourselves, though we have the power. We have not exercised our rights; but we will not allow you to make these new lines, and give the public the advantage. We will go to Parliament and bring forward a fictitious Bill of our own." For this Bill was neither more nor less than a fictitious Bill, as anyone could see who looked at it—for, pretending to do one thing, it did another; pretending to desire to meet the wants of the public, it sought to abandon the lines it ought to have made for their accommodation. And the Tramway Company said—"We will not carry out our pledge, but we will prevent you—the public—from carrying out your wish." This was one of those questions which should never have come before the House at all; but if the House insisted upon such questions being brought before it, and on retaining its control over matters which did not concern it, but only the people of Dublin, he thought the House should perform its duty, and devote some time and attention to the matter at issue, and not relegate it to a Committee upstairs, who might or might not take the right view, or might know nothing of the feeling of the people of Dublin in the matter, or might not rightly perform the duties entrusted to them. He should have been glad if the Bill had never been brought before the House at all; but, having come before it, he thought they should have a better opportunity of dealing with it than they could have on that occasion. They were all of them anxious to get on to the next Orders, for which they had a special sitting that day; but if this discussion were to be continued, a good deal of valuable time would be expended on the question before the House. He knew that Mr. Vernon had written to-day to the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), and it was his opinion that the Bill should have full consideration; but the hon. and learned Gentleman said he was asked to support the Bill, and to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin, but he did not say why he was asked to do so. Now, he thought, under these circumstances, it would be only fair to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he should have an opportunity of putting forward his case; and, in order to give him that opportunity, and to enable the discussion to be taken in a more quiet and easy way, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

said, he rose to second the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. They had got into the discussion almost by accident. Hon. Members had been brought down, some at great inconvenience, to proceed with the Mutiny Bill, and he had no desire to prevent them from doing so. What he was anxious for was, that this matter should be fully investigated by the House, and to that end he seconded the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

observed, that the object of the present opposition was to throw the Bill out for the Session, and allow the other to proceed in its place. The House would see how little ground there was for it. The Bill was down for second reading a fortnight ago, and was then specially fixed for that day. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Brooks) had, consequently, had a fortnight before him for looking into the matter and getting up his opposition to the Bill. If the present Motion for adjournment was carried, the Bill would, practically, go over the Session. They had already lost a fortnight that was available for Committee, while the other Bill was ready and had been so for some time; and if the Order were to be now adjourned to some indefinite day, practically, the Session would be over and the Bill defeated.

observed, that although Private Bills had been thrown out sometimes on the second reading, yet it was almost an unprecedented course. He thought it only fair that those who were interested in a case of this kind, relating to the traffic of Dublin, should have an opportunity of substantiating their complaints against the Company, which, they said, had so imperfectly performed the duty it had undertaken towards them. There were cases similar to this Bill, in which the Bill had been thrown out, and not postponed. He submitted to the House that it could only be fair, in view of the statements which had been made by those who represented the people of Dublin in that House, and fair to the people of Dublin themselves, if the House would allow the debate to be quietly adjourned. If that were done, it would come on again with the advantage to the Tramway Company of showing them the desirability of their making terms with those who were entrusted with the good management of the city. He hoped the House would consent to the adjournment of the debate, which he did not think, with the hon. Member for Helston, would have the effect of throwing out the Bill.

said, that it had been stated that the object of the opposition to this Bill was to favour the progress of a competing Bill. He could assure the House he had not the slightest personal regard for, nor the slightest hostility to, either measure. His sole object in bringing forward his Amendment was to obtain for the poorer classes of Dublin the same advantages as were enjoyed by those of London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and other places. In proof of the necessity for that, he might mention that he had seen a report of the Belfast Tramway Company, issued within the last few days, and which stated that the reduction from 2d. to 1½d. had increased their passenger traffic to the extent of 198,000 persons in six months. When he considered the enormous advantages which facilities for locomotion would give to the poorer classes, and of which, it was thus proved, they were disposed to avail themselves largely, he felt he should be wanting in what he owed, not only to his constituents, but to the House itself, if he did not call attention to the fact. One word more of explanation. As reference had been made to the competing Bill, he would point out that that Bill could go before the Committee, which would take cognizance of all the circumstances affecting it. But what he had said earlier in the morning, and what he had had from the Chairman of Ways and Means, was this—that a Committee upstairs would have no power of revising the existing Acts of 1871 and 1873, so that that being a moot point, the Committee might not be disposed to review that legislation. He did hope that, since this conflict was going on, the Motion for adjournment would be agreed to. It was still early in the Session, and no harm could be done; while the promoters of the Dublin Tramways Bill might be disposed to submit to such arrangements as had been found useful and beneficial to the public, and, at the same time, conducive to the interests of the Company.

said, it would be convenient for the House, if there were sufficient grounds for it, to consent to the adjournment, so that they might pass on to other Business. At the same time, they should not wish to adjourn a question fairly before the House only on that ground. As far as he could see, he thought there was reason for a short adjournment, and, as he understood, it would be very desirable that there should be as little delay as possible. He thought it would be convenient if the adjournment were until Friday next.

said, there would be no time to communicate with Dublin in that short interval. He must ask for Friday week.

consented to the proposal.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is any good reason why flogging as part of the system of prison discipline should be permitted in England, while it is illegal in Scotland; and, whether he will reconsider the propriety of altering in this respect the prison rules for England now lying upon the Table to the extent at least of mitigating the severity of thirty-six lashes with the cat?

, in reply, said, he could not explain how it was flogging had never been permitted in Scotch prisons, but no Act of Parliament did permit it. He presumed that the people of Scotland were of a more orderly character than those of England. With regard to the latter part of the Question, flogging did not depend upon the rules of the prisons at all, but upon Statutes. The Statute of 1865 gave power—and he had no power to take it away—with respect to the special rules that now applied to this subject; and there was no power under that Statute to limit the discretion of the Visiting Committee on this matter. He had, however, done what he could in reference to it by substituting, as he believed he had power to do, an instrument of the nature of a birch rod instead of a "cat."

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If his attention has been called to the fact that the sale of worn-out boilers by the Admiralty has frequently led to their being refused as boilers, to the great danger of human life, as in the case of the "Gazelle," a new vessel which, having been fitted with boilers bought in this way, was destroyed in consequence of the boilers bursting the first time they were used; and, whether he is prepared to give the House an assurance that in future no boilers shall be sold as boilers unless they are still strong enough to be used for generating steam, and that all boilers unfit for use as boilers shall be so battered or otherwise dealt with, so as to preclude the possibility of any tradesman selling or using them except as old iron?

Sir, the Admiralty have anticipated the hon. Gentleman. In October last, the Board of Trade represented to the Admiralty that a boiler, said to have been sold at one of the Dockyard sales, had exploded. The Admiralty immediately gave directions to prevent the recurrence of such an evil, and I cannot do better than read the instructions which have been given on the subject—

"The Board of Trade having reported that a boiler which exploded a short time ago on hoard a steam-launch was alleged to have been purchased at one of the sales in Her Majesty's Dockyards, my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have decided that in future all old boilers are to be broken up in the dockyard by dockyard workmen, or under contract, if the state of the Vote will allow. If the old boilers cannot be so broken up, and it is found requisite to sell them, they are to be reserved for the next periodical sale as heretofore; but the conditions of sale shall expressly stipulate that such old boilers are sold to be broken up for use as old iron only; and, to prevent as far as possible any infringement of this condition, they are to be mutilated or partially destroyed before they are offered for sale, so as to preclude their being used again."

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, as no quartermasters of brigade depôts have been provided for in the Estimates, and, as the officers now holding those appointments have been informed that they will be transferred to the Militia, the duties of quartermasters of brigade depôts will be performed by the Militia quartermasters, or by some combatant officer specially detailed for that duty?

Sir, a Circular has recently been published which requires the quartermaster of a Militia regiment to do the duties of brigade depôt quartermaster when the Militia regiment is at the same station. When the Militia regiment is trained away from the brigade depôt station, some other officer will be specially appointed to act temporarily as quartermaster.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, seeing that Non-Christians are excluded from political rights in Roumania by the Constitution framed under the Convention of 1858, to which Great Britain is a party, and that the Jewish subjects of Roumania have under such Constitution been judicially declared to be aliens and have been treated as outlaws, Her Majesty's Government will use its influence in the Council of Europe about to assemble upon the Eastern Question, to secure for the Jews and all Non-Christian subjects and inhabitants of Roumania and of Servia and the other territories which have been, or are about to be, emancipated from Turkish rule, the enjoyment of equal rights without regard to creed or race?

Sir, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I have to state in reply to the Question of the hon. and learned Member that the House and the hon. Member may rest assured that the influence of Her Majesty's Government will be used as far as possible to obtain for all the inhabitants of Roumania the enjoyment of equal rights, without regard to their religious convictions.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the Government have purchased four 100-ton guns, and at what price; whether there is any armour afloat belonging to any country which can resist the 35 and 38-ton Woolwich guns; whether it is true that it is intended to make a 200-ton gun, or a gun over 200 tons, and at what cost; and, whether there is any ship in the service capable of carrying safely one or more 200-ton guns?

Sir, the Government have purchased four 100-ton guns, the price of which will appear when the expenditure of the Vote of Credit shall be considered. There is, I believe, no armour afloat at the present moment which can resist the 35 and 38-ton Woolwich guns; but there are vessels at this moment being built by foreign Powers which it is understood will be able to resist those guns. There is no intention on the part of the Government to make a 200-ton gun, nor, so far as I am aware, is there any ship in Her Majesty's Service that could carry it.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table, and move that it be printed, (1) a Copy of the letter from Mr. Justice Keogh which he read to the House on the 25th instant, and (2) a Copy of the Charge of Mr. Justice Keogh reported in the Derry ''Sentinel,'' as referred to in said Letter?

, in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question, said, he should be happy to lay the Papers asked for on the Table.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is in his power to state, for the information of the House, what course Her Majesty's Government propose to take with respect to the now vacant office of Lord Clerk Register and Keeper of the Signet? He would also ask another Question, of which he had given the right hon. Gentleman private Notice—Whether he is in a position to state the nature of the measures which Her Majesty's Government intend to propose for the supervision of education in Scotland?

Sir, the House will remember that the office of Lord Clerk Register was held some time ago by Lord Dalhousie. At that time, it was considered a sinecure office, and when the noble Lord went out to India he did not think it right to receive the emoluments, but gave them up absolutely. The gentleman who last held that office, and who has lately unfortunately died, had done so much good in superintending and performing the actual work of the office that the Government of the day thought, and this House agreed, that a salary should be assigned to him for the work he had done. He received that salary up to the time of his death, and has done great and good service. Now he is dead, the Government have considered what is the best arrangement to make, and they think it is not right to abolish the office of Lord Clerk Register, which is one of the high offices of State in Scotland; and they are also of opinion that, while it is not necessary or wise to abolish that office, it may be wise to give it to some person of rank in Scotland, whom they might consult with, and who should hold the office without any actual duties being assigned to him except general superintendence. The duties would be performed by a deputy, who would receive the salary, whilst the Lord Clerk Register would receive no salary. In connection with this matter the Government have had under consideration that which was long pressed upon them by hon. Members from Scotland—namely, the appointment of an Assistant Undersecretary of State attached to the Home Office, who shall be specially charged with Scotch Business in aid of the Lord Advocate. Her Majesty's Government have decided to ask the House to allow them to bring in a short Bill to appoint this Under Secretary of State, who will have a seat in this House, who will be specially charged with the administration of Scotch affairs, who will receive the ordinary salary of an Under Secretary, and who will be expected at the same time to look after the Registry Office of Scotland. With regard to the second Question, as to the supervision of Education in Scotland, the House may have gathered that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to continue the Scotch Education Board; but they think it necessary that Scotland should have a special Representative on the Committee of Council on Education, and therefore they have thought it right to advise Her Majesty that the Lord Advocate should be placed on the Education Board in England, and I belive that he will be sworn in to-day of the Privy Council to effect that object.

said, that this clause dealt with the question of capital punishment, and the Amendment he proposed was, in page 13, line 16, to leave out the words "during the time of peace within the Queen's dominions." What he wished to assert was the principle that corporal punishment should not be inflicted under any circumstances whatever. The clause as it stood only provided that the punishment should not be inflicted in time of peace. He was compelled to direct his Amendment to the clause in instalments of the nature of the one he now proposed.

thought there could be no reason whatever, why, in time of disturbance, there should not be the power of inflicting this short and decisive punishment, when no recourse could be had to prison discipline. He, therefore, could not consent to strike out the words.

said, that for his part, if the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor Power) had not brought forward the question of flogging on this occasion, he (Mr. Taylor) should have been content to await the result of the Committee on the Mutiny Bill—and that for two reasons. In the first place, if this question was brought forward at this time, no Vote of the House would afford any indication to the country of how much that House was opposed to flogging in the Army; and secondly, because, as he understood the hon. Member, he did not propose the abolition of flogging, but only to reduce the number of lashes from 50 to 10. [Mr. O'CONNOR POWER: No, no.] In that case, he would withdraw the observation; but he hoped the hon. Member would not go to a division, because the result would not stand well before the country. He trusted and hoped that the Report of the Committee would be such that no Government would ever again venture to introduce flogging in the Army. Not only was this brutal punishment degrading to the Navy and Army who were injured by it, but we were the last nation in the world who made use of it; and he did think that after the examination that would be made by the Committee, the clause would not be brought forward in any new Mutiny Bill. If it were to be re-introduced, the House would be able to make a strong stand against it. He would promise to oppose it by every means possible, and he believed that in future times there would be no flogging in the Army. He believed that the only reason why the Government had postponed year after year the bringing in of a new Naval Discipline Act was that it would be impossible to retain the cat in a new Act. Many years ago, Lord Clarence Paget described it as a Draconian code. For many years in that House he (Mr. Taylor) had opposed the flogging clauses of the Mutiny Act with varying non-success, until public opinion was fairly moved on the question. When a specific Resolution was moved by Mr. Otway in that House, and a majority obtained against flogging in the Army, it was then supposed that Government would deal with the question, and that flogging would be abolished; but, unhappily, there still remained in the Mutiny Bill this provision for flogging in time of war. He believed the reasons why no great objection was made to this condition were two. One was that we were rather in a dream of universal peace, and that the question would not arise. Another reason was, that it was believed that in time of war, in presence of the enemy, no commander would venture on such severity towards his troops. He was reminded by that of an officer who wrote to him on remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Gal-way (Major Nolan), on the wholesale flogging of soldiers in the field in Abyssinia. The officer said that, no doubt, the hon. and gallant Member was right; that the power of the provost marshal was unlimited, and led to a great deal of cruelty and injustice. They might have been mistaken in allowing the flogging clauses in the Mutiny Bill to pass year by year without criticism; but now the hon. Member had brought them face to face with the question, and he did hope that no Government would propose, and no House would sanction, the continuation of this degrading punishment. He would, therefore, ask the hon. Member not to divide now; but if he did, he would vote with him.

considered that the opinions of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) were entitled to the greatest respect from everybody. He had for so many years devoted his attention to this subject, that those who had only recently had an opportunity of considering the matter ought not to disregard anything that came from him, or they might incur the suspicion that they were not doing what they did out of regard for the interests they desired to serve. But he wished to point out that the powers of flogging were wider than was supposed. Not only could it be administered in an army on active service in the field, but on board ship when not in commission. He presumed that soldiers could not be flogged on board ship without the operation of this Act. He did not, however, know how the law stood with regard to soldiers on board ship in commission, or whether they were bound by the Marine Mutiny Act. With regard to the general question, of course, as there was to be a Committee on this subject, and as the House seemed very strongly impressed last Session with the necessity of doing away with flogging altogether in the Army and Navy, and as Her Majesty's Government seemed to consider the desirability of doing away with it altogether, if that favourable disposition continued, he thought the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) would bring great opposition on himself, if he did not accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor). Many hon. Members of that House might look upon the opposition which some of the Irish Members had felt it their duty to make to this Bill was an opposition which might have been actuated by other motives than those they had avowed. He did not think hon. Members of that House, or even the Secretary of State for War, after what he had stated on the previous night, could give credence to that opinion. Although they might feel it their duty to move the various Amendments on the Paper, yet in view of the appeal of the hon. Member for Leicester, it was incumbent upon them to see whether, if they persevered, they would not really do harm to the cause of the abolition of flogging in the Army. It was true this subject would go before the Committee fortified by the vast majority of public opinion in favour of the abolition of flogging, and also fortified by the general feeling and sentiment of that House. It was important that nothing should be done to put a stop to that sympathy; and it might be that if they went to a division after the speech the Secretary of State for War felt it his duty to make on the previous night, some hon. Members might be led to walk into the Lobby on behalf of a punishment they really did not believe in. Consequently, this question of the abolition of flogging might appear in a less favourable light than it did last Session, and he could not help seeing that there were circumstances which rendered it undesirable to carry the opposition shown by this Amendment further. If the hon. Member for Leicester had taken up the subject upon every Mutiny Bill, flogging would have been abolished before now. After unexampled exertions, the House was anxious for the relaxation of the Easter Recess, and would probably regard a prolongation of the debate with dissatisfaction and annoyance; and he could not, therefore, take upon himself the responsibility of urging the hon. Member for Mayo to persist in his Amendment.

remarked, that he was unable to agree with the mild course suggested, however judicious it might appear. It must be a very unpleasant thing for any hon. Member to vote in favour of flogging in the Army; and the best policy, therefore, would be to allow the odium to rest on parties who voted in favour of the retention of flogging, while those who opposed it should have an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the subject. It seemed to him that at least some Member of the Government should express an opinion, that, in proposing a new Mutiny Bill to the House, there should be some modification of such a clause as this. They ought not to leave this question of flogging in the Army to the mere chance that the Committee would vote against it, and that the Government of the day would vote against it. They would have first to get a Committee who would make such a recommendation, next a Government that would support the Committee, and they would also have to get the general support of the House next year. It would be a more simple matter if the Government would give way and get rid of the system once for all. Irish Members were held up to odium, because they raised questions and proposed Amendments which they sincerely felt were important not only to the cause of humanity, but also to the British Army. Now, he thought it was only right that some consideration should be given to the soldiers who were the bone and sinew of the Army, and he should therefore be disposed to follow whatever course the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) felt disposed to take. Mutiny Bills had been passed for a number of years without opposition, and there were no concessions. His opinion was that the only way to get concessions was to make rather determined opposition, because reason and common sense did not carry as much weight as they ought to carry.

, in recommending the adoption of the course suggested by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), trusted the Government would give the Committee some information as to the possible character and constitution of the Committee or Commission who were to sit on this Bill, because such a Committee or Commission would be viewed with jealousy or otherwise according to its constitution. No one was more opposed to flogging than he was. It seemed to him that it should be confined to the most degraded characters. At the same time, it was very difficult to say what was to be done with bad characters in the field. It was difficult to say whether, if flogging on service were to be abolished, some more serious penalty would not be summarily inflicted.

Sir, with regard to what the hon. Member has said, the Committee will be appointed by this House, and will not be in my Department.

I beg pardon; I thought there might be a Royal Commission.

May I ask if the Committee is to be appointed immediately, and to report this Session?

Certainly. I intend to ask for the Committee directly, and it will sit as soon as possible; but I think not before Easter.

, with reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), and the remarks on the Committee that might be appointed, said, that the hon. Member for Leicester founded his impression entirely on the supposition that some Committee would be appointed that would easily be induced to abolish flogging—in fact, he thought that they had already killed the cat; but, judging from the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who had charge of the Bill, and whose influence would be great in appointing the Committee, and doubtless in shaping the decision of the Committee, he did not think they could rely upon the support of the right hon. Gentleman in abolishing flogging in the Army. Therefore, they had really nothing to go upon so long as Her Majesty's Government took no steps to meet them half-way. Soldiers were liable to corporal punishment to the extent of 50 lashes, and there was nothing to prevent a man who had received 50 lashes to-day being sentenced to receive another 50 lashes in three months time. After what had been said on the subject, he should not, however, press the two Amendments before the House; but he would test the feeling of the House upon a subsequent Amendment, by which he sought to reduce the number of lashes which it was now within the power of a commander to inflict. He wished to reduce the number of lashes from 50 to 10, which he considered itself a most severe sentence.

remarked that he had an Amendment previous to that. He wished to move the omission of the words, in line 22, "or any breach of the Articles of War." If we were to have flogging, the nature of the offences should be distinctly denned. It should not be left to the interpretation of the commanding officer to say what was or was not an Article of War. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment.

thought this an important Amendment. If he were to make an assertion that there was not a single Member of that House who understood the Articles of War, he should not be very far from stating the truth. Judging from the experience of this Session and last Session, he doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War understood them himself. He believed it was only the combatant branches of the Service that were placed under the Mutiny Act, and it appeared to him to be a great hardship that any breach of the Articles of War should be punishable by flogging. The Articles of War were very numerous, and were continually being altered. It was perfectly impossible for any private soldier to know what these Articles were, or what breaches of the Articles of War rendered him liable to punishment. If the Committee read these Articles of War, they would see for themselves that there were all sorts of crimes and offences put down of a trivial character, such as ought not to be punishable by flogging under any circumstances whatever. It was rumoured abroad that the Secretary of State for War had determined to pass this Bill ipsissima verba without the alteration of a single line. Now, he thought it might be better, under these circumstances, to place the House of Commons under martial law. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman thought the House was under martial law already. It would be better if the Secretary of State for War brought in a short Act to operate until Easter, providing that all Members of the House of Commons should sit silent.

said, that the hon. Member had on one or two occasions attributed to him powers which he did not possess. Yesterday, he believed it was said that he had an intention of reducing the hon. Member, with some other hon. Members, to impalpable pulp. Now, he neither had the power nor the desire to do that. He had asked the House to pass the Bill in its present shape under the following state of things:—It was going to be referred to a Committee. The hon. Member for Mayo seemed to think that he (Mr. Hardy) would sit on that Committee. He had a great deal too much to do for that. He should take no part in its deliberations, nor endeavour to affect its voice in any way. He certainly asked the Committee, as far as they possibly could, to pass the Bill in its present shape, with a view that there might be a thorough investigation hereafter into the whole subject.

remarked, that the subject had not been brought before him. He would remind the Committee that the cases of flogging which were here referred to were cases which might arise on active service in the field. He would make another appeal to the Committee to get through the Bill as quickly as possible, and would promise a complete inquiry into its operation.

reminded the Committee that when the discussion on the Mutiny Act took place last Session, the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Hunt), in response to an Amendment which was then moved, undertook to see that no cats should hereafter be used in the Service except such as were of a pattern approved by himself. That arrangement might or might not have been carried out with reference to the Navy; but he was inclined to think it had been, because he observed that in the Prison Rules issued this Session by the Home Secretary, provision was made with regard to the size and weight of the cat, the number of knots on the lashes, the strength of the cord, and so forth. In short, the Rules provided that there should be an uniform cat for all the prisons under his jurisdiction. Now, it was true that in the Army there had been no punishment of this kind inflicted during the last year or two; because this country had not been at war with any of the European Powers, and it had not been necessary to inflict corporal punishment. But the country might be involved in war, and it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to deal with this matter. They could not have the Report of the Committee, which was promised, for another year—this Bill would be in force during all that time, and even for a longer period—and, consequently, it behoved the House to make provision that this punishment should be of a rather more humane character, and that the selection of the weapon should not be left to the caprice of the officers commanding regiments, but that the Secretary of State for War should himself see that the cat was of such a nature that it should not be an instrument of torture but a mere instrument of punishment. He hoped that the Secretary of State for War might see his way to giving a similar undertaking to that which both the Home Secretary and the First Lord of the Admiralty had already given.

intimated that he could not support the Amendment, as to do so would be to admit the principle that flogging ought to be inflicted. He hoped the hon. Member would not compel the Committee to divide. If he did, for his part, he must walk out of the House—and all the more because it was not a practical question until the country was at war.

observed, that the soldiers of all other European nations must wonder that Englishmen could be found to join an Army in which men were subject to so degrading a punishment as that of the lash. Let them contrast the position of the Regular soldiers at home with that of the Regular soldiers of any Continental Army in which flogging was absolutely out of the question. Take, for example, the French soldier. The moment he put on his uniform, he was then and there invested to some extent with a nominal rank, and death alone was considered as the fitting punishment for any great offence. The uniform on that simple soldier was respected throughout France—in the theatres, the railways, and, in fact, everywhere. Point to the uniform of a British soldier, and it was tabooed. A private soldier dared not go into a first-class carriage; or if he did, he was at the mercy of any railway official who might choose to put him out of it, even although he had paid his first-class fare. A soldier, wearing the uniform of this country, which boasted so much of the deeds of its soldiers, dared not go into a dress-box in a theatre, simply because he had not Her Majesty's commission. Another instance of the stigma which attached to these men was to be found in the fact that at the very moment when standing in front of their enemy with the prospect of receiving a bullet, there was this further prospect in view for them—that they might get the lash from their own officers. Certainly, the prospect was not a very cheering one to the soldier, and he (Mr. O'Clery) was inclined to think that it would be wise to abolish altogether the inhuman punishment of flogging. Either they thought their soldiers were worthy of the name of soldiers or they did not. If they were only to be regarded as malefactors in disguise, over whom must always be kept the lash, why not say so, and have done with the speeches which were being continually made at social and other gatherings in response to the toast of "The Army, Navy, and Volunteers." He thought that the position occupied by the soldier in this country ought to be well known, and he was sure that the soldiers of nearly every other country must look on with amazement at Englishmen who prided themselves so much on the liberty they enjoyed willingly subjecting themselves by entering the Army to punishment of this kind. He would vote for the Amendment, but he did not wish in doing so to be understood as supporting punishment by flogging. There was nothing, in his opinion, which had such a demoralizing effect on the soldier. In case this country was at war, the Volunteers would most probably be placed under the Articles of War; but he questioned whether Englishmen who hitherto had been engaged in professions in the country would care to subject themselves to such punishment as flogging.

said, it seemed to him that as the Committee had not been called upon to divide against flogging altogether, it was a matter of consistency whether they ought to go to a division on this question or not. He certainly had the very highest respect for the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), and he thought that there was great wisdom in what he had said. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was totally unable to vote in favour of administering 10 lashes to a soldier, if, at the same time, he were in favour of abolishing the punishment altogether. It seemed to him that if they had debated the question of abolishing the punishment and taken a division and been beaten upon it, it might then have been justifiable to propose to reduce the number of lashes. Indeed, he rather apprehended, if next Session it was proposed in the new Bill to re-instate flogging as part of the discipline of the Army, that probably some course of that kind would be taken. But if the Committee were, under present circumstances, to divide upon this question, and they by any chance got a vote in favour of the diminished number of lashes, it would certainly be said, and said with some effect, that the House of Commons had already considered the question of flogging, and had come to the conclusion that it was right that 10 lashes should be inflicted. On these grounds, he hoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Connor Power) would not divide the House. Their object would, he thought, be better attained hereafter under the guidance of their able and experienced leader on this question—the hon. Member for Leicester.

thought that the position taken up by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) was a most illogical one. The hon. Gentleman had said that he could not vote for the Amendment, because by so doing he would assert the principle that 10 lashes might be inflicted. But if the hon. Member sat silent while the question that 50 lashes might be inflicted was put from the Chair—and silence gave consent—was he not still more responsible for the very thing the odiousness of which he recoiled from? If he only considered the point a little, his sound intellect and clear reasoning powers must show him that he (Mr. O'Connor Power) occupied the only logical position. Therefore, he was unable to accede to the hon. Member's appeal, even though it had been, backed up by the authority of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). When he consented, a short time ago, to abandon the two previous Amendments, he distinctly indicated to hon. Gentlemen that he should ask their opinion upon the question whether it should be 50 or 10 lashes? That was the time for the hon. Member for Galway to have interposed. He did not see that it was possible for him to withdraw from, that engagement. It was open to him to move the rejection of the clause, but the chances were that they would fail in any attempt to abolish flogging altogether. Therefore, he thought it better to seek to mitigate the evil of which he complained; and if, because he was entirely opposed to this punishment, he was told that, in endeavouring to mitigate the evil, he was taking up an illogical position, he must say that his Irish understanding failed to grasp the situation. If the hon. Member for Leicester wished to convince him that his position was sound, he must throw a little more light upon it than he had yet done.

suggested, as a most important point for the consideration of the Committee, whether it would not be advisable that the Government should be able to go to the country, in the present position of affairs, and ask men to enter a Service not degraded by flogging, in the first place, and, at any rate, not terrorized over by excessive flogging, in the second place? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could hardly do a better thing, or one more calculated to popularize the Service at this moment than to frankly announce his intention to altogether abolish the horrible custom of flogging in the Army. At the very moment when a Ministerial journal was ringing with contemptuous phrases for a Service in which the use of the knout was retained, the Government would be doing a by no means inexpedient nor unwise thing if they abolished the knout in the British Army. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) was illogical and untrue to the position he had taken up in that House on the question, when, because he could not abolish a gross evil altogether, he refrained from making an endeavour to mitigate it. His reputation for consistency must suffer by the adoption of such a course.

failed to see that he had been guilty of any inconsistency in the course he had taken on the question. The reason he did not vote for the Amendment was, because he thought he saw a chance of making a good fight against flogging to any degree whatever when the new Mutiny Bill came before the House. He would not support the Amendment, because he was not in the habit of voting for anything he did not wish to see carried, and he should be very sorry to see a proposition in favour of 10 lashes adopted, for that was the effect of the Amendment before the House.

asked for an expression of opinion upon the question from the military officers and hon. Gentlemen skilled in military affairs, sitting in the House.

hoped the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) would re-consider his decision upon this question, as it involved the point, not whether 10 lashes should be continued, but whether the punishment of 50 should be altogether abolished; so that, on the most logical grounds, the hon. Gentleman was bound to support the Amendment. It had been urged, as against the Amendment, that England was not at war at present; but it was notorious that there was a noisy Party that had been encouraging the country to go to war. It was well-known that some Members of the Government took one view, and others a different view upon the question, and that the Prime Minister was in favour of going to war.

said, a discussion on the foreign policy of the Government was hardly relevant to the question before the Committee.

said, it must always be inconvenient to have to stop in the middle of a sentence, or before one had concluded an argument; and especially was it so in this instance, when he had been going on to show that the question of flogging in the Army might come prominently forward during the next three months. Suppose England went to war within that time, this clause would come into operation, and the rank and file of the Army would be liable to the punishment of flogging. They all knew how strongly the punishment was disliked by the men of the Army, and there could be no doubt that it would act as a check upon men volunteering into the Regular Service. At Truro, when some Volunteers were asked whether they would be willing to go on active service, only one of the number responded. An eminent military authority had recently given the number of efficient Volunteers; but if many of them were only willing to wear their uniform on State occasions, they could not be calculated upon as likely to join the Regular Army in case of necessity in the defence of the country. But if the Articles of War could be made less severe, there would be a better chance of inducing Volunteers to enter the Regular Service of the country, and so to make some addition to the bonâ fide fighting forces of England. The fact that a number of gentlemen had refused to volunteer for active service under present conditions, was an argument in favour of changing them, and in support of the Amendment.

said, that if the Government would engage not to go to war until the Report of the Select Committee on the Bill had been presented, there would be no necessity to press the Amendment.

said, there seemed to be no provision limiting the period during which these sentences of 50 lashes might be inflicted. He moved to add to the end of the Clause the words—

"Provided always, that no sentence of corporal punishment shall be inflicted twice in the same year."

, in supporting the Amendment, said, he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would have taken some notice of the Amendment. He could scarcely think the right hon. Gentleman meant to leave the clause as it stood in the Bill, for in its present form it was simply barbarous. The time had come to make some alteration in the Mutiny Act, at least as far as the provision under consideration was concerned. It seemed impossible, however, to appeal to the Government successfully, for the Secretary of State for War seemed determined to pass the Bill as it stood without altering a word or a line. It was not for him to inquire as to the motives of the right hon. Gentleman; but he was mistaken if he supposed that, by refusing to make any concessions, however small, he was likely to avoid a Report on the Amendments, because it would compel him, and those who acted with him, to take divisions upon questions which the right hon. Gentleman might have reasonably conceded. It was not humane, it was not to be tolerated that courts martial should be empowered to inflict sentences of hard labour and solitary confinement in addition to flogging. No considerations of getting away into the country for the Easter Recess ought to interfere with the Secretary of State in his wish to amend the Bill, and set the House right in the eyes of the country.

wished to appeal to Irish Members to let the Bill pass for this year, having obtained from the Government the concession of a Select Committee, which was to inquire into the whole of the matters dealt with in the Mutiny Bills. The Committee would be composed with great care, by the Government, assisted by the Members sitting on the front Opposition bench. They would have to deal with many matters of detail, and he thought such matters had better be left for the calm consideration of a Committee upstairs, than con- sidered in the heat and hurry of a Committee of the Whole House.

, said, the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms) did not seem rightly to appreciate the difficulties of the Government. Last year the Government engaged in a precisely similar manner to appoint a Select Committee; but the lamented death of a Member (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) put an end to the proposal; and there were a number of things which might intervene between this and next Session to prevent them from carrying out the intention which they had recently announced. He thought, therefore, that it would be better for the Government now to make some temporary concessions, in order to show that they were in earnest in their desire for reform. Appeals to Irish Members were all very well, and were very frequently made; but he thought it would be as well to address such appeals to Her Majesty's Government, whose duty it was to do something from year to year to remove some of the more gross inequalities, and so lighten the labours of the coming Committee.

hoped it would be quite understood that he made no appeals to Irish Members. He had long ceased from doing so, for he had found that there was no use in it. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), who chose to lecture him as to his duties, seemed to think it was part of his duty to reply to any and every speech which might be made by himself and his Confederates—

submitted that the right hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw the word "Confederates."

I move that the words of the right hon. Gentleman be taken down. He has used the word "Confederate," which is an objectionable and threatening word. The right hon. Gentleman last night used threatening language to hon. Members, which was allowed to pass then; but we will not allow this to pass.

pointed out that the hon. Member for Mayo was himself out of Order in applying the epithet "threatening" to language used by a Minister of the Crown, and added, that the word "Confederate" was not by itself, or as used by the right hon. Gentleman, a word of abuse or contempt.

said, he had not, in using the word "Confederates," any intention to cast any imputation on anybody. He himself was surrounded by a number of "Confederates," with whom it was his pride to act, and he had never yet heard that "Confederacy" was a term of offence. The Irish Members had professed themselves to be a Party separate from the other two Parties in the State, and must, therefore, be described as a Party who had confederated themselves together for certain purposes of their own. He was, therefore, quite at a loss to understand the objection which had been taken to his use of the word. If he were to reply to all the remarks that had been made over and over again—to the same arguments, if such they could be called, that had been repeated, in different words—he should detain the Committee as long as it had been detained by others. Passing on to the subject-matter of the discussion, he would remind the Committee that the clause was one which referred only to time of war or to the circumstances contemplated in the preceding clauses, which had already been debated for two hours. The clause was inserted as a mitigating clause in the Mutiny Act of 1868, and, in spite of the many small wars in which the country had been engaged since that time, there were only three cases of corporal punishment recorded, and those all took place in the year 1873.

said, that, so far from the Irish Members having acted as confederates in reference to this measure, the Committee must be aware that on several points they had been divided in opinion, had spoken on opposite sides on various questions, and on not a few occasions had assisted the Government in pushing the Bill forward. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had ceased to appeal to the Irish Members, for it was of no use. That was unjust, because many of the Home Rule Party had left the House rather than support some of the Amendments moved by their Colleagues, because of the opportunity that would be afforded for debating the Bill when it came from a Select Committee, and others had deprecated persistence in proposing Amendments now; but still he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) contended that the Government were unreasonable, because they would not accept a few Amendments to remedy patent and admitted evils, and as an indication of their feelings that the law required amendment. Instead of that, the right hon. Gentleman had come down to the House apparently determined to force the Bill verbatim et literatim upon hon. Members—a course of which he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) thought the House had a right to complain. He was inclined to make every excuse for the Secretary of State for War, on account of the strain which the present state of the country put upon him; but he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman would get through his work better if he would not take offence at everything that was said or done, and then retort in language as offensive as any that had been used. He appealed to hon. Members whether the right hon. Gentleman did not use just now, for the purpose of saying things as stinging and disagreeable, offensive and harsh, as it was possible, when he made the speech in which, he described certain hon. Members as "Confederates" of the hon. Member for Meath? The meaning of the word, used offensively, in the English language was, as a general rule, ''sharper." In gambling, the word "Confederate" was used to denote a person engaged in producing results of a not very creditable kind. What would the Committee have said if he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had spoken of the Judge Advocate General as the "Confederate" of the right hon. Gentleman? He should have been stopped immediately.

informed the hon. Member that he was not in Order in assuming that he would be treated differently from any other Member of the House, and that it was not customary for hon. Members to cast such imputations upon the Chair.

said, he had no intention of doing so. He only wished to say that the right hon. Gentleman and his "Confederate," the Judge Advocate General, who sat by his side, and who had not thrown the least light on the Bill, or offered a single observation, seemed determined that the Bill should pass without alteration. If that was the case, he thought it ought to be plainly understood. The right hon. Gentleman had himself admitted that great alterations in the Bill were necessary. Under these circumstances, if the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) chose to divide, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would support him, although he had not previously done so.

wished to reply to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and for that purpose would move to report Progress. They had been invited to refrain from taking any action on that Bill because the Secretary of State for War had promised a Select Committee to inquire into it; but the same promise was made last Session, and yet it was not kept. But the fact that there were a number of hon. Members in that House who were determined to expose all the abuses and cruelties under which Her Majesty's soldiers were suffering, could not fail to have a very important and beneficial effect on the deliberations of that Committee. Besides, it was contrary to the principles of Constitutional freedom to prevent Members from expressing their conscientious opinions. If such a system of repression had always prevailed in that House, they would not have been in the proud position they held now. They would have still been very much as they were in the Middle Ages. A very slight acquaintance with history would convince anybody that reforms had always been due, in the first place, to the persistence and courage of a minority. He now thought they ought to stop, and, with that view, he would move to report Progress.

seconded the Motion. So far from being an inducement to hon. Members to forego their opposition to the objectionable parts of this Bill, the appointment of a Select Committee was a well-known expedient resorted to for the shelving of a disagreeable subject. Over and over again Select Committees and Royal Commissions had reported without the slightest effect. He saw no force, therefore, in the appeal which had been addressed to himself and other hon. Members by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). If the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to conduct the discussion with something like coolness, Progress might have been made; but he only impeded Business by his perpetual interruptions, raising false issues, and exciting the House. Why did he not allow his young "Confede- rate," the Judge Advocate General, to say something, or the Financial Secretary for War, who might be glad of an opportunity of fleshing his maiden sword on that occasion? He saw no necessity for a display of temper on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and he did hope the Committee would be allowed to proceed with its Business.

I must say I have heard with much stronger feelings one remark which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman than I heard that to which attention has been called. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of hon. Members who were obstructing the Bill as the Irish Members. Well, there are many Irish Members on this side of the House as well as on that who do not agree with them. I am one of them. I must observe that I do not think that these hon. Gentlemen in any sense represent the Irish Members, or anyone else except themselves.

I ought to apologize to the hon. Member, and other Irish Members, for having used a general term. When I said Irish Members, of course I referred to those who have been discussing the clauses of the Bill, and I certainly did not intend to include the general body of the Irish Members in my remark. I only referred to a section of them.

advised the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) not to be greatly disturbed by imputations of the kind referred to. It was not very probable, judging by his conduct on Irish and general questions, that he would be exposed in any future Parliament to the odium he now complained of.

Sir, I rise to Order. I do not think that that is language which ought to be addressed to a Member of this House. In the course of these divisions, with very few exceptions, I have voted with those hon. Gentlemen who have been termed "Confederates." I object to the term, although I admit it has been explained away; but I object still more strongly to the language just used, or to any hon. Member rising in his place and signifying that if any Irish Member expresses views which he deems it his duty to express, he is to be threatened that he will not be returned again. Is an outcry to be got up against a Member because he expresses his views, and are we to be told he will not be returned again? I say that, if that is possible to be done without rebuke, this House would not be a place worth sitting in.

I think the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) ought to take the trouble, when he rises to address the House on a point of Order, to accurately report what has been stated by the previous speaker, and to which he wishes to take exception. I listened very attentively to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and nothing that he said in the slightest degree or extent could bear the interpretation which the hon. Member for Youghal has placed on it. I think I may add that the hon. Member for Youghal reserves his valuable assistance on occasions of this kind for the enemies of the Irish Members. He has never come to my assistance on any occasion that I know of.

I understood the hon. Member for Youghal to rise to a point of Order. I may say, however, that if the hon. Member for Dungarvan had used any words of the kind bearing the meaning imputed to him by the hon. Member for Youghal, he would be out of Order; but I understood the hon. Member for Dungarvan to express his opinion as to certain results that may happen; and he is quite entitled to so express himself.

said, there was no threat whatever in his language. He had simply used an expression which was very common in that House. At the approach of the General Election, hon. Members constantly told one another that such or such a course would result in the diminution of their respective Parties. Now, he held a similar opinion with respect to the results of the next General Election in Ireland. Personally, he had nothing but a high opinion to express of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French), but repudiation on political questions only begot repudiation. The final settlement of these matters lay with the country, and he had done nothing more than remind the hon. Member that there was a country to consult. As regarded the Bill, he thought that, notwithstanding the promised Committee of Inquiry, something ought to be done at once. The Committee, even if appointed at once, would probably be a long time in reporting. There were clauses in this Bill which the sense of justice of the House could not allow to pass. One, which established public slavery, he begged the permission of the House to read.

pointed out that this would be out of Order.

said, in that case then he would content himself with remarking that there were a number of clauses in this Bill of an antiquated and pernicious character. One hon. Member had spoken of the Bill as almost hundreds of years old; but, surely, that was not an argument which would weigh with the House. At least, one clause would have to be amended before the Bill left the Committee.

complained that not one argument had been employed by those who condemned the conduct of the opponents of the Bill. The hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) ought to have shown why he differed from his fellow-Members from Ireland. If he had given his reasons, they might have been convinced by them. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to get very hot in the discussion. Now, he had always understood that this was a sign of a bad case.

, expressing a desire that Business should proceed, withdrew his Motion.

said, he had placed the following Amendment on the Paper:—Page 13, at end, leave out "the periods prescribed by the Articles of War," and insert "seven days." His object was to minimize, as far as he could, the punishment of solitary confinement. He had, on a former occasion, made a proposal of a similar character, and, therefore, he did not feel at liberty to press this Amendment on the attention of the Committee on the present occasion.

said, the Amendment which he had on the Paper to this clause was to add at the end—

"and, if the imprisonment exceeds eighty-four days, the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any twenty-eight days of such imprisonment;"

stated, that he had a series of Amendments which he had intended to move in this clause—first, as to the amount of solitary confinement; secondly, as to the number of lashes; thirdly, as to the intervals between the periods of solitary confinement; and, fourthly, the desirability of taking away from courts martial the power to inflict solitary confinement, &c. All these points had already been decided in divisions which had been taken, therefore he did not propose to press the points further.

, in supporting the Amendment, said, it was not a new proposal, it having been before the House on previous occasions. When the subject was last before them, the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute) opposed the proposal, though he said that on more than one occasion he had, on the very day that a sergeant had been reduced to the ranks, promoted him to the rank of corporal. Now, he thought on that ground, they ought on the present occasion to claim the vote of the hon. and gallant General in favour of this Amendment. For why should they refuse to a court martial a discretion already possessed by a commanding officer? There was another hon. and gallant Member—the hon. Baronet the Member for Sunderland—(Sir Henry Havelock), who opposed this proposal on the ground that he desired to maintain the high position of the sergeants, and he therefore refused to give this discretion to the courts martial to inflict a less severe punishment than they had now the power to do. It seemed a strange argument to say that the present proposal would have the effect of lowering and not of raising the status of the sergeant. At the present moment, when one of the great desires was to obtain for the Army a high class of noncommissioned officers, it was well worthy of the consideration of the Secretary of State for War whether he could not improve their position in such a manner as that which was indicated by this Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman did so, it would tend to render the Service more popular, and attract to its ranks a higher class of young men. Non-commissioned officers, although they did not bear the commission of Her Majesty, were at the same time, in one sense, officers, and it would raise their self-re- spect, maintain their status, and improve them altogether, if as regarded corporal punishment, they could be placed in a higher position than the ordinary privates of the Army. At all events, he felt there were cases in which sergeants ought not to be reduced to the ranks, but to a lower grade of the non-commissioned rank.

hoped the Amendment would be pressed, because there was, at present, great difficulty in obtaining non-commissioned officers in the Army, and this might tend to improve their position.

said, this was a matter which must depend upon the experience of military men, and as far as he knew, and from inquiry, he thought the predominant feeling amongst them was in favour of leaving matters as they were. It should be remembered that a non-commissioned officer was only tried before a court martial for a very serious offence, and it was thought wiser, if it was proved, to reduce him at once to the ranks, because of the serious character of the offence. When he had been reduced to the ranks, if the commanding officer thought he was a deserving man, it was in his power to re-instate him. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be wiser to leave this matter in the position it was.

considered the Amendment was an extremely reasonable proposal, because, if the commanding officer alone had the power to re-instate the sergeant, his chances were excessively small. A man might be the wearer of the Victoria Cross, or some other medals for his bravery, and yet it was not in the power of a court martial, however much they might wish it, to mitigate this punishment of reduction to the ranks.

said, it was very difficult for anyone to say decisively what the opinion of the officers of the Army was on this subject; but he had spoken to hundreds, and his own opinion was that there was a preponderance in favour of the first part of his Amendment, if there was not as regarded the question of corporal punishment.

was at a loss to know the reason why this provision was maintained. If this power was given to courts martial, he presumed they would not regard it as an instruction to inflict the lesser punishment, if the higher one was deserved. As the law stood, it was a policy of extremes, and a court martial was placed in the difficulty of not being able to adequately measure the punishment which ought to be inflicted for an offence. He trusted a division would be taken on the matter.