asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can inform the House regarding "The Pollution of Rivers Act, 1876;" how many summary orders requiring offenders to discontinue pollution have been made by county courts; in how many cases local authorities have taken proceedings to enforce the Act; and in what parts of the country the Act has been put into operation?

, in reply, said, he could not state, because there was no information at his disposal, what were the number of orders which had been made by the County Courts, nor in how many cases proceedings had been, taken to enforce the Act referred to. He knew, however, that proceedings had been instituted in many districts. In three cases of those which had been dealt with by the Local Government Board the Inspectors had received applications for certificates that all practicable means had been adopted to prevent pollution; but these certificates they had refused to give. In eight cases applications had been received for extension of time to do the necessary work. In three extensions had been granted, and others were under consideration. The Act was in operation in Herefordshire, Shropshire, Norfolk, Lincolnshire, Kent, and other counties. It was, in fact, becoming well understood, and was being brought into operation in the way which was contemplated by the Government when they brought forward the Act.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he has observed that the Committee, appointed by the Treasury to inquire into the Board of Works (Ireland), account for the absence of results in Ireland from "The Artizans' Dwellings Act, 1875," by saying (Report, p. xi.), that it

"has not as yet been long enough in operation to admit of advantage being taken of its provisions to any appreciable extent;"

whether, considering that a recent Parliamentary Return (No. 206) shows that much advantage has already been taken of the same Act in England, he can suggest other reasons than that given by the Committee for its want of effect in Ireland; and, whether he proposes to take any steps to encourage or facilitate a more energetic use of this and other Statutes for the improvement of working people's dwellings in Ireland?

Sir, I am not aware what the Committee intended to convey by the paragraph in their Report to which reference is made; but I fancy the hon. Baronet must have placed a construction upon it which it was not calculated to bear, although I confess that I drew a similar inference myself until I ascertained how the case stood. The real facts, however, are that there are in Ireland five towns having a population of upwards of 25,000, within which limit the Act is confined. In England there are 71, and in Scotland six towns, to which the Act extends. The Report, perhaps, rather leads one to imagine that the Act has been taken less advantage of proportionately in Ireland than in other parts of the Kingdom; whereas the fact is, that out of the five towns in Ireland, three have availed themselves of the Act—namely, Dublin, where upwards of £36,000; Belfast, where £11,000 odd; and Cork, where upwards of £51,000 has been appropriated under the provisions of the Act; whereas in England only nine towns out of the 71, and in Scotland only one out of the six, have taken advantage of it. The House will, therefore, see that Ireland has proportionately availed itself of the Act to a far larger extent than other portions of the United Kingdom.

I think the time has now come when inquiry should be specially made in reference to the towns in England where an official Report has been made and no action taken upon it, why the matter has not been attended to.

asked the Under Secretary for War, If he would explain why the name of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, Commanding in Chief, has been omitted from the following Return:—

"Return of the number of days' leave of absence granted during each Parliamentary Recess since the 1st day of February, 1874, to Members of the House of Lords and House of Commons on Full Pay in Her Majesty's Service, and of the names of each Member of either House of Parliament who, while on Full Pay, since the 1st day of February, 1874, have performed military duty during the Session of Parliament, and the names of such as have not done so?"

The name of His Royal Highness was omitted from the Return advisedly. As Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief leave of absence is not required by His Royal Highness, who continues always in the execution of his office, being always on duty. Any papers which are received are sent to him, and are dealt with by him both when he is absent from the War Office, or at any other time.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any application to Parliament for money will at once be made when the recent arrangement with Turkey will come under the notice of the House?

Sir, I do not think the Question, if I may say so, is very clearly expressed; but what I understand it to mean is, whether a Vote will be asked for in connection with the arrangement which has recently been made. Yes, Sir, a Vote will undoubtedly be asked for.

May I ask when?

As soon as possible.

The Home Secretary stated yesterday, in answer to a Question in reference to Scotch Business, that it was intended to proceed with the Education Bills; but he made no reference to two other Bills, and an impression has been created that they will not be proceeded with. I, therefore, beg to ask, Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed this Session with the Under Secretaries of State Bill and the Lord Clerk Register (Scotland) Bill?

Two classes of objections have been taken to these Bills. In the first place, so far as the Under Secretaries of State Bill is concerned, an objection has been taken in Scotland that it would interfere with the position and standing of the Lord Advocate for the time being. I think that is a very fallacious view of the matter, and one that further investigation will dispel. The objection taken to the other is of a more serious and practical character; and that is, that it is proposed to take some of the funds from the Register Office in order to pay the Under Secretary of State. That has given rise to a great deal of discussion in Scotland. I hope, in the course of the autumn, to be able individually and personally to inquire thoroughly into the Register Office; and, as a matter of this kind should be passed with the full sanction of Scotland, and not against the wish of a portion of it, I propose to postpone the Bill until I have had an opportunity of making this investigation.

Is it proposed to go on with the Under Secretaries of State Bill this year?

I think the House will be disposed to leave this Bill till after the investigation. I may state frankly, however, that my own views on the subject are entirely unchanged.

moved, after Clause 20, to insert the following Clause:—

(Application of 7 and 8 Geo. IV. c. 24, s. 18, with respect to minerals to disturnpiked roads and to highways.)

"Notwithstanding anything contained in section sixty-eight of 'The Public Health Act, 1848,' or in section one hundred and forty-nine of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' all mines and minerals under any disturnpiked road or highway which has or shall become vested in an urban sanitary authority by virtue of the said sections, or either of them, shall belong to the person who would be entitled thereto in case such road or highway had not become so vested, and the person entitled to any such mine or minerals shall have the same powers of working and of getting and carrying away the same respectively as if the road or highway had not become vested in the urban sanitary authority, but so nevertheless that in such working, getting, and carrying away no damage shall be done to the road or highway.

"This section shall extend to the Isle of Wight and to South Wales, as defined by the said Act of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter sixty-eight, intituled 'An Act for the better management and control of the Highways in South Wales.'"

asked what was to become of the roads if they were found to be of no use to the parish or district, or county, and were given up? Were they to revert to the owners of the soil on each side? Who were to be the persons who were to have an absolute right to such roads? In dealing with a question of this kind, he thought the whole of the circumstances ought to be taken into account; whereas the right hon. Gentleman only proposed in the clause to deal with the minerals under disturnpiked roads and highways. He thought the Committee would be glad to have a little more explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.

said, the clause dealt exclusively with those roads which were now vested in local boards, and with no others; and it was rendered necessary in consequence of some uneasiness which had prevailed owing to a decision of the Lord Chief Justice in regard to the definition of a road as contained in the Acts of 1848 and 1875. The clause proposed to deal with the matter so as to prevent, in future, needless appeals, and to clear up all ambiguity. He thought that in another year, when the Highway Acts generally were brought under consideration, it would be desirable to see what alterations were required in the Highway Acts. The question was a complicated and difficult one; but the present clause applied to the main roads only, and the question would remain precisely as it had remained before the decision to which he had referred.

was inclined to think that this was a question which ought to have been reserved for another Bill, as it appeared to involve various matters of difficulty. He hoped the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten), who proposed to deal with the question of turnpike roads with a view of settling any rights which such turnpike roads might have acquired, or which might have lapsed, would be drawn to the subject. He (Mr. Whitwell) was inclined to think that the clause, as it stood, would alter the law as to turnpikes; because it proposed that all mines or minerals under any disturnpiked road or highway should become the property of the highway authority, who should see that in working the minerals the road was not injured or endangered. But how could anybody know in such a case whether harm would be done to the highway until it was actually done? There were instances in the mining districts of this country where the coal laid as closely under the public roads as it did under houses in certain parts of Cumberland, Staffordshire, and elsewhere. In the case of railways, he believed that no one could make a railway under a road without giving notice. In the same way, in taking away minerals from under a highway, notice should be given to the highway authority before the works were commenced, so that they might look after their own interests. It would be an extraordinary thing to say to the persons who were engaged in getting coal out from beds beneath the highways, that there were no means of meet- ing the difficulty; and that when the highway authority sought to recover the coat of repairing a road which had been damaged by taking minerals from under it, he should be told that he was powerless to obtain it. If there was to be this change and reversal of the judgment of the Court, he thought there should be some provision requiring notice to be given to the highway authority when minerals were about to be taken, as well as a provision giving away the property in the minerals themselves.

said, he was acquainted with the regulations with regard to the working of minerals in Lancashire; and, as he understood the clause, it did not make the slightest alteration in the law as it stood at present. The origin of the clause was, as his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had said, that there had been a decision of the Lord Chief Justice, which appeared to vest the soil in the roads in the local authorities of the district. The effect of that decision would have been to vest, not only the soil, but the right to the minerals beneath, in the local boards. The consequence of that would have been that every mining lease in Lancashire would have been disturbed; and as a large number of persons in Lancashire were interested in mineral property, it was very desirable that the state of the law upon this point should be cleared up. He thought the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) might rest quite easy that the clause now proposed would not alter the state of the law in regard to these highways from that which existed previous to the decision of the Lord Chief Justice. He did not think it would be necessary to enforce upon the owners of minerals any condition that in working such minerals they were not to damage or disturb a road above. As the law now stood, if a highway sank, or the surface of a road was disturbed, the owner of the minerals beneath was bound to repair the damage done. That this was so was within his own knowledge, as he had himself been required to spend £200 or £300 upon a road which had fallen in to the extent of some three or four feet. He believed there was no doubt at all as to the liability of those who worked the minerals underneath a public road to keep the road in proper repair if it was injured by their action. If the decision remained unaltered, it would be almost impossible to draw a coal lease in Lancashire or anywhere else properly. This clause was therefore a very necessary one, and would not do any injury whatever, or make any alteration in the law as it stood previous to the decision of the Lord Chief Justice.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would maintain the clause as it stood. It appeared to him (Mr. Bristowe) to be quite in the right direction, and he should be sorry to see it amended in the way that had been suggested. There was no doubt that, according to the law as it stood before the decision which had been referred to, the owners of the soil adjacent were supposed to be the owners of the property beneath the highways, so far as the getting of minerals was concerned, and the presumption was that they, or their ancestors, had given a right of way over the land in the first instance. The owners, however, were bound not to interfere with the rights of the users of the highway; and if, in working and getting minerals, they in any way interfered with the public use of a road, they would be liable for any damage that was done. It appeared to him that the clause, as it was submitted by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, was quite correct.

said, he proposed to strike out the word "respectively" in line 8 of the clause, and to substitute the words "or other minerals."

expressed his approval of the proposed Amendment.

proposed to insert at the end of the first paragraph of the clause, after the word "highway," in line 11, the words "without repairing such damage." The clause as it stood read—

"but so, nevertheless, that in such working, getting, and carrying away, no damage shall be done to the road or highway."

The hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) had referred to the case of coal mines in Cumberland and Northumberland, where it was the custom to work out the minerals and pay the high- way authority for any damage done to the highways. This clause, however, in its present shape, would prohibit the owner of the minerals from working them out in any case where it was impossible to do so without technically damaging the roads above. He asked his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to assent to this Amendment, which would only have the effect of leaving the law precisely as it stood at present.

said, he had no objection to the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member.

said, it appeared to him that if the words proposed were inserted, the clause might be difficult to construe, and it would be better to bring them up on the Report, so that in the meantime they might receive fuller consideration. The clause should not contain an absolute prohibition against doing damage to the road by working the minerals, and, at the same time, give permission to do damage, provided it was paid for.

said, the object of the Amendment, of course, was that the owners of the minerals should be enabled to work them as they were now, and that if they committed any damage they should be liable to pay for it. If that was the law as it now stood, he would take care that it was made quite clear in the Bill.

said, he should be perfectly content if the right hon. Gentleman would give an intimation that the clause would be altered on the Report, so as to make the matter clear. At the same time, he thought the meaning of the words which he (Mr. Pease) had himself suggested was quite obvious.

moved, in page 6, after Clause 17, to insert the following Clause:—

(Term "bridges" to include viaduct, &c.)

"The word 'bridges' in the twelfth section of the Act of the Session of the thirty-third and thirty-fourth of Queen Victoria, chapter seventy-three, shall be deemed to extend to and include viaducts and other structures of a similar nature previously repaired by the trustees of a turnpike road."

He said he had undertaken to submit this clause on behalf of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Gloucester-shire (Colonel Kingscote), who was unable to be present. He believed that such a clause would be necessary; because, in several instances where the county had taken over bridges, there had been a desire to split straws in the matter, and the county had only consented to adopt the one or two arches of a bridge beneath which the water actually flowed, contending that the remaining arches were viaducts, which they were not called upon to take over. It appeared to him that by the 12th section of the Act of the 33 & 34 Vict. c. 73, all the bridges handed over by the abolition of a trust became county bridges; and if a portion of them were more in the nature of viaducts than of bridges over streams of water actually flowing, they had been, nevertheless, built, repaired, and maintained by the turnpike trust, which had lately been done away with. He, therefore, thought that in transferring the liabilities of the trust there ought to be no question about these bridges becoming county bridges. A legal opinion had, however, been taken by the Court of Quarter Sessions of a neighbouring county in regard to certain bridges between the counties of Wilts and Somerset, and that opinion was to the effect that the county was liable to repair the whole of the viaduct, as well as those arches under which the water passed, and that it was the duty of the county, not only to repair an arch under which the water passed, but to repair all the arches forming part of the same structure. The counsel consulted ended his opinion by declaring that the whole of the viaduct was liable to be repaired by the county. There had, however, been a difficulty hitherto in inducing the county to take over a bridge in which there were arches under which no water flowed; and in order to remove any future difficulty, he would move the addition of a new clause, to provide that the term "bridges" should include viaducts and other structures of a similar nature previously repaired by the trustees of a turnpike road.

said, he did not think it was desirable that this should be an Act of Parliament to settle all disputed cases between the local authorities and the counties. His hon. Friend had read a legal opinion, which seemed to show that the counties were already liable. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was very glad that that was so; and he hoped that hereafter the counties would take upon themselves the duty of repairing viaducts of the nature referred to. In the words proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Estcourt)—namely, "viaducts and other structures of a similar nature," there was some uncertainty. There was no question whatever as to the liability of the county to repair the bridges belonging to the county, which was handed over to them by the Turnpike Act of 1870. He did not think it would be desirable to insert the clause proposed by his hon. Friend; but he thought it would be generally understood that the work of repairing and maintaining would be done by the authorities of the county.

, as representing the county which owned the structure referred to, wished to take exception to the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Wiltshire. He thought the authorities of a county were bound to act within the limits of the law, and that they had no right to accept as a county bridge anything that was not proved to them to be a county bridge. He doubted whether the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend would, if adopted, be sufficient to decide the question whether, in the particular case mentioned by his hon. Friend, the structure would be a bridge or not, unless he went a step further, and defined, what had never yet been defined—namely, what was a bridge, and what was not a bridge. He believed the county of Yorkshire had decided that they would not take over anything beyond 10 feet wide; but all these questions were of an arbitrary nature, which each county had to decide for itself. If there was a distinct decision, or a distinct definition was laid down as to what constituted a bridge, the authorities would have a guide in dealing with these turnpike roads. The proposed Amendment would, however, be altogether insufficient for that purpose, and would not deal with the matter as it ought to be dealt with. If his hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Estcourt) would bring up another Amendment on the Report, giving a clear definition of what was to constitute a bridge, he might do good service, especially if his clause was so drawn that everybody could understand it. With such a definition laid down, the county authorities would have no difficulty in deciding what was a bridge and what was not.

did not know that he would be able to draw up a clause actually defining what a bridge was as well as his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Somerset (Mr. Paget); and he hoped his hon. Friend would give him his assistance in drawing up a clause of this nature, if it were considered to be necessary. He only wished to add to what he had already said, that the bridge of which he had been speaking was not a viaduct pure and simple. It did go over a stream of water; but, as it happened, only two of the arches, or, probably, only one, crossed over the water itself, the others being in the nature of a viaduct leading from the bridge to the land.

Does the hon. Member propose to withdraw his Amendment?

Yes.

intimated that he did not intend to move the clauses which stood on the Paper in his name, for transferring liabilities respecting county bridges from the county to the borough authorities, and giving the county authority to purchase private toll bridges.

moved, in page 8, after Clause 20, to insert the following Clause:—

said, the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Mr. Dundas) was a most useful and practical Amendment, and, if adopted by the Committee, would lead to a considerable diminution of the expenses of the county surveyors. In most of these cases, at present, the county surveyor had to make an arrangement for the work being done with the surveyor who represented the highway authorities, and it appeared to him (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) that it would be much better to allow the highway authorities to do the work on their own accord, and also pay for it. They would not be damnified to any great extent, when it was borne in mind that they would be relieved from serious payments, which, although now falling upon the highway authorities, would, when this Bill passed, be defrayed out of the county rate. The matter was one to which his attention had already been called by the authorities of the North Riding of Yorkshire, and especially by the Chief Constable, who possessed a considerable knowledge of the district; and he was bound to say that he was of opinion that the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Dundas) would be a most economical and useful clause to adopt. It was a common opinion among the farmers of the district in which he happened to live that it was a most desirable change to bring about; and he thought that, taking the whole area of the county, there would really not be any case of hardship to individual ratepayers. In point of fact, it would come in the end to about the same thing, and it would certainly simplify very greatly the work of maintaining and repairing these approaches to the county bridges. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not think it out of place to adopt the clause.

said, he was sorry that he was compelled to oppose the Amendment; but he thought there was a serious objection to it, which he would lay before the Committee. He quite agreed that it was not a very large money question; but still, as far as it went, it introduced a principle which was contrary to that which was the policy of the Bill, because it proposed to remove a charge from a larger area for the purpose of placing it upon a smaller area. He had no doubt that in Yorkshire the district boards had competent surveyors, who would do the work well, and not care very much about the difference in the cost; but in other parts of the country, where the charge would fall, not upon the highway district, but upon the parish authorities, it might become a very serious charge indeed, if, in addition to the highway rates of the parish, which they were accustomed to pay now, they were saddled with the expense of maintaining and repairing roads, many hundreds of yards in length, for which the county was now chargeable. There was, however, the objection of principle, quite apart from the question of throwing an additional burden upon the highway authorities for the repair and maintenance of these approaches to the bridges. Then, again, unless the repairs were well looked after, and if the approaches were not good, the bridges themselves might undergo serious deterioration. Therefore, he thought that the repairs to the approaches should remain in the same hands as those who were charged with the maintenance and repair of the bridges themselves. On these two grounds, he certainly considered the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Dundas) an Amendment that ought not to be inserted in the Bill. He had no doubt that, as time went on, there would be some arrangement by which the districts would be empowered to contract with the counties for the repair of these roads, in connection with other duties; but at present it did not seem to him that this was an alteration which was without objection in itself, and it was certainly a transfer of charge in an opposite direction to that upon which the Bill proceeded. Upon these grounds, he could not consent to accept the clause.

said, he did not think that the argument of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, in regard to the principle of the Bill, was quite satisfactory; because the principle of the Bill was to adopt a larger area of management, and to place under the control of the county that which would best come under its authority, so far as management was concerned. Nobody could suppose, however, that the county authority would supply the best mode of managing little petty bits of road all over the county. The county surveyor would be required to make continual journeys to distant parts of the county, in order to ascertain whether it was necessary for him to do anything or not, and he would have to enter into little contracts with the local surveyors. He (Mr. Floyer) certainly looked upon this as a costly and extravagant mode of doing business, and the duty of maintaining and repairing these approaches would be done by the local authorities at one-half or one-fourth of the expense. Wherever there were highway districts, the surveyor of the highway district was the proper person, to look after the matter, and in the case of a parish, the surveyor of the parish should attend to it. There would be no more difficulty in repairing a road that was used as an approach to a bridge than there would be in repairing one anywhere else. The only doubtful point in the proposition of the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Dundas) was, perhaps, that the hon. Member ought to have included the bridges also. The whole thing ought to come under one management, and it was a moot point whether the best course would not be to place the bridges under the Highway District Boards. Personally, he was entirely in favour of local management and local supervision. If they had county management, the county authorities might live in a distant part of a large county, probably 30, 40, 50, or 60 miles off. What would they know about the way in which the roads in the distant parts of the county were managed? It could not be expected that members of the County Boards would go about the county travelling for great distances, in order to ascertain the state in which the roads were kept, and the result would be that the work would fall into the hands of one county surveyor, with nobody to control him. He did not think that this large area in other respects was a very good thing; and, as regarded these little bits of road, scattered all over the county, it would, he thought, be better to place them in the hands of the local authority. If the hon. Member for Richmond would press his Motion to a division, he (Mr. Floyer) would have great pleasure in supporting him.

said, that his objection to the clause was that it did not go far enough; but he would remind the House that this was professedly not a Bill to deal comprehensively with the whole question of highways, but only with a certain portion of the laws regarding them, and that only temporarily. They were promised in the future a larger measure to alter and consolidate the Highway Acts, and that, he thought, would be the time to introduce the principle proposed by the hon. Member; and he would, therefore, advise him not to attempt to deal with it fragmentarily at present.

agreed that it would be unwise to make the alteration in the Bill. They all knew that the county surveyor had great difficulty in managing bridge roads, and had to give much more attention to those small tracts than he would to larger roads; but the great objection was that if they took away from the county surveyor the control of the approaches to bridges, they ran a great risk of damaging the approaches.

said, that he was not convinced by the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. He thought, however, there was some force in the objection that a new charge would be thrown on the parish in counties where the Highway Acts had not been adopted. He hoped he might augur from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that the promised Bill would make the enlarged areas universal, and with this hope he would be quite content to let the matter rest, and to withdraw his clause.

moved the insertion of the following Clause:—

(As to encroachment of roadside wastes.)

"From and after the passing of this Act if any person encroaches by making or causing to he made any building, or pit, or hedge, ditch, or other fence, on the open side or sides of any highway being a carriage way, or by removing any soil or turf from the open side or sides of any highway being a carriage way, except for the purpose of improving the road, and by order of the highway board, or, where there is no highway board, of the surveyor, he shall be subject on conviction for every such offence to any sum not exceeding forty shillings; and it shall be lawful for the justices assembled at petty sessions, upon proof to them made upon oath, to levy the expenses of taking down such building, hedge, or fence, or filling up such ditch or pit, or restoring the injury caused by the removal of such soil or turf, upon the person offending: provided, That—

(1.) For the purposes of this section the open side of a highway shall mean the space intervening between the highway and any fence on the side of the highway;

(2.) This section shall not apply where a highway passes along a common or other uninclosed space;

(3.) This section shall apply only to a space not exceeding a space of thirty feet measured on each side of the centre line of a highway, and the centre line of a highway for the purposes of this section at any point means a line equi-distant from the fence on either side;

(4.) This section shall be deemed to be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other provision relating to encroachments contained in any Act relating to highways."

The clause, he said, proposed to deal with a very important and intricate question—namely, the right of the public to the roadside wastes. He need hardly point out that the charm of the country to a very great extent depended upon roadside wastes, and if those wastes were to be cut down, so as to leave the road with a minimum width of 15 feet on each side of the centre, country scenery would lose a great portion of its charm. Of late years there had been a great tendency on the part of owners of adjoining lands to encroach upon the roads, and the tendency had been shown to a much greater extent in the outskirts of towns than in the open country. Now, those encroachments were for the most part committed from an entirely mistaken view of the law. It was generally believed that a landowner was entitled to encroach upon a roadside waste up to a distance of 15 feet from the centre, because the Highways Act only gave a remedy for encroachment within that limit, and that gave landowners the idea that they were entitled to inclose the waste up to that extent. There was no doubt that that was an entirely erroneous view of the law. He had consulted numerous lawyers upon the subject, and ho had examined all the authorities very carefully himself, and there could be no question whatever that, although the owner of adjoining land had a right to the soil of a roadside waste, yet the public had also a right to go across it; and, although the fences on either side might be 50 or 60 feet apart, yet the public had a right of way over the whole of the space between the fences, and were not limited to the 30 feet defined by the Highways Act. He would venture to call attention to a case where this was laid down by the Courts. The road in question was one of 60 feet in width, and, in 1832, the owner of the adjoining land inclosed the roadside waste. Lord Tenterden, before whom the case was tried, said that he was strongly of opinion that the public were entitled to the use of the whole space of 50 or 60 feet through which the road passed. That case had been followed by numerous others. There was the well-known case of the Electric Telegraph Company, which had failed to obtain an Act to enable it to put up its poles on roadside wastes, and which then obtained the consent of the owners of adjoining land to do so. In that case a rival Company indicted it for interfering with the right of way of the public over the roadside waste. Baron Martin laid down in the clearest possible manner that the public had the full right of the space between the two fences, and that the Company had not the right even with the consent of the adjoining landowners to erect its poles upon the waste. Therefore, he said that, in point of law, where the road passed through a continuous space of 50 or 60 feet, the public were entitled to a right of way over the whole of the space between the fences. The only way now of enforcing the right was by indictment, which was a very costly process, and which most people did not like to undertake; and he believed he was right in saying that even if one could succeed in recovering the space in such an action, he could not succeed in recovering costs. It was a very expensive process, and practically, therefore, there was no real remedy for these encroachments. The right, however, had been tried over and over again. In his own neighbourhood a case arose, and a committee of gentlemen was formed, who entered an action against persons who had been encroaching on the roadside waste. They proceeded by way of indictment, and were successful, the other parties not coming into Court; but even then it was a very expensive process, and cost about £300. There was another case, he believed, in which the late Lord Salisbury had inclosed roadside waste for a considerable portion of the land adjoining his estate. In that case Lord Cowper sent a large force of labouring men to pull down the fences that had been erected, and they were accordingly pulled down; and it was stated that the present Lord Cairns advised Lord Salisbury to take no proceedings in the matter. What he purposed to do by his clause was to give the public a more summary remedy, and to extend that clause of the Highways Act which now only gave protection to 15 feet from the centre of the road, so as to make it 30 feet either way from the centre. He merely extended the summary remedy given under the Highways Act 15 feet further. He, of course, should be happy to make any reservations in the clause that might be thought necessary. As at present drawn, the clause was only in the right of the public, and merely extended the summary clause of the Highways Act with the view of enabling the public to exercise that right which undoubtedly existed at present over all the space between fences. It appeared to him to be quite within the principle of the Bill, and he should be glad to have it discussed. The Bill was called a Highways Bill, and this question was of quite as much importance as many of the others dealt with by the measure.

trusted that the President of the Local Government Board would have some better reason given than had already been adduced by the hon. Member for Reading, before he consented to the introduction of that clause; because he thought there were many rural districts where it would be very inconvenient, and cause a great deal of mischief without any benefit. He did not suppose that anyone would dispute the law which the hon. Member had laid down; but it did not appear to him that it applied to the particular case raised by the Amendment. What the public at present had was a right of way for the convenience of passage to and fro, and what the hon. Member proposed to do was to extend the limit laid down in the 51st clause of the Highways Act by 30 feet—that was, to double it. The law as to public rights of the road would remain the same. The hon. Member proposed that in no case should a farmer take away any soil or turf from a road—a proposition which he considered to be most unreasonable. He thought that the hon. Member himself was guilty of a little encroachment upon the rights of landowners. He submitted to the House that the hon. Member had at present shown no ground for accepting the clause. No doubt, his well-known love for open spaces for the people had induced him to put it on the Bill; but he thought it was a little unfair and quite unnecessary, and, therefore, he should oppose it.

said, that everybody must admire the gallantry and tenacity with which his hon. Friend opposite seized opportunities for advocating the cause of open spaces; but he must say he considered it rather hard on the pro- moters of the Bill that they should have a clause proposed which would lead to the most knotty and contentious points of law that could be raised—namely, the extent of ownership in lands adjoining roads, in some cases carrying with them manorial rights, and in others, rights of property. But he did not at all wish to argue the case against his hon. Friend. He might have a strong case to set up for extending open spaces by law; but he would point out that the clause of his hon. Friend was practically an Amendment to the whole Highway Law. Now, unless he was misinformed, a turnpike road could not be encroached upon by the proprietor of adjoining land. No doubt, it might be very advantageous to lay down something more clear and definite as to the rights which existed upon roadsides; and, no doubt, they would have plenty of debates upon it when they should get time to discuss that very interesting subject. But he would put it to his hon. Friend whether it was desirable to persist in a clause which would import contentious matter into the Bill?

said, he was not sure that the case was not in a great measure provided for by a clause in one of the Turnpike Continuance Acts. But everything showed that this was a detail which ought to be postponed for a future occasion. Personally, he should be glad to see such a clause passed, for in the neighbourhood where he lived most lawless proceedings had taken place with regard to the roadsides. With regard to the question of the right of the landlord to take away turf, he pointed out that it would be undesirable to have that right exercised in certain cases where the turf formed an admirable gallop for horses. He knew of a capital gallop near Buxton, about seven or eight miles long, and he considered that it would be very disadvantageous to the people of Buxton to have that roadside done away with. All these questions, however, he considered to be matters of detail, and had better not be discussed at present.

asked whether it was a fact that the highway authority had absolute jurisdiction only over 30 feet of roadway? He could only say, as a member of a Highway Board, that they had laid it down most clearly that no encroachment upon roads was to be made under any circumstances whatever, without special permission from the Highway Board. He certainly thought that the public had a right to much more than 15 feet from the centre of the road, and he could not see why those who rode on horseback should not have the enjoyment of the turf at roadsides. He was rather surprised to hear what the state of the law was, for he had never understood it to be so. At any rate, if the Motion of the hon. Member opposite did no other good, it had produced some information as to the power which highway authorities had over roadside wastes when they extended beyond 15 feet from the centre of the road. At present, he believed their jurisdiction was to a very much wider extent.

said, he was very sorry they had not had the support of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), because the clause was really not a stringent one, and was calculated to be extremely useful. There was no doubt that the law as laid down by the hon. Member for Reading was not to be disputed. No one could dispute that the public had a right of use over the whole space from fence to fence. It was absurd to say that the riparian proprietors setting to work to clear away the turf would not be a serious interference with the enjoyment of the public passing and re-passing along the road. He remembered a case where a proprietor inclosed a portion of road extending for about two-thirds of a mile. Nothing was done, because to have proceeded against him would have been a very costly business. But as he understood his hon. Friend's Motion, it was only intended to supply a summary remedy, and to effect by a cheap and easy method what at present could only be done by a costly and difficult process. He did not mean to say that any very numerous cases of owners taking up a great deal of roadside space occurred; but, at the same time, cases did occur here and there, and if that were a matter which could be put down by indictment, he was at a loss to understand why a summary proceeding should not be equally applicable. It seemed to him that that was a cheap and convenient method of dealing with the evil, and that it was altogether a very reasonable proposition.

said, he must point out that the hon. Member's clause did not agree at all with the propositions he had laid down. It might be that the public had certain rights; but, if so, they were really limited by his clause, because it only gave them a right to 60 feet. He entirely agreed that for Highway Boards a summary remedy might usefully be substituted for proceedings by indictment. When the proper time arrived he should be most happy to enter upon that subject; but he did most earnestly deprecate the settlement, in an off-hand way, by the introduction of a clause at the end of a Bill, of the question of to what extent the rights of the public went and how they were to be enforced.

said, that after the promise that had made by his right hon. Friend opposite, he should not divide the House upon the clause. He had listened very carefully to the debate, and he had heard no objection made to his version of the law as it stood. As to the point that was made with reference to removal of soil, he was perfectly ready to meet that objection by leaving out the words relating to it. His noble Friend the Member for Derbyshire was perfectly right in his supposition as to the case of disturnpiked roads. There was a clause in the Turnpike Act which gave a summary remedy to the highway authorities in the case of encroachments on roads which had formerly been turnpike roads to the extent of 60 feet. His clause, however, applied to all highways. However, all that he had proposed was to substitute a summary remedy for the expensive one of proceeding by indictment; but he did not wish to raise any question as to what the rights of the public might be beyond the distance of 30 feet from the centre. He would, however, withdraw his Motion upon the assurance of his right hon. Friend that he would deal with the subject on a future occasion.

moved the insertion of the following Clause:—

(Cases in which existing bridges may be accepted by county authority.)

"Any bridge heretofore erected in any county without such superintendence as is provided in section five of the statute of the forty-third year of King George the Third, chapter fifty-nine, but which shall have been maintained for thirty years and upwards, shall, if the county authority see fit so to order, become and be deemed to be a bridge which the inhabitants of the county shall be liable to maintain and repair: Provided always, That the county surveyor or other person appointed in that behalf by the county authority shall certify the same to be substantial and commodious, and to be in good repair and condition."

He said, the object of the clause was to enable the county authorities to take over any bridge before erected in any county which should have been maintained for 30 years and upwards. A very curious incident had occurred some years ago in his county, where, in order to comply with the technical terms of the Act, they had had to pull down and rebuild a bridge. He understood there was no objection to the clause.

believed that this was a very useful clause. It did away with a restriction which acted very improperly, and which prevented county authorities from taking over bridges which they would be glad to take over if the county surveyor duly certified them.

moved the insertion of the following Clause:—

(Contributions out of county rates towards erecting county bridges.)

"The county authority may make such contribution as it sees fit out of the county rates towards the cost of any bridge to be hereafter erected after the same has been certified in accordance with the provisions of section five of the statute of the forty-third year of King-George the Third, chapter fifty-nine, as a proper bridge to be maintained by the inhabitants of the county; so always that such contribution shall not exceed one-half of the cost of erecting such bridge."

said, there were many poor districts where it would be impossible to raise the money for building bridges by county subscriptions, and this clause was to enable the county authorities, if they should be willing, to assist these districts in complying with the law.

, moved, in page 10, after Clause 22, to insert the following Clause:—

(Locomotives used for agricultural purposes.)

"In case of locomotives used for agricultural or other purposes, and working within fifty yards of any highway, a man or boy with a flag shall be stationed on such highway to give notice to passers by, and, in case of need, to assist horses and carriages drawn by horses passing along the same."

said, he had no objection to the clause, if the words "with a flag" were omitted and 30 yards substituted for 50.

thought it was hardly wise to impose such restrictions as that on the use of machinery. In many cases the regulation would be no safety at all, and he doubted very much whether the right hon. Gentleman was right in assenting to the clause.

said, it appeared to him that they might just as well say that if a railway passed within 30 yards of a wall, a man with a flag must be placed on a road to warn passers-by.

thought there was very considerable utility in a clause of that kind; because everyone knew that in going along a country road with a pair of young horses, there was very great difficulty in passing a field where one of these machines was working. If there were a man or a boy in the road who could cause the machine to be stopped until the carriage got past, it would be a very great advantage. If there were nobody there, those in charge of the engine would know nothing about the carriage passing.

considered that this was a most unreasonable proposition. He had a horse that would pass these machines without fear, but had a great objection to Taylor's furniture vans. He might just as well say that if one of these vans were loading at a villa near a road, a boy should be stationed in the road to warn him of its presence. He was afraid that if they commenced the principle of protecting the general public by Act of Parliament or by bye-law, against every imaginable risk, they would have enough to do, and therefore he should oppose the clause.

thought, that with the use of the word "locomotive" there might be very considerable difficulty in applying the clause. Everybody knew that a great variety of improvements in agricultural machinery were being introduced, and the clause in its present form would lead to great confusion and difficulty.

thought they had killed their friend with the flag altogether, and he hoped that before the President of the Local Government Board accepted the clause it would be considerably modified.

said, he must point out that, in his judgment, the clause as worded did not meet the difficulty. He did not think that people passing along a road required any notice that a machine was at work in an adjoining field; but rather that the persons working the machine required notice of the approach of passengers, so that they might stop the machine and not frighten the horses going by. In the case of the hon. Member for Rochester, it was not he who needed warning, but the man in charge of Taylor's van.

said, he did not think the hon. Member for East Sussex was quite aware of what he was proposing by his clause.

hoped that his hon. Friend would withdraw his clause. It was rather a curious thing that after the House had only the other day, by a large majority, endorsed the opinion that steam might be used on tramways, that they should now be going to hamper the use of it on agricultural machinery in fields.

begged to assure the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) that the clause was not his; but that, in the absence of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, he had moved it. Ho would ask leave to withdraw it.

said, there could be no doubt that very sad accidents had occurred from horses suddenly coming upon engines working in a field.

said, it would be found, on reference to the Locomotives Act of 1865, that there was sufficient provision made for such contingency.

said, he desired to move a new clause which had not been printed. It was entitled "Highway District Rating not to apply unless ordered by the county authority." He ventured to think that the clause was entirely in harmony with the general principle of the Bill and with the general principles of the Highway Acts. The Highway Acts did not make it compulsory anywhere that there should be highway districts. The formation of those districts was optional. It existed in some parts of the country, and in others they declined to avail themselves of it. In the county of Somerset they had had the Highway District Act in force for 15 years. It had worked well, and they desired to be let alone. They did not desire to have, and in fact he believed there was a very strong feeling against, the introduction of district rating. What he wanted was that they should be left free to do as they were doing. Their roads were good, their surveyors were efficient, the system was working well; and no one, so far as he knew, desired to introduce district rating. The principle he wished to adopt was that they should be allowed to introduce district rating if they considered it desirable; but that if they wished to be left alone, they should be left alone. He thought they might ask for that as a matter of right. In their county they were amongst the first to adopt the principle of highway districts. Others who were not so quick in doing so were to be left alone. The Bill did not deal with them. It entirely left those alone who had not acted under the Highway Act; but it came to those who had and said to them, with or without their consent, the principle of district rating must be introduced. He thought there was no such reason for that as had existed under the Union system. They had now every inducement to manage their roads at a moderate rate of expenditure. The waywarden sent in every year a statement showing the probable amount that would have to be expended on the roads in labour and material, and that expenditure was watched carefully from year to year. The Bill would introduce a change in the system; but he ventured to think that it was entirely in harmony with existing highway legislation, and also with the principle of the present Bill that where a system was at work and worked well, and against which there was nothing to be said, it at any rate should be left optional to decide whether or not the county authorities should adopt the principle of district rating. It might be that the words he had drawn up did not meet the case in the best way; but he would, at all events, move the clause he had placed in the Chairman's hands.

thought the hon. Member for Mid-Somerset was treating the House very hardly. He had had plenty of opportunities of putting his clause upon the Paper. They had been three days in Committee on the Bill, and they had had a fortnight wherein to prepare new clauses. He, therefore, would appeal to the hon. Member to put the clause down for the Report, so that the House might have an opportunity of examining it and seeing whether they liked it or not.

hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion. It was, in fact, an Amendment which had been moved in Committee, had been thoroughly thrashed out there, and rejected. It was now brought forward as a new clause.

said, that it was a matter of considerable importance, and he would, therefore, bring the subject up again on the Report.

moved, after Clause 20, to insert the following Clause:—

(Transfer of liabilities respecting county bridges from the county authorities to borough authorities.)

"It shall be lawful for the county authority, and the local authority or highway authority of any borough, local board district, or place within which is situate any bridge or bridge approach maintainable by the inhabitants of the county or county division wherein it is situate, to enter into agreements with respect to the reconstruction, widening, alteration, or other improvement, and the future maintenance of such county bridge and its approaches; and the county authority may contribute out of the rates, in the nature of county rates leviable by them, such sum of money as they deem proper towards the expenses of the works agreed upon, or in consideration of being relieved from the future maintenance of any such bridge and the approaches thereto, and on payment of such contribution the common law liability of the inhabitants of such county or county division to rebuild, maintain, and repair such bridge and approaches shall cease, and shall thereafter attach to and be borne by the inhabitants of the borough, local board district, or place wherein the same respectively are situate, in like manner as the liability for the maintenance and repair of highways within that area or district respectively is borne. Any such agreement as hereinbefore authorized, which has been already entered into, may be renewed or confirmed by the respective parties hereto after the passing of this Act, and shall have effect as if made under this Act."

He said, that his clause was intended to meet a case where a large town had grown beyond a county bridge, and the bridge, being insufficient to accommodate the ordinary traffic of the road, now that it became part of a street, was dangerous. The borough authorities would then apply to Quarter Sessions to have the bridge made over to them; but the Quarter Sessions had no power to do so. In Yorkshire, the borough authorities had gone to the Quarter Sessions and said—"Here is a bridge of yours which is dangerous and insufficient, and which costs, for instance, £100 a-year in repairs. If you will capitalize this sum, and give us £2,500, we will take the bridge over and keep it in repair." The county authorities would be willing to accept the terms, but they had no statutory power to divest themselves of their liability; and the way it had hitherto been met was that they had had to come to Parliament for powers to enable them to do so. This had been done with respect to the bridge which crossed the Aire at Leeds; it had been done in two cases at Huddersfield, and in two at Sheffield. He thought it desirable that this should be done by giving power to the Courts of Quarter Sessions and the borough authorities to agree between each other as to the liability for the bridges. The clause which he wished to move had been drawn by the town clerk of Huddersfield and the solicitor to the West Riding Court of Quarter Sessions, and might not, perhaps, be in the most desirable form. He should be quite content to accept any other form of words, if the spirit of his clause were accepted by the Government.

said, he saw no objection to the principle of the clause which his hon. Friend had proposed, and which might transfer the liability for the maintenance of a bridge from one authority to another. Ho did not think, however, that the clause as drawn would effect the purpose in the best possible way, and he would ask that it be withdrawn, in order that it might be re-introduced at a later stage in different terms.

thought the power proposed to be given in the clause ought to be coupled with certain restrictions which could be discussed and settled hereafter.

next proposed the insertion of the following new Clause:—

(County authority to have power to purchase private toll bridges.)

"Where portions of any main roads are connected by a private bridge upon which a toll is taken the county authority may, if it think fit, purchase such bridge for a sum to be approved by the Local Government Board and every bridge so purchased shall in future become a county bridge and the cost of such purchase shall be defrayed out of the county rate."

objected to the clause, on the ground that it would give no security against the making of improvident bargains.

moved the insertion of the following Clause:—

(Contribution of boroughs having separate courts of quarter sessions to maintenance of their roads.)

"A borough having a separate court of quarter sessions shall pay to the county authority of the county within which such borough shall be situate, as a contribution to the expenses of maintenance of the main roads in such county under this Act, such a sum not exceeding the amount of the county rate, or contribution to the same which might otherwise be required from such borough, as the county authority and the council of such borough shall agree upon, or, in case they shall not agree, such a sum as may be determined by an arbitrator to be nominated and appointed, and the requisition of such county authority or of the council of such borough, by the Local Government Board. And such arbitrator, in determining the amount of contribution by any such borough, shall have regard to the extent of main roads thrown upon and maintained in such borough since the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy, and to the annual expenses incurred by such borough in the repair of such main roads."

The hon. Member said, it was originally suggested that the main roads would, under the Bill, fall upon all the boroughs within the county, whether they were or were not possessed of separate Courts of Quarter Sessions, and this he thought to be a correct reading of the existing law. It appeared that this was, in point of fact, the effect of the Bill, as it was originally introduced, and an Amendment had been inserted subsequently by the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, to put boroughs having separate Courts of Quarter Sessions on a different footing. At his (Mr. Gregory's) instance, some words had been introduced into this Amendment, in order to show that the ques- tion was still unsettled; and he had therefore, moved his clause in order that some equitable mode of settling the contribution might be arrived at. No better mode of arriving at this conclusion, as it seemed to him, could be arranged than by the appointment of an arbitrator nominated by the Local Government Board in default of agreement between the county and borough authorities. If hon. Gentlemen representing Quarter Sessions boroughs had a more equitable solution of the difficulty to suggest than that which was contained in his clause, he should be glad to accept it.

said, he was sorry he could not accept the clause, although he admitted that it contained ingeniously constructed elements of what might be a plan to settle a very difficult question. The main difficulty was that municipal boroughs were subject to county rates, while Quarter Sessions boroughs were not. He had foreseen this, and it was therefore provided that the boroughs should have an abatement on account of the main roads which they had themselves to maintain. The question was a difficult and complicated, but, at the same time, an important one; and he should be quite willing to consider whether it would not be possible to frame a clause which would adapt the proposal of his hon. Friend to municipal boroughs generally. As the proposal of his hon. Friend now stood, it would settle nothing, and would introduce an element of contention into what was already a difficult question.

said, he was in hopes that this particular question had been settled at an earlier stage of the Bill, and he regretted that it had been raised again. His own view was that arterial roads in counties should be maintained by the counties, that the district roads should be under the control of highway districts, and that the boroughs should maintain their own roads, which their proposal would create The difficulty was one of considerable magnitude. For instance, in the borough which he represented, the authorities had recently had placed upon them the responsibility attaching to the maintenance of five miles of "disturnpiked" roads, in addition to many more for which, in previous years, they had be- come chargeable. The question which had been raised by his hon. Friend was one of such complication that a local arbitrator could settle it; while, if the project should be carried into effect, it would operate with extreme injustice upon many boroughs which would, under the operation of an unequal bargain, give much and yet but little in return.

said, he objected to the clause on two grounds—first, that it laid down the principle that boroughs should contribute to the maintenance of county roads; and second, that if they were so to contribute, the tribunal which was to settle the contribution was not a satisfactory one.

had heard with gladness the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that he could not accept the clause which had been proposed, and with sorrow his subsequent expression of opinion that it contained elements of a future satisfactory settlement. The proposed clause was one-sided as far as Quarter Sessions boroughs were concerned, because it limited the extent to which counties should contribute to the boroughs, and also limited the claims of the boroughs to roads which had been disturnpiked since the year 1870. Most of the larger boroughs disturnpiked their roads long before 1870; and, if the clause of the hon. and learned Member were agreed to, would be mulcted in consequence of, and in proportion to, their liberality. Furthermore, he asked the Committee to consider the enormous expense which would be involved by the tribunal the hon. Gentleman proposed to create. He had had some experience of arbitrations, and knew of no more expensive luxury. Only recently he had been engaged in one which was calculated to have cost not less than four guineas per minute, owing to the heavy fees paid to counsel and professional witnesses, and the cost attendant upon the adjournments from time to time and place to place to suit the same counsel and witnesses. He thought, on the whole, it would be better to leave Quarter Sessions boroughs in their present position, with the prescriptive immunity which they had so long enjoyed; for he did not think that if the question was gone into the counties would gain. In the borough which he represented the county would have, in the event of the clause being adopted, to contribute about two-thirds of the cost of certain main roads; and the borough, on the other hand, would have to pay a comparatively small sum in aid of the county roads. As far as his borough was concerned, therefore, it did not want to be mixed up with the management of the county affairs for the sake of a small pecuniary advantage.

said, that the borough of Ipswich, which he represented, comprised some 8,500 acres within a circumference of about 19 miles, and within that area were 75 miles of streets or roads, and of these about 30 miles were county roads, for the repair of which the borough was exclusively responsible, though the county traffic upon them was very considerable both to the town and to the railway station. What this clause proposed was that, in addition to the exclusive maintenance of these 30 miles, the borough should also contribute to the maintenance of county roads outside the borough; while the county was not to contribute one farthing to the maintenance of the roads within the borough. For this he could see no reason. If boroughs maintained their own roads at their own cost, why should they be called upon to pay a part of the cost of the county roads, and get nothing in return from the county rates?

said, the city of York, which he represented, happened to be in the midst of three distinct county jurisdictions; and he took it that it would require a very skilful arbitrator to fix the proportion which each of these jurisdictions would have to pay towards the maintenance of the roads within the city, if the clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman was agreed to by the Committee and incorporated with the other clauses in the Bill. They were perfectly content with things as they stood, and objected, in common with the whole of the Quarter Sessions, cities, and boroughs in the Kingdom, against the principle proposed to be introduced into the Bill.

said, he had proposed the clause, believing that it was based upon equitable principles. He regretted that it had not found more favour with the Committee; and he could only hope that the subject would soon be dealt with in some other manner which would prove satisfactory alike to the House and to the country. With the permission of the Committee, he would withdraw the new clause which he had ventured to propose.

moved the following Clause:—

(Road rate on hundred or county.)

"In the case of any county in which certain of the bridges within the county are repairable by the county at large, and others are repairable by the several hundreds within the county in which they are situate, it shall be lawful for the county authority from time to time to declare any road or part of a road to be a main road, repairable by the county at large, or repairable by the hundred in which such road or part is situate, as they think fit; and where a road or part thereof is declared to be a main road, repairable by a hundred, the expense of repairing the same shall, to the extent to which but for this section the expense or any contribution towards the expense of repairing the same would be payable out of the county rate, be payable out of a separate rate which shall be raised and charged in the like manner, and be, expended by the like persons as the expenses of repairing the hundred bridges in the same hundred would have been raised, charged, and expended."

This clause was intended to meet the case of Lancashire. The adoption of the system which it proposed had been recommended by the magistrates of that county, and he hoped that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board would be prepared to accept the clause.

said, he regarded the clause as fair and reasonable, and he would, therefore, accept it.

thought that the same option should be given in Yorkshire as would be given in Lancashire. He did not see why the latter county should enjoy an exceptional privilege of this description.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Bill would be re-printed, with Amendments?

said, he would undertake to have the measure re-printed.

, in rising to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill on this day three months, said, he had hoped that some explanation would have been given by the Government of the reasons which induced them to adhere to certain leading features of the Bill which to him seemed of a very objectionable character. The Bill purported to be a scheme of retirement of clerks, and of reorganization in the War Office by means of those retirements. He did not deny for a moment that there was need for re-organization in the War Office; but, in proceeding to satisfy the need of the Office in this direction, the Government would have done better if they had been more mindful of the rights of the lower division of clerks, whom they now proposed should retire compulsorily under the provisions of this Bill. The Government might say that those clerks had retired voluntarily; but in reality the retirements had been of a compulsory character, because those clerks who had retired voluntarily knew beforehand that their services would be dispensed with when this Bill was passed, and that they would not be permitted to remain on the Establishment. He did not wish to refer to the cases of the clerks who were to receive two-thirds of their salaries as retiring allowances, and who were to obtain gratuities according to the provisions of the Bill; but he desired to refer to that class of clerks who were only to receive as retiring allowances half of their salaries. That class of clerks felt themselves very grievously injured by this Bill. The Government were proceeding on the vicious principle of allowing those of their officers who were paid an inferior salary a proportionately inferior allowance. The House would admit this was a vicious principle, for it was establishing a sort of aristocracy of clerks. It was beyond question that at the War Office there was a great amount of discontent and a keen sense of injustice, on account of the reason he explained. There was a further source of discontent, and one of a very important character. At the time of the Crimean War a number of clerks of the first class were appointed temporarily; but since then they had been placed on the Establishment, and were now "supplementary" clerks. The Government did not propose to allow a single farthing of retiring allowance to these supplementary clerks, although they had been in the Service since the Crimean War, and did exactly the same work as the other clerks. The Government simply proposed to dispense with their services with very little notice. He doubted whether the Government could have known of the existence of this body when they drew up the Bill. He did not see what object the Government could have in turning out this class of public servants in this manner. It was well calculated to cause discontent in the Public Offices. The Government wanted to show a saving of a few thousands a-year. If they had dealt fairly and generously, as might have been expected, with this class of clerks, they could not have effected this saving. The Government had dealt very unfairly with a class of men the less able to bear it. They were in every case men who had received a liberal education, and if they had not gone into the War Office, they would have become barristers or medical men. Relying on the fairness of the Government, they entered into a contract with the Government, under the impression that they were to remain in the Service until superannuated. He knew it was quite impossible, for such of them as had young families who were arriving at a certain age at which the most expenditure was required, to send their sons to good schools, in order that they might receive the same liberal education as their fathers. He did not wish to oppose re-organization, which was certainly required. By reference to the Army Estimates, it appeared that the business to which this re-organization scheme applied was in perfect chaos. There were no less than 11 different classes of clerks. But he wished reorganization to be unaccompanied with injustice to men who had spent the best years of their lives in the service of the Government upon very small pay. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.

greatly sympathized with much that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath; but this was not a question of personal feeling alone. These matters were to be decided with regard to efficiency and the duties which were to be carried on in the Public Service, and also with a due regard to economy. Speaking in a personal sense, he was bound to say it was with considerable pain and reluctance that the Government had had to propose a measure of this sort to the House; but, as the hon. Gentleman himself had perceived, the constitution of the Office, over which he (Colonel Stanley) at that moment had the honour to preside, was in such a state as to render it indispensable that it should be re-organized on a different footing, and accordingly his right hon. Friend who preceded him had instituted a Committee of Inquiry on the subject. That Committee sat rather more than a year ago. It sat for months, and made a most elaborate Report upon the system which it recommended for the future. His right hon. Friend found the position of a portion of the clerks in the Service a most painful one. There was a large establishment of gentlemen, many of them well educated, who were doing work which might very well have been discharged by less educated, and, therefore, by a lower class of persons. There was stagnation of promotion from which there could be no recovery for many years. Therefore, the prospects which had been held out to those gentlemen on their entrance into the Public Service had not been entirely realized, and his right hon. Friend did not think those prospects were at all likely to improve. His right hon. Friend, therefore, was of opinion that he should adopt somewhat more stringent measures than would otherwise have been the case, and reorganize the Office. That would necessitate, as was usual in such cases, a certain amount of hardship to individuals. But the Committee reported what number of gentlemen they thought it was necessary to retain in the Public Service and those who should not be so retained. He was bound to say that the various grades had been very carefully considered. It was possible that here and there a case of apparent and sometimes of real hardship occurred in connection with this re-organization; still he believed that in the majority of instances the prospect of each gentleman had been very fairly met. He did not find himself in a position to propose any alteration of the arrangement which his right hon. Friend had made. Whether, at some future time, it would be necessary to carry this re-organization further, was not a matter which he at the present moment could discuss. He was bound to tell the House that as far as the Government had been able to lay the scheme before the House, it was practical and efficient for the accomplishment of the object in view. He believed it had been carefully considered by those who were most competent to deal with it, and that for the future the clerks would obtain a fair amount of promotion. He should grieve if, from any delay caused by the House, these gentlemen should be retired without deriving the advantage this Bill would confer upon them. He hoped the House would take this stage of the Bill at once.

said, he had no wish to take up the time of the House, by going into details to show the urgent need of re-organization at the Admiralty. The Bill dealt with the subject on what he submitted was a wrong principle, and it should not be proceeded with until the House had full details. He would confine himself to the Return which had been laid on the Table, and would point out, so far as he had been able to understand its meagre details, that the figures gave a different result to that set down. By the Return, it seemed that 78 Class I. clerks were to be retired, making an alleged saving of £29,929. But he found that the average of the retiring pensions, arrived at by dividing 67 into £22,537, being the sum of £24,287, less £1,750, or 3½ per cent on £50,000 gratuities set down in the Return, would be £336; or, for 78 clerks, £26,208, to which must be added 3½ per cent on £49,450, or £1,750, as well as the cost of 50 Class II. clerks at their lowest, say, £80—namely, £4,000, making altogether £31,958, or an immediate loss of £2,029, steadily increasing year by year as the salary of these clerks increased, instead of an immediate gain, as alleged by the Return, of £2,478, and an actuarial ultimate gain of £10,000. There was another point against the correctness of the Return; it was this—there were now on the establishment 186 Class II. clerks, or lower division, costing £20,602, or an average of £110 each per annum; but he found that the additional 50 about to be engaged to fill the places of the 78 Class I. clerks to be retired, were set down to cost only £3,164, or an average of only £63 each per annum. He must confess that he could not understand a Class II. clerk, whose lowest salary was £80 a-year, engaging to serve for £63. That difference alone would make an error in the calculations of about £1,000. He had no wish to weary the House with figures; but he thought he had shown clearly that there was good ground for the Government to look more closely into their re-organization scheme before going into Committee on the Bill.

was of opinion that if this scheme was laid before the House in its entirety, the House would come to the conclusion that no saving would be effected. It began by pensioning-off a number of clerks, and giving gratuities to a number of men who were at present employed. He admitted the necessity for some reorganization in the War Office; but he considered that something might be done to employ those men it was now intended to dismiss from that Department. It was a reproach upon the Admiralty and War Office that such a state of things should be permitted, as it was admitted on all hands now existed. There were so many grades of clerks in the War Office—according to the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath, as many as 10 or 12—that it was scarcely possible to ascertain what was the beginning or end of the official system. A skeleton Schedule should accompany this Bill, so that they might know exactly what the Government intended to do. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had said he approached this subject with considerable pain. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) thought it uneasonable and unjust that the Government should be called upon to pass a Bill in the interest of economy which was really against humanity. Great hardship might be inflicted on individuals, but in the end the economy would be found a false one. The Bill was termed a Bill to facilitate Improvements in the Organization of the Admiralty and War Office by the retirement of Clerks from the Departments attached thereto; but he thought it ought to be called a Bill to enable the Commissioners of the Admiralty or the Secretary of State for War to dismiss as many of the Civil servants of the Admiralty or War Office as they might think fit, and to supply their places either by the promotion of such Civil servants as they thought proper, or by the employment of clerks of a lower division. Now, he thought it unfortunate that there should be a lower division of clerks at all. They were taken from the same rank in society, were, for the most part, as well educated as their more fortunate brethren, only differing from them in this, that their fathers had, perhaps, not been able to pay for having them better coached before obtaining their appointments. He differed entirely from the conclusions arrived at by Mr. Knox given in his evidence before the Committee two or three years ago, and upon which this Bill appeared to have been formed, as to the advisability of having two sets of clerks—one for drudgery, and the other for intellectual labour. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) contended that it was a false step and false economy to establish a service of drudges. A clerk entering the upper division knew he had the opportunity of raising himself and living like a gentleman; but one in the lower division, although, perhaps, socially his equal, knew that, do what he would, he could never rise above a certain dead level. He argued that power should be given to promote clerks from the lower to the higher division, and then everyone would take an interest in this work, and the Department would be more efficient. He regretted to say it but he believed this measure was essentially of a retrograde character, and one that should not be encouraged in these days. He did not intend to act in opposition to the Bill getting into Committee, when the various Amendments on the Paper would be discussed; but he thought the Government would do well to consider the whole measure before bringing this Bill into operation, which would have the effect of pressing hard upon some of the public servants.

said, he was not an advocate of the present arrangement for an upper and lower division of clerks. At the same time, he did not think that the whole clerical staff should consist of those who were called "gentlemen." When, some years ago, it fell to him to re-organize—and a very troublesome and painful process it was—the expenditure of the Clerical Establishments of the Admiralty, he found—and he did not think he was at all exaggerating the case when he said so—that there were twice as many officers as were wanted. The result was, that during his two years of office some 117 out of between 300 and 400 clerks and superior officers had been reduced; and, since 1868, not one single new clerk had been appointed—that was to say, all the vacancies which had since taken place, either by reason of retirement or death, had not been filled up by fresh appointments, the superfluous numbers being so great. Now the First Lord came down and proposed in this Bill to carry the reduction still farther—by retiring 67 officers, making altogether just about the reduction which might have been carried out, had he (Mr. Childers) had the advantage of such a Bill as the present. During his time they had succeeded in meeting every case of hardship, though he had not been able to go as far as he wished; but the result, he might be allowed to state, had been an immense increase in the efficiency of the Admiralty. With respect to the War Office, it would be necessary to carry out still further reforms. He therefore supported the Bill which merely carried further what he had been so much attacked for doing partially; and he thought that what a former Government had done was more than justified by what it had been considered desirable to do since. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that it was not desirable to throw out this Bill, which was really a boon to the officers who would be retired under it, but to allow the House to go into Committee on the Bill, and, when there, to propose Amendments to carry out the two objects he had particularly in view.

said, no one who knew the War Office could fail to appreciate the importance of this Bill. Nothing could be more painful than to see the stagnant state of the promotion for the clerks in that Office. For nearly 20 years no new clerk had been introduced in the Office, the evils engendered were the result of mistakes of more than 20 years ago. The cry then was for educated clerks to be employed; and men of University education, many having taken honours, were put into the Office to perform duties which a far less trained class were fully equal to. The amalgamation of several departments under one head—that of the Secretary of State for War—and the large increase in clerks, consequent on the war with Russia, had, with other blunders, entailed on the War Office many difficulties; but this Bill would effect a change which was exceedingly desirable, and he hoped care would be taken that the most capable were retained, and that fair treatment to those dispensed with would be practised. He suggested the employment of soldiers and sailors in the two Offices, and he could say from his own knowledge that the Government would never regret having employed them. He was in hopes that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) the Chairman of the Committee on the Employment of Soldiers, would support the suggestion to increase the number of soldiers in the War Office then employed in clerical work.

said, he did not rise to oppose the progress of the measure, but to say that there was a general impression that these re-organization schemes meant that men who were competent and without patrons would be sent adrift, while inferior Civil servants who had patrons would be retained. He did not attribute this to any Government in particular; he gave the impression which prevailed. Only a strong British Government could stand such a state of things as had been described. The Government ought to say what they were going to do. What was their scheme? Could they say who they were going to retain? Did they mean to touch the clothing department of the Army, where abuses were known to exist, and where men with small salaries retired with large fortunes? If ever there was a department which wanted reforming, that was the department; for it had long been a nest of imposition, peculation, and oppression. The changes effected in the Admiralty had worked admirably; but just the reverse was the case in the War Office, where there was want of management, and corruption. He was speaking of what was known to Members of the Ministerial Front Bench. There was undoubtedly a necessity for this Bill, but he wished to know whether the purchasing departments of the Army and Navy were to be re-organized?

said, that with the permission of the House he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he would give an explanation of the point to which he (Captain Pim) had called attention before going into Committee? Instead of there being an immediate saving of £2,478 under this Bill, it appeared to him that there would be an immediate loss of £2,029; and that that loss would increase year by year. Unless some explanation was given, he (Captain Pim) would feel it his duty to move to report Progress.

said, he believed it to be a perfectly correct calculation that the saving would be something like £2,500. That was independently of pensions; and when they fell in, there would be a further saving of £10,000. He might say that saving had not been the principal object in view; but that the principal object aimed at had been efficiency. There was no ex- cessive saving, or undue reduction; and, in fact, there was not a single class of officers at the Admiralty, whether higher officers or juniors, whose position would not be improved by the Bill. The responsibility of the officers would be increased; but their pay and prospects would be increased pro ratâ.

said, he was not finding fault with the Return, beyond pointing out that the figures were actually wrong. There was no question about their being wrong; he had gone into the matter very carefully. Another point to which he wished to call attention was that the in-coming clerks were coming in on an average of £63 a-year, and he was not aware that at the Admiralty there were any clerks under £80. As he had not had an explanation of the discrepancy between the Return and the statement which had been made, he would move that the Chairman report Progress.

said, he had looked very carefully at the calculations, and he could not agree with the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down, as to the conclusions to be drawn from them. It seemed to him that the cost of the present establishment was £146,000 a-year, and the cost of the proposed establishment, with pensions, would be £144,000 a-year.

said, that 78 clerks of the higher division were to be retired, saving £29,929; but the average of the retiring pensions would be £336, or for 78 clerks £26,280; to this must be added 3 per cent interest on £50,000, and the cost of 50 clerks of the second class at the lowest amount—he would say £80. This made £31,958, or, in round numbers, £32,000. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at those figures, he would see that there was a loss of £2,029, and that that loss would steadily increase, as the salaries of the clerks increased. The alleged gain was £2,478, with an ultimate gain of £10,000. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman opposite had been able to follow those figures; he would give them to him if he liked.

asked what Return the hon. and gallant Member was quoting from?

said, he was quoting from Return No. 231, printed by order of the House, dated June 14, 1878 (Admiralty Re-organization).

said, he really was not able to follow the figures of the hon. and gallant Member. The Paper in question had been most carefully calculated from precise data, and the Government had the facts, while the hon. and gallant Member was proceeding on assumption. Under the contemplated reform there would be a charge altogether for the higher division of £96,344 for the year 1878–9, and for the lower division of £23,766; a total of £120,110. The pensions would amount to £24,287. The immediate saving, therefore, was £2,478. That was a statement of facts which had been ascertained, and certainly it might be taken as much more reliable than the statement of the hon. and gallant Member, who was really not acquainted with the extent of the intended reform and the salaries to be paid. As much reliance might be placed on these figures as on an actuarial calculation. The statement was made on the responsibility of officers who were well tried, and on whose good faith the utmost reliance might be placed.

said, he had the figures in the Return, and from them made his calculations. He was as capable of adding up and subtracting these figures as any actuary, and he was certain he was right. He did not care if 50 actuaries said the contrary.

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had himself shown how the difference occurred; for he had made his calculation on the basis of salaries of £80, while the Government calculation was made on the basis of £63.

said, this question of £63 was a second point, showing how doubly wrong the Government statement was, for he took it for granted that his right hon. Friend would not tell the Committee that there were any clerks at the Admiralty on a salary of £63 per annum.

said, he had heard the explanation offered by the right hon. Gentleman, and he did not clearly under- stand it. He had not had the opportunity of seeing the case of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but it seemed to him that there were going to be 50 new clerks at the Admiralty, and he did not know how they were going to be paid. A number of gentlemen in the War Office, and at the Admiralty, were to be put to inconvenience and loss, without, so far as he understood, any corresponding advantage arising from the change. Unless some explanation was given why this alteration was to take place, and what the scheme of retirement and pensions was, he did not see why the Committee need go on any further in the discussion.

said, he had not heard any explanation by the First Lord of the Admiralty; he had merely heard an assertion by the First Lord that his paper was based on most irrefragable and inviolable statistics, and that a certain statement which had been made on the other side was an assumption. It was perfectly possible, in a statement which would not occupy more than seven or eight minutes, to set the figures before the House in such a way that hon. Members could understand them, and then the discrepancy might disappear. He thought there had been an inconsistency in dealing with the objections of the hon. and gallant Member. In the first place they were told that his statements and inferences were unintelligible; and, in the second place, they were told that these had been fully explained, and shown to be erroneous. This showed in what an unsatisfactory position the matter was, and he thought the House was entitled to have a more complete explanation.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman, if he would carefully look at Paper 231, would see the explanation he asked for. The existing establishment of the higher division of clerks was 279, costing £126,273; the new establishment was 201, and would cost £96,344. The existing establishment of the lower division of clerks was 186, some of whom would disappear under the present arrangement, and the new establishment was 236, costing £23,766. Putting the higher and lower divisions together, the cost would be £120,110, as against £146,875; the saving in salaries, therefore, was £26,765. The pensions were £24,287, making a total of £144,397, or an immediate saving of £2,478.

, in moving, in page 2, line 13, to leave out from "in" to "section," said, that perhaps the best explanation he could give was to read to the Committee a Petition which had been sent to the Admiralty by the senior clerks, in which they set forth their own case. He did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to his taking this course. The Petition was as follows:—

"To the Right Honourable the First Lord of the Admiralty.—The memorial of chief and senior clerks——"

rose to Order. He said he must ask the Chairman, whether it was in Order for an hon. Member to read a document of that kind, which was, or ought to be, considered confidential. It would be subversive of good order and good government if Papers of such a nature from the Department were placed in the hands of an hon. Member and made public.

said, he was not aware of any Rule of the House by which an hon. Member was precluded from bringing such a matter forward. At the same time, he would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that the course which he proposed to take was one of grave responsibility, and he believed it was one of an exceedingly unusual character.

replied that he did not see the slightest impropriety in reading the Memorial which had been sent to him by post, and was signed by 70 of the senior clerks in the Admiralty Department. The object which he had in moving his Amendment was that the time qualification of these clerks of very many years' standing should be calculated from the commencement of their service. It was a very hard case that some of these gentlemen, notwithstanding their long services, but because, as juniors, they had lower pay than the present scale, should, under the present scheme, have a poor retiring compensation of not exceeding £600 or £700, while others of less service but more pay had £1,000. He was sure his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) desired to do justice to those gentlemen, and he (Captain Pim) wished that he might have placed their case clearly before the Committee by reading the Memorial rather than by explaining its object. The omission of the words, as proposed by him, would afford those gentlemen the opportunity of receiving their proper gratuities on retirement. He was as anxious as anyone that the clerks in the Civil Service should retire with contentment, and his object was, therefore, to remove any cause for discontent. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would assent to his Amendment.

said, he was sorry that he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member. The Government already possessed powers to enforce retirement from the Public Service; but as the administration of the two Departments proposed to be dealt with under the Bill was of a special character, the House was asked to pass a piece of special legislation. The Bill imposed on Government a responsibility which was absolutely indispensable to the efficiency of the Public Service. They did not think it necessary to go beyond the powers asked for by the Bill, and to do so under pressure from individual clerks, or departments, would be to set up a principle exceedingly injurious to the Public Service. He trusted that the Committee would accept the provisions and limitations of the Bill on the responsibility of the Government, whose desire was to have a contented and thoroughly efficient Service. He thought the proposed terms of retirement were liberal to those concerned, as well as necessary to the interest of the Public Service, and calculated to accomplish the end which was desired.

did not think the mere fact of a Memorial being signed by certain clerks, and not even explained by the hon. Gentleman who had a copy of it, sufficient ground for making any change in the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member had not told the Committee what would be the effect of the Amendment, neither had he shown in what way the clerks in whose behalf it was proposed would be affected. He, therefore, asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman, why it was necessary to make the proposed change?

said, the effect of the Amendment would be an outlay of something like £3,000, which would give contentment to those senior clerks in the Admiralty Department whose length of service averaged 25 years; but who otherwise would get a smaller gratuity than those with less service.

replied, that merely giving 70 gentlemen £3,000 a-year among them was hardly a reason for altering the provisions of the Bill, although it might be a very pleasant one. In order to justify the alteration, it should be shown that the sum named by Government was unfair and inadequate to the end in view. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should show that, and the Committee would then consider his proposals.

said, that no reason had been given for the Amendment, nor had the grievance of the clerks been explained to the Committee. With regard to the suggestion of the First Lord of the Admiralty, he thought it was very desirable that something like an understanding should be arrived at; for the right hon. Gentleman not only said that the Committee were not to discuss Memorials which had been addressed to the Heads of Public Departments, but actually limited the right of Members of the House to discuss the amount of compensation to which public servants were to be entitled on compulsory retirement. One reason why, in his opinion, the subject should be fully discussed was that although the Bill only dealt with the Departments of the Admiralty and War Office, it was generally felt that its principle would be made applicable to every branch of the Public Service. It would be a very serious thing if such a principle were to be applied without discussion, and hon. Members were to have no voice in the settlement of the question.

said, the responsibility of granting to clerks retiring from the Public Service gratuities over and above what they would have been entitled to under existing regulations rested entirely with the Government, who were, therefore, the best judges of the amounts to be awarded. It was not for the clerks themselves to go to Members of Parliament and call upon them to advocate their claim for larger gratuities. He thought the Com- mittee should be limited by the Government proposal as a maximum. They might cut it down if too much; but it was not competent to a private Member to add to the expenditure in a case of the kind now before the House.

objected to the laying down of doctrines which certainly ought to be protested against by the Committee. His hon. and gallant Friend had proposed to read a Memorial from certain clerks, and when he proposed to put their case in decisive words, they were told that such a course was improper. He (Mr. E. Jenkins) failed to see any impropriety in so doing. He presumed that the gentlemen concerned had stated their case in a temperate manner, and if any injustice had been done them, he concluded that they had shown wherein that injustice rested. If that were so, it seemed to him very proper that their case should be brought under the notice of the Committee, who would not be relieved by the discussion as to whether it was right or not that they should listen to the reading of a Memorial. He thought that the Memorial should be read, so that the Committee might be made aware of the effects of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend (Captain Pim); and he protested against the doctrine of the First Lord of the Admiralty, that the Government should exercise its discretion and decide the principle on which that proposal should be made.

had not understood his right hon. Friend in any way to restrict the Committee in its power of discussing the point raised by the Amendment. Under the existing law retirement was compulsory, and the terms were limited to a lower scale than was fixed by the Bill; but in consequence of its being considered necessary in the interest of the Public Service that a certain number of clerks should retire in order to facilitate the work of the Admiralty and War Offices, the First Lord and the War Minister had decided that special terms should be granted in place of those applicable to ordinary retirement. These special terms were embodied in the 2nd clause of the present Bill, which was then under discussion; they were exceptionally favourable, and in that respect constituted a distinct boon to the parties concerned, who, if the Bill were not passed, would be liable to compulsory retirement, which the law as it then stood in the Superannuation Acts rendered possible, upon the terms laid down in those Acts.

thought that the Committee required a little more information than it possessed, both with regard to the clause itself and the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member which proposed to leave out from the clause certain words relating to the qualification of clerks as defined by the section. The House required to know the object of the qualifying clause, which appeared to him to be the exclusion of a certain body or category of clerks from the operation of the Bill. He thought, also, that the application of this part of the Bill was not to be confined to the Admiralty; but would affect that particular body of clerks in the War Office called "supplementary," to which the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had referred. It was possible that there was a similar class of clerks at the Admiralty, and he believed that the object of the Amendment was to exclude them from the operation of the Bill. The clause raised the point whether a certain body of clerks should be excepted, and he thought it would assist the Committee in coming to a conclusion if the Government or the hon. and gallant Member opposite would tell them what class of clerks was to be excepted and the reasons for their exception.

, referring to the Memorial in the hands of the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend, said, it had struck him that in his recollection a similar document had been presented to the House; it had also occurred to him that the House had a right to be made acquainted with all the circumstances in the case of servants of the Crown desiring to make an appeal. He found, upon inquiry, that he was correct in his opinion, and would read from Hansard, Session 1873, a short extract, relating to the Post Office employés, in which the First Lord of the Admiralty himself said—

"He wished now to bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman Memorials, recently sent to the Postmaster General from the officers of the minor Post Office Establishments in London. These Memorials were adopted at meetings held with the cognizance of the Postmaster General, who, in his Report, which was just circulated, said the men generally had acted in a very proper and praiseworthy manner."— [3 Hansard, ccxvii. 1112.]

The right hon. Gentleman was not censured by either side of the House; he read the Memorial and commented upon the value of the men's services; in fact, there was Hansard to show that he did in 1873 the very thing which he now condemned so severely.

said, he could not conceal his astonishment and indignation at what had been suggested by the First Lord. That House was the great tribunal of the nation, established for the purpose of hearing wrongs and appeals from wrongs; and whose authority to hear Memorials of this kind had never been questioned till then. He joined in the protest which had been made. He reprobated fully this attempt to stifle discussion. The language of the Memorial which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gravesend (Captain Pim), was about to read, when he was stopped, was either true or false. If it was true, they ought to hear it; if it was false, let the First Lord prove that it was, and not endeavour to exclude it from consideration. He did not like what he had sought to do. The hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend read a summary of accounts which showed that the country would lose several thousand pounds a-year by this transaction. The First Lord was challenged twice to answer that summary. He had endeavoured to do it, but in a way that no Member who heard him could understand, and in a manner that conveyed to his mind that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the accounts himself. That was not a very dignified part to play; it was not satisfactory to hon. Members, who were there to do their duty. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) stated that the most scandalous corruption prevailed. He had also proved by precedent that the First Lord was wholly without excuse, for the attempt which he made to shut out the document which the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend was about to read. He advised that hon. and gallant Gentleman to read it in full to the House, so that hon. Members might clearly understand what the clerks of the Admiralty sought, and what they complained of.

protested against any injustice being done to public servants without an appeal being allowed to the House. It was no new thing to have the claims of public servants brought before the House. Had there not been Petitions from officers of the Army, and had not the House been deluged with claims from the officers of the Indian Army? Why, then, were they to be silent as to the wrongs of subordinates in the Admiralty and War Offices? He was sure the First Lord would not sanction such inconsistency; and from what he knew of the character of the Secretary of State for War, he might rely on his desire to deal fairly with those under his authority. If these clerks in the two Offices had complaints, why should they not be investigated by a Commission of Inquiry? The Memorial of the Officers of the Army had been taken into consideration, and two Commissions of Inquiry composed of men in high office had been held on them, and the country had been put to a vast expense in not only meeting the claims; but in investigating these claims which the Memorialists substantiated. If the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend would afford some explanation, he (General Sir George Balfour) would support his Amendment.

said, it had been argued by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Sir George Balfour) that "when there was a wrong, there must have been a right." It was not admitted that these gentlemen had any right, and in their case there could be no claim to any such thing as a gratuity. There might, however, be a sort of moral claim in cases where gratuities had become customary. As far as he understood the case, these gratuities were to be given in order to relieve the Public Service of persons whom it was considered desirable for the public benefit to remove; and it was, therefore, absurd to say that persons receiving a higher salary whom it was not proposed to remove should have a claim to gratuities, to which nobody had any right but those who intended to retire.

remarked, that if he had rightly understood the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baring), he contended that these gentlemen were not entitled to any gratuity, although the Bill proposed to turn them off.

had said, that it was not proposed to turn them off.

replied, that the scheme was compulsory. At any rate, the Government claimed the right to turn off gentlemen who had been for a long time in the Public Service. If that did not constitute a hardship, he (Mr. Biggar) did not know the meaning of the word. He believed that if this Memorial had been read, much time would have been saved to the Committee; but as the matter then stood, he was sure every Member of the House was thoroughly mystified. He presumed that the Petitioners knew what they wanted, and if the Memorial were read, the Committee could form its own opinion as to the justness of their case. He suggested to the Committee that the document be read, and that they should not allow themselves to be bullied by officialism, which, according to his ideas, was most objectionable.

said, he was quite sure that it was the earnest desire of the First Lord of the Admiralty to do justice to the retiring clerks. He would offer as a compromise, to read one part only of the Memorial which closely touched his Amendment. It was as follows:—

"The consequence of this proviso "—that wag the clause as it then stood—"will be, that while the clerk who has completed 20 years' service in the present junior class find has attained only £400 a-year, will receive a gratuity of £1,000; those of your memorialists who have not reached £400 a-year, but who have completed nearly 30 years' service, will not receive more than £600 or £700."

In reply to the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), he begged to point out that the Admiralty only proposed to retire one class—namely, the senior class, and that was the only class at which his proposal aimed.

said, he did not understand the nature of the compromise proposed by the hon. and gallant Member. Although the explanation given had mystified them more than ever, yet the case seemed to him to be very clear. By Act of Parliament regulations were provided, by means of which clerks, under particular circumstances, might be retired; and the same Statute had also fixed the retiring pensions. The Admiralty thought it would be an economical thing to retire a certain number of clerks; but they felt that a rigid application of the rule would be a hardship, and therefore they asked the House to sanction an increase of the retiring pensions. If the statement of facts given by the Government was to be accepted, it seemed to him to be as clear as possible that the House ought to sanction the proposal, unless it could be shown that any clerk had fair ground for coming to the House and saying that he was aggrieved, and asking for an inquiry into his particular case. He was, on these grounds, quite ready to support the view of the Government.

explained that the compromise he had proposed was that he should only read the clause of the Memorial which related immediately to his Amendment, instead of reading the entire Memorial of the senior Admiralty clerks.

wished to call attention to the inconvenience of the course taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend. Hitherto the rule had always been that when Memorials were presented to the Government by its Civil employés, these documents could only be brought under the notice of the House by means of a Motion for their production being placed upon the Paper. When a Memorial was thus moved for, and the Government produced it, if there were an answer to it, that also was placed before the House, which was then in a position to judge whether the view of the Government was a sound one. There was no instance within his knowledge in which the application made by Civil servants to the head of their Department had been brought before Parliament in the manner adopted in the present case. It would be extremely awkward if the House were prejudiced against those gentlemen in consequence of their case having been presented in an irregular way.

understood the Question really before the Committee to be, whether the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member should be adopted. The words, as they at present stood in the Bill, provided that the allowance to any clerk should be estimated according to the period for which such clerk had served. The Amendment proposed to strike out the general words, and to qualify them by making a distinction between the different classes in which the clerk had served; and he thought there was a great deal to be said, primâ facie, in favour of that course. The Amendment, in his opinion, was very intelligible, and he should support it.

said, that if the clerks, to whom the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend alluded, knew what was going to happen to them, they would not have been so discontented as they were represented to be. He wished to correct a misrepresentation into which the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had fallen, that the Government were possessed of very extensive powers of compensating clerks that retired. The provisions of the Act of 1859 only gave power to the Government to give compensation according to a certain scheme, and power was also given in the case of any person retiring from the Public Service in consequence of the abolition of his office or a re-organization of his Department, to add such special allowance by way of compensation as upon full consideration should seem fit to the Commissioners. That gratuity was to be in addition to the compensation given under the ordinary circumstances. In the present case, the limit of compensation exceeded that given to clerks under the original Act, and the gratuity permitted to be made on compulsory retirement, in the ordinary course, under the Superannuation Act, 1859. By this Bill the Government contemplated retiring a large body of clerks compulsorily, and not in the ordinary course of superannuation assumed by the Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had hinted that the Government would proceed to re-organize the Department without this Bill if unusual impediments were thrown in the way of its passing before the end of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman must, however, know that the extensive re-organization of the Department desired by the Government could not be effected under the Superannuation Act of 1859. If, therefore, it was necessary to reorganize the Department, this Bill must be carried. It appeared to him that there was a very considerable distinction between giving gratuities to clerks whom the Government desired to retire compulsorily, and giving the like gratuities to clerks whom the Government wished to retain. He gathered from the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty that it was the intention to retain the clerks in question, and not to retire them. If the clerks desired to retire, they surely should not receive the gratuities that were only payable on compulsory retirement.

said, that if the language which had just now fallen from him had been at all coarse, it was quite unintentional on his part. Perhaps the Committee would allow him to remark that he felt the responsibility of Ministers of the Crown in those matters to be very great. They were charged with the custody of the public purse, and it would be a great crime if they paid more than was necessary for thoroughly maintaining the efficiency of the Public Service. He felt it was a dangerous thing, in the interests of the public, that representations should be sprung upon the House and the Department, on the part of those who desired to be included in pecuniary advantage, which the Government of the day did not think it necessary, in the interests of the Public Service, to afford them. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath had referred to the effect of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gravesend. The effect of that Amendment would be to authorize the Government to grant gratuities on a larger scale than that which the Government considered necessary; and it was on that account that it resisted the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member.

proposed two verbal Amendments, which he explained were necessary to make the clause unambiguous. The hon. Member was in the act of reading his Amendments, when—:—

, in rising, according to Notice, to call attention to the Report of Sir James Ingham on the treatment of Charles M'Carthy in Chatham Convict Prison, to the unsatisfactory nature of that inquiry, and to the verdict of the jury that "his death was hastened by the treatment which he received in prison;" and to move for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the treatment of prisoners of his class and also into the best means of securing a proper classification of prisoners according to the nature of their offences, said, he was very glad that it seldom fell to the lot of any hon. Member to call attention to such painful and disagreeable facts as those which it was his duty to lay before the House, and he could assure hon. Members that he had never risen to address them with feelings of deeper responsibility. He feared that the important statements he was about to make would excite much feeling in the House itself; and that, if they were faithfully reported, as he doubted not they would be to the outer world, a feeling of alarm would be caused to every subject of the Crown, Some portions of the narrative he was about to relate were of such a nature, that, at his request, Mr. Speaker had ordered a notification to be made in the Gallery reserved for ladies, that topics to which they would hardly like to listen were about to be brought under consideration. The circumstances were these. In the spring of the present year the Government released from penal servitude another batch of Fenian convicts, some of whom were soldiers. One of these, named M'Carthy, was discharged on the 3rd of January last from Chatham Prison in a very imperfect state of health, and died on the 15th of the same month— 12 days after his liberation—in Dublin. This poor man, who was in a state of great emaciation, and evidently broken own, died very suddenly as he was going upstairs, at an hotel in Dublin. The Coroner's jury held an inquiry, and returned a verdict to the effect—

"That Charles M'Carthy died at Number 1, Dawson Street, Dublin, on the 15th January, 1878, and that the cause of his death was heart disease."

They further found—

"That the treatment which he received in prison had hastened his death."

Now, upon these facts becoming known, a great impression was produced on the mind of the public in Ireland; and it was not surprising that the Home Secretary should have felt it his immediate duty to direct an investigation into the truth of the statements made at the inquest, and, subsequently, he informed the House that he had appointed one of the Police Magistrates in London to conduct that investigation. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) also remembered that the right hon. Gentleman stated, in answer to further inquiries, that—

"The investigation would not be held upon the sworn testimony of persons to be examined, inasmuch as there existed no power to compel them to give evidence upon oath."

He felt, then, with many others, that an inquiry of that kind could not be satisfactory, and he felt now that its result had not been, and ought not to be satisfactory, either to the House or to the country. The inquiry conducted by Sir James Ingham, the Chief Magistrate of the Metropolis, was altogether exculpatory of the prison authorities. His Report, which was very brief, extending only to two leaves of the document which he held in his hand, ended with these words—

"My conclusion is, first, that the death of the deceased was not hastened by his treatment in prison; secondly, that the deceased was treated with as much leniency as was consistent with penal discipline, and the precautions which became necessary to prevent his escape."

He wished to analyze this Report; but was obliged, at that point, to state a little more fully the particular facts of the case. Charles M'Carthy was a soldier of the 53rd Regiment, who had served Her Majesty for many years with distinction; he had received medals for his services, and had been more than once wounded in action; but in June, 1866, he was convicted by court martial held in Dublin of the offence of

"having come to the knowledge of an intended mutiny, and not giving notice of the same to his commanding officer,"

and was sentenced to penal servitude for life. It was not necessary to review the proceedings of the court martial; but in order to clear the ground, he would state that a soldier who had so failed in. his duty was liable to, and might expect, the severest penalty known to the law. In most countries a soldier so offending would, undoubtedly, be executed; and he believed, in the case of M'Carthy, that when hon. Members looked upon the sufferings the man had undergone, and judged of them by the result, it would be concluded that the punishment of death in his case also would have been more merciful. He was one of the strongest men in the British Army, and entered on his prison life in a state of sound health; he bore his imprisonment for the period of four years, during which he was transferred from one prison to another; but in 1870 his health began to break down, and it was alleged, as he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) believed with truth, that this decline resulted from the inhuman treatment to which he was subjected in prison. There was no doubt that Charles M'Carthy was greatly debilitated by the confinement and worry, as well as by the kind of food that he met with in. prison; but he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) especially believed that the hard labour to which he was subjected brought on the disease of the heart which, eventually, cost him his life. The House would bear in mind that every statement he made would be taken from documents published in the course of the inquiry; and from these it appeared that when this man was not ill enough to be removed to hospital, his medical history, when his health broke up after four years' incarceration, was as follows: —

"Feb., 1871, bronchitis—7 entries; 1872, 3 entries; 1873, boil, ague, bronchitis, cough— 15 entries; 1874, cough—7 entries; 1877, 2 entries."—[Extracted from The Medical Case Book.]

In 1874, however, he became exceedingly ill, and was sent to hospital by the medical officer, Mr. Mayhew, who found that there was disease of the heart. In his evidence given before Sir James Ingham, Mr. Mayhew stated—

"On the 14th January, 1875, M'Carthy came under my care and that of Dr. Barker (who then had Dr. Burns' a post). He complained of pain in the chest, in the left side, cough, and spitting, and Ms pulse was found to he irregular. This irregularity was discovered three days after his admission. I examined him about the fifth day, when ho told me he had had a pain in the heart lasting 10 minutes, and then said he was subject to them. He said—'The heart beats irregularly and seems to stop, and gives me great agony, and doubles me up.' I examined him then very carefully, and considered that his heart was wrong. I thought then it might be a fatty disease of the heart; there were also symptoms pointing to angina pectoris."

That was a most terrible disease, which signified "suffocation of the chest;" the heart in that disease came to a stop, and the patient, if he did not die, underwent the dreadful agonies of suffocation. No one who had ever suffered from angina pectoris was free during the rest of his uncertain life from the nervous apprehension of a return of this horrible suffocation, with all the terrors of a most painful death. "The disease of the heart," said Dr. Mayhew, "being once established, can never be cured." He called the attention of the House to this question—How was that disease brought on? In his opinion, it was induced by the prisoner being required, when in a debilitated condition, to carry immense loads. He had said to his fellow-prisoner, O'Brien, just before he applied to the doctor, that the work was too much for him. And O'Brien stated in his evidence, that M'Carthy said to the officer in charge on that occasion—

"I wish you would get someone else to carry these bags, Sir, I feel very unwell."

And O'Brien further stated—

"He put my hand to his side, and his heart was beating violently. He saw the doctor, I think, the next day, and got a dose of medicine."

These facts would be, to any person acquainted with medical detail, clear proof that the disease of the heart dated from that particular period. But the statement he had made did not rest entirely on the opinion of Dr. Mayhew. Dr. Barker also said that M'Carthy was examined by him on the 18th January, 1875, when—

"There was very irregular action of the heart, and that on the 7th of June in the same year he was again admitted to the hospital suffering from palpitation and pain in the region of the heart. He had irregular action of the heart, slight bruit, intermittent pulse, sweating at night, no sleep, white tongue, and bowels costive. He remained in the hospital till the 10th of July, when, he was discharged relieved. This was the last time he came into hospital. I saw him every month. I have no note of any aggravation of his disease. He was liberated on the 3rd of January, 1878, and he then made no complaint."

The pointhe (Mr. Mitchell Henry) wanted to establish was, that in January, 1875, that man had confirmed heart disease. It was necessary to enforce this, because the document from which, he was quoting, and which he called a "whitewashing Report," threw some doubt on that fact. What did Sir James Ingham say? His Report stated that—

"The disease of the heart of which M'Carthy died was first discovered in January, 1875, although its origin may be traced to a rheumatic fever which he admitted having had."

Everybody knew that rheumatic fever in early life was frequently followed by disease of the heart, and it was therefore a great point to establish that this disease was caused, not by the prison treatment, but by rheumatic fever in early life. He was about to say there was no foundation whatever for this statement; but he would now show that it was absolutely contradictory of the record of M'Carthy's medical history. The medical history, from the Prison Books taken on his entrance, said that "The prisoner had not suffered from typhus, scarlet fever, small-pox, rheumatism, or epilepsy." Again, Drs. Mayhew and Barker, when they examined him, both inquired, probably with the view of discovering the cause of the disease of the heart for which he came under their treatment, "whether he had ever had rheumatic fever?" and he replied, as they expressly say, in the negative. The statement, that the disease of the heart might be traced to rheumatic fever, was obtained by Sir James Ingham from a medical man whom M'Carthy consulted on his discharge from prison in 1878; for being at that time very ill, he stood in need of advice and medicine to assist him to bear the journey to Dublin. Mr. Owen, the medical man to whom he went, said in his statement—

"I was astonished to hear of his death, but not surprised when I heard of the demonstration that was reported in the newspapers. He did not complain to me of his treatment in prison. He told me ho had had rheumatic fever some time ago."

That was the only foundation for the statement incorporated in the Report of Sir James Ingham; he could not say there was no foundation for it, but it was in direct contradiction to the medical history furnished by the officers of the prison; and, therefore, it was not fair to place in the front of the Report, as if there was no doubt about the statement, that

"the origin of the heart disease might be traced to a rheumatic fever which he admitted having had."

Could it be that someone had said to Sir James Ingham—"Disease of the heart often follows rheumatic fever, and if you can trace it to that source, it would tend to exculpate the authorities?" After that period of 1874 the man's health became very much debilitated; but it was to the last 18 months of his life that he particularly desired to call the attention of the House. It would be remembered that about the month of June, 1876, some Fenian convicts made their escape in Australia, and the Governors of prisons in this country were alarmed lest their prisoners should also escape—one consequence of which was that a card was affixed to M'Carthy's cell, stating that he was to be specially watched. The cell to which he was removed with that object was 7 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 7 feet high. Those figures scarcely gave a clear idea of its dimensions; but, if any hon. Member would measure the space with his stick or umbrella, he would find it to be such as one would be ashamed to give to an animal in the Zoological Gardens. A cell of that size contained only 196 cubic feet of air, while the minimum quantity to be supplied to persons in hospitals, as laid down by the Government regulations, was 1,500 feet; and in a cell such as he had described, which contained not quite an eighth part of that quantity of air, M'Carthy passed the last 18 months of his life, except when he was removed to the shop for work. Now, what did this special watching mean? It appeared that warders were told off continually to patrol the passage outside the cell in relays—to open the door every half-hour during the night, and to see that he was alive and in his cell. He was, besides, constantly searched and stripped naked, and in one of his letters he said—

"During the winter of 1875–6, ever to be remembered for its severity, I was stripped quite naked at least twice a-week, and on each occasion I had to stand on the cold flags for about five minutes in a state of perfect nudity, while the officers were feeling the seams of my shirt and flannel. From the date of the placard being placed over my door, I have had no peace either day or night, an officer was appointed to visit our cells every afternoon, and throw everything within them about in the greatest possible confusion. This is a most vexatious annoyance. It is only about 18 months ago that one man hanged himself. Another stole in a rope from off the works to do the same, and two others cut their veins, through being subjected to this ordeal for only one week, and we have endured it now for one year. Since the 22nd May, 1876, I have been stripped 73 times, and the contents of my cell have been dealt with as stated above 438 times."

P. O'Brien, another prisoner, also discharged at the same time, said—

"My cell was searched, and the contents put in a state of complete confusion upwards of 550 times. All this was in addition to a full share of cell-searching to which every prisoner is periodically subjected. I have been searched and stripped perfectly naked as often as four times a-day, and my cell searched three times in the one day."

At this point it would be useful to refer to the evidence given by the chief warder at Chatham Prison before Sir James Ingham. Edward Turner states, with regard to the system of special watching, that—

"An assistant warder, in turn, would go the nightly rounds of the cells, from about 7 to 8, to about half-past 5 in the morning. There are about 84 assistant warders. It is part of the duty of an assistant warder to walk round and see that each cell is secure. He places his hand gently against the door to see if it is secure, and he occasionally looks through an inspection-hole in the door. No noise would be made by pressing against the door of M'Carthy's cell, in the ordinary way, to see if it were secure. The cell doors open inwards. M'Carthy's door would possibly be pressed six or seven times in the night, according to the officer's discretion. The inspection through the hole would not cause the slightest noise or disturbance to the prisoner. In my opinion, the pressure against the door would not be calculated to disturb the prisoner's sleep."

The prisoner, O'Brien, however, gave a very different account. He said—

"M'Carthy's rest was very much disturbed at night by the patrols coming to his cell and trying the door to see if it were secure. Some of the officers would simply pull or gently push the door, while others would strike the door with considerable violence. Others, again, would take the door-handle in their hands and shake it noisily. If the night watchmen implicitly obeyed their instructions, they would visit our cells every half-hour during the night."

The House ought to get at the truth of this matter, and he thought that testimony which was unimpeachable could be had. The system of special watching was not a new thing in our prisons, and evidence on the point was extracted by the Commission appointed in 1870 to inquire into the system of penal discipline. The Director of Prisons (Mr. Fagan) stated before that Commission—

"That a man would not be more than half-an-hour during the night without being visited; and that if he covered himself up in his blanket he would be awakened."

Again, the prisoner Dillon said before the same Commission—

"I was awakened, or rather kept awake by the unbarring of the trap-door every 20 minutes; and when the door was opened, the officer flashed a light from a powerful reflector lamp upon my face, and, afterwards, closing the trap-door with a bang, left me to enjoy the darkness for 20 minutes which the thieves and other criminals enjoyed without disturbance or interruption the entire night."

He begged the House to consider that this system was exercised upon a literally dying man! Let them pause for a moment and think what that meant. There were probably hon. Members present whose friends and relatives had died of disease of the heart, who would remember how, whilst watching by the bed-side of the patient, they welcomed sleep when it came, preceded generally by agony and profuse sweating; how every noise was shut out; but how, notwithstanding all precautions, the heart speedily became oppressed in its feeble condition, and how the patient awoke in fright after, perhaps five or six minutes' precious rest. Nothing could be more distressing to the jaded watchers, nothing more terrible to the dying sufferer. As a medical man, he had watched in this way, and the idea of disturbing or awakening the sufferer by banging the doors appeared to him so inhuman— so dreadful—that he could hardly express the feelings which he entertained respecting it. If the Government, or their officials, were afraid that a man would escape, was there no other means of insuring his safety than by looking at him and almost touching him every hour during the night? That system, intended really for the purpose of punishment, was a disgrace even to the mechanical arts of prison discipline, and nobody could persuade him that it was practised only for the sake of inspection. In 1877, a year before his death, M'Carthy, for the offence of having in his possession a piece of writing paper, was reduced, and placed on gruel diet; he had during the previous few months lost nearly all his teeth, and was for that reason quite unable to eat the hard bread given to him; he took the opportunity of asking for something to soak it, and the doctor ordered him a pint of cold water, as the poor man said he thought by way of a joke. He now came to that part of his narrative of prison discipline which was especially painful, and he assured the House that the reference he was about to make applied not to M'Carthy's case alone, but to the general management of prisons. It was the habit in our convict prisons to subject human beings to the most degrading kind of searching that could possibly be imagined. Occasions had been met with in which some degraded members of society were known to have concealed articles in the rectum. He had been told of a man, a noted burglar, who had once concealed up his rectum a piece of iron wire, with which he intended to open the locks of his prison. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) did not know whether the custom dated from the time of that case, but prisoners were at this moment constantly and systematically searched in the way indicated; and it was to be borne in mind that they were not degraded criminals, but men who like M'Carthy, Davitt, and other Fenian prisoners, came from the respectable classes of society. Davitt was a commercial traveller, and what- ever might have been his offence, if he were sitting on those benches, hon. Members would say that he was as intellectual, and as respectable a person in his behaviour, as any hon. Gentleman present. He was educated well according to his position in life, he had maintained his intellectual and moral faculties, and yet that man was subjected to this horrible searching. There was nothing of which the Fenian prisoners complained so much as that practice, which ought to be perfectly well known to the Home Secretary; and yet, although the attention of the Government had been drawn to it over and over again, the horrible practice was continued. The evidence of one of the prisoners, Thomas Chambers, also discharged at the same time with M'Carthy, was that—

"Whilst in prison we were frequently stripped naked, and our bodies examined by officers. This was done in front of common ruffians. M'Carthy seemed to suffer more from these insults than any of us. From my own personal experience," he added, "I believe that the unnatural restraint that a man has to bring to bear on his temper is more injurious to a man's system than hunger, cold, and all the other bodily hardships that he has to suffer in prison. I mean the unnatural restraint that a man with any pretensions to decency has to put on his temper when stripped naked and searched, in the indescribable, unmentionable way that we were searched."

Davitt said as follows:—

"When we are made to strip naked a warder stands in front, and we are made to open our mouths wide, then turn round, stoop down, and separate the legs wide; then to lift up the right leg; then to have armpits examined. In ordinary searching, our bodies are rubbed down four times a day by a warder. When a warder wishes to insult and aggravate a prisoner he takes care to touch the parts and person."

He was now about to read some of the evidence on the same subject taken by a Commission to inquire into the treatment of Fenian prisoners, which reported in 1870. During this inquiry one man, Peter Mohan, said—

"I was stripped naked so often as three times a-week by three officers of the prison; they compelled me to stoop down so that they put my hands on my toes, while they actually examined my passages, as if I had stones or something contained in that peculiar part of my body."

In reply to Dr. Lyons, he said—

"I was compelled to put my hands on the floor, while the officers stood behind me and examined my passage. I was examined three times a-week, standing naked, perfectly naked as I was born, in a ward full of robbers."

Another convict, Patrick Ryan, said—

"I had my arms extended from my body. While naked, they looked into my mouth, nostrils, and ears; they looked under my thighs, and up my fundament, and handled my testicles."

John Murphy, another prisoner, said— and hon. Members would remember that all this testimony was given by the witnesses independently of each other, that—

"Sometimes two or three warders would come and laugh and sneer at me. I begged them not to do so, and asked them for pity's sake to let me keep my shirt on. I had to stand naked. It is too disgusting to tell you how we were used. I don't like to speak of it, I don't indeed. They hurt my feelings as far as ever they could."

Such was the evidence given before the Commission. With regard to the condition of mind of a Governor or warder of a prison, tempted by their wages, and required so to degrade himself, it was impossible to form any idea. Then came the evidence of the Governor of a prison, who said in substance that—

"Having cause to suspect a particular individual of concealing something in a part of his body, I had him examined by one warder, who found nothing; a second tried, with the same result. I was sure he had got the thing. Then I got a third warder, and I found the articles— a piece of tobacco."

From this narrative, it was quite clear that perseverance was rewarded with success. But was it not revolting that a respectable man should be required to institute examinations of this description —a thing which, when indiscriminately applied as they had hitherto been, the people of England would not bear; and which, having been stated in the House of Commons, he ventured to say would cease at once and for ever? He now came to the second portion of his case. Sir James Ingham wished to make out that M'Carthy's cell of 7 feet by 4 feet by 7 feet high, was admirably adapted to his condition; and he stated in his Report—

"I find that during the time the prisoner complained of palpitation of the heart and restlessness at night, and for many months before and after that time, he occupied a cell containing, in addition, to other ventilation, a window which communicated with the open air by means of a valve, which he could open and shut at pleasure."

Would the House believe that this paragraph, like the other he had quoted about rheumatism, put in the front of the Report so as to catch the attention of the reader at once, did not refer at all to the 18 months during which M'Carthy was specially watched, but to a time previous to that period? He must ask the Home Secretary for an explanation of that most disingenuous statement, which was put into the Be-port to strike the eye of the public, who would naturally suppose everything had been found to be right. Again, to a letter from Sir James Ingham, dated 25th February, 1878, Doctor Pitman, whom Sir James Ingham called in as assessor, replied—

"With reference to the points raised in your letter of February 25—namely, First, whether, after the discovery of the heart disease, the deceased (Charles M'Carthy) ought to have been confined in a cell which had not a window opening into the external air? Secondly, whether the duty of orderly, requiring the carrying of weights (say, 52 lbs.) up a flight of 25 steps, three times in one day (once a week), and the carrying of slops, &c., once a month, was injurious to health, I would observe, first, considering the strong tendency of persons with heart disease to congestion of the lungs and air passages upon exposure to currents of cold air, I should have selected, on medical grounds, the cell in which the deceased was confined in preference to one with an open window."

As a medical man, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) could not read that paragraph without indignation. As if, because a cell had a window opening to the external air, it followed that the prisoner was to be recklessly exposed to draughts. M'Carthy was placed in a cell that contained only 196 cubic feet, or a little more than an eighth of the minimum allowance of air considered necessary for any hospital patient. Why, there was not a hospital physician in London who would not have replied to the question put to Dr. Pitman by Sir James Ingham, that—"It would have been better for a man in the condition of M'Carthy to have been exposed to the risk of an open window, than be placed in that living tomb." Doctor Pitman further said, continuing his reply to Sir James Ingham—

"Judging from the symptoms during life as detailed by the medical attendants of Charles M'Carthy when in prison, and the condition of the heart and other organs found on post-mortem examination, I am of opinion that Charles M'Carthy, when in prison, was quite equal to the duties of orderly without injury to his health."

He would contrast with that reply, the statement of the physicians who made the post-mortem examination—

"I am of opinion," said Dr. O'Leary, "that disease of the heart was so marked and intensified, that perfectly satisfactory evidence must have been manifested to demonstrate to any medical man two years since that the patient was utterly unfit to undergo the prison discipline."

Another physician, Dr. Kenny, on the same occasion, said—

"I can scarcely conceive that anything could be more injurious to this man than bad ventilation; the disease must have existed for at least two years; he ought to have been placed under medical treatment, and supplied with better food and a better ventilated cell; he ought not to have been employed in any kind of hard labour."

Having contrasted the evidence of the physicians who examined M'Carthy's body, with the hearsay statements of the gentleman who gave it as his opinion that it was perfectly satisfactory to confine him in such a cell during the last 18 months of his life, he found that another medical man employed in the prison, went even further than that, and testified in substance that the man's life was saved by being in prison—that it was good for him to undergo the discipline; to be confined in a cell 7 feet by 4 feet; to have his rest broken every half hour; and to be supplied with food which he could not eat. The Commission appointed this year by the Home Secretary to inquire into the system of penal servitude, as practised in this country, numbered amongst its Members Gentlemen with whose respectability, ability, and integrity everybody was satisfied; but the Home Secretary had included, with the other Commissioners, a particular medical man, once a colleague of his (Mr. Mitchell Henry's), but he objected to his appointment, not from personal disrespect, but on the ground that he had been employed by Government on a former Commission of a similar kind. That gentleman, Dr. Greenhow, had disagreed with all the other Commissioners making what must be called exceedingly harsh recommendations in the separate and distinct Report drawn up by him. Why should the Government have appointed Dr. Greenhow, whose Report was opposed to that of the other Commissioners, and especially to that of his colleague in the Commission of 1870, Dr. Lyons, a gentleman whose fame was, he might say, European, and whose reputation was established throughout the scientific world? It was a most injudicious selection, and he thought the Home Secretary could not have been aware of all the facts of the case. It appeared, moreover, that during the course of the inquiry, Dr. Greenhow was prevented by domestic circumstances from attending the Commission for some little time, and the Government then appointed Dr. Guy. The appointment of Dr. Greenhow was wrong, because his opinion was already known, and Dr. Guy appeared to have only begun his attendance yesterday, whereas the Commission had been sitting for many weeks. But it might be said—"When the Government has appointed this Commission, why are you not content? We have tried to get at the truth in M'Carthy's case by appointing a most respectable magistrate to inquire into the facts relating to his treatment in prison, and yet you are not satisfied." The answer was, that some hon. Members knew, from their own experience, that the Reports of such Commissions were unreliable; that the Home Secretary— he was not speaking of the right hon. Gentleman who now filled that Office— had had statements put into his mouth which had been proved to be absolutely baseless. These reasons sufficiently explained their want of confidence. The Report of Sir James Ingham should not have been coloured in a way to strike the eye of a person reading it; and, if it were examined, it would be seen that the facts upon which reliance was placed had not been at all correctly stated. Again, in the year 1869, O'Donovan Rossa committed a gross outrage, for which he deserved the severest punishment; but the punishment selected was atrocious. He was handcuffed, sometimes before and sometimes behind, for 35 consecutive days, during which time he fed as a dog, having to stoop down like a wild beast. The attention of the House was called to these circumstances, and Mr. Bruce, (now Lord Aberdare), who was at that time Home Secretary, replied that—

"The statement referred to in the Question of Sir John Gray had no foundation, and that O'Donovan Rossa was only handcuffed with his hands behind him for a part of one day."

Upon that, Sir John Gray, being totally deceived and thrown off his guard, rose and said that he felt the statement made by Mr. Bruce to be highly satisfactory; but, in August of the same year, the late Mr. George Henry Moore again brought the case under the notice of the House of Commons on a Motion to the effect that political prisoners should be treated differently to other convicts; and Mr. Bruce, in the course of an elaborate reply, said that he had consulted with the Governor of the prison, who positively contradicted the statement that O'Donovan Rossa had been handcuffed as alleged, his denial being supported by the doctor, and partly supported by the chief warder of the prison. By the subsequent Report of the Commission appointed in consequence of Mr. George Henry Moore's Motion it was found, in spite of the denial of the Home Secretary and the Governor and officers of the prison, that every word of the original statement with reference to O'Donovan Rossa was true, and that what had been said in contradiction to it was absolutely false. The Commissioners who made that Report were Lord Devon, the Hon. George Brodrick, Mr. De Vere, Dr. Lyons, and Dr. Greenhow—the last of whom made the separate Report upon which comment had been made. The Report, in its entirety, was too long to read; but the fact was absolutely proved that O'Donovan Rossa had been manacled in the manner described for 35 days. There was one man, indeed, an old soldier, named Douglas, who had been many years a warder, but who had left his employment, who knew the real truth, and who had always said that the official statement concerning O'Donovan Rossa was absolutely untrue. Would it be believed that the Commissioners did not examine this man, who was in Edinburgh; because, as they said, they had no funds at their disposal for paying his expenses, which he was too poor to bear himself? Was that the proper way to conduct an inquiry? He knew perfectly well what would be the answer of the English people. Again, another horror, beyond the utensils found in the cells, there was in the prisons no convenience for discharging at night the natural functions of the body; whilst, owing to the circumstance that the diet of the prisoners was very poor, they were frequently afflicted with diarrhœa, and, as a consequence of this, the men sometimes had to make use of their utensils. Upon this point it would be found, from the evidence of the doctor, that a man would be punished if he made use of one of those utensils for the evacuation of the bowels unless the doctor considered he had occasion to do so. One of the Commissioners very properly asked the Question—

"Suppose a prisoner has an inclination to have his bowels evacuated at 12 o'clock at night; how could you tell whether he did so wilfully or not?"

And this led to a dissertation which only a prison official could appreciate. But he would not disgust or weary the House by pursuing that part of the subject. Again, it was proved by the repeated testimony of discharged prisoners that men had actually been seen to fish out undigested morsels of food from the ordure tubs, to appease their wolf-like hunger. Chambers, a lately discharged military prisoner, declared that he had known prisoners to eat rats, frogs, grass, candles, boot-grease, and many other such things; and, if he were inclined, he could read to the House a terrible narrative of the sensations of a prisoner reduced for a week to bread and water diet. The fierce craving for food, the subsequent dullness of appetite, the drowsiness, the troubled sleep, dreaming of food, and the thorough sickness of stomach and inability to eat when the ordinary food was restored, made up a picture of frightful human suffering. Amongst other things, too, complained of, it was shown that political prisoners had to bathe in the water used by the other prisoners; they complained that many of the latter had syphilitic eruptions upon their bodies. Was it not most degrading and disgusting to compel an unfortunate man to go into water from which one of these diseased persons had just emerged? Then it would be found that one of the prisoners lately discharged—Mr. Davitt—complained bitterly, and most properly, of the manner in which he was treated when he was taken from one prison to another. He was handcuffed to a man of the most degraded character, afflicted with exhalations of the most noxious kind. During the journey, the man was seized with diarrhœa, and the officer in charge refused to allow his hand to be released. He would leave that case to speak for itself, and pass on to the various contrivances used by gaolers, with the object of aggravating the sufferings of the persons under their charge, one of the commonest being the refusal of leave to go to the water-closet. On one occasion, in Dublin, Dr. Robert M'Donnel told him that another means of aggravating prisoners was as follows:—It was found that most of the Roman Catholic prisoners, when stripped, wore round their necks scapularies, or sacred emblems—the gift, it might be, of a mother or dear relation—which had never been removed, and, perhaps, contained a sacred text; and which, under no circumstances, could a man retaining any religious feeling or affection part with. It was the practice of the warders in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, when asked by the prisoners to be allowed to retain these emblems, to tear them off and fling them on the floor; and the Governor of one of the English prisons, in giving his evidence, showed his temper and his bias by speaking of them as "charms." The man Dillon said, further, that during the time he worked in the prison, the Scripture readers were in the habit of reading twice a-day books containing stories of a character so offensive to Roman Catholics that there could be no doubt they were read for the purpose of annoyance; and, again, that whilst another class of books was being read which contained stories that reflected upon and ridiculed the Irish, the English prisoners would laugh, and ask them how they liked them? Upon another occasion, when a man was reading from Chambers' Encyclopœdia a story of a priest who first seduced a woman at confession and then murdered her, some of the Irish prisoners rose and said—"Shut up that book," and there was a row. These were acts of torture and shame, which ought not to be tolerated in any country, and it was the duty of the Government to see that they were not permitted here. The latter part of his Motion was that prisoners should be classified according to the nature of their offences—that was to say, that political offenders should not be placed amongst prisoners of a degraded kind. He could not do better on this head than quote the observations made on this point by the prisoner Dillon, a man of education, who expressed himself as follows to the Commissioners:—

"In pointing to the treatment received at the hands of prison officials, it would be wrong to overlook the fundamental truth which underlies the whole, and which goes far to account for our exceptional treatment in convict prisons. It is found in the difference, morally and politically, existing between thieves and political prisoners. When the thief is tried, and his sentence passed, he comes into the prisons built for thieves, and is lost amongst the number of other criminals whom he finds there before him. Inside the prison walls he is not persecuted because he was a professional thief outside; he is not punished if he keeps within the prison rules. The Irish political prisoner, on the contrary, enters the prisons built for thieves accompanied by the most rancorous and bitterest feelings of hostility. Under the influence of political, national, and religious antipathies, the worst passions of the human heart are perpetually quickening into acts of oppression and persecution against him; while the moral feelings of his gaolers are too blunt, too sluggish, or too depraved to persecute a thief as such, their political hatreds and antipathies are being continually aroused against the political prisoner by the actions of his party outside the prison walls. He is punished for his own offence in the past, and for theirs in the present."

The late Mr. George Henry Moore, who made a similar Motion, in advocating the establishment of a separate prison for political offenders, said that—

"Human nature rebelled against the idea of their being classed with thieves and other degraded characters."

His (Mr. Moore's) Motion was not carried, but it was supported by Mr. Henley, and the Commissioners—with the exception of Dr. Greenhow, who dissented from the Report—recommended that they should be treated separately. In thanking the House for its attention to his narrative, the hon. Member said, in conclusion, that he fully admitted that in the matter of rules which were laid down by the Government for prison discipline, they were exposed to the circumstance that such discipline was administered by human beings at all times liable to faults of passion and temper. But there was one safeguard—the only one that he knew of—and which, in the case of lunatic asylums, had been proved to be a safeguard. Attached to every prison in the country there ought to be a Visiting Committee of gentlemen from the outside associated with a medical man wholly independent of the Governor of the prison, and who had not been cooped up within the cells of these "Bastiles," and whose mind had not been contaminated by constant associations with the most degraded of human beings. Only a few days ago, two warders of a lunatic asylum broke a man's ribs and killed him, for which act they were to be tried. But this case of cruelty would never have been found out had it not been for the vigilance of the Visiting Committee. He looked with apprehension on the fact that the Home Secretary had taken charge of all county prisons, because he knew how anxiously hitherto the magistrates had looked after the welfare of the inmates; but when their functions in respect of government were removed, it was to be feared that their interest would be relaxed, and that the county prisons would become assimilated to the abominable places which had been so long tolerated in the country under the name of convict prisons. He again insisted, that in connection with every one of these prisons there should be a good, active, and periodically-changed Visiting Committee, who should, from the outside, ascertain what was going on within the prison walls. If that course were followed, however, the policy of the Government, as pursued towards Dr. M'Donnel, whose duty it was to visit Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, would have to be reversed. That gentleman, in the course of his duties, made constant representations to the Government of the wrongs committed in that prison. He said one of the punishments which the Director of Convict Prisons required to be inflicted upon prisoners was that of depriving them of their bedding at night. What was the use of saying that the cell was warmed by hot air, as they said in reply? Dr. Robert M'Donnel, going his round one day, saw a miserable-looking object crouched up in the corner of a cell. In response to his inquiries, the man told Dr. M'Donnel—who afterwards found that the punishment was likely to prove fatal—that he had been deprived of his bedding and bed for several successive nights. Dr. M'Donnel ordered him to be removed, meeting with the greatest opposition on the part of the Governor and officials. What was the result? Dr. M'Donnel was removed, and his office abolished, for no other reason than that he was an honest man, who made to the Government a truthful Report, which was disagreeable to the authorities. It followed, therefore, if the Home Secretary even- tually determined to appoint external Committees to visit prisons, and if such Committees should find it their duty to report any abuse of prison discipline, that they should not be exposed to such treatment as was extended to Dr. M'Donnel. In commending his Motion to the House, he desired to point out that he had ascertained that the Instructions to the Prison Commission now sitting did not imply any inquiry of the kind which he intended. The Commissioners would not inquire into individual cases, nor would they inquire into the question raised by the second part of his Motion; and, as he considered that a Commission ought to be appointed for those purposes, he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

thought it would be desirable, before the debate proceeded further, that some Member of the Government should state what course they were prepared to take with respect to the Amendment which had just been moved. He was glad, he might add, to find that the Treasury Bench presented a very favourable contrast to the front Opposition Bench, from which he missed those right hon. Gentlemen who from time to time seemed to manifest some interest in a subject on which they were not, however, there that evening to say a word. He merely wished to observe, further, to prevent confusion, that the dimensions of the cell in which M'Carthy was confined were 196 cubic feet and no more.

said, he hoped to hear, before the debate closed, some better reasons than had already been advanced for the institution of the proposed inquiry. He had read with great care the statements which had been laid before the House with regard to the case in question, and he was of opinion that the investigation which had been made into it by the Government, at the instance of some hon. Members opposite, was in every respect satisfactory. The magistrate by whom that investigation had been conducted was a gentleman whose long course of public service had earned for him the confidence of all those who had occasion to observe the manner in which he discharged his duties. He was attended by a medical officer of great experience and high character in his Profession, and a lengthened and careful inquiry was held. From the Report of that inquiry it appeared that no excessive punishment of any kind was inflicted on the convict M'Carthy; that he was subjected to no cruelty; and that he was regularly attended throughout his confinement by the proper medical authority. There were, of course, he at once admitted, circumstances connected with the case which were calculated to cause a good deal of excitement, inasmuch as M'Carthy had been convicted of an offence which was looked upon as partaking more or less of a political character, and there was no doubt in it an element of that kind which distinguished it from ordinary offences. Still, the man had been fairly convicted, and the sentence which had been passed upon him could not be said to have been unjust, and when in prison, he was from time to time attended by a properly qualified medical officer. In these circumstances it was, he thought, quite unnecessary to issue a Commission or to institute any further inquiry into the details of the case; for it was clear from the Papers which had been laid before the House that there was no undue harshness or severity in the treatment which the prisoner had received.

said, he thought somebody ought to undertake to represent those right hon. Gentlemen who were absent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had some years ago taken an exceedingly active interest in the question of the political prisoners; and from the general interest which the right hon. Gentleman and those who acted with him took in matters affecting the liberty of the subject and Liberal principles, it was rather surprising that they had not come forward to support this Motion. They were absent, however, and he (Sir George Bowyer) had taken their place for the occasion. Seriously, a very grave charge had been brought forward, which he should hardly have credited if he did not know that the hon. Gentleman would not have made his Motion, except on some foundation. But, whatever might have once been the condition of political prisoners, their treatment had lately been much improved; and he trusted that the Government would be prepared to explain the circumstances of the case which had been brought under their notice.

said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket), that the case was one in which one's sympathies were very much in favour of the unhappy man who had come by his death in circumstances so well calculated to excite compassion. Nothing could be more likely to arouse feelings of pity than the circumstances attending the liberation of M'Carthy and his expected meeting with his wife and family; but he would suggest that that was just the condition of feeling in which an injustice might be done, and the blame of a catastrophe fixed on the wrong person. As for the inquiry in Dublin, the only persons who were able to give information were, as prisoners, whether or not indignities had been inflicted on them likely to attach blame to the authorities. And, after the verdict, what had been done? The chief magistrate of the Metropolis had been invited to inquire into the matter, and he had done so, not alone, but with able assistants. No hon. Member, he need hardly say, would accuse Sir James Ingham of a bias; for, of course, it was nothing to him whether or not several warders had misconducted themselves, and the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had had a full opportunity of visiting the place himself and forming his own conclusions. Now, what were the allegations? It would be found that many abuses had been alleged which were, at all events, not practised on M'Carthy, and that many of the indignities mentioned in the papers, read by the hon. Member for Galway, had never been suffered by him, and probably were not inflicted on anyone at present. What he wanted to point out to the House was that the indignities which M'Carthy had suffered, according to his fellow-prisoners, were not to be mixed up with those alleged by the witnesses before the Devon Commission to have been produced before 1870. As a result of the inquiry, Sir James Ingham found, on the authority and evidence of persons mentioned on the 18th page of the papers—namely, Messrs. Byrne, Mayhew, and Barker—that the statements received as to the treatment of M'Carthy were positively and absolutely denied, and that the denial was supported by the chief warder, three principal warders, and the clerk of the works. In what other way could the truth be ascertained, and what more could a Royal Commission do, as it must enter upon the same question with the same information and the same witnesses? In substance, the allegations were reduced to two. In the first place, it had been said that M'Carthy was made to perform heavy labour, for which he was physically unfit—that he had to carry heavy weights, and that heart disease resulted therefrom. Now, as for the first point, it was absolutely certain that after October, 1871, the deceased never carried those weights. Sir James Ingham had decided it as a fact that after that date, before there were any symptoms of heart disease, he had carried no heavy weights whatever. That was the evidence collected by Sir James Ingham, and the allegations of the fellow-prisoners were not borne out by the facts. Even if they had the proposed Commission, it must take the same evidence and arrive at the same conclusion. Next, it was asserted that the ventilation of the cell in which M'Carthy was confined was defective. What was Dr. Pittman's evidence on that point? Dr. Pittman saw the cell in which M'Carthy was confined, and he stated that, on medical grounds, he would have selected that cell for the deceased in preference to one with an open window. Dr. Pittman was not judging from hearsay evidence; and, without going into an exact calculation of how many cubic feet the cell contained, he saw the cell, and observed the access of fresh air to the prison. Having given credit, also, he supposed, to the appearances of the body at the post-mortem examination in Dublin, he came to the conclusion above stated. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) might disagree with that; but what more was to be done? They had had impartial and skilled evidence. His own experience was that whenever they had questions of opinion raised, they might have opinions almost diametrically opposed to each other from skilled persons; but still he did not know how they were to arrive much nearer the truth by a Commission. The hon. Member had passed over the conflict between the statements of the different persons examined. It was a question to be considered whether the fellow-convicts, in giving their evidence against the prison officials, were to be trusted or not, and whether they had not exaggerated and entertained a desire to cast blame on those officials. The hon. Member had suggested, as one of the proofs of the cruelty and harshness shown to M'Carthy, that, on his requiring something to moisten his food on account of his defective teeth, when he applied to the medical officer, the latter ordered him a pint of cold water. But that was not quite the whole of the evidence. The statements of the deceased's fellow-convicts were not anything so mild as that; but they were to the effect that, on being applied to, the medical officer told M'Carthy that he might get some cold water, and "that that was too good for him." They stated that that was said by the medical officer, in the presence of the assistant medical officer and another official; but all those three officers denied the statement. That being so, how were they sure that the fellow-convicts could be trusted as to what M'Carthy had told them on other points where it was not possible to contradict them? Again, what was to be said about the conflict of evidence about the visit to the tailor's shop? Was it to be supposed that all the officials, those who were concerned in the alleged acts of cruelty, and those who were not, were engaged in a conspiracy to shield the prison authorities from blame? Why was the evidence of the fellow-convicts to be received, and to be allowed to overbear that of everybody else? What was the admitted state of facts? Up to a considerable time, M'Carthy was a person enjoying good health, and after a time his health failed. The hon. Member assumed that that had necessarily arisen from the hardships he suffered in prison. But people in different circumstances sometimes contracted heart complaint as they went on in life. Moreover, M'Carthy admitted that he had suffered from rheumatic fever; and Dr. Pittman, he thought, spoke of the tendency of rheumatic fever to induce heart disease afterwards.

It appears, from the evidence of the doctors who examined M'Carthy when he first went into the prison, that he stated persistently he had never had rheumatism, and it was so recorded in the prison books.

It was certainly stated in those Papers that M'Carthy had admitted that he had suffered from rheumatic fever, and this was assigned as a reason why he had contracted heart disease. Another striking fact was this—that the weight of M'Carthy, who was stated to have been so much ill-used in prison, was exactly 2 lbs. heavier on the day of his discharge than it was on the day of his entering the prison. He did not say that that circumstance alone was conclusive; but it certainly was not consistent with the allegation that the cruelties practised upon him had so changed his appearance that his friends could not know him when he was released. He (the Solicitor General) was surprised to find that the two gentlemen on whose statements the hon. Member relied disbelieved what had been said by Mr. W. Owen, of the College of Surgeons, to whom Charles M'Carthy, by the advice of his own friends, went for medical treatment on coming out of prison. Mr. Owen said that M'Carthy never complained to him that his cell was ill-ventilated, nor of his food and clothing. No doubt, there was a certain amount of weight in the argument that M'Carthy would not like to complain of his treatment to the prison officials. But Mr. Owen was not a prison official, and he went on to say—

"My impression was that he was satisfied with his treatment in prison.….. He spoke particularly of the kindness of the medical officer."

Was that statement of Mr. Owen true, or was it wilfully false? Some witnesses on whom the hon. Member for Galway seemed to rely, actually suggested that it was invented. One used the euphemism that it was "imaginary," and another more plainly said that Mr. Owen had not told the truth. But if Charles M'Carthy did say what Mr. Owen stated about the medical officer of the prison, what was the House to think of the evidence reported partly from hearsay? There was hardly a phrase bad enough for Dr. Burns, the medical officer under whose treatment Charles M'Carthy was, and yet there was the independent evidence of Mr. Owen that M'Carthy, immediately after coming out of prison, spoke of the kindness of the medical officer while he was there. The hon. Member, in his statement, had not adverted to that fact at all. It might be taken for granted, from the medical evidence, that the man had heart disease; but he found the medical men on one important point in absolute conflict. One medical man states—"I adhere to my statement that the disease could not have been of long duration." The medical men who gave their evidence in Dublin, as it was stated, "amid cheers," spoke very positively, from the appearance of the organs after death, of what must have been observed by any medical man of competent skill during the period M'Carthy was in prison. Well, he had often in Courts of Justice to observe on evidence of that speculative character, and he did not think that either juries or Judges were satisfied with it. It was to be remarked that the testimony he had quoted from Mr. Owen had an important bearing on that part of the evidence. Was it to be conceived that medical men, whose duty was not of a penal character, but rather to alleviate the ailments of those who came before them, if they had seen symptoms of heart disease, would not have procured for him some milder treatment? And once it was admitted that the medical men were, as M'Carthy acknowledged, kind to him, it was utterly inconceivable that he could have exhibited those signs of extreme suffering which had been alleged. It appeared to him, therefore, not only was the evidence brought before Sir James Ingham sufficient to justify him in arriving at the conclusion he came to; but it was such a conclusion as any impartial man would have arrived at. Admitting that Charles M'Carthy died of heart disease, was there no other cause than what had been alleged? Mr. Owen warned him not to excite himself, and not to attend any political meeting, or the excitement might prove fatal at any moment. Mr. Owen said—

"I was astonished to hear of his death, but not surprised at it when I saw the demonstration described in the newspapers."

The Nation newspaper spoke of the rushing, shouting, frantic crowds who stormed about Westland Row that evening. His reception by such a crowd was every way calculated to excite a man who had just come from a 12 years' confinement in a convict prison, and who hoped and expected to see his wife and family. Why did the hon. Gentleman assume that all the evidence on one side was inaccurate? The evidence of warders, and of all the different classes of witnesses, had been ably contrasted by an experienced magistrate. His right hon. Friend had sent him the depositions before the coroner's jury, asking him to go and make inquiries himself, and Sir James Ingham, after a perfectly impartial investigation, came to the conclusion that the death of M'Carthy had not been occasioned or accelerated by treatment he received in prison. He submitted there was ample evidence to justify that conclusion. No doubt, the hon. Member might be dissatisfied with the conclusion arrived at; but so he might be if the Commission he now asked for were appointed. He might still find fault with the evidence or with the conduct of the Commissioners, just as he now found fault with Dr. Pittman and Sir James Ingham, who had inquired into every allegation, and found that there was no foundation for either complaint. He hoped the House would come to the same conclusion.

could assure the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), who had asked whether he had not been afforded every facility of investigating the case of Sergeant M'Carthy, that he had anticipated the line of argument which might be adopted by those who took the Government view of this question by the letter which he had addressed to Sir James Ingham with reference to the inquiry. In the early part of his letter, he said, before receiving any communication from Sir James Ingham, he had put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Assheton Cross), in which he indicated his belief that the inquiry should be public and on oath, and when he learnt the magistrate had no power to administer an oath in such a case, he still urged that the inquiry should be made public, Whatever the result of the inquiry, he was convinced it would not be satisfactory unless it was a public inquiry. What he wrote was as follows:—

"To insure a successful inquiry into a case of this kind, it appears to me that three things are necessary: first, that the inquiry should be made public; secondly, that every statement received should be made on oath; and thirdly, that the relatives or next-of-kin of the deceased should be allowed to be present or represented by counsel."

His action was not free, because he had no faith that the inquiry as ordered would elicit the whole truth. In reference to the statements put forward by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), the Solicitor General remarked that they were things of the past, whereupon the Home Secretary said "Hear, hear!" He maintained, however, that they were terrible realities of the present hour, as was proved by the recent revelations respecting the prisoners at Spike Island. [In illustration of his case, the hon. Member cited the experiences of James Dillon, who since his liberation, two months ago, had narrated the cruelties to which he said he had been subjected while in confinement. The hon. Member proceeded to describe the kind of work which M'Carthy was compelled to do, and stated that, among other things, he had to carry the meals of 60 prisoners up two flights of stairs, and to convey the slop-pails from their cells down an equal number of steps.] A good deal had been said inside and outside of the House as to the fact that M'Carthy weighed more when he came out of than when he went into prison; but he should like to have information as to the relative weights, and as to the prisons, which were referred to in the statement. What he wanted was to ascertain the difference between the weight of M'Carthy on the day of his release and on the day when he stepped into the dock on account of his patriotism. What they had to consider with reference to the case of M'Carthy was whether, when he was convicted, he was a man of strong and vigorous constitution. He was not about to endeavour to excite the sympathies of the House; but he was bound to say that M'Carthy was not only noted for his bravery on the battle field, but for his courage and activity in all athletics of his regiment. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had said that it was not at all fair to deduce an argument from the fact of M'Carthy not having complained to the prison officials, and also from his not having complained to the medical gentleman he consulted in London after his release. There was a certain negative force in those arguments; but no one could say that because he did not tell everything he felt to those persons, there was nothing particularly wrong with him. The question naturally arose as to whether M'Carthy had complained to those persons who might most naturally have expected to have been taken into his confidence—namely, his own relations. Upon that point there were letters written by his own hand, in which he complained of the treatment to which he was subjected in the prison; and though those communications might have passed surreptitiously, yet he ventured to call the attention of the House of Commons to them as evidence that while Charles M'Carthy was still living, and while there was a chance of saving him, he had complained of the manner in which he was treated. In his letter to Sir James Ingham, he (Mr. O'Connor Power) had said that it was his duty to bring this matter under the notice of the House of Commons, and had called attention to the letter of M'Carthy, in which the unfortunate man said he had come to the melancholy conclusion that nothing less than their lives were aimed at in prison, and that in a cruel and assassin-like manner. In another letter M'Carthy said that in the winter of 1871 he was stripped and compelled to stand naked for five or 10 minutes while the officers were feeling the seams of his clothes. The whole case came to this—that, in the first instance, an inquiry was held by the coroner, and a Dublin jury found—and anyone who knew the composition of a Dublin jury knew that it was largely composed of Conservatives, and that Irish Conservatives had very little sympathy with Irish political prisoners—yet this Dublin jury, without any undue bias, had returned as their verdict that his death, which was caused by heart disease, had been hastened by the treatment which he had received in prison. Every impartial person who looked at the evidence then given by the doctors in Dublin must see that it was actuated by no fear of unpleasant dis- closures. Moreover, their evidence was given upon oath, whereas the evidence given not on oath before Sir James Ingham was that of men who were criminally responsible if the result of the inquiry was unfavourable to them. No one, in his opinion, could doubt that the Dublin jury were right, and that the prison officials were wrong, and that through their evidence Sir James Ingham had been drawn to a false conclusion. He could have wished that this discussion had been kept as far as possible within the limits of M'Carthy's case; but as the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), by his Motion, had travelled beyond those limits into the general question of the treatment of political prisoners, they were justified in entering upon that question. He knew that they would be met by the statement that a Royal Commission was at present inquiring into the whole subject of the Penal Servitude Acts, and that before they could come to a resolution involving any decision on that matter, they should have the Report of that Commission before them. But they had as yet had no declaration either from the Secretary to the Treasury or from the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the part of the Government, whether, in its opinion, men who were put in prison for offences which carried no moral stigma ought to be separated from common prisoners. That statement had not been given, and until it was, the Home Secretary must expect to see a Motion of this character brought forward from time to time. However much the official mind of the right hon. Gentleman might be exasperated by the continual accusations brought forward against the prison officials, yet he would ask him to look at the whole question of the treatment of political prisoners to see whether, judging by the example of other civilized nations in the treatment of political prisoners, the cause of the Constitution, of liberty, or of order was in any way served by the vindictive treatment of political prisoners. On the contrary, he knew that the story of the cruelties practised upon political prisoners had excited in the breasts of Irishmen at home and abroad a strong feeling of disgust. If the object had been to foment disaffection, no more certain means could have been adopted than the treatment bestowed upon men whose patriotism had brought them into conflict with the law. The feeling created in Ireland by the story of M'Carthy's sufferings was that of admiration for his courage. The last 13 years had done more to sow the seeds of disaffection in Ireland than the speeches of all the Fenian orators both in Ireland and out of it. He would conclude with the beautiful words of the poet Moore—

"Far dearer the grave or the prison

Illumined by one patriot's name,

Than the trophies of all who have risen,

On Liberty's ruins to fame."

said, that he was not surprised that this case had been brought before the House of Commons, after a coroner's jury had found that the sudden death of M'Carthy called for very stringent inquiry. The question upon which that debate had arisen had proceeded on several separate and distinct grounds. The first question that had been raised was as to the treatment of political prisoners; and the second, the treatment of prisoners generally. With reference to M'Carthy's case, holding the Office he did, he could only say that his sole desire in a matter of that kind was that there should be a most fair and most impartial inquiry into all the circumstances. Therefore, the moment this occurrence took place, he thought it right that an inquiry should be held. He quite agreed that a difficulty arose on one point as to whether the evidence should be given upon oath. But he had no power to authorize the administration of an oath, as that could only be done by the sanction of an Act of Parliament. The next best thing seemed to him to be, in the first place, to find some impartial person, of the highest possible standing, to conduct an inquiry. He did not think that he could have made a more suitable choice, or that he could have found a lawyer more experienced, better known for his impartiality, or one who commanded greater public respect in this country than Sir James Ingham, Chief Magistrate of the Bow Street Police Court. Accordingly, he appointed Sir James Ingham, and he had never heard from the hon. Member who had just spoken, a suggestion discrediting that gentleman's high qualifications. The hon. Gentleman did suggest at the time that a medical gentleman should be appointed as an assessor, and, as he deemed that request a reasonable one, it was at once granted. He (Mr. Assheton Cross) was anxious that there should not be the smallest bias in Sir James Ingham's mind on the matter; and he, therefore, took care not to communicate with him in any way, except to lay the Papers before him. He would ask the House whether a case could be more impartially put in Sir James Ingham's decision, than it was in a letter addressed to him by the Secretary of State, and which would be found in the Papers laid before Parliament? In that letter the Under Secretary wrote that he had been directed by the Secretary of State to forward to Sir James Ingham the depositions taken at the coroner's inquest on the body of Charles M'Carthy, and that he had to request that Sir James Ingham would proceed to the Chatham Convict Prison, and there hold an inquiry into the circumstances of the case, and report thereon to the Secretary of State. The letter further added that the Secretary of State would be quite willing that Sir James should have the assistance of a medical assessor in the conduct of the inquiry, if he should think it necessary. He did not think he could possibly have put the matter more fairly. Perhaps he was wrong in saying that that was his only communication with Sir James Ingham, for he remembered having sent him another letter requesting him to place himself in communication with the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power). After having apparently gone fully into the case, Sir James Ingham made a Report, and found, first of all, that the deceased was employed in carrying heavy weights up to a certain time, but that afterwards he was simply employed in carrying very small weights instead. A great deal had been said about M'Carthy's orderly duty. Sir James Ingham said that in addition to his employment in the tailor's shop, M'Carthy had to take his share of the orderly duty once a week, and that duty consisted in carrying, with the assistance of another man, a dinner tray of about 24 lbs. weight a distance of about 10 yards, and up two or three flights of steps. As to the slops, Sir James said that M'Carthy had to take part in their disposal only once a month, and that he then had to carry them to a sink a few yards off on the same landing. On the face of those facts, it could not be said that that was hard work. It had been urged that the weight of a man was generally a test as to whether his imprisonment had been injudicious or not. It had been rightly said that when M'Carthy went to Chatham in 1870, he weighed 152 lbs., and that when he left in 1878 he weighed 154 lbs. But, said the hon. Member for Mayo, what was his weight when he went into prison first of all? Fortunately, an answer could be given to that question. The House knew perfectly well that directly after a person was sentenced he was sent to a Penitentiary for a period of nine months. M'Carthy was convicted in 1866, and after spending the usual period in the Penitentiary, was sent to Portland on the 26th of October, 1867. The prison papers showed that in 1867 he weighed 154 lbs., which was exactly his weight when he left prison in 1878. So far as his weight went, therefore, there was nothing to show that M'Carthy's treatment in prison had been at all unjust or severe. He must, further, call attention to the fact that it was not until 1874 or 1875 that any appearance of heart disease manifested itself in M'Carthy. Nor did it seem to have affected his weight; for, in 1870, he weighed 154 lbs., in 1872, 152 lbs., and when he left in 1873, 164 lbs. It had been suggested that when he was removed from one prison to another, he was placed in a cell not so well suited for a person in his condition. As to that, they had the evidence of the doctor that one cell was as good as the other. The transference of the prisoner from one cell to another was effected in consequence of the necessity that was felt for greater precautions against his escape. But where this was done under orders from the Home Office, express instructions were given that nothing should be done to injure his health. Then it had been said that the cell was of ordinary dimensions, and it must be borne in mind that he only slept there, being employed in the daytime in the tailor's shop. The class of prisoners to whom M'Carthy belonged were not confined in their cells, but were employed in the shops, and put on night duty; and, therefore, it could not be said that he was confined in his cell. Then, it should not be forgotten that when this man left prison, not being well, he consulted a physician. When an inquiry was instituted, a letter was voluntarily addressed to the Home Office by the medical man consulted by M'Carthy, who stated that fact, and said that the prisoner came to him, and that the advice he gave him was to avoid all excitement, and not to attend political meetings. He could not help thinking that if M'Carthy had adopted the excellent advice given to him his melancholy death might not have followed. He would not go further into the circumstances of the case; but he must say one word for Sir James Ingham, because his fairness in reference to this business had been impugned. He did not think anyone could have conducted the inquiry more fairly or in a more impartial spirit than Sir James Ingham did. The general question of the treatment of prisoners was discussed at some length when the Prisons Bill was passing through the House, and it was found to be a very difficult question with which to deal. The history of penal servitude was in many respects different from, that of transportation, when persons had to be kept in close confinement for a long time; the greatest discipline, watchfulness, and care were necessary. However kind the governors might be, it would be always necessary to employ warders, whose patience might be tried in every way, and who could not be watched at every moment. No matter what governors might do, hardship might now and then be unintentionally inflicted. It had been found to be most difficult to obtain good warders. Much of what was going on at the time of the Devon Commission had been remedied; but it might be that there were other things to remedy, and if he had not thought that this was the case, he should not have asked Parliament to appoint another Royal Commission. The question of classification had been found a most difficult one to deal with; because if the worst characters were kept together reform seemed to be almost absolutely hopeless. It would be admitted that when a man became a convict no favouritism could be shown to him on account of his former social position. As to the separation of what were called political prisoners, it could not be effected either by the Secretary of State or by the gaoler. As far as he was personally concerned, he had never heard what a political prisoner was, and only an amendment of the existing law could bring about what was called a classification. As far as these Acts were concerned, a Royal Commission had been appointed to inquire whether an amendment could be made in them, and owing to the illness of one, and the death of the wife of another, the third Commissioner was alone able to be present. The first two, however, remained Members of the Commission, and would still serve. He admitted that great advantage resulted from the visits of Justices to local prisons, and he should not object to the making of similar visits to convict prisons; but before this could be done the matter must be inquired into and reported upon by the Members of the Commission. It had been suggested that the Visitors should have legal advisers; but the opinion of the Visiting Justices had tended rather in the direction of appointing legal advisers—a decision of the recommendation of which he scarcely saw the force, because he should have thought medical advisers more useful. In conclusion, he might say that although the Commission was not appointed to take up any particular case, he had no doubt that if any particular instance of grievous injury came before them they would feel bound to inquire as to it, and give their judgment on the facts.

said, he was sorry not to be able to accede to the request to abstain from taking a division.

moved to report Progress.

opposed the Motion.

moved, at page 2, line 22, to leave out from "with" to "promotion," inclusive. The effect of his proposal would be to make provision for the lower class of clerks who would have compulsorily to resign under the provisions of the Bill.

said, there could be no doubt that under the measure a somewhat painful process would have to be gone through; and those who had charge of the Bill were desirous of not making that process any more stringent than was absolutely necessary. He could not accept, at a moment's notice, the Motion of the hon. Member for Meath; but he would be glad to be made acquainted with the facts on this subject, which he had no doubt the hon. Member possessed. Meanwhile, the clause as it stood might be allowed to pass pro formâ; and, on the stage of Report, the hon. Member could again call attention to the matter, if he thought that necessary. There was every disposition on the part of the Government to look into the matter, and to deal with the whole subject as fairly as possible.

hoped that the course which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had just indicated would be followed.

desired to state that he had not been instructed or communicated with by any of those whom the clause would affect. He simply acted as he had done from a feeling of justice. The clause would leave those who were called supplementary clerks without any retiring allowance whatever.

said, he was willing to omit the word "all" pro formâ, in order to insure that the matter might be discussed on Report.

moved that the Chairman report Progress. Neither the chief of the War Office nor the chief of the Navy appeared to have the slightest notion as to what the effect of the Bill would really be; but, if Progress were reported, those right hon. Gentlemen would be afforded an opportunity of looking into the subject.

did not desire to place any obstacle in the way of the Bill; but he thought that Progress might now be reported, as proposed.

said, it was very important that the Bill should be passed through Committee as rapidly as possible. The measure concerned the interests of a large number of gentlemen who were seriously disturbed at the uncertainty of their prospects; and it would be most unkind to keep this matter hanging over their heads. The Government were desirous that the change which was necessary should be made in a manner the least painful and injurious to those whom it would affect, and therefore it was advisable that the measure should not be unnecessarily delayed; but, in all the circumstances, he would consent to Progress being now reported, and to the Bill being taken again on Monday.