asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true that the parish of Wymington has been without any public Elementary School accommodation since the passing of "The Education Act, 1870," and that the final notice requiring such provision to be made was only issued by the Education Department in May 1877; why, this notice having expired in November last, the Education Department has not issued its order for the formation of a School Board; whether this delay was due to the representations of the Vicar of Wymington made in 1870, and subsequently repeated at intervals, that a site and subscriptions had been offered for a new school which would shortly be provided; whether the Department has now been informed by the Vicar that the proposed school will not be built on the site originally suggested, but that a building upon the rectory farm is to be transferred to the school managers at a cost of £300 and converted into a school; whether it is the intention of the Education Department to accept the building so converted as satisfactory provision for school accommodation; and, whether in this case the grant of £151, which was sanctioned in 1870 towards the erection of a new school on the original site, will be transferred in aid of the expense of purchasing and converting the building now offered?

:The hon. Member's Question is so long, and refers to so many details ranging over seven years, that I must trouble the House at some length. There has been no public elementary school in the parish of Wymington since 1870. The first notification by the Department of the amount of school accommodation required was made in June, 1873, and the final notice was issued in May, 1877. When the final notice expired in November of last year, the Education Department found that a site which they approved had been acquired, and that school buildings which they had sanctioned were being proceeded with with due despatch; and, therefore, in accordance with the usage of the Department since the passing of the Act of 1870, no order for a school board was issued. Representations had been made, from time to time, by the vicar, in which he appears to have been supported by the churchwardens, overseers, and other inhabitants of the place, of their earnest desire to provide the necessary school, various schemes were submitted to the Department, and, as the intention seemed to be a bonâ fide one, delay was permitted. The local promoters of the school appear to have met with considerable difficulties, and the matter was further complicated by schemes for the Midland Railway going through the village at different points which might have affected the proposed school. Some time back the Department were informed of the change of site, and that a building upon the glebe farm would be sold to the school committee which could be well enlarged so as to supply a good school. The Department were satisfied that the new site was suitable and generally approved by persons connected with the locality, and the proper surveyor's certificate was furnished to the Department in the usual course as to the building and its price. The Department have also been satisfied that all the usual requirements as to the school, class-room, and residence, have been fully met by the building which is being enlarged, and I need hardly remind the hon. Member that the requirements of the Department as to buildings, &c., if blamed at all, are usually found fault with for being excessive. We also received last year a formal assurance, signed by the two churchwardens, the two overseers, and the way-warden of the parish, that the building was substantial and built of excellent materials, and that the site itself was the best and most central, and was preferred by the great majority of the inhabitants. The school itself and class-room, we are told, are now ready except the furniture; and a certificated teacher is on the point of being engaged. If the usual requirements of the Department are found to be fully met when the building is actually ready for opening, the building grant will be given. This is one of a difficult class of cases, being a small village of about 300 souls. In such cases, where we find that the inhabitants are striving to provide a good school in the face of considerable difficulties, we think it better to adhere to the practice which has prevailed in the Office from the time of our Predecessors, and to give them ample time for carrying out their work, instead of at once ordering a school board; as experience has shown us that to force a school board upon these very small villages when they are hostile to a board, and at present do not supply suitable materials for a board, is by no means the quickest way of providing for the education of the children in these places, which is, of course, the primary object of the Education Acts and of the Department.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to occurrences stated in the "Dublin Daily Express" of the 19th instant to have taken place at Londonderry on the previous day, when a Nationalist demonstration was made in that city, consisting of a procession of many thousand persons carrying flags and banners with seditious mottoes inscribed upon them, when one of the arches which had been erected was taken down by order of the magistrates who considered the mottoes seditious, when in spite of the remonstrance of the loyal inhabitants, who requested the magistrates to prevent the display of seditious and disloyal emblems in the procession, they, the magistrates, declined to interfere and allowed it to march through the streets for several hours unmolested, whereas a number of loyal citizens of Derry carrying the Royal ensign were charged by the police with drawn swords, whereby the Royal ensign was cut and slashed, and the pole broken; and, whether the magistrates and police of Londonderry were acting on that occasion under instructions received from the Government authorities at Dublin Castle?

Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to these proceedings, which have been described with substantial accuracy by my hon. Friend. With reference to the last paragraph in his Question, I think, perhaps, I had better briefly state the substance of the instructions that were forwarded to the authorities of Derry. They were to the effect that they should prevent the city gates or any public buildings being placarded in any way whatever, whether by loyal or disloyal placards or mottoes; also, that while no action should be taken against processions of either side so long as they constituted no danger to the public peace, any concourse of persons which appeared to be calculated to lead to disturbances should be promptly dispersed. The magistrates appear upon this occasion to have arrived at the conclusion that the particular crowd alluded to—which, by the way, I believe, carried not the Royal ensign, but a Mercantile Marine flag—was likely to be the cause of a breach of the peace, and they accordingly dispersed it. I have not as yet been able to ascertain why the opposing crowd was not also dispersed; but, doubtless, the magistrates had reasons for thinking that course unnecessary.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with reference to the recent appointment to the distributorship of Stamps for the county of Kerry, Whether it is the fact that Mr. W. Linihan, who for over twenty-two years has been constantly employed in the Stamp Office at Tralee, applied for the post; whether Mr. Linihan's long experience in the practical management of the office, his intimate knowledge of the Legacy and Succession Duty Acts, and the general satisfaction he has given in the performance of his duties had been brought under the notice of the Government previously to the appointment being made; and, whether a gentleman having no previous connection with the Stamp Office, and no experience of the duties connected with it, has been appointed?

I ask permission to answer this Question, as it is more particularly related to the offices with which I am connected. It is true that Mr. Linihan applied for the post referred to. The authorities also were aware that Mr. Linihan had been employed by the late distributor of stamps as his deputy, by, I suppose, a private arrangement between the two. With regard to the third part of the Question, although the gentleman now appointed had no previous connection with the Stamp Office, yet he is a gentleman who the Government have every reason to believe is fully competent for the duties of his office.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the Local Government Board of Ireland, in a letter dated the 13th October 1876, promised a sworn investigation into the complaints preferred by the Moycullen Dispensary Committee against their Medical Officer; and, whether it is the fact that no such investigation has since been held notwithstanding the reiterated demands of the Moycullen Dispensary Committee that the undertaking of the Board should be observed?

Yes, Sir; it is the case that an inquiry of the description referred to was promised. The complaints were twofold. With respect to one, a sworn inquiry was held; but as to the other, it appeared that the Inspector whose duty it would have been to conduct such an inquiry happened himself to have been a witness of what occurred, and was therefore in a position to make his report without going through the formalities alluded to.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have in any degree departed from their previous resolution not to interfere between the Khedive of Egypt and his creditors?

Sir, there has never been any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to interfere officially between the Khedive of Egypt and his creditors; but they have intimated that they are willing to allow Mr. Rivers Wilson to take part in an inquiry which they understand is about to be instituted by the Khedive.

asked the Vice President of the Privy Council, Whether he has any knowledge of a Statutory enactment, already approved by the Federal Council of the German Empire, and now submitted for confirmation to the German Legislature, imposing new and stringent provisions to guard against importation into Germany, and notably from Russia, of animals affected with rinderpest; and, whether, amongst those provisions there is not the rendering liable to five years penal servitude any persons who may lend themselves knowingly to the introduction of animals so diseased?

in reply, said, that no information had been received at the Privy Council Office of the enactment to which the hon. Member had alluded, and that if the hon. Member had any official information on the subject he should be very glad to receive it.

asked the Secretary of State for War, When he will be prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the Royal Warrant for the re-organisation of the Clerical Branch of the Royal Engineers?

, in reply, said, a scheme had been drafted, and it was at present only in its preliminary stage; but that as soon as it was prepared it would be laid on the Table of the House.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will cause to be furnished to Members of this House a Map showing the whole area included in the provisions of the Treaty of San Stefano, with the proposed boundaries?

, in reply, said, he thought the Map already in the hands of hon. Members gave a fair indication of the boundaries. He would, however, consult with his Colleagues, and see whether anything further could be done, without much expense, to give a more complete view than the present Map.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, in reference to the promise made to a deputation of bakers with regard to the Smoke Nuisance Act on the 24th April 1874, that

"a fair case for inquiry has been stated. I promise you the inquiry shall be thorough and general,"

There seems some slight difference in words in the Question and what fell from the Secretary of State in answer to the deputation of the 24th of April, 1874. The Times of the following day reports, I believe accurately, that—

"Mr. Cross promised he would cause strict inquiries to be made into the matter laid before him by the deputation, and that he would form his own judgment according to the information he thus received."

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the recent loss of H.M.S. "Eurydice," it is the intention of the Government to propose a grant of public money to aid the families of those seamen who lost their lives in their Country's service, instead of leaving that duty to the ordinary channels of public subscription?

Mr. Speaker, I have been in communication with my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, and may state that the same course will be followed with regard to the families of the unfortunate men lost in the Eurydice as was adopted in the case of Her Majesty's ship Captain, which was lost some years ago. I will not trouble the House with the details of the different rates of pensions and gratuities that were given to the families of the unfortunate men who were lost upon that occasion; but the same course will be pursued in this case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Depositions and Verdict of the Coroner's Jury in the case of the late Colour Sergeant M.Carthy?

In the first instance, I gave instructions that the depositions should be included in the Papers laid on the Table and ordered to be printed. I did not find until yesterday that that was not the case; and I gave orders yesterday for the mistake to be rectified.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he can state on what calculation the Item of £5,000 in the Civil Service Estimates (Class 4, Vote 4, National Gallery), for the Purchase of Pictures, is based; and whether the same sum is generally estimated each year?

The amount of the annual Vote for the purchase of pictures for the National Gallery was fixed by a Treasury Minute of March 1855—which was presented to Parliament—at £10,000. In 1870 the Peel Collection was purchased for £75,000, and it was arranged that the annual purchase grant should be suspended until the Exchequer had been recouped this outlay. The Trustees consider that the time has now arrived; and the Treasury, though not quite accepting the figures of the Trustees, so far agreed, that we determined to insert the sum of £5,000 in the Estimates for 1878–9, without prejudice to the point at issue, as the adjustment of the question at issue would have required some consideration and we were desirous to avoid delay.

asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is able, or expects shortly to be able, to give the House any further information respecting the meeting of the Congress at Berlin?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government will be able to lay on the Table this evening some Correspondence on this subject, and it will, I hope, be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning. Perhaps it would be convenient to the House that I should mention the principal points in that Correspondence. The House is already aware that some time ago—on the 13th of March—Lord Derby stated to Sir Henry Elliot that—

"Her Majesty's Government must distinctly understand before they enter into the Congress that every Article in the Treaty between Russia and Turkey will be placed before the Congress, not necessarily for acceptance, but in order that it may be considered what Articles require acceptance or concurrence by the several Powers and what do not."

"Prince Gortchakoff charges me to represent to you that the Treaty of Peace concluded between Russia and Turkey—the only one which exists, for we have no secret engagement—will be communicated to the Government of the Queen in its entirety and well before the assembling of the Congress. The Government of the Queen, in like manner as the other Great Powers, reserve to themselves at the Congress their full liberty of appreciation and action. This same liberty, which she does not dispute to the others, Russia claims for herself. Now, it would be to restrict her, if, alone among all the Powers, Russia contracted a preliminary engagement."

"Whether the Government of Russia are willing that the communication of the Treaty en entire to the various Powers shall be treated as a placing of the Treaty to the Congress in order that the whole Treaty in its relations to existing Treaties may be examined and considered by the Congress?"

"I lost no time in communicating to Prince Gortchakoff the tenour of the letter which you did me the honour to address to me, dated the 21st of March. The Prince replies to me that the Imperial Cabinet deems it its duty to adhere to the declaration which I was ordered to make to the Government of the Queen, and which is stated in the letter which I had the honour to address to your Excellency dated the 19th of March. As different interpretations have been given to the 'liberty of appreciation and action' which Russia thinks it right to reserve to herself at the Congress, the Imperial Cabinet defines the meaning of the term in the following manner:—It leaves to the other Powers the liberty of raising such questions at the Congress as they might think it fit to discuss, and reserves to itself the liberty of accepting or not accepting the discussion of these questions."

said, it was hoped they would be able to proceed with the Civil Service Estimates that night.

asked, Whether it was the intention of the Government to hold a Morning Sitting on Friday?

said, he really hoped that it would not be necessary to have a Morning Sitting on Friday. Morning Sittings were most inconvenient, and he hoped there would be no necessity to resort to one to-morrow. Government only proposed them under great pressure.

asked, Whether, in view of the present state of Public Business, the Government would now consent to postpone the further consideration of the County Government Bill until after Easter?

said, it was perfectly obvious that they could not expect to get a fair discussion of the Bill before Easter; and, therefore, the Government would not propose to proceed with it until after the Holidays.

asked for some clear information from the Secretary of State for War as to the course he meant to pursue with regard to the questions affecting punishments which had been discussed at the previous Sitting. Similar questions arose on the Marine Mutiny Bill, and the course which he and his hon. Friends would take in respect of that Bill would depend on the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. ["Order!"] With a view to put himself in Order, he would move, pro formâ, that the Chairman do report Progress, not to obstruct but to facilitate business. He had heard the word "monstrous" uttered in an audible tone; but the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), who made use of that exclamation, ought to leave the preservation of Order to the Chairman. His object in rising was to point out that the Irish Members, who proposed Amendments to this Bill, were placed in a peculiar, and, he might say, a dangerous position. The Speaker had given it as his opinion that wilful obstruction of the Public Business was a contempt of the House; and the Secretary of State for War having the other night characterized their conduct as obstruction, the Committee would see the position in which they were placed. The Secretary of State for War had a great majority at his back; and he might cause to be expelled or imprisoned any Irish Member who ventured to move an Amendment of which he disapproved. Therefore, he was anxious to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he intended to adopt the same attitude that evening as he did on Tuesday, when he intimated darkly that ulterior proceedings would be taken against the Irish Members who ventured to propose Amendments. If he adopted the same attitude, then the Irish Members would be endeavouring to discharge their duty under circumstances of intimidation. If, on the contrary, he would meet them fairly, and would refrain from appealing to the prejudices and passions of the Committee, then he (Mr. Parnell) could venture to promise that the proceedings in Committee on the Mutiny Bills would be materially advanced and facilitated. He would now refer to the London newspapers, that had joined in the cry of obstruction against them.

said, that he understood the hon. Member for Meath to base the Motion which he had made upon some alleged feeling on his part that the Amendments he proposed to move might not be received in the way in which he desired that they should be treated; and he could not say that in taking that course the hon. Member was entirely out of Order. But he must point out to him that in diverging from that line of argument into anything like personal attack, he certainly was taking a most unusual course, and one which had never recommended itself to the Committee or the House.

was afraid it would very often be necessary for him, as it had been in the past, to take a course that might appear unusual to many Members, and one that would not recommend itself to the Committee or the House; but he had occasionally found that such a practice had been attended with very beneficial results. He had no desire to make any attack upon any. Member personally; but he was directing attention to the fact that the London newspapers had added their weight to that of the Secretary of State for War in charging them with an offence against the dignity of that House. In fact, they charged them with contempt of the House.

said, the hon. Member would see that the observations he was now making referred rather to a question of Privilege, which should be made when the Speaker was in the Chair, and which were not relevant to the issue that had been raised.

observed that, under those circumstances, he should not then refer to the action of the Press; but he should, before many days had passed, take an opportunity of bringing the conduct of the London Press, in reference to their action, before the attention of the House. It would be impossible for him to continue to discharge what he believed to be his duty if this kind of attacks were to be made upon him; because he and those with whom he acted were there without any power to appeal to the public opinion of this country. ["Order!"] Well, they were far off from their own country, where there was a public opinion. Their action this Session had been deprecated on the ground that the Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee. The Secretary of State for War, whenever he had deigned to make them an answer, had invariably said either they were most unreasonable and foolish, and were moving insensate Amendments; or, if their Amendments were good and sound, what need to take any action on the present occasion when the whole question would be referred to a Select Committee? Now, at the beginning of the Session it was intimated to him that if he refrained from opposing the progress of the Mutiny Bills in Committee, he should be given a seat on the Select Committee. He replied that he should feel it to be his duty to oppose the passing of these Bills with a view to direct public attention to their gross character; and, though his conduct might deprive him of the high honour of a seat on the Committee, yet he was comforted by the reflection that he might have succeeded in directing public attention to several matters which he had not been able to point out last Session. They had been charged with moving numerous Amendments, with making very lengthy speeches, and with taking repeated divisions. Now, what were the facts? On Monday evening they moved four Amendments, and on Tuesday morning three or four. That disposed of the charge, so glibly made, that they were moving hosts of Amendments; and taking innumerable divisions. It was unfair for those who ought to direct the public rightly to seek to create a prejudice against them, and lead the House of Commons astray on this subject. He appealed to hon. Members, who had calmly looked into this matter, to say whether they might not have moved, not three, but 50 Amendments upon the points which they had raised? But they had carefully avoided anything that looked like obstruction, lest they should give any opportunity to anybody to raise that cry against them. He might not be very much interested in the preservation of the privileges of the House of Commons; but those privileges were very seriously threatened. In all probability, hon. Members would be deprived of the privilege of discussing grievances before Supply.

pointed out that the hon. Member was entering into matter which was not relevant to the Question before the Committee.

hoped to connect his observations with the matter before the Committee; but if the Chairman considered them to be irrelevant, he should not pursue the topic. He would conclude by saying that they had some four or five Amendments to propose, which referred to questions distinctly separate from those with which their other Amendments dealt; and he would invite the Secretary of State for War to adopt an attitude which would facilitate the passing of that Bill, and also of the Marine Mutiny Bill, through Committee. He begged to move to report Progress.

said, that the hon. Member for Meath had taken a somewhat unusual course in referring to what took place during former discussions. The Committee would remember that he had rarely intervened in the debate except once to speak to Amendments when brought forward; and the remarks he made on both occasions, to which the hon. Member had referred, were towards the close of the proceedings on the Motion to report Progress, which was not persisted in. On Tuesday he did somewhat complain of the length to which the discussions had been protracted; but, on the first occasion, he distinctly said his objection was not to the discussion of the Bill, but to the extreme length at which it was discussed, and to hon. Members speaking so frequently on the same subject. He thought that was not an unjustifiable course of action on his part. He really did not think he should assist in passing the Bill if he were to go further into this matter. He was quite prepared to discuss the Amendments on the Paper; and he trusted that they might speedily come to a conclusion upon them one way or another.

observed, that as a looker-on upon all that had taken place, he must say that if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had discussed the different Amendments which were moved on their merits, and shown less temper, so much of the time of the Committee would not have been occupied in their consideration. There were, no doubt, a great many hon. and gallant Members in that House who took a great interest in the military service; but, unfortunately, that interest was confined to the officers; and the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that the rank and file of the Army were unrepresented in the House, naturally enough did not pay the same consideration to arguments in their favour that he showed for the interests of the other branches of the Service. The right hon. Gentleman had, in effect, argued that he had not had time to look into the clauses of this Bill, and that if the Committee should pass it in its entirety possibly at some future time Amendments would be made in it. He sympathized with the right hon. Gentleman in the position in which he was placed; but he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman who sat near him (the Judge Advocate General) who was also a barrister, should give his attention to the different clauses, and let the Committee have the benefit of his opinion upon them. He really did think that if the Amendments yet remaining to be moved were argued coolly and temperately on their merits by one or other of the right hon. Gentlemen, business would be greatly facilitated, and there would be much less of that heat, unpleasantness, and ill-feeling which had hitherto prevailed.

wished to explain that the course pursued by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) and others had placed many Members, himself amongst the rest, in a false position. He had heard of the statement of the Government to refer the whole question to a Select Committee with much pleasure. He thought it an exceedingly fair and reasonable proposal, and that justice was more likely to be done in this matter by a Committee than by discussions in the House itself. He had voted for the first Amendment—to lessen the extent of punishment—as an indication of his opinion in favour of the adoption of that line of improvement; but he then made up his mind to vote on all the other Amendments with Her Majesty's Government, being persuaded that a long discussion, under the circumstances, was not the right or proper thing. He said thus much, because it might otherwise bethought that he was giving votes in favour of severe punishments, when, in reality, he was in favour of relaxing them. He would strongly advise his hon. Friends near him not to persevere in their present course.

certainly felt great diffidence in replying to an argument which had been repeatedly answered. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had deprecated discussion on the old ground that a Select Committee was promised; but he had no evidence as to how that Committee would be constituted. The hon. Gentleman was one of the humane British Members who had been looking forward to these reforms, say, for the last 40 years; and what had he, and his fellow Members who agreed with him, done to effect these reforms? Why, they had sat still while these Bills had been run through year after year, and now when a real effort was being made to call attention to them, these Gentlemen stood up and said—"Oh, the cause is lost if you Irish Members persist in your course of action." Really, it was not fair to put upon them the odium of defeating the cause. On the contrary, it was impossible to carry any great reforms in that House until public attention outside had been directed to the evils of which Members complained. Their object this year, as last, had not been to obstruct the Business of the House, but again to fix public attention on the matter, and to bring legitimate and Constitutional pressure to bear on the right hon. Gentleman, so that he should not take his eye off these questions until they had been satisfactorily dealt with.

explained that by the clause a person who had been convicted by a court martial for an offence or a crime could only be cashiered or removed from the Army. If he was cashiered or removed he lost his purchase money. There were many cases in which it would not be possible to allow a man to take his money; but if the words proposed were inserted, they would entitle such a person to receive it. He felt great pity for the gallant officer who had suffered under the operation of the clause; but, at the same time, it was the inevitable consequence of his removal from the Army.

said, he certainly should press his Amendment to a division, as a protest against the shameful disadvantage at which officers who had obtained their commissions by purchase were placed in comparison with officers who obtained their commissions under the new system.

pointed out that officers who were cashiered under this clause were guilty of a misdemeanour as well as of a military offence.

quite admitted that the War Office and the Horse Guards had been guilty of a great want of judgment in dealing with many matters arising under the Royal Warrant on Purchase, and he had never ceased to protest against the injustice that had been done to many officers; but, at the same time, while deeply regretting the loss of the services of the gallant officer whose case had been mentioned, he could not support this Amendment. It would be impossible, after an officer had been tried, whether by a civil or criminal process or by court martial, for any offence which justified his exclusion from the Army, to entitle him by right, under this new clause, and to justify a vote to him of money from the public funds in payment of moneys invested in the lost commissions. This was a risk which any officer incurred on obtaining rank. It had often been put forward, as he thought, unreasonably, as an incentive to good behaviour; and therefore he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division.

hoped the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) would not put the Committee to the trouble of walking through a division. He could not press his Amendment in view of the fact that the Crown had an absolute right to dismiss any of its servants—from the Prime Minister down to the lowest official.

said, the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) did not seem to understand that this was not a case of mitigation of punishment, but for equalization of punishment. An officer who purchased his commission was placed at a great disadvantage, when sentenced under the provisions of this clause, when compared with an officer who was appointed since the Royal Warrant; because, in addition to the penalty inflicted upon him by the sentence, he lost whatever sum he had previously paid for his commission.

said, this clause dealt with officers convicted of offences of such a character that Her Majesty did not think them fit persons to remain in her Service. The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not propose to interfere with the discretion of Her Majesty; but he did propose, on the other hand, that a man whom Her Majesty considered herself justified in removing from the public Service should be paid a large sum of money out of the public funds. Instead of there being a manifest injustice in not paying this money, he thought there would be a manifest wrong if it should be paid. Suppose a civil servant, entitled to a large pension, was brought before a civil tribunal and sentenced to imprisonment. As a result he would be dismissed from his post, and would lose his pension. If this Amendment were agreed to, such men ought to have their superannuation allowance continued to them.

said, the ton. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) either confused the case, or misunderstood the case altogether. This money paid by an officer for his commission was his private property, as much as an acre of land was the property of its owner. This money the Government had no right to touch, and it was guaranteed to the officers who had paid it by Act of Parliament. ["No, no!"] He knew there was a technicality, that if a man was dismissed from the Service he forfeited any money due to him; but he maintained that it was not equitable to have such a technicality in the Act.

thought the hon. Member for Roscommon had evaded the question at issue, and that the balance of the argument was entirely in favour of the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne). Let them take the case of two colonels, one of whom obtained his rank by purchase, and the other by promotion. If the latter were degraded, or dismissed, he simply lost his regimental rank; but if the same thing happened to the former, he not only lost his regimental rank, but the sum of money he had paid for that rank. Considering that there was unfairness in this inequality, he should vote with his hon. and gallant Friend.

said, he did not know where the hon. Member for Roscommon had learned his logic. He told them that the case of a Civil servant who did not get his superannuation allowance when convicted of crime and turned out of the Service, was the same as that of an officer in Her Majesty's Service who did not get his purchase money when he was convicted under this clause and cashiered. Why, the circumstances were not at all the same. The Civil servant had not paid for his superannuation allowance out of his own pocket, out of his own private means; but the officer had paid for his rank on the understanding that he was to get the money back when he left the Service. The hon. Member for Roscommon would have made his position better if he could have shown that the Civil servant had paid for his superannuation allowance. The injustice was rendered all the more glaring by the fact that there were two classes of officers, and that one of them, besides being punished by civil and military tribunals, also lost his pay.

said, when an officer purchased his commission, he purchased it on the understanding that if he was cashiered he would lose his money; and if he paid it on that understanding, he had no right to complain if he lost it; and as to the Civil servant, if he had not paid for his superannuation allowance, he had earned it by long and faithful service, and, according to his ideas, what a man had honestly earned was as much his as what he paid for.

proposed to amend the clause by extending the disability of commissioned officers of the Army to the acceptance of any civil employment under the Crown in all parts of Her Majesty's dominions. The special object he had in view was to prevent the injustice caused in India by the wholesale employment of commissioned officers in the Civil Service. While the Native Army in India had a very insufficient number of European officers, and there was a superfluity of members of the Civil Service entitled to promotion, innumerable posts in the Civil Service, including some of the most lucrative, were filled by military officers. It was admitted, by a large number of high authorities, that the Native regiments were almost inefficient from their lack of European officers, from four to seven being the allowance to each regiment. Throughout the North-West Provinces, in Scinde and in other districts, a great many military officers held posts in the Civil Service. Whatever might have been the original reason of their employment it did not now exist, while it admittedly hindered the promotion of the members of the Civil Service. Moreover, a wide door was opened to patronage and undue influence; and a young officer, within three years of his entering the Army, might be put in the enjoyment of a larger emolument than a Civil servant of 15 years' standing. The claims of military men to military promotion should be fully recognized; but there was no justification for their habitual appointment to Civil offices. It was injurious alike to the Army and to the Civil Service; it deprived the Army of useful officers; while, by retarding the promotion of Civil servants, it made the country guilty of a direct breach of its obligations to them. The present was an opportune occasion for remedying the grievance.

, having been one of the Commissioners who framed the Regulations for organizing the Army in India, had some special knowledge of the subject. The Native Army was organized in accordance with express orders from England, which ordered the Government of India to reduce the former establishment of European officers of 27 in a Native Infantry regiment, and to allot to it a distinct number of officers—five in number. By this sweeping diminution, as he thought very mistakenly, there was an ample margin left to the Government for Civil employment. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was well up in Indian affairs; but he had failed to inform the Committee that it was only in the non-regulation Provinces, however, that military officers could be employed in the Civil Service. He would venture to point out that on many occasions the Government was forced to employ military officers, because of the want of civilians to fill offices; and he might take his own case in illustration of the manner in which these Civil appointments were made. At the close of the first war with China, without any solicitation on his part, and rather against his will, he was invited, and urged to become employed in a Civil situation. Moreover, India had been brought into a civilized state by military officers. After the many divisions of India had been overcome by military operations, it then became necessary to employ military officers to carry on the Civil duties of the localities. These were often dangerous, and invariably paid for at far lower rates of salaries than the regular Civil servants demanded. These useful military men, after having all the hard and difficult and ill-paid duties, were turned out to make places for the highly paid civilians. Then it was not just to speak of the increased military charges. It was not the military, but the Civil charges that now swallowed up the revenues of the country. He did not advocate the employment of military officers in Civil situations to the exclusion of civilians, because it was enough for them to be employed when the Government could not find Civil officers qualified or willing to do the work in their own profession; but he opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would deprive the Government of a great number of useful servants in India.

thought it inconvenient that, by means of an Amendment proposed without Notice in the middle of the Mutiny Bill, an hon. Member should seek to alter the whole system that prevailed in India. If the history of India were looked into, it would be found that some of the best officials that country had ever possessed had been military men. A question of this sort would be much better discussed when the whole policy pursued with regard to India was before the House.

thought the question raised by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was of considerable importance. It was necessary to remember that when military officers were first employed in the Civil administration of India, the country was in a very unsettled state, and that circumstances were now entirely different. Then, again, the Civil Service was not then so well supplied, as it now was, with the best ability of the country. The competition of Army officers with members of the Indian Civil Service he felt to be unfair; and it would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had held out some hope to the Committee that the question would be considered by the Government at a future time. The course taken by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, in moving the Amendment, was almost the only mode in which a private Member could bring the subject under discussion.

said, the remarks of the Secretary of State for War had not touched the merits of his Amendment. There was a regular block of promotion amongst the Indian Civil servants—a class to whom the public credit was pledged that they should be promoted; while the block was caused by their posts being filled up by military men. The Amendment at once freed the Civil Service of India from unfair competition; restored military men to the Native Army, where they were so much wanted; and put an end to that system of patronage and influence which had been summarily abolished so far as the regular Civil Service was concerned.

proposed to amend the clause, by making it necessary that recruits for the Militia as well as for the Army should be attested before a justice of the peace, and not, as now, before a commissioned officer only.

explained that the clause as it stood conveniently carried out what had been the law for the last 100 years.

could see no reason in the antiquity of the arrangement for the continuance of it. When a clause came down from a very great antiquity, the presumption was that it needed reform.

said, it was evident that it was not thought necessary to have the same guarantee with regard to enlistment in the case of a Militia soldier as in that of a soldier in the Regular Army. But now that the Militia had been in so many respects assimilated to the Regular Army, it would be well to have the same guarantees in the one case as in the other.

did not think that it required the same consideration on the part of a Militia recruit as in that of enlistment for the Army.

said, that the clause contained almost every possible error that could be concentrated into the same number of lines. It provided—

"That any person who shall have been attested or enrolled in the regular army or reserves, and who shall afterwards be discovered to have given any wilfully false answer to any question directed to be put by the proper authorities, or shall have made any wilfully false statement in the declaration herein-before mentioned, shall be liable, at the discretion of the proper military authorities, to be proceeded against before the two justices."

said, the clause was one aimed at fraudulent enlistment. It had been usual, in the first place, to have an inquiry before the commanding officer; and afterwards, if, in his opinion, it was necessary, to make a charge before the regular tribunal. He, therefore, saw no reason for altering the clause. If the Amendment were adopted, the clause would run to the effect that any person who should afterwards be accused of having made any wilfully false answer, should be liable to be proceeded against before two justices of the peace; and then sentenced for a crime which he had not committed. He thought the old form would be better than that suggested. For all practical purposes, there had been no miscarriages, although the clause had remained in the Act for a large number of years.

thought that the tone adopted by the Judge Advocate General was calculated to excite hon. Members from Ireland to raise objections. He appealed to the Committee whether it was not a wrong thing to do. He blamed Irish Members for raising so many objections; but he did not at all wonder at it when such an insolent lecture as they had just listened to—["Order!"]

Order!

I apologize for that expression.

I must call upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw the word "insolent."

said, he withdrew the word with great pleasure. If the Judge Advocate General had anything to say, let him rise in his place and say it. Was it consistent with the dignity of the House to have that right hon. Gentleman laughing and sneering in his place?

pointed out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he was diverging from the question before the Committee.

pleaded that human nature was human nature, and said, it was impossible to avoid feeling indignant when he saw a right hon. Gentleman sitting on the front bench who did not observe that dignity which was right and proper. The paragraph of the Mutiny Bill was one of which he had complained previously; and it was disgraceful that the Act should be made up of such confused language as that clause exhibited. He appealed to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) to pitch over all his Amendments, and allow them to be considered by the Select Committee.

wished to point out that both the Judge Advocate General and the hon. Member for Dungarvan were in the wrong—the latter for having used the word "discovered" at the end of the clause, and the former for taking the frivolous objection to it he had done. For though no man could be discovered until first accused, tried, and found guilty, yet, so far as the accusation of error went, the Judge Advocate General was the more to blame for taking advantage of an obvious oversight.

thought the clause very clear. If the words "accused of having" were substituted for the word "discovered," the benefit would be on the wrong side. What was intended by the clause as it stood, was that the offence was discovered when it first became known to individuals in the regiment, and it then rendered a man liable to punishment; but nothing was done unless the military authorities brought the charge before the proper tribunal. If the Amendment were adopted, a recruit would be in a very much worse position than at present.

said, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had given a very curious interpretation of the word "discovered." It was as remarkable as his rendering of the word "confederate" as "a sharper."

felt that his Amendment was in the right direction, and would not withdraw it.

said, his next Amendment raised an important question with regard to the trial of a recruit. He moved to omit from the clause that part of it by which recruits were tried by court martial. A soldier who was accused of an offence committed after he had become inured to military habits, was very properly handed over to a court martial for trial; but that did not apply to the case of a man who, while still an ordinary civilian, was accused, in the course of his enlistment, of making a false answer. Such a man ought, in consideration of his civil character, of which he had not yet divested himself, to be brought before a civil tribunal alone. He therefore proposed that if any person who had been attested should afterwards be accused of having made any false answer to any question, put by the proper authorities, he should be brought before two justices of the peace instead of the district court martial.

said, the hon. Member for Dungarvan was, unfortunately, not so well acquainted with the offence as he was. In almost all cases it was not new men who gave false answers, but men who had been in the Army before, and they were the very men who required to be tried by a court martial.

said, his next Amendment was to omit the words "purporting to be signed," as applied to the signature of a letter, by which, as provided in the clause, an officer might give evidence against a prisoner before a court martial, without personal attendance. In every case before a military or civil Court the signature of a letter should be proved, and it ought not to be sufficient to show that the signature "purported" only to be that of the alleged writer. He begged to move the omission from, the clause of the words "purporting to be." If the Amendment were agreed to, it would then be provided by the clause that any written evidence which might be adduced against a prisoner must be fortified by the real signature of the writer and not merely by what purported to be his signature.

said, the word "purporting" was almost invariably used in Acts of Parliament for the very same purpose for which it was employed in the clause. If some such word were not introduced, it would become necessary, in every instance in which a prisoner was tried before a court martial, to take positive evidence to prove that a particular document was not fictitious, and a great deal of unnecessary expense would, in consequence, be occasioned. An officer might, for instance, have to be brought from India or from some distant Colony in order to satisfy the Court that a signature purporting to be his was really his. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would see the expediency of leaving the clause as it stood. The authority of such documents had hitherto, so far as he was aware, never been questioned.

said, the Amendment appeared to him to be a very reasonable one, and he should certainly vote for it, unless some better argument were adduced against it than he had heard from the Judge Advocate (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.

said, he could not see the harm if the authenticity of those documents was, as had been stated, never questioned, why there should be any objection on the part of the Government to the omission of words which simply declared that a document purported to be a real, genuine document. Was it wise, he would ask, to invite persons to commit fraud and forgery, by the use of express words in an Act of Parliament? It was evident, from the course which they were now pursuing, that the policy by which the Government had been guided throughout the whole of the discussions on the Bill was that of not accepting even the most trifling verbal Amendment. He could, however, assure the Judge Advocate, who seemed to be hopelessly impenitent, that persistence in such a policy would only lead to a repetition of those discussions on future occasions.

said, it appeared to him somewhat extraordinary that a document which only purported to be genuine should be taken in evidence against a prisoner; and, although there might be inconvenience in bringing an officer from India or the Colonies to verify his signature, there could surely be no difficulty in providing that a document should be given in evidence under the seal of one of the great Public Departments. A letter properly signed by the proper officer, on behalf of the Admiralty, for instance, would admit of being very easily proved.

said, it would cost the country a small fortune if the signatures attached to documentary evidence had to be verified in the cases to which the clause related, and which were constantly coming under the consideration of courts martial. As matters stood, the courts had every reason to believe that the documents presented to them were bonâ fide, and, more than that, was, in his opinion, unnecessary.

said, that if the signature of the commanding officer of a regiment or the captain of a ship were required to be proved on every occasion, the Committee might as well make provision in the clause for their personal attendance in the witness-box. That personal attendance, however, it would be impossible always to secure; so that, unless the words "purporting to be" were retained in the clause, the letters in question would be perfectly useless for the purposes of evidence, especially at out-lying stations.

said, he should be surprised to see the Members of the Government going into the Lobby for the purpose of recording their emphatic support of the principle that a document "purporting" to come from a certain authority might be used as sufficient evidence, even for the purpose of hanging a man.

said, the retention of the words "purporting to be" would, in reality, have the effect of providing that very security which the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) seemed to think could only be attained by their omission; for, according to the practice before courts martial, there was always some officer in attendance who was called upon to prove that, so far as he knew, a particular document given in evidence was, in reality, signed by the persons by whom it purported to be signed.

said, the practice of courts martial in no respect altered the law; and that unless the words, of which he had moved the omission, were left out of the clause, a forged document might be admitted as evidence against a prisoner.

pointed out that in the case of depositions taken before a magistrate, the signature attached was taken to be genuine, unless it were proved to be a forgery.

said, he, for one, was satisfied that the Government, who had such difficulty in obtaining recruits, would not prosecute a soldier before a court martial for the purpose of turning him out of the Army, unless they were tolerably certain that he had previously deserted. It was known that many men in the Army had enlisted and deserted four or five times; and, if the Amendment were adopted, it might be necessary to bring a commanding officer from Madras, another from Canada, a third from the Mauritius, and so on, to prove that a particular soldier had deserted from their regiments. The idea that a recruit would, in the circumstances, be subjected to anything like unfair treatment by Government, he regarded as a most remote probability. As hon. Members well knew, documents were every day produced in our Courts of Law to which the phrase "purporting to be" so and so was applicable.

said, it was quite true that documents were constantly taken in our Courts of Law to be what they purported to be; but then it would not do to roll them on the table of a Court; it must be specified that they had come from under some proper official custody.

said, that if the Government were prepared to admit that it was necessary to produce a witness to prove that the handwriting of the particular officer from whom a letter put in in evidence was stated to have come, he saw no occasion for the Amendment.

remarked that the first part of this clause referred, as the hon. Member for Dungarvan said, to negroes in any part of the world who, of their own will, enlisted in Her Majesty's Service, and to that part he understood the hon. Member made no objection. The consequence of these men enlisting was very beneficial, because it made them British subjects at once, and so far from being injured they were benefited. The practice had now gone out of use; but, while it existed, these men had an opportunity of going into the Army and becoming free men.

thought the right hon. Gentleman would have explained the words "voluntarily enlisted," and "appointed to serve."

could assure the hon. Member that no such thing was known in the Army as pressing. The words had been used as they were in the original Act.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that this subject should come before the Select Committee. If the clause remained as it stood, taken in connection with the Act of Geo. III., great suspicion was shown of connection with the slave trade. He always thought the English Government had taken great credit for freeing the slave; but he never knew until now that the price of their manumission was that they should enlist in the Army. Any man taken as a slave might be liable, under this clause, to serve in the West India regiment. He thought it right that these men should have an opportunity of serving in Her Majesty's Army; but it seemed to him unfair that recourse should be had to the system of pressing. He must take exception to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there were now very few captures of slaves, and that therefore this clause could operate in only a few cases. If even there were only a few, steps should be taken to remove the suspicion that any man was serving except of his own free will. This clause, as it stood, gave rise to an unpleasant suspicion against Her Majesty's Government. It showed that Her Majesty's Government in the past were simply in the habit of transferring slaves from one service to another.

It was not merely a manumission. They were put in the position of natural-born British subjects.

said, he had been looking through the Slave Trade Acts. It was not the Act of Geo. III., but the 15 Geo. IV., c. 113, that expressly authorized the pressing of captured slaves for the military and naval Services. It ran thus—

"Provided also, and be it enacted, that nothing in this Act contained shall prevent any slave or slaves from being put on hoard any ship or vessel at the order of His Majesty's Commander-in-Chief either on sea or land in order to be employed in His Majesty's military or naval Service, and being in such Service so employed whenever and wheresoever the said Service may require."

said, it seemed to him that it would be a wise thing for the Government to strike out the part of the clause suggested by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, for this reason—that if this Bill was unaltered in this present year of 1878, and if any historian or writer in this country wished to refer to dates in some future time, he would naturally, on looking at this clause as laid down here, conclude that the state of things was very different from what really existed. He would infer from what was laid down in the clause that slavery was still in existence in the British Army and Navy. In practice, it was very well-known now that England did not press negroes into the Army or Navy; but it might from this clause appear that such things were not only possible, but were still part of the common custom of the time. Another reason why the Bill should not be left as it stood was that really, after all, this part of the clause was practically obsolete, and should, therefore, be struck out.

said, he had looked at the commencement of the Act which the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had quoted, and he found that it was repealed by the 37 & 38 Vict. c. 6.

would ask whether the West India regiment was not voluntarily enlisted at Sierra Leone; and whether officers were not sent there and paid a capitation grant for recruits? At present, in the West India regiments there were no recruits except those voluntarily enlisted, either such as he described, who were enlisted at Sierra Leone, or the sons of negroes in the British West Indies.

believed that was so; but this Amendment would place them at a disadvantage, because the clause gave them the privileges of natural-born subjects.

suggested that, instead of the words "appointed to serve," they should retain only the words "voluntarily enlisted."

pointed out that those words would not equally well apply, because there might be men who were admitted into the Service in not quite a regular manner; and, if these words were struck out, they would no longer be entitled to the privileges of British subjects.

wished to point out that the Act quoted by the hon. Member for Dungarvan did not specifically authorize "enlistment" or "appointment to serve" for these negroes. It merely provided that "nothing in this Act contained shall prevent" such appointment. It did not authorize their appointment; but their appointment was evidently authorized by a previous Act. He wanted to know whether the original Act authorized these "appointments to serve;" and, if not, by what Act it had been repealed? because it appeared to him to refer to some slaves who had been seized and condemned to serve. He wished to know whether it was still in the power of the Government to appoint slaves seized tinder the Slave Trade Acts to serve in the Regular Forces? That was a plain question; and if any Gentleman who understood the law would kindly give their attention to it for a moment they would be able, perhaps, to answer it.

wished to explain that the Secretary of State referred to the Act of Geo. III., by which these negroes were allowed to enter the Service. It was quite clear that merely to allow negroes to enter the Service would not be represented by the phrase "appointed to serve." Under the Act of Geo. IV. there was a clause where negroes were allowed to "enter the Service," and another clause by which they could be "appointed to serve." The Act by which they were appointed to serve originally might be repealed, but that was so much the worse for this clause; for this clause yearly, without being noticed, re-established that clause which was repealed. When the House repealed the 5th of Geo. IV. they repealed the clause by which negroes were appointed to serve; but, at the same time, continued from year to year another Act—the Mutiny Act—by which the repealed clause was re-established. Suppose there were two negroes, one willing to enter the Service and another not, the man who was disposed to enlist could enter the Service and would be entitled to the privileges of a British subject, while the other man who was appointed to serve would equally have the privileges of a British subject.

said, the construction put upon this clause was totally incorrect. It did not give power to appoint a negro to serve, and if it was struck out injury would be done instead of good. It might be that there were some persons still in existence who entered the Service while this Act was in force; and if this clause were struck out, those persons would be placed in a worse position than those who had voluntarily enlisted.

did not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He agreed with him on one point, and that was that to say that the continuation of this clause gave the power of appointment to serve was not correct. It was clear that it referred to power of appointment given by some previous Statute. He wanted to know whether that was so or not? It should be known and thoroughly understood whether this clause was obsolete or might not be obsolete. It was certainly of a character to be obsolete, and yet it was scarcely old enough to be obsolete. The Statute gave power to take negroes who were seized on board slavers by Her Majesty's ships and draft them into Her Majesty's ships. He wanted to know whether that Statute was still on the Statute Book or not? If it was, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it ought not to be erased. Would it not be a proper thing to allow men still serving in the West India regiments to retire if they thought fit? [An hon. MEMBER: Question.] It was all very well to express their disapprobation; but if they had anything to say against the Amendment why did they not get up and say it? Why, a pig could express disapprobation. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he did not think it would be a proper thing, in case of negroes who had been forcibly enlisted in West India regiments, to allow them to retire? Perhaps the present representative of the law—the Judge Advocate General—would be able to throw light on the subject.

believed it would be found that there was not the slightest occasion for the apprehensions expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

confessed that a great many of his difficulties had been dissipated by the discussion. As he now read the clause, it simply recognized that certain negroes were enlisted in the Regular Army, and in a regular manner "appointed to serve," its object being to confer upon such negroes the privileges attaching to soldiers who had voluntarily enlisted. That being so, would it not be better to say "who have been appointed?" The words "who shall be appointed" seemed to have a prospective meaning, and were, consequently, misleading. Under the circumstances, however, he did not think his hon. Friend need press the matter to a division.

maintained that if the clause was purely retrospective, it was unnecessary. If negroes, by enlisting, became as natural-born subjects, it was quite impossible to accept the statement that the continuance of a clause of this kind was necessary in order to maintain them in that position. The clause, to have any meaning must, therefore, be prospective, and must contemplate the continued existence of persons seized and condemned as prizes under the Slave Trade Act, and "appointed to serve." He believed he should be fully justified in dividing the Committee on this question; but, under the circumstances, he should content himself by allowing the Amendment to be negatived.

said, this was, no doubt, one of the oldest parts of the Bill. However, he was not prepared to alter it without notice. His attention had not been specially called to it, and he must have time to consider it.

hoped the clause would receive the right hon. Gentleman's attention. There was another portion of it even more objectionable than that to which the Amendment related. No master was to be entitled to claim an apprentice unless he made a declaration before a magistrate within a month. Again, any master who should give up all claim to his apprentice should be entitled to the bounty payable to that apprentice. That was an inducement to an employer to give up his apprentice. Altogether, the clause was most objectionable.

did not think the right hon. Gentleman's reason for not accepting the Amendment a good one. He ought to have been acquainted with the various provisions of the Bill. The clause was no ordinary one. It distinctly placed both apprentices and masters at a disadvantage in regard to the War Office authorities. As regarded the apprentice this was obvious. The hardship to the master lay in the fact that an apprentice who went into the Army and was not discovered for a month could not be brought back. Military service was thus made a cover for the apprentice's misdemeanour of leaving his master. In view of these facts, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to wiping the clause out of the Statute Book.

said, hon. Members had misapprehended the effect of the clause, which really operated to the advantage of the State—that was to say the public, and of the employer. If the clause were struck out, an apprentice who enlisted and then deserted from the Army would not be liable to re-capture and service, provided only he could evade justice till the period of his apprenticeship had expired.

remarked, that there was not a word said about desertion from beginning to end of the clause.

called attention to the abuses of the system of billeting. He knew cases in which hotel-keepers were frequently subjected to great loss by the regulation that officers had not to pay for the use of their houses. It might be thought that the loss would more than be made up for by the amount of money which these officers spent in the hotels. But that was not the case; for those officers were in the habit of taking both their breakfast, lunch, and dinners at the general mess. He did not intend to move any Amendment, though he had moved one last year. It might be said that hotel-keepers would be induced by their patriotism to submit willingly to the loss caused by quartering these officers. But patriotism, he feared, was at present at a low ebb.

said, it had already been more than once stated that the whole Mutiny Act and the Articles of War would be brought under the review of the Committee. If he were a Member of the Committee, he would undertake that this clause should be brought under special review.

asked if hotel-keepers, who felt the grievance inflicted by billeting, would be summoned as witnesses before this Committee?

said, that he could not undertake to control the proceedings of the Committee; but he had no doubt in his mind that hotel-keepers would not be examined.

protested against the practice of moving Amendments without Notice, a course for which, on the present occasion, there was not the slightest excuse.

thought the clause was entirely unnecessary, as no crimes could be committed by European soldiers of the East India Company, for the simple reason that there were now no such soldiers in existence.

said, he could give the strongest assurance that the next Mutiny Bill, after the completion of the inquiry which was to take place, should be most carefully drawn. At present, he saw no necessity for altering the terms of a measure which was perfectly well understood by those who had to administer it.

supported the Motion, on the ground that a Parliamentary majority had been deliberately misused in order to force a bad Bill through the House. He wished to know what was the number and the nature of the Acts of Parliament to which this clause had reference? He did not share that confidence in courts martial which many hon. Members reposed in them. It was well known that courts martial were especially liable to vindictive feelings, and that they were not provided with delicate apparatus for testing the evidence brought before them. Accused persons were deprived of nearly all the safeguards they possessed before civil tribunals. Yet the Committee were asked to allow a court martial to determine what might be pleaded by persons who were charged with having committed offences against previous Mutiny Acts. They were now apparently on the verge of war, and did not know what pressure might be put on our civil population to enter the Army, and yet the Government asked the civil population to submit themselves to all kinds of unknown penalties. The Government had made use of their majority in the most mechanical manner, in order to push obsolete legislation through the House.

denied that courts martial were vindictive. He had sat on many of them, and had always found that they treated prisoners with the greatest possible fairness.

wished to know whether the last speaker was of opinion that the decision of the Roberts' court martial was particularly impartial?

doubted whether any case had been made out for a change in the clause, and he therefore appealed to hon. Members to allow it to pass.

said, he was a witness in the Roberts' court martial, having been summoned by the prosecution. Everybody must, of course, bow to the decision of that court; but, at the same time, he must say he thought it was a wrong one. He suggested that a clause should be inserted in the Mutiny Bill, giving officers a right of appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench, or some other recognized tribunal.

asked the Secretary of State for War, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in the event of the Select Committee reporting before this Session closed, the Government would introduce the new Mutiny Bill next year at such a period of the Session that the principle and details of the measure might be fully discussed?

felt rather surprised at the hon. Member for Meath asking him for an engagement, after the slight which the hon. Gentleman had thrown on the engagement which, it was alleged, he had previously made. It was simply impossible for him to say when the new Mutiny Bill would be brought forward; but the safety of the hon. Member was in facts. The Government were most anxious every Session to get a Vote for the number of men to serve in the Army. Until that was done, they could not introduce the Mutiny Bill, because it was a measure which must be founded on the number of men. It was obvious, however, that the Government must necessarily take steps to have that Bill discussed when it was presented to the House in a new shape. He felt sure that no Mutiny Bill could be introduced, varying materially from the present one, without full opportunity being given for its discussion. In the course of his long Parliamentary experience, he did not remember the Mutiny Bill being discussed at all until last year. He promised the late Sir Colman O'Loghlen that, after the Mutiny Act was passed this year, a Select Committee should be appointed with a view to preparing a new measure for next year. The death of that right hon. and learned Gentleman made no difference whatever in his intention in this respect. The Committee would meet shortly, and he was anxious that it should be a representative Committee. At present, he had taken no part in selecting the names; but if the hon. Member for Meath was to represent those who had taken an active part in opposing this Bill, he should offer no objection to him. He did not wish to refer to what had occurred in this discussion. It was now nearly at an end, and he trusted that all present would finish it in good humour.

said, it might seem a strange proposition that a man ought to be allowed the option of denying the exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown; but he thought if the House and the public would consider for one moment, they would see that men with a soldierly spirit would infinitely prefer to fall before the rifles of their comrades to undergoing the horrors, the moral degradation, and slow physical torture, involved in a sentence of penal servitude as carried out in this country—at any rate, there could be no harm in allowing the man whose life was at stake to say whether or not the mitigation of his sentence would be a mercy to him. But, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman would rely—as he was entitled to rely—on the recent discovery, which must be of momentous importance to medical science of a new specific for heart disease—namely, penal servitude. But he could not joke upon a subject so ghastly, upon this insult to the manhood of Christendom, perpetrated by a member of a most noble and humane Profession. Would the right hon. Gentleman communicate to the Medical Schools of Europe this grand discovery of their medical "confederate?" The name of this Mr. Pitman ought to go down to posterity as the author of this remarkable discovery. Other medical men had thought that the tranquillity of domestic society, the companionship of wife and child, the peace of home, and the gentle kindness of friends, might be good for certain stages of heart disease; but this man had dared to call tranquillity the daily torture, the hourly hell, that was suffered in these convict prisons. He had dared to call a tranquillity good for disease of the heart, the agony of the father denied the sight of his little ones, and sundered from the woman he loved. He was ashamed to be the fellow-citizen of such a man. He should vote for this Motion, because soldiers had told him what they would have done had they been allowed to choose. He knew, from his own experience, the way in which warders sometimes treated soldiers. When he was on the Dublin Prison Board, a soldier was brought before them. He had been confined in the prison for some military offence. One of the warders, as he expressed it, was "down on him," and one day stripped him naked, on the pretence that he had tobacco concealed about him. At last, the soldier, irritated beyond measure at this treatment, struck the warder in the face. The warder then called one or two others, the three got the soldier down, and battered him about the face with their heavy keys, till they nearly gouged his eye out. The Board decided that the warder must be punished very severely; and while a minority voted for dismissing him, the majority voted that never again should he be entrusted with the custody of prisoners. He voted with the minority; because, as he told his friends at the time, they could never tell that the man might not be promoted by the Governor of Dublin Castle. The warder was put into the kitchen. What happened? A few years ago he was chosen, despite the protests of the Board of Superintendents, to be chief warder of that very prison. [Cries of"Shame!"] He would take up the word, and himself say—"Shame on those who could do such an act!" The names, dates, and particulars were at the service of the Government, and he hoped they would investigate the case.

said, he should not be able to vote for this clause; but he presumed his hon. Friend would scarcely press it to a division. At the same time, it was absolutely necessary, in season and out of season, conveniently or inconveniently to the House, to seize every opportunity of bringing forward the treatment of prisoners in convict prisons—which, at the present time, notwithstanding Commissions and Investigations and Reports, was a disgrace to this country, or to any country calling itself civilized. There was another circumstance to which he would refer, inasmuch as his hon. and learned Friend had spoken of the gross outrage committed by a gaoler upon a prisoner—a soldier—and the subsequent promotion of that inhuman being, apparently because he was well suited to the duty. He should bring before the House of Commons the fate of a medical man, who, being attached to a convict prison, was witness of the grossly inhuman cruelties to which the prisoners were subjected, and who for remonstrating was dismissed from employment, and his office was then abolished. He alluded to Dr. Robert Macdonald, one of the most eminent physicians in Dublin, the President of the College of Surgeons. He was in the habit of visiting the convict prisons, which were also under an inspection of a Government official. Dr. Robert Macdonald, on going one day into one of the prisons, saw a miserable object, scantily clad, sitting in a corner shivering with his hands between his knees, and evidently in a state of actual bodily and mental suffering. He went up to the man and asked him what was the matter with him? The man was, with difficulty, able to articulate; but he gathered from him that for some breach of discipline his bedding had been taken away from him night after night, and that he had been thus reduced to the miserable condition in which he was found. Dr. Robert Macdonald instantly ordered something to be done for the man, and when the order was obeyed there was a difficulty in getting the man into bed. His interference was immediately reported to the authorities, and caused strong remonstrances for his presumption in daring to interfere with the punishments that were ordered in the prison. Subsequently, the Government abolished his office, and did all they could to prevent the inquiry which certainly ought to have taken place. Those facts would yet come before the House of Commons in a more specific way. But it was well for the House to have some inkling of what was before them with reference to his Motion. The prisons of this country were at that moment a disgrace to civilized beings; and when the case of M'Carthy was investigated, it would be found that the sham inquiry and miserable Report that had been presented to the House would not shelter the discipline of the prisons from the proper censure of all those who had consciences to be pricked by the abuse of the laws under which they lived.

There is a little inconvenience in the course taken by hon. Members in bringing forward cases which may happen to be known to themselves, but with regard to which we have no information, and about which, as I understand, it is the intention of hon. Members to take the opinion of the House. That, of course, will be upon due Notice, and will enable the Home Secretary to make the necessary inquiries and to give the explanations that the House has a right to expect. It is of no use to bring forward isolated cases upon a Motion of the sort made by the hon. Member as a sample of what is done throughout the gaols of the country. There are a great many Members who have taken, I dare say, as great an interest in the convict prisons of this country as any of the hon. Members who have spoken, and who have not come across those grievous cases. Every man who becomes a Member of the Government, or who gets into an official capacity, does not lose heart and feeling, as seems to have been assumed in the remarks made. The hon. Member has just spoken as if it were only necessary for a man to be the official of a gaol to be shielded by every other official, and as if the official superior was disposed to advocate the cruelties of those who are under him. That is a representation of the official character in this country which is wholly undeserved. Discussions in the House and the Acts passed testify to a gradual amelioration in the condition of prisoners. There has been an amelioration of punishment also, which no one can deny, and the association of which complaint has been made, has been abolished, except so far as it is inevitable when prisoners are employed together on public works. In their cells the prisoners now enjoy comforts, which in former days and within the recollection of the older Members of this House, would have been looked upon as luxuries. There is a disinclination to treat prisoners now in the manner in which they were treated in former times; but punishment must be punishment, and must be made corrective and disciplinary. You cannot commit prisoners to prison for offences, and then treat them as if they had committed no crime. But I think that offences, so far as possible, should be classified, so that those who had committed crimes of what we may call a disgraceful character should be kept in a different condition from the rest. The world is not large enough for us with all our criminals to carry the system of isolation so far as we could desire; but the great object is to prevent those hardened in crime from becoming instructors to those less criminal than themselves. It should be remembered that no man can claim a right to punish himself. The choice of punishment must rest not with the criminal, but in the hands of those who administered the law. We condemn suicide as a crime; but by this clause we should put into the power of a man to commit it when he went into prison. Nay, more, for the Motion would force upon some warder or other servant of the State the duty of assisting the criminal in this murder of himself. If, before a jury, a man charged with murder were suspected to be insane, there is a general eagerness, even on the slightest evidence, to acquit him on the ground of his insanity; but here you are asked to hang a man in spite of his insanity, if he chooses to die. The proposition is hardly to be treated with serious consideration, and is calculated to thwart the commendable and humane efforts of hon. Members in which, if they would carry the House and the country with them, the punishment proposed must be humane, while it is just and even severe.

observed, that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had secured an amount of attention to the question involved which, perhaps, he could not have obtained by any other means than by placing the Amendment on the Paper. It was necessary to bring the subject of the inhumanities committed in prisons again and again before the attention of the House, until the Government was forced to take the matter up. It was surprising how often attention had been drawn to abuses and to cruelties, and yet how persistently the Government assured them that everything was going on smoothly. That some of the punishments in the Mutiny Acts needed revision had been admitted, and he hoped it would be done in a spirit of reducing punishment to a minimum. The exact and proper measure of punishment in each particular case could hardly be expected to be awarded; but there ought to be a distinction between the treatment of prisoners confined for heinous crimes and those punished for offences to which no moral stigma attached. There was no civilized country on the globe where a distinct political offence caused a moral stigma; and they had only to turn back to their own history to see how the Constitution had been built up by the blood of political prisoners who had risked the displeasure of Governments in the assertion of the rights of the English people.

said, he could only repeat what he believed had been stated in the discussion of a few days previously, that the old solitary confinement had practically disappeared, and was not in force. [Mr. PARNELL dissented.] Well, the hon. Gentleman would allow him to speak as to his own knowledge; in all convict prisons solitary confinement had practically ceased to exist. [Mr. PARNELL: For all prisoners?] Yes, unless they were sentenced to it in the prisons for breaches of the prison rules. The order had been given under which solitary confinement and separate confinement would be practically the same; and, therefore, he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman abolished the system of solitary confinement they already knew, to make a new system of solitary confinement of which they knew nothing? The House was totally unacquainted with the separate system. The Amendment was a reasonable one, and would not interfere with the passage of the Mutiny Bill; it would, in fact, be a very proper and desirable thing that a termination to this discussion should not be come to until the House and the country knew that the rules and regulations relating to the punishment would be placed on the Table of the House, and be accessible to every Member. If the right hon. Gentleman had satisfied himself as to the rules under which separate confinement was to be carried out, would he explain to the Committee what that separate confinement was? He confessed he entertained grave doubts whether the right hon. Gentleman was thoroughly informed upon the matter; and there could certainly be no harm in laying rules on the Table, so that they might be examined by the House and the country, who would then know what the punishment really was that was being inflicted. It was in vain for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had communicated with the Director or Inspector of Convict Prisons, and put an end to the system of solitary confinement. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman, who was as anxious to act humanely as anybody else, would find no difficulty in the course suggested; but if that proposal were not entertained, it would be difficult to come to any other conclusion than that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to allow the infliction of punishment in a regular and methodical manner; but subject to the variations brought in by the warders, sub-managers, managers, and eventually the Director or Inspector of Convict Prisons. He trusted the Amendment would be pressed to a division.

hoped that if a division were taken on the question, Members of the Government would not think such a course involved any imputation on their personal want of feeling or good faith. He was sorry to hear the Secretary of State for War, some time ago, make some observations which showed that the right hon. Gentleman had thoroughly misconceived his argument. He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would not for a moment misrepresent him or anyone else consciously; but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think he had said that the moment a man became a Member of the Government, he ceased to have a good heart. He should argue nothing of the kind. If he believed Members of the Government to be capable of cruelty or want of good faith, he should be sorry to speak of them as he tried to do in the House. On the contrary, he believed them to be Gentlemen of the most kindly feeling; but to no individual in that House would he entrust powers in this matter that could be handed down to their Successors in the guidance of the affairs of the State. It was not because of their opinion as to the present holders of office or of the Home Secretary, as to whose kindness he had had personal experience, that the Irish Members asked that the intentions of the Government in this matter—which he believed to be good and honest intentions—should be embodied and placed on the Table of the House; but it was in order that those regulations might survive the shock of Parties and the changes of the House.

wished to correct one remark he had made. He had stated that one set of officers always supported another; but that was not the invariable rule, though it was so in many cases. He wished to remind the Home Secretary that, though that right hon. Gentleman might be in favour of a mild system of prison treatment, it was unfortunately the case that a great many officers of prisons very often carried out prison punishments in a very different manner from what was intended by the Acts of Parliament and rules under which they effected their operations. He remembered once while the Prisons Bill was under discussion in the House during last Session, an hon. Member, who was Chairman of a Court of Quarter Sessions, said it did not make much difference what laws were passed in Parliament—it depended very much upon their administration. He would like to see the prison rules laid before Parliament, so that there would be some check on the prison officers carrying out the system of punishments exactly in accordance with their own views.

was at a loss to know why the Home Secretary refused this very reasonable concession. If solitary confinement had been abolished, and separate confinement substituted for it in cases of breach of prison discipline, the House had a right to know why such a step had been taken. Had the Home Secretary some fear that there would be a revulsion of feeling if the nature of this separate confinement were known? It had been represented as being of a mild character; but if it were so, why could there be any objection to state its nature in the Rules to be laid before the House? Whenever the Mutiny Bill was brought before the House, he should raise this question, and he intended now to divide the House upon it.

said, there was no necessity for any rules, so far as convict prisons were concerned, to be prepared and submitted to Parliament The matter was managed by the Home Office, according to the regular practice. The rules as to borough and county prisons under the Prisons Act, were quite a separate matter. Solitary confinement was practically unknown, and an order had been issued, making separate confinement a punishment for gaol offences. If a man were ordered to be confined in a separate cell for a period which was limited by the Act, he would be visited every hour, he believed, by the gaoler throughout the day. [Mr. PARNELL: And night?] Yes. In cases of ordinary imprisonment, there was no such thing known as solitary confinement.

thought there could surely be no objection to let Parliament know what the nature of the punishment of separate confinement was. As it appeared, from the Home Secretary's statement, that he had found it necessary to issue a Minute to the authorities of convict prisons, defining what the punishment was to be, he suggested that the Home Secretary should lay a copy of the Minute or Instructions he had found necessary to prepare before Parliament. That would satisfy the Irish Members for the present.

had understood not that a Minute had been issued, but that the Instructions had been given to the Director of Convict Prisons to make a change in relation to punishments; but, surely if it had been found necessary to make an alteration, in consequence of a conversation between the Home Secretary and the official, the House ought to be made aware of the substance of that discussion. If, however a Minute had been issued, it ought to be laid before Parliament; for the House would not be satisfied with the merely verbal directions given to the Director of Convict Prisons, for verbal directions could be altered the next day.

understood the Home Secretary to say that solitary confinement did not exist; and he believed that the separate system of confinement, which, according to the Home Secretary, still obtained in borough and county prisons, had been held by competent medical authorities to be a greater punishment than one could endure for the shortest period of penal servitude that anyone confined in those gaols could still be sentenced to. But how could the statement that solitary confinement in convict prisons was abolished, be reconciled with the provisions in the Bill by which courts martial could still award it?

said, as his clause had been rejected, he hoped the Home Secretary would agree to lay the Rules on the Table of the House, regulating the infliction of solitary confinement in such a way as the right hon. Gentleman might think necessary. All he and his hon. Friends desired was to know how this question would be dealt with by the rules. He was quite willing to leave the matter to be arranged by the right hon. Gentleman. In order to put himself in Order, he would move that the Chairman be ordered to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

seconded the Motion of his hon. Friend for the purpose of asking the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was not correct in attributing to the right hon. Gentleman the statement made last year, to the effect that he would lay on the Table the rules relating to punishments in convict prisons? That was a point which required to be cleared up. The management of county prisons had been taken out of the hands of the representatives of the people, and had been entrusted to the Secretary of State. The rules relating to those prisons had been laid on the Table by the right hon. Gentleman; but the prisons which required overhauling were the Government-conducted prisons; and unless the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cross) would give some assurance, similar to that given by him last year, that the rules of these establishments, also, would be presented to Parliament for the purpose of acquainting the country with the nature of the punishment inflicted there, the subject must be brought under the consideration of the House in every permissible form. He could not imagine that any Government in this country would wish—certainly, the people did not wish—that the punishment to which these prisoners were subjected should be of an unknown character. The Committee and the country ought to be informed what a criminal had to endure in convict prisons, as they had already been informed what a prisoner had to submit to when confined in a borough or county gaol. He believed that this was a reasonable suggestion, and, if embodied in the form of a Motion, it would receive the unanimous consent, at any rate, of the Liberal Party.

did not think it was a question for the Liberal Party, or for any other Party; but it was one in which everybody was equally concerned. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connor Power) would do well to remember that a Committee was sitting on this subject; and he would suggest that the hon. Member had better wait and hear its Report, before he took any step in the matter.

said, it was in the right hon. Gentleman's power to communicate the nature of these rules to the Committee; and, for his part, he really could not see what possible objection there could be to such a course. The request was a modest one, and he hoped, if the Chairman reported Progress, the right hon. Gentleman would assent to so reasonable a suggestion.

considered that it was exceedingly unreasonable, on the part of the Home Secretary, not to accede to so reasonable a request.

wanted to know what was the meaning of this proceeding on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite below the Gangway. This Bill had been discussed at very great length in three full Sittings of the House, and certainly with a very large amount of patience and attention. He did not wish to raise any complaint of the unusually minute criticisms to which the Bill had been subjected in Committee; but now every part of the Bill had been passed excepting the Schedule, upon which he did not understand any question was raised. Still, for some reason or other, which had not been explained, and which no one could divine—first, the hon. Gentleman, opposite (Mr. O'Connor Power) moved to report Progress, which proposal had been negatived by a majority of more than 20 to 1, and then that was immediately followed by similar Motions. It was hardly respectful to the House that such Motions as these should be made. There was no reason to be given for them; and he did trust that hon. Gentlemen would see, on reflection, that Business could not be properly conducted in that way.

, having moved that the Chairman leave the Chair, desired to say a word with reference to what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had said that that Motion had been made without reason; but the fact was, that there was a clear and distinct reason for it. His object in making it was to place on record his emphatic protest against the manner in which the Home Secretary had received the request with reference to these rules; also against the manner in which the Bill had been introduced into, and carried through, Committee, which he considered was not respectful to the Committee. The manner in which it had been introduced into Committee was not respectful; because the Secretary of State for War had, from the very beginning, shown that he would not allow a single verbal alteration to be made in any part of the measure, no matter what arguments were brought forward. He asked anyone, who had sat throughout the three Sittings, and who had heard the arguments advanced in favour of alterations in the Bill, to say whether the conduct of the Government was respectful to the Committee. The Government had said, as distinctly as any dictators could possibly say—"Here is the Bill, the whole Bill; and you must have it, whether you like it or not. No matter what arguments you bring forward, we will not alter a line, word, or syllable." He thought, with all respect for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and no one in the House respected him more—that the Government had not treated the Committee in the respectful manner which they called upon others to show.

said, that he should merely answer the remarks which the hon. Member had addressed at him (Mr. Hardy), he supposed for the mode in which the Bill had been introduced, by saying that he had not had either the means or the power to carry it in the way the hon. Member supposed. It had been carried by the Committee itself, by overwhelming majorities. He entirely dissented from the view that the hon. Member and his Friends represented the Committee. In one division the numbers had been 345 to 8. When he had that support he could not have been doing very wrong.

wished to point out to the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), that his object would not be attained by putting the Committee to the trouble of a division. The complaint was one made and discussed at considerable length during the consideration of the Bill, and what he (the Marquess of Hartington) wished to point out was that the hon. Member and his Friends would place nothing on record by the division they were asking for. A division on reporting Progress, when nothing was to be considered except the Schedule, would place nothing whatever on record—it was simply placing the Committee in a position of very great inconvenience, and very unnecessarily taking up the time of the Committee—compelling the Committee to divide on a question which decided nothing.

did not desire to put the Committee to the trouble of another division; but the action of the Home Secretary in refusing the very reasonable request made to him to lay a set of rules on the Table of the House had compelled him to make a protest. The Bill might be made the instrument for inflicting cruel and inhuman punishments on the soldiers whom they might in a few days have to call upon to defend their interests in the East.

said, that the manner in which the Government had treated the arguments brought forward would cause great dissatisfaction. The hon. Member was proceeding to refer to public opinion in Ireland, when——

said, it was out of Order, on the Question before the Committee, to adduce a discursive series of observations on the present relations of the Government with Ireland.

hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Motion.

was certainly not disposed to put the Committee to the trouble of a division. They were not receiving from the opposite Benches one of those messages of peace which they desired, yet the Government desired all concessions from them. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] He begged to withdraw the Motion.

I do not know whether the House will allow us to go into Committee and take a Vote on Account; but it is necessary for the public service that we should get a Vote of money. I am sorry to say we shall be obliged to ask the House to meet at 2 o'clock to-day. It really is not our fault. I move that you do now, Sir, leave the Chair.

Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or some Member of the Government, will be able to take this opportunity of giving the House some information with reference to a statement which it is understood has been made in "another place." I understood it has been announced that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advise Her Majesty to avail herself of powers which She possesses under certain recent Acts of Parliament, and to avail Herself of the services of the Reserve Forces. Sir, it is not, I think, very generally understood whether that statement applies to all the Reserve Forces, or only to a certain portion of them; and I think that it would be desirable that this House should be informed, with the least possible delay, whether it is the intention of the Government to advise the immediate embodiment of the Militia, or only to call out the Army and Militia Reserves? Perhaps, also, the Government will be able to state to the House what course it is intended to take in Parliament with regard to these measures? I believe it was announced that a Message would shortly be delivered to Parliament bearing on this subject. It might be convenient to the House if we were informed on what day it is probable that that Message will be presented.

As the subject to which the noble Lord has referred belongs rather to the Department I represent, I would inform him that under the Acts alluded to it is necessary, on calling out the First-Class Army Reserve, and the Militia Reserve, that a communication should be made to Parliament, if Parliament is sitting. On that communication being made, a Proclamation should be issued, calling out the whole, or such part of the Reserves as may be needed. That course is to be adopted. The communication to Parliament will probably be made on Monday next; but I am not able to state the exact day. That, of course, would be followed by a Proclamation in the terms I have mentioned. This will not affect the question of the embodiment of the Militia, which is subject to altogether different rules, nor will it have the result of calling out the Militia for training. It will simply put Her Majesty in a position to use the Reserves for filling up Her Regular Forces, for which they were intended.

asked that the Government, in taking the Vote on Account, should give some assurance that an opportunity would be given for discussion of the items before it was too late in the Session to discuss them calmly and without undue haste. These Civil Service Estimates had now assumed serious proportions, and they were the Estimates of all others which the House would be desirous to have discussed. While he trusted that there would be no obstruction to this Vote, he also hoped the Government would give an assurance that they would enable the House to discuss the Estimates before the end of June.

said, he had suggested to the Government last Session a plan for facilitating the discussion of the Civil Service Estimates. The suggestion led to some observations from the Chair with regard to the practice which might be adopted by the House. It was that a statement should be made by the Secretary to the Treasury upon these Estimates, comparing them with those of the previous year, and showing where the excesses were; and, in fact, giving a general history of the Estimates. Such a statement was made last year, and he believed it was found exceedingly useful, and did much to facilitate discussion in Committee of Supply. He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he proposed to adopt the same course this year; and, if so, when he proposed to make the Statement? The Secretary to the Treasury had shown a reasonable desire to bring on the Civil Service Estimates this year. They had been put down on the Paper on several occasions, and he might have had reason to expect that some of the Votes would have been discussed before to-day. In that expectation he had been disappointed; and he (Mr. Goldsmid) was not surprised that he should have been disappointed when he found, for instance, that one hon. Gentleman had put down for the same day three Notices of Motion on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates. If every Member of the House were to indulge in so many Notices of Motion, it would be impossible for the Estimates ever to be discussed; and, consequently, although he, for one, had on more than one occasion in former years expressed his opposition to Votes on Account, he could not say that this proposal of the Government, which was to take a Vote on Account for two months, was at all unreasonable, and he would be happy to give every facility to the Government to obtain the money they wanted.

desired to ask the Secretary of State for War a Question in elucidation of the information he had imparted to the House. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman that the Army Reserves and the Militia Reserve were to be called out. Could the right hon. Gentleman say what number of men was embodied in these Reserves?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, perhaps he will allow me to ask another in connection with the same point. The right hon. Gentleman named two of the three Reserve Forces—the Militia Reserve and the Army Reserve. By exactly the same process by which the members of those two Forces are brought into the Army, the Militia itself, or a portion of the Militia, may be embodied. It will be satisfactory to the House to know whether the machinery provided by the Act, which is identical in the three cases, is proposed to be applied to the Militia Reserve and Army Reserve only, or whether it will be applied to embody the whole or part of the Militia?

With respect to the Question of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), I have to inform him that as nearly as I can recollect the First Class Army Reserve amounts, in round numbers, to about 13,000 men, and the Militia Reserve is between 25,000 and 26,000. As to the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Childers') Question about the embodiment of the Militia, of course the Militia will necessarily be embodied in the case of any expedition being sent out of the country. In that case, the Militia regiments linked with the regiments to be sent out would be embodied. Until such an occurrence as that, I shall not propose to embody the Militia.

thought the House and the Government alike recognized the difficulty in which they were placed with regard to the Civil Service Estimates, and he was sure the Government had no right to complain after the very frank way in which they had been met by hon. Members on the other side, and the desire they had shown to assist the Government in their present difficulty. The Government were reluctant to ask the House to accede to any Vote on Account which might be unnecessary. He might be allowed to refer to the fact that the Vote now to be proposed was to be taken for two months instead of three months. There was a desire on the part of the Government to avoid any further Vote on Account; but this was a matter very much in the power of hon. Members themselves. The hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) had pointed out that the Government had sought an opportunity for bringing these Votes before the House on several occasions. That opportunity had, from various circumstances, not been afforded to the Government; and though he was not able to give any positive promise—he could not predict the circumstances of the Session so far as to promise—that no further Vote would be taken on account; but the Government would use their utmost endeavours to avoid the necessity of taking one. As to what had been said about the Motions made on going into Committee of Supply, it was for hon. Members, in the exercise of their discretion, to decide what Motions they should put down; but he hoped, after the expression of feeling that evening, that the House might rely on that feeling to help the discussion of the Estimates forward. He was asked as to his making a statement on the Estimates. He had considered this matter carefully, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they had come to the conclusion that the financial circumstances of the collective Civil Service Estimates of this year were not of such an unusual character as to involve any question of policy, or to render it desirable to invite the House, at a moment when time was precious, to a discussion on abstract matters connected with the Estimates. In most of the Votes there was a decrease. He would frankly add that, not having the financial ability or the eloquence of his right hon. Friend who preceded him, he did not wish to trespass on the time on the House, but preferred rather to confine himself to such explanations of the Votes as the House might express a wish to hear from him.

thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman's (Colonel Stanley's) explanation of the intentions of the Government with regard to further Votes on Account was satisfactory. There was no doubt that in past years the House lad been deprived of a Constitutional right of discussing Items of Supply. It appeared this was not to be the case in future. He did not know why the Government desired to take this Vote on Account to-night. Some of the items of the Vote required lengthy discussion. The Irish Members felt it to be their duty to discuss and oppose the items for the Queen's Colleges and University. He did not think that the proper time to bring in a money Vote of this kind. The Government were pledged not to bring on this Motion at an unreasonable hour. He would make a suggestion to the Government. He might say for himself and his Friends that they did not intend to offer any opposition to the Marine Mutiny Bill in Committee. As the Government had apparently thought it necessary to take a Morning Sitting for that Bill, he proposed that the Government should postpone the Vote and give the Irish Members an opportunity of directing attention to it at the Morning Sitting, when their observations might be reported in the newspapers. This appeared to him to be a reasonable request.