asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Times" of August 1, that the mortality in the gaols of the principal provinces of India has for two years averaged from 8 to 11 per cent, per annum; and, if so, whether, considering that after many years discussions and great expenditure the mortality is still so large, he will take steps to make very searching inquiry into the subject?

Sir, it is true that the mortality for the years 1878 and 1879 in the gaols of Bengal, Madras, Bombay, the Punjab, and Central Provinces ranged from 8 in Bengal to 12 per cent in the Punjab. My attention has already been directed, among other matters, to the mortality of Indian gaols. I have communicated by telegraph with the Viceroy, and am now awaiting a promised despatch on the subject. Meanwhile, I have requested a Committee of the Council of India to investigate the Returns on the subject which are already at the India Office.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received a Copy of the reply of the Government of India to the communication of the Government of Madras of April 1880, forwarding the Memorials of certain members of the Madras Civil Service complaining of their present position and future prospects; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of the reply; but if no copy has been received, whether, with regard to the delay which has already taken place, and to prevent further delay, he will communicate with the Government of India by telegraph, so that the desired information may be furnished at an early date?

Sir, further Correspondence on the subject has been received. It appears that the Government of India are awaiting further information from the Madras Government asked for so long since as January, 1879, and on its receipt promised to lose no time in considering whether any, and, if so, what, measures should be adopted to meet the complaints preferred by certain members of the Madras Civil Service. I am afraid that decision will not be made known before the rising of the House.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, as the awards for vaccination (paid under section 5 of 30 and 31 Vic e 84) are now very considerable in amount, and as they are given year after year to certain public vaccinators, though the Act prescribes that they shall be paid for "number and quality" only, he will state what is the officially recognised principle upon which these awards are given, in addition to the ordinary salaries of the public vaccinators?

Sir, the principle upon which these awards are given is that an Inspector of the Board should be satisfied in every case, by a careful personal examination of the arms of a considerable number of recently-vaccinated children, that the results are up to the prescribed standard of merit—namely, that the scars should cover a certain area and be thoroughly well marked. Moreover, the Inspector is required to see that the public vaccinator has been regular and punctual in his attendance at the vaccination station at the appointed times, and that the cases have been duly certified and registered. If it is found that these conditions have not been complied with, the award is withheld.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a proclamation issued at Downpatrick, county Down, and dated 11th July 1881, prohibiting the erection "of any arch of whatever description across any street, lane, or road within the boundary of said borough;" whether such proclamation was issued consequent upon sworn information to the effect that a breach of the peace would probably ensue if such arch were erected; and, whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House all Correspondence bearing upon the subject?

, in reply, said, he found that the magistrates of Downpatrick, acting on sworn informations, issued a proclamation on the 11th of July prohibiting the erection of arches of any description within the boundary of the town. The noble Lord was doubtless aware that the erection of arches in Downpatrick on the 15th of August last gave rise to rioting. He did not know that there was any Correspondence to produce.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the case of Police Constable Linton, who was murdered in Church Street, Loughrea, county Galway, at about 10.20 p.m. on the 24th of last month, the authorities are prosecuting any inquiries as to the circumstances under which the deceased came by his death; and, whether any, and, if any, what, reward has been offered by the Government for the apprehension of the person by whom Police Constable Linton was murdered?

, in reply, said, that the authorities were making all possible inquiries into the case referred to, and that two persons had been arrested on sworn informations. As yet no reward had been offered; but, if it was found necessary, there would, of course, be no hesitation in offering a reward.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he will take care that the Report of the Commission on Higher Education in Wales is laid upon the Table of the House before it separates, so that there may be no unnecessary delay in circulating so important a document?

Sir, I am informed that this Report is on the eve of completion, and will be ready in time to be laid on the Table before the close of the Session.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether there is any intention to cut down the beautiful plane tree which stands opposite the old entrance to the South Kensington Museum?

Sir, there is no intention to cut down the tree to which my hon. Friend refers, and I have given directions that it shall not be subject to maltreatment. I may observe, however, that if the plans for the extension of South Kensington Museum, decided upon in 1876, be carried out, and if a frontage be added to the blank wall of the Art Library recently erected, it is difficult to see how the plane tree can be preserved; but, at the rate at which money has been voted for the South Kensington Museum during the last few years, it will be about 20 years before the period of danger is reached.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he proposed to take any, and, if so, what, steps to provide for the better preservation of Ancient Monuments, in accordance with the Resolution of the House of the 11th of March?

, in reply, said, that a wish had been expressed by the House that any plan submitted to the Government with regard to the preservation of ancient monuments should be carefully considered by the Government. No such plan had, however, been submitted, and he must confess that he had not been in a position, nor did he know when he should be, to undertake what was expected from the Government. Seriously, he hoped that, after what had happened, some plan would be brought forward to which the Government might be able to give careful attention.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether similar conditions of retirement will be sanctioned for the Captain and Lieutenants of Orderlies, A.H.C., who do not wish to serve under the new Royal Warrant as Hospital Quartermasters, to those granted by the Royal Warrant of the 12th July 1878 to the Assistant Commissaries who declined to accept the position of Quartermaster in the Commissariat Department?

No, Sir; the circumstances are entirely different. The Assistant Commissaries were largely reduced in number, and were no longer eligible for promotion in the Department, and it was reasonable to offer them, under such circumstances, facili- ties on a liberal scale for leaving the Department. This is not the case with respect to the officers referred to by the hon. Member.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will consider the necessity of bringing before the House, at the commencement of next Session, proposals for amendment of the Rules for the conduct of the Business of the House?

Sir, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand, with his knowledge of Parliamentary proceedings, that the Government are not able to give any definite pledge, in the present state of their knowledge upon the question, as to what Business it may be their duty to submit to Parliament at the commencement of next Session; but, undoubtedly, subject to reservations which are necessary as to everything in the future, I cannot hesitate to say, with increasing strength of conviction from every week's and month's experience, that the question of the re-organization of the arrangements of the House in such a way as to restore it—for I must use the expression—to its full efficiency, has become a question of the very first order, not only in point of magnitude, but in point of claim to precedence. I may, perhaps, Sir, while I am addressing you, say, with regard to the Boer Convention, on which I spoke yesterday, that the Paper has been presented to Parliament, and it will be distributed, I believe, very shortly. I do not know what day it will be distributed, but copies of it are to be obtained in the Agenda Office by anyone who wishes to see it. I also wish to refer to a Question put to me yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard), on which the right hon. Baronet opposite offered some observation, with regard to the Bill for the conversion of certain Stocks into certain Annuities. I am very much disposed to regret that there should be any difficulty or any burden upon the time of the House in respect to the passing of that Bill in its integrity. If I am pressed about it, with a desire to escape from all unnecessary labour, there is this to be said. There is only one portion of that Bill which is of great practical influence to pass, with the view of relieving the Exchequer from unnecessary charge with relation to the conversion in Stock of £7,500,000 of Exchequer Bonds, on which we are paying 3½ per cent. The portion of the Bill which relates to that I should feel myself bound, in any circumstances, to go forward with. There is also another enactment of the Bill for the purpose of curing a legal flaw which has been discovered in the Act of last year relating to the Savings Bank Fund. If it is desired that such a course should be taken, I would, in lieu of going forward with the Bill as it stands, be willing to read the Bill a second time, and pass it through Committee pro formâ with the view of striking out all that relates to the larger function with regard to conversion, and reduce it to the provision I have now spoken of. If I find that is so, I will take the stages of the Bill accordingly.

I apprehend, Sir, that I shall be in Order in laying before you the conduct of a Member of this House within the precincts of the House. I need not say I refer to the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler). I have received the following letter from my Colleague in the representation of Northampton:—

"20, Circus Road, St. John's Wood, N.W.

"August 4.

"My dear Labouchere,—Among the excessively painful incidents of yesterday there is one matter which I cannot help bringing to your notice. Alderman R. N. Fowler (London) followed me downstairs, and at the door leading on to Palace-yard, just as the police and other officials were forcibly ejecting me, I heard Mr. Fowler say, 'Kick him out,' and the people near on this hooted at Mr. Fowler. Surely, as this took place within the precincts of the House, and as I was debarred by my being in the hold of 12 men from retorting as this deserved, and am also debarred from protecting myself in my place in Parliament, I may appeal to you to bring this matter before the House. If the House should hold that this did not occur within its precincts I shall at once summon Mr. Alderman Fowler for endeavouring to excite to a breach of the peace.

"Yours very sincerely,

"C. BRADLAUGH."

I need not add anything to that letter, and I shall leave the matter, Sir, in your hands.

I have to thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in deferring this Question from yesterday until to-day to suit my convenience. If I take any notice of the letter it is not from any respect to Mr. Bradlaugh, whose admission to this House I have always opposed, and shall continue to oppose by the best means in my power. It is because I think it would be inconsistent with the duty of any Member of this House to interfere with the police in the discharge of a difficult duty, which I may say, from what I saw, they discharged with very great moderation and forbearance. All I have to say is, that I never used the words in question, and I emphatically deny the statement made in the letter read to the House.

asked whether the Papers to be laid before the House with respect to the Boer Convention would include the address of Sir Hercules Robinson to the Natives, which he thought might have an important bearing upon the construction of the Convention?

, in reply, said, he had not heard from the Colonial Office any account of the receipt of that Paper officially in this country. What he had just said had reference not to Papers in relation to the Transvaal generally, but only to the Convention. They had received a copy of the full text of the Convention, but had not had time to lay it on the Table. He quite agreed with the hon. Baronet that the address of Sir Hercules Robinson ought to be presented to Members immediately on its receipt.

asked what was the extent of territory to be handed over to the Boers?

begged to refer the hon. Member to the Convention. The hon. Member would find there authentic terms, which he was unable to supply from memory. He might say, however, that it was not thought that there would be any advantage in retaining the slip of territory between Zulu-land and the Transvaal.

said, if the Education Estimates were taken on Monday, he should lay on the Table the proposals for the revision of the Education Code.

asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he could inform the House as to any communications which had passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States with reference to the recent discovery at Liverpool of infernal machines which have been sent to this country from America?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government, as I stated some days ago, thought it their duty to make representations to the Minister of the United States in London, on the subject of the machines which were discovered at Liverpool. The Government have received from the Government of the United States a communication, couched in the friendly and satisfactory spirit which I ventured confidently to anticipate. With the leave of the House I will read the answer from the Government of the United States. It is from Mr. Lowell, the Minister of the United States—

"Legation of the United States, London,

"August 1, 1881.

"My Lord,—Referring to my conversation with Lord Tenterden on Friday, the 29th ult., in relation to the discovery of explosive machines at Liverpool shipped from the United States for criminal purposes, I have the honour to acquaint your Lordship that I sent to Mr. Blaine on the 30th ult. by cable a memorandum of this conversation, and that I have received from him this morning a despatch by telegraph in which he instructs me to inform Tenterden that the National, State, and municipal authorities of the United States are all engaged in the work of discovering the wicked authors of the dynamite plot. Mr. Blaine adds that it was a stealthy, secret crime, and it is not believed that any considerable number of accomplices were engaged in it. He further states that no pains or expense will be spared in the detection and prosecution of the guilty parties.

" I have, &c,

" J. R. LOWELL.

"The Earl Granville."

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he had received any recent news as to the movements of General Hume's force on the frontiers of Afghanistan?

No, Sir. The Viceroy of India has informed me that no important movements have taken place on the Afghanistan Frontier.

I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question which he will probably be able to answer, although I have not given him Notice of it—namely, whether since the bombardment of Sfax any British claims on the French Government have arisen, or are likely to arise, out of that affair?

No British claims have yet reached the Government at home. But I think that it is probable, from a telegram sent by Mr. Reade, the British Consul, that British claims will arise out of the bombardment of Sfax. He had an interview before the bombardment with some British subjects at Sfax possessing considerable property which was of a nature likely to be injured by a bombardment, and I have reason to believe that a portion of that property was destroyed. It is, therefore, very likely that British claims will arise out of the matter.

, in rising to move—

"That the administration of the Law in oases of outrage upon the person has long been a reproach to our Criminal Courts; that outrages and assaults of the most brutal character, especially upon married women, oven when they cause a cruel death, are commonly punished less severely than small offences against property; that the admission of the crime of drunkenness as an extenuation of other crimes is immoral, and acts as an incentive to persons about to commit outrages to wilfully deprive themselves of the guidance of reason;"

said, in bringing forward this subject he did not propose in any way to censure Her Majesty's Judges; but he desired to draw the attention of the House to the striking inequality of sentences passed upon persons guilty of offences against the person as compared with those passed upon persons guilty of offences, often of a trivial character, against property. Thus, whereas the Lord Chief Justice sentenced a man to six weeks' imprisonment who had, while drunk, assaulted his wife in such a manner that her death resulted from it, others, like the man Murphy, who was convicted at the Surrey Sessions of stealing a few pieces of indiarubber, were sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude. A man met a woman in the street, struck her a violent blow in the face, knocked out four of her front teeth, loosened the remainder, and cut her lip in two. He was sentenced to two months' imprisonment, the magistrate observing that the sentence ought to be more severe. He had taken these few cases out of the papers since he asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman a Question on the subject, and he had no doubt he might have found hundreds of similar cases. There was no person in any class of society who did not admit that there was in this country an undue tendency to punish the smallest possible offences against property, and, comparatively speaking, almost to ignore offences against the person. He knew the Home Secretary would tell him he had no power to revise sentences. He had no doubt that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say that in the one class of cases the sentences were too severe and in the other were not severe enough, that would have considerable influence on the Judges. At any rate, he did his duty in bringing these cases before the House. A man of the name of Harcourt—he begged the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon, William Harcourt—was charged with having beaten a woman in a most unmerciful manner. His plea was that that he did not know he had struck her—that was to say, he was in a state of brutal intoxication at the time. The magistrate sentenced him to a month's hard labour. But if that man had put this hand into her pocket and had taken 6d., he would probably have been sentenced for some years to penal servitude. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

said, he must point out to the House that the Motion which they were asked to accept was of a very grave character. It was not an impeachment of particular decisions into which that House certainly could not enter with advantage, but it was a general charge against the administration of the law in cases of outrage, which the hon. Member asserted to have been long a reproach to our Criminal Courts. In this Motion the hon. Member included the whole of the magistrates of this country, from the Chief Justice down to the borough and county Justices. He must point out that those magistrates came from the same class as hon. Members themselves, and were members of the same community; and he would ask the hon. Member how he could account for the fact that many hundreds, he might almost say thousands, of persons having the same feelings of humanity, the same sense of right and wrong as himself, should have all conspired together habitually to do that which was injurious to the society in which they lived? The thing was improbable on the face of it. It was certainly contrary to his experience and conviction. He could not believe that the Chief Justice and the whole Bench of Judges—["No, no!"]—yes that was the hon. Member's proposition. He could not read it in any other sense, for the Motion said the administration of the law had been long a reproach to our Criminal Courts, and the hon. Member had started his illustrations with a case in which the Lord Chief Justice was the Judge, and descended to cases in police courts. He could not regard the Motion or the speech of the hon. Member otherwise than as a general indictment and impeachment of the administration of the Criminal Law in all its branches. If the hon. Member had had the same experience as he (Sir William Harcourt) was obliged to have of the reports which went forth to the public of these cases, he would know how extremely inaccurate those reports were, and how much they led to prejudice. Half the work in his office consisted in writing to inquire, either at the instance of other people or on his own motion, for explanations of reports in which improper sentences were alleged to have been given, and in 99 cases out of 100 he found that the report of those cases omitted to notice the material particulars on which the sentences were based. Why they were to assume that a magistrate or Judge whom they had every right to suppose was as fit to form a judgment as they themselves were, should have gratuitously come to a foolish and ridiculous conclusion, disadvantageous to society, he could not understand. His official experience showed that in 99 cases out of 100, popular prejudice on the matter was not well-founded, because it rested on reports which did not accurately convey the condition of things on which the magistrate had acted. He did not mean to say that there were not occasional cases in which sentences were imposed which he could not approve of, or, at all events, different from what he himself would have imposed; but it must be borne in mind that that was the greatest and insoluble difficulty in the administration of the Criminal Law. The hon. Member had complained of inequality in sentences. There was great inequality of sentences. There must be inequality in sentences as long as we found sentiment varied; and he did not see, unless they could secure uniformity in the temperament of the human mind, that we could ever get that uniformity of sentences which the hon. Member desired. He had no doubt the hon. Member and himself would claim for themselves sentiments of equal rectitude and benevolence; but it was quite possible that in judging of the same case, with the most honest intent, they would pronounce very different sentences. That always must be so. They never could, by Act of Parliament, settle absolute sentences. All they could do by statute was to fix the maximum sentences; but between the maximum and minimum there would always be immense room for diversity of feeling and judgment on the part of the magistrates who administered the law. He was quite conscious of that, and could see no remedy for it. The hon. Member had complained that there was a broad distinction between the manner of dealing with offences against the person and offences against property. One fact, which did not solve all the cases, but which had a bearing on them, was this. They often saw what seemed to be a very small offence against property visited with a very heavy sentence, but newspaper reports almost universally omitted the circumstances, that it might be the sixth, seventh, or tenth conviction. People saw that a man had been punished for larceny with, say, five years' penal servitude; but they did not know the fact that that man was a confirmed offender, whereas in these cases of personal outrage, however brutal, they were more commonly than not first offences, a circumstance which very often accounted for the variety of sentences. Those were some of the difficulties which surrounded that matter. He had no objection whatever to the hon. Member discussing it. It was very useful and wholesome that sentences should be canvassed and considered by public opinion with a full knowledge of the facts. He felt sure, however, the House would not accept or endorse the general and severe condemnation of the magistrates of this country contained in the Resolution. If that Resolution were well-grounded they ought to dismiss all their magistrates and Judges. He knew no other remedy, because if for years those magistrates and Judges had been acting in a manner which was a reproach to the Criminal Courts, the only cure was to get rid of them. The House could not properly review the decisions of Judges without informing themselves of all the circumstances, and hearing the Judges' explanation of the reasons which induced them to pass the sentences complained of.

said, that, as his object had been gained, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.

in rising to call attention to the case of Edmund Galley, to whom Her Majesty graciously granted a free pardon in 1879, in accordance with the Prayer of this House, said, that the Motion just submitted to the House having been negatived, he was thereby prevented from bringing forward the Resolution of which he had given Notice in a substantive form; but that circumstance would not prevent him from presenting it in the shape of an appeal to the Government, in fulfilment of the pledge which he had given to those who, both inside the House and out of it, had taken a deep interest in the case of the unfortunate man Edmund Galley. He would commence by apologizing to hon. Members and to the Government for taking a course which, at that late period of the Session, and in the pressure of so much Public Business to be dealt with, would postpone their going into Supply; but the interests of a much-injured man had been intrusted to him, and he knew that the ear of the House of Commons was never closed against the humblest of Her Majesty's subjects, when he sought justice at its hands. They would remember that in 1879, at the close of the Session, the case of Galley had been carefully considered in a long debate, which lasted from 9 p.m. till 2 in the morning, and that the discussion ended by the House unanimously resolving to pray Her Majesty to grant him a free pardon. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) would not re-open the details which convinced the House of the innocence of Galley. Hon. Member after hon. Member arose to express that conviction; and he might mention that the hon. and learned Gentleman the present Attorney General, who spoke strongly in favour of his innocence, stated in the course of his speech that out of the 114 members of his own Circuit he believed that there was scarcely one who was not of the same opinion. He (Sir Eardley "Wilmot) recollected that the speech of Sir Lawrence Palk—now Lord Haldon— made a great impression upon the House. As a young man, Sir Lawrence Palk had visited the scene of the murder, and the particular locality where the principal witness, the woman Harris, swore she saw the outrage committed; and Sir Lawrence Palk said, from the nature of the ground, and the circumstances of a thick copse closely bordering the road on each side, it was quite impossible that she could have seen the murder committed without being herself seen. He need scarcely call to their recollection the able and eloquent letter of the late lamented Lord Chief Justice, or the testimony of Sir Montague Smith, both of whom were present at the trial in 1836. In the debate in 1879, he had read a letter from the latter, saying he considered it a case of mistaken identity, an extract from which letter was to be found in Hansard, which he held in his hand. He should not have alluded to it now had he not heard that doubts still existed in some minds as to Galley's innocence, and had he not felt that there were some present upon whose minds the minute circumstances of the trial and conviction were not so deeply engraven as upon his own. He would proceed to what had taken place since 1879. Nothing, as far as he knew, had transpired either at the time of the debate, or since, on the subject of compensation. He certainly had never alluded to it himself. But it appeared that someone had held out a hope to Galley, or that he had got the idea into his head, that compensation would be made him by his country for the long and unmerited injuries he had sustained for a period of upwards of 40 years. At all events, Galley felt that he was entitled to it, for he had written early in the following year a letter to Mr. Latimer of Exeter, from which he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) would read an extract. But, before he did so, he could not help paying his warmest tribute of admiration and respect to the persevering exertions of that gentleman on behalf of Galley, for to those exertions Galley's pardon was mainly to be ascribed. Mr. Latimer had been present at the trial at Exeter, and had heard Oliver, who was really guilty, avow in open Court, after the verdict was given, the entire innocence of Galley. He afterwards stood by Oliver on the scaffold when he said—

"I declare in the face of this congregation that I am guilty, and that the other man is innocent."

From the moment when Mr. Latimer heard, in 1877, that Galley was still alive, and that the really guilty man, Longley, had confessed in the Colony, he most warmly and zealously took up Galley's case, and never slackened his exertions till, first by the letter of the late Lord Chief Justice to the Home Office, and afterwards by the debate in Parliament, he had the happiness of seeing those exertions crowned with success. The letter to him from Galley was as follows:—

"Tkalong, Binilong, June 4, 1880.

"For Thomas Latimer, Esq.

"Dear Sir,

"I hope you will excuse me for taking the liberty of writing to you once more concerning my unfortunate affair, having never heard from you for some months past, I may say never since I received Her Most Gracious Majesty's free pardon. I beg of you as a good friend and Christian to put some of the Home Authorities in mind, according to their promise, that something will he done for me in the way of compensation. I am beginning to think that the excitement in England caused by my unfortunate affair has all died out, and I begin to feel that it's a long time about. I feel that I must be drawing near to the grave, and I feel anxious for those I may leave behind."

In May of the present year, he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had himself received a letter from Galley, which he would also read to the House—

" Binilong, New South Wales,

"March 1, 1881.

"Sir J. E. Wilmot, bart., M.P.

"for Warwickshire.

"Dear and honored Sir,

"i beg of you once more to try and do a most injured man a kind favour by laying my case once more before the house of commons, interceding on my behalf for some compensation for the sufferings that i have undergone during my Life as a Prisoner.

"Now i am freed from the awful crime for which i have sufered over 40 years wrongfully, i consider as a most injured man, that i am entitled to some compensation from the english government.

"Through your own kind benevolence and other good gentlemen of England, i received the royal free pardon for which I can never be too thankful.

"i beg to say that the good gentlemen of eng-land that have done so much for me apear to have forgotten me and my troubles.

"i hope you, as a good Christian and a gentleman, seeing, that I am an old man now, will try and do something for me in the way of recompense for my troubles. Thanking you for all the kindnesses you have done for me, i beg to remain your most humble Servant Edmund Galley.

"Binilong, N.S.W.

"Care of A. B. Paterson, esq.

"Sir, i forgot to add that I wrote to you some years ago, but never received any answer."

He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was under the impression that he did reply to Galley's former letter; but, at all events, the best answer that could be sent was Her Majesty's free pardon. ["Hear, hear!"] Soon after he received the above letter, he heard from Mr. Latimer that the people of Devon were preparing a Petition to the House of Commons, and also a Memorial to the Home Secretary, to ask for compensation to Galley, and after Whitsuntide both documents were sent to him (Sir Eardley Wilmot) for presentation. The Petition was signed by upwards of 5,000 of the inhabitants of Exeter and Devon (5,230), and comprised most influential signatures, headed by the Dean, the Mayor and ex-Mayor of Exeter, the Mayors of Plymouth, Tiverton, and Totnes, and many Aldermen and Town Councillors of the various boroughs in Devonshire. There were the names of 34 magistrates, 43 clergymen of all denominations, 306 professional and independent men, 18 journalists, and 2,115 merchants, tradesmen, and farmers, besides 2,714 miscellaneous signatures. There were also the names of Mr. Sanders, J.P., Mr. Latimer, J.P., and Mr. Rose, late Governor of Exeter County Gaol, all three having been present at the trial of Galley in 1836, and throughout convinced of his innocence. The Memorial,]which he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) took himself to the Home Office for presentation, was, he understood, as numerously signed, though he did not examine the signatures as he did those to the Petition. Having left an interval of time, in order that the Home Secretary might consider the Prayer of the Memorial, he proceeded to put a Question in the House as to the course the Government intended to pursue, and the reply of the Home Secretary was that, in the opinion of the Government, enough had been done for Galley by the grant of a free pardon. This, however, did not satisfy the people of Devon, who not only had all along felt and expressed a deep sympathy with Galley, but also considered that a certain discredit attached to their county by the fact that an entirely innocent man had been con- victed and sentenced to death in it. They, therefore, urged him (Sir Eardley Wilmot) to proceed further in the matter, which he not unwillingly undertook, for he always had considered that a pardon bestowed on an innocent man was an anomaly, and that the laws which had inflicted the injury should provide amends and compensation. Sir Samuel Romilly, as far back as 1808, brought in a Bill with that object; and he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) intended to bring in a Bill next Session for the institution of a Court of Criminal Appeal, one of the provisions of which would be to empower the Court to award compensation where it was proved satisfactorily that injustice had been done and unmerited suffering had been sustained. Returning, however, to the case of Galley, before he gave Notice of his Motion asking for compensation to him he went to the Home Office in order to seek an interview with the Home Secretary, or Mr. Liddell, the Under Secretary of State, to see if they would not re-consider their decision, and thus avoid the necessity of bringing the matter forward in the House. He was not fortunate enough to see either of the Secretaries; but he saw one of the Assistant Secretaries of the Criminal Department, and also the Private Secretary to the Secretary of State, and, to his surprise and astonishment, he learnt that a belief still existed at the Home Office that Galley was guilty. He thought that that idea had long since been banished from the Home Office; and, bearing upon that, he might mention that, accidentally meeting abroad one of Her Majesty's Judges—one most distinguished in his knowledge of Criminal Law—that dignitary had informed him that at the period when Galley's case was about to be brought before Parliament, in 1879, a late Home Secretary had sent him the Papers connected with the case, and asked his opinion on it. His reply had been—"Galley no more committed that murder than I did myself." At all events, the inquiry by him (Sir Eardley Wilmot) not being what he hoped for, he put down his Motion on the Notice Paper the same afternoon, and to-day they had come to its consideration. It might be said that such a case would afford a precedent for others if the Government consented to give compensation; but he would ask, had not the precedent been already established on more than one occasion? He would refer hon. Members first to the well-known case of Barber, a solicitor, of London, who was convicted, in 1844, of forgery at the Central Criminal Court, along with one Fletcher. Both were sentenced to transportation for life, and sent to Norfolk Island in the autumn of that year. A near relative of his (Sir Eardley Wilmot's) own—in fact, his father—was Lieutenant Governor of Van Dieman's Land at that time. Norfolk Island was under the charge of an official subordinate to the Lieutenant Governor's jurisdiction, and at some distance from Hobart Town; and he was sorry to say, as they all well knew, that dreadful enormities were committed there. Barber was placed, on his arrival, in a most menial occupation, and underwent great and cruel indignities, which injured his health, and he was' afterwards removed to Van Dieman's Land, where he obtained a free pardon in 1848. For, in the meantime, the humane and excellent chaplains, Messrs. Rogers and Naylor, who did their best for the convicts on Norfolk Island, had convinced themselves of Barber's innocence,; and Fletcher himself, his alleged partner in the forgery, had entirely exonerated him from any participation in it. Well, Barber returned to England, and endeavoured to resume his practice in London as a solicitor, in 1855, but in vain. Though a free pardon had been given him, his clerk gave evidence before the Select Committee afterwards appointed by the House of Commons, that he was avoided by clients, as having had the stain of a conviction, though wrongfully, upon him. In his misery, Barber petitioned this House for inquiry; and, through the exertions of Dr. Brady, a respected Member of it, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the circumstances of his case, Lord Hotham being its Chairman. After several sittings of the Committee, before whom Barber himself, Major General Childs, and other witnesses were examined, the Committee came to the unanimous opinion that Barber was entirely innocent of the crime for which he had been punished, and "they recommended him to the favourable recommendation of the Government." He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had the Report of the Committee in his hand (Vol. xii., 1857– 1858, page 617), but he would not trouble the House with it. But the Report stated "that the allegations in Barber's Petition had been substantially proved." He would, however, read to them what occurred in the House afterwards. Dr. Brady, on 19th March, 1859, asked the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Stafford Northcote) what the Government intended to do in reference to the Report of the Select Committee on the Petition of William Henry Barber? Sir Stafford Northcote said—

"The case of Mr. Barber had been under the careful consideration of the Government for some time, and no little difficulty had been experienced in deciding how to deal with it. On the one hand, a precedent ought not to be laid down which might operate injuriously in other cases of an analogous nature; and, on the other hand, this particular case was taken out of the ordinary category by the fact that it had been investigated by a Select Committee, who had unanimously recommended it to the special consideration of the Government. The various propositions that had been brought forward had received the attention of the Government, which had felt that the only unobjectionable mode of proceeding would be to give some recognition of the sufferings which Mr. Barber had certainly undergone. This would be attained by a grant of public money to Mr. Barber; and, accordingly, in the Estimates for the coming year such a sum would be included as, without pretending to compensate him for what he had endured, would still be an acknowledgment on the part of Parliament and the country that he had suffered considerably, and was therefore entitled to some consideration of this nature."

The other case he would mention was that of Habron, convicted not long since of murder committed by a man named Peace. Through the confession of Peace, entirely exonerating Habron, the latter had received a free pardon. The circumstances of his innocence being established were not unlike, in some respects, to those attending Galley's case, and compensation was awarded to him by the Government. In Barber's case the sum granted was, he believed, £5,000; in Habron's it was £1,000. And now, he would ask, was not Galley entitled to similar amends? For 45 years he had been an exile from his country—at first, a slave condemned to hard and severe labour in a penal Colony; then, as Lord Chief Justice Cockburn had eloquently pointed out, equally a slave on the public roads; and at length assigned, as was the custom with our transported felons at that time, to a landowner, like a beast of burden, in New South Wales, where he had been ever since, with the stigma of a crime which he never committed branded upon him. But, latterly, he had experienced kind treatment, especially from his master, Mr. Friend, now dead. So acutely did he feel his position, that he would not enter the state of marriage till the publication of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn's letter reached him, for he said he would not wish, innocent as he felt and knew himself to be, any woman to take the name of one who had been convicted of murder. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had now finished his task. He thanked the House for the kind indulgence with which they had listened to him: and it only remained for him to appeal once more to the Home Secretary and the Government. He asked them favourably to consider, as the House of Commons had done in Barber's and Habron's cases, the unhappy case of this poor old man. They had heard his own appeal in the letter which he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had read, and in which he besought his fellow-countrymen to do him justice. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) asked for that justice for him. He asked it in the name of the county of Devon, where Galley had been unjustly convicted; he asked, in the name of all England, that this unhappy man, after 45 years of unmerited suffering, might be enabled, through the generous act of his fellow-countrymen, to return to his native land, and there pass the short remainder of his life in peace and comfort.

said, that the hon. Member had spent a considerable portion of time in proving the innocence of Galley, and he was surprised to hear it stated that at the Home Office a doubt as to his innocence prevailed. That opinion he understood to be founded on private conversations with his Private Secretary. He was only too glad to afford hon. Members all possible facilities for making inquiries at the Home Office; but he must say that if mistaken opinions gathered from private conversations held there were to be brought before the House, he would be compelled to take steps to prevent such conversations taking place. But the hon. Gentleman's opinion was altogether unfounded. No one at the Home Office, and least of all his Private Secretary or himself, entertained a doubt as to the innocence of Galley. At the beginning of the present year he went carefully through all the Papers, and he held the opinion that the view taken by the late Lord Chief Justice and by Sir Montague Smith was the correct view, and that the case was one of those lamentable miscarriages which sometimes occurred in the administration of justice, and which showed the fallibility of human testimony and of human judgment. Having disposed of that matter, he started with the assumption of the innocence of Galley, as to whom the House had voted that he was entitled to a free pardon. It should not be supposed that he was opposed to compensation being given; but he had a public duty to perform, and would state the considerations which had influenced their decision. The hon. Member said that in all cases of unjust conviction compensation should be given. That was a very large proposition, pregnant with very important consequences, and it was one which had never yet been adopted. There was the case of Mr. Barber, which the hon. Gentleman had referred to, where the Government, from the peculiar circumstances, had decided to award him compensation; but they expressly stated that it was not to be considered as a precedent. But the first thing the hon. Gentleman did was to make it a precedent for another case. They could not do these things without establishing a precedent. It was, of course, entirely for the House to consider in what way they would dispose of the money of the country, and if they were of opinion that compensation should be given in the present case they would say so. He was sorry the House was not in a position to give a vote on this matter, for it was for the House and not for him to decide that point. He had, however, to observe that the hon. Member had given no hint in his speech as to what he considered should be the measure of the compensation, while in his Resolution he suggested that Galley should be allowed a free passage home. If that were all he meant, then he was sure the hon. Member—as he himself would, or many hon. Members present—would find the necessary funds for that purpose.

said, he had purposely refrained from naming a sum, being desirous of leaving that matter to the Government.

said, he supposed he was to assume that the hon. Gentleman asked for some substantial compensation. Well, there was no evidence before them that Galley himself desired to be compensated, or even that he desired to return home; and what was the use of furnishing a man with the requisite means to enable him to return home if he did not desire to do so? The principle which was laid down by the hon. Baronet was not confined, as he understood it, to the case of Galley, but was intended to apply to all cases in which innocent persons had been convicted of crime. It was scarcely for the Government to accept this principle, but it might be done by the House, in which case great care ought to be taken in fixing the bases on which compensation to be paid out of the public purse ought to be fixed.

said, he thanked the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the generous and candid manner in which he had admitted the abstract justice of Galley's right to reasonable compensation. He (Mr. Northcote) was not in the least disposed to make raids upon the Treasury in the interest of individuals upon any except the most serious grounds; but he did think that the exceptional hardship of Galley's case entitled him to reasonable compensation, and he trusted the matter would be dealt with as soon as possible. He would suggest that a sum equal to that paid to the Irishman Habron, who had also been unjustly convicted, and suffered two and a-half years' penal servitude, should be given to Galley.

said, he had listened with great satisfaction to the speech of the Home Secretary. Under the circumstances, it was all that the House could expect. He had admitted in the most unqualified way that Galley was innocent, and he did this after having perused the whole of the documents in the case—both the letter of the late Lord Chief Justice and the information exclusively in possession of the Home Office. Such a declaration made by the Home Secretary would be a source of unfeigned pleasure to the unhappy man himself, to the number of gentlemen who had taken an interest in him, and, he believed, to the House at large. He did not wish to mix the case up with any general argument as to the wisdom or necessity of establishing a Court of Appeal and granting compensation in all cases where justice miscarried. That was a very wide subject, and one upon which there might be great difference of opinion. It was not desirable to encumber the present inquiry with broad debates on such a very complicated question. What they wanted the Government to do was to judge the matter upon its merits and to deal with it. He did not believe there had ever been a harder case, in recent years, submitted to the consideration of the Legislature. It was very simple, but it appealed to the sympathies of every generous person. This unfortunate man had, after the lapse of nearly half-a-century, been declared guiltless of the crime of which he had been accused. Apart from the agony of mind that he must have endured over his trial and conviction, the personal hardships he had been subjected to were such as few Gentlemen present could realize. They should remember that transportation to Botany Bay, at the time Galley was sent there, was one of the most severe punishments that could be inflicted. It was a pandemonium of vice and cruelty. He had the acquaintance of Mr. John Frost, the Chartist, who was also transported to New South Wales; and he remembered hearing from him a recital of the misery and suffering that the unfortunate convicts were subjected to. With a knowledge of these facts—seeing that Galley himself was now 80 years of age, and that he could not long live to enjoy any compensation the Government could give him—the necessity for action, and for prompt action, was urgent. No private Member could make a proposal for a sum of money to be granted; but if the Home Secretary would undertake to say that the Government would favourably consider the question—and if they could promise to give such a sum as had been given to Habron, who was convicted of murder, but afterwards found to be innocent, by the confession of the man Peace—he was sure it would give satisfaction, not only to Members of that House on both sides, but to the country. He recollected the discussion that took place there last Parliament. He never in his experience had seen the House of Commons so unanimous as it was on that occasion. It would not only be an act of justice, but it would be an act of generosity, if the Ministry could lighten the load of misery that had accumulated round this unfortunate man during the 45 years that he had struggled under the stigma of murder, and been subjected to the punishment of penal servitude.

said, he wished to express his general satisfaction with the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. He was sure the ratepayers would cheerfully provide for a grant of £1,000.

admitted the prudence of not establishing a precedent for such cases, but hoped the Government would accede to the appeal.

said, he had derived much pleasure from the way in which this proposal had been received by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government of the day, by consenting to commute the punishment to which Mr. Galley was sentenced, had admitted that they were in the wrong, because if they believed that he was guilty they should have allowed justice to take its course, or if they believed that he was innocent they should have liberated him at once. As it was, the poor man had been kept in penal servitude for 44 years; and now, when he was past 80, he had been thrown upon the world without any provision for himself or for his family. It would be a mere farce to give this man an annuity, looking at his age. What should be done was to give him such a sum as would enable him to make some small provision for his family.

observed, that this was eminently one of those cases in which the Government required to be pressed from both sides of the House. It was a case in which justice should be done. Nothing in the form of private subscription would meet the case, or would satisfy the feeling of the House of Commons, as reflecting that of the country. He hoped that the Home Secretary would not forget the old adage, that "Bis dat qui cito dat" The case of this unfortunate man had frequently been debated in that House, and at length, after great difficulty, and mainly owing to the efforts of the hon. Member opposite (Sir Eardley Wilmot),he had received a free pardon. It was, however, very little use giving a man who never was guilty a free pardon, if he was to be deprived of the opportunity of getting his livelihood at his extreme age; and therefore he trusted that the Government would show no more official coyness in the matter, but that the Home Secretary would take a course with regard to it which would reflect honour upon himself and would be appreciated by the country.

agreed that the provision for the old age of this poor man should not be left to private subscription, but should be voted by Parliament. The mere fact of his receiving a free pardon after enduring 44 years' penal servitude, might leave it open to be supposed that he had only received the benefit of a doubt; whereas if Parliament made provision for him, it would be clearly understood that he was entirely innocent of the offence of which he had been convicted. He trusted that without any further debate the Home Secretary would yield to the universal feeling of the House, and would consent that a grant should be made from the public purse to this old man. The occasion was one for the exercise, not of mercy, but of justice.

said, that, speaking on behalf of the Home Secretary, who was precluded by the Rules of the House from again addressing the House on this subject, he would state the course which the Government intended to pursue in reference to this case. His right hon. Friend had not been an inattentive listener to the discussion that had taken place; and as he now understood that it was the opinion of every Member of the House apparently that some money payment should be made to this man, he was not disposed to put himself in antagonism to that view. At the same time, he (the Attorney General) was sure hon. Members would feel that it was impossible that the Home Secretary could propose that compensation should be given in every case where a man who had been convicted was afterwards proved to be innocent. If, however, in the present case Parliament should by a strong expression of opinion be disposed to take upon itself all responsibility in the matter, and if it were universally understood that this was an exceptional case, and that it was not to be drawn into a precedent, the Home Secretary was not disposed to do other than give full consideration to what had fallen from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and would make inquiry into the circumstances and position of this man, and hoped to be able to give effect in a short time to the wish of the House in the matter.

who had given Notice of his intention to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the safety of Her Majesty's subjects engaged in commerce in the Pacific, as well as the well-being of the Native races, would be more completely attained, now that the seat of the Lord High Commissioner has been removed from Fiji to New Zealand if the duties of the Lord High Commissioner were performed by the Naval Commander in Chief in those seas, assisted by Naval Officers holding the requisite commission for this purpose;"

said, he did not propose to stand for any long time between the House and the Business before it in Committee of Supply; but the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty agreed with him that it was desirable that a few words should be said on the subject, even at this late period of the Session. In the numerous archipelagoes of the Pacific, none of the islanders, with the exception of those who resided in the Sandwich Islands, were in the slightest degree civilized. No fewer than 40 murders of British subjects had taken place in those islands during the past 12 months without any punishment being inflicted upon the guilty; and he had brought forward this subject in the hope that to try offences of this character some Court different from that which now sat at Fiji might be constituted. The three great Powers who had the most influence among the islanders were France, Great Britain, and the United States. France had a naval force in those seas consisting of 73 ships, manned by a force of 11,000 men, while we ourselves had a naval force in that quarter of the world consisting of 39 vessels, manned by 7,000 men, only a small proportion of which force, however, was available for service in that particular locality. The great Powers also exercized considerable influence in the islands through their missionaries and their traders. The process of obtaining the free labour of the Natives was one which had been liable to very considerable abuse. Persons whom he would call scoundrels proceeded in vessels under the pretence of hiring honest labour for the purpose of employment in French Colonies or in our own Colonies. These scoundrels were the worst description of persons who ever conducted the slave trade. Much had been done by this country to stop them; but the Native races who were so betrayed by these persons resorted to outrages, not, unfortunately, upon the guilty persons, but upon honest traders, missionaries, and other persons who were pursuing their lawful occupations and who were doing their best for civilization. The House would remember the murder of Bishop Patteson, in 1871, and, at a more recent period, of Commodore Good-enough, who, to the end of his life, did his utmost to benefit the Native races. The Pacific Islanders' Protection Act of 1872 was in a right direction. It was amended in 1875 by an Act after the Fiji Islands had become part of the territory of Great Britain. No doubt, a very eminent person, Sir Arthur Gordon, did his very best to remedy the evils that were complained of; but Sir Arthur Gordon was translated from the Government of Fiji to the Government of New Zealand, and was, therefore, at a very considerable distance from the place where the Court sat. If a trader were murdered in some outlying island in the Pacific, some naval officer at Fiji or New Zealand was ordered to go to the place where the outrage was said to have been committed, and he had to do that which he was ordered to do. Great loss of time occurred through that process. The naval officer was sent to exact retribution at some unfortunate village where, perhaps, the inhabitants hardly knew the person who committed the outrage. The Natives' means of livelihood were cut down; fruit trees were destroyed. If you were absolutely certain that persons in that village had committed a murder, and would not give up the murderer, he thought it might be a legitimate and proper punishment. The arrangement for the protection of life ought to be in the hands of the Naval Commander-in-Chief, who was on the spot, who was, no doubt, selected for his ability and discretion, and who, he thought, would carry out this duty with more satisfaction to the country than Sir Arthur Gordon, who was at so considerable a distance, could. Some legal officer would, of course, require to be associated with the Naval Commander in carrying out sentences. Commodore Erskine, the present Commodore in those seas, was well qualified to do what was necessary. On one point that officer differed from the views now put forward, but only because he thought that the performance of additional duties might interfere with his usefulness in discharging the duties already devolving upon him; and to meet that objection it might be necessary to increase the naval force under his command. France, for the maintenance of order at Tahiti, New Caledonia, and the Marquesas Islands, had 73 vessels and 11,000 men; whereas we had in Australia, in China, and on the West Coast of Africa no more than 39 vessels and 7,000 men. He made no charge against the Government; he only called on them to express some opinion with regard to this very difficult subject, and, perhaps, show that the present arrangement was better than that which he had suggested for the consideration of the House. He thanked the House for their kind reception of him, and hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would give good reasons for the course the Government had taken.

said, that he heartily concurred in the Resolution moved by the right hon. and gallant Admiral. He observed that reference was made in the Resolution to the safety of Her Majesty's subjects engaged in commerce, and the well-being of the Native races. He believed that the safety of Her Majesty's subjects depended mainly upon the well-being of the Native races. There was no doubt that cruelties of an abominable character had been committed upon the Natives of these islands by kidnappers, and that these cruelties had naturally irritated and excited the Natives, and endangered the lives of those who devoted themselves to Missionary work among the islands as well as of those who benefited the Natives by introducing among them an honest and profitable trade. It was for the purpose of checking this kidnapping that the Pacific Islanders' Protection Act was passed in 1872. He (Sir Henry Holland) was then in the Colonial Office, and necessarily took an active part in preparing and working out the details of that measure; and there was no part of his work in the Colonial Office to which he looked back with more satisfaction. That Act empowered certain officers and consuls to seize and detain suspected vessels, and provided for the trial of the offenders in the Australasian Courts of Law and in the Vice Admiralty Courts. The Act worked well and greatly checked these kidnapping outrages. But it was found desirable to have, if possible, a more direct and constant and local check upon these offences, and hence, when we had obtained Fiji, the Amending Act of 1875 was passed and the Queen was empowered to appoint a High Commissioner. This was a wise step in the right direction. Large powers were vested in the High Commissioner, and Sir Arthur Gordon, then Governor of Fiji—to whose merits as a zealous and able Governor he desired, in passing, to add his tribute to that given by the right hon. and gallant Admiral—was appointed High Commissioner. Sir Arthur Gordon exercised those powers satisfactorily so long as he was Governor of Fiji; but the question was whether he could continue to do so as Governor of New Zealand? This he (Sir Henry Holland) ventured to doubt. He thought it would be necessary, if the Acts were to be efficiently carried out, that the High Commissioner should be either the Governor for the time being of Fiji or the Naval Commander-in-Chief for the time being on that Station. If, however, it was decided to retain Sir Arthur Gordon as High Commissioner, he (Sir Henry Holland) would urge upon Her Majesty's Government to take steps for the appointment of one or more Deputy High Commissioners. He was disposed to think that legislation would be necessary for this purpose, but it would be of a very simple character. He doubted whether Her Majesty could now appoint a Deputy High Commissioner. The Act of 1875, 38 & 39 Vict. c. 51, only empowered her to appoint a High Commissioner; and though reference was made in the last paragraph of the 6th section to Deputy Commissioners, those Commissioners were only members of the Court of Justice established under the same section, and were not Deputy High Commissioners with the full powers attached to the office of High Commissioner. The powers of the existing Deputy Commissioners, as members of the Court, did not extend as far as the powers vested in the High Commissioner, which he (Sir Henry Holland) thought ought to be vested in some officer, whether the Governor of Fiji or naval officer, nearer to the scene of action than New Zealand was. He trusted the subject would receive the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

said, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had touched a great and complicated question, with regard to which he had made a very definite proposal—a proposal with which the Government found themselves unable to agree, but which they were very glad to discuss. Recent events had drawn public attention to the islands of the Pacific. Those events had excited strong feelings—feelings of indignation at barbarous outrages, of sympathy with fellow-countrymen who had been cruelly murdered, and of grave uneasiness and dissatisfaction at the necessary imperfections in the methods by which those outrages had been visited and punished. It was under the influence of those events that the right hon. and gallant Member had brought forward the Motion which stood in his name; but he could not but think that the impression which they had produced had given him a somewhat one sided view of a question which had many sides, though none, perhaps, as striking as that. For when he proposed to intrust a naval officer, and that officer our Commander-in-Chief in those seas, with the office and duties of High Commissioner, he could not but think he lost sight of the fact that the punishment of outrages by Natives was at present no part, and the prevention of conduct of Europeans which might tempt Natives to those outrages was only a part, of the duties of the High Commissioner. On that point Sir Arthur Gordon spoke positively. It was by no means "to see that Whites were protected from outrages by Natives "(p. 47), and but in a secondary sense "to protect Natives from outrages by Whites" (p. 47), that that Court was formed. He said—

"It was principally designed to provide means for the settlement of disputes between White men themselves and to prevent Her Majesty's subjects from breaking Her Majesty's laws. It was found that in Samoa, in Tonga, in the New Hebrides, and in other places small communities of British subjects were springing up over which no Court had jurisdiction and no law had force. Debts were incurred, and the debtor could at pleasure evade his creditor's claim; contracts were entered into the performance of which could not be enforced; wills were made which could not be proved; disputes arose as to successions which could not be settled; crimes were committed which either escaped punishment altogether or wore dealt with by a lynch law demoralizing to those engaged in it. It was primarily to remedy this state of things that the Deputy Commissioners' Courts, under the High Commissioner, were established at Apia and Nukualofa. It was, no doubt, also an object that the letter and spirit of the Western Pacific Acts should be carried out by Her Majesty's subjects and that the Court should enforce their strict observance; but no one who looked carefully at the Orders in Council can fail to perceive what was their primary object—the establishment of a Court to which British subjects who had no locus standi before any other judicial tribunal might resort."

If hon. Members would study the very voluminous Order in Council of the 13th of August, 1877, and the still more voluminous Schedule, they would find that the functions of the High Commissioner embraced the powers of every species of tribunal, civil and criminal, judicial and administrative, legal and equitable. It was impossible that a naval officer, with a naval officer's training, should face such a grange of duties, so special and, at the same time, so multifarious in their nature. A Commodore who, in the intervals of inspecting quarters and putting his men through gun-drill, could deal with questions of partnership, questions of probate, questions of bankruptcy, questions of intestacy, would be a sea-lawyer with a vengeance. And if it was impossible, it was at the same time most unadvisable. He could hardly imagine anything more certain to distract an officer's mind from the very important cares which the safety of his ships and the security of his station demanded. And if, by some happy chance, the Admiralty secured an officer who had the legal knowledge which qualified him for the post, the mere fact of his being tied down to the head-quarters of his Court would be an immense disadvantage to the Service. Litigants who had business before the Court at Sydney would be hardly used if the exigencies of the Service required the High Commissioner to go on a four months' cruise to Western Australia. The main principle of naval administration was that our ships and our squadrons should be able to sail whenever and wherever they were ordered. The elasticity of our Navy depended upon our vessels being always, as they were now, ready for war on a moment's notice in any quarter where need might arise; and to fetter the commander of four vessels on an important station with judicial duties which would cramp his movements as much as they would absorb his energies, would be contrary to the whole spirit on which our Service was conducted. And then there was another consideration which weighed with the Admiralty greatly, and that was that to appoint our Commodore High Commissioner would place him in a position with regard to the Colonial public in which, for every reason, it was inexpedient that a naval officer should be placed. Colonial opinion on some important matters was not English opinion. Nor did it always express itself after the fashion which was observed in English politics. He had seen something in India of the mode in which non-official British residents attacked an official, be he Judge or Administrator, who was supposed to deal tenderly with the darker races when their interests clashed with those of the White man; and it was a species of attack to which he did not desire to see our naval officers exposed. And as it was in India, so it had a tendency to be in other quarters of the globe. In January of this year there met an Intercolonial Congress at Sydney, composed of leading gentlemen from the different Governments of Australasia. There was no one under the rank of Colonial Secretary, Colonial Treasurer, Attorney General; and yet these gentlemen were pervaded with the feeling with regard to questions between the Native races and the British race, which never failed to prevail where those races came freely into contact. The Intercolonial Conference printed in the appendix to its Report a certain number of letters and articles from newspapers, and so gave those letters and articles, to speak very moderately, a certain stamp of authority. Now, it was well known to the House that Sir Arthur Gordon was High Commissioner, and Chief Justice Gorrie was Judicial Commissioner; and how were those high functionaries treated in those letters and articles which, after being printed in that Report, had become, as it were, the semi-official expression of Colonial opinion? The first letter was from a Mr. Julian Thomas to the Secretary of the Intercolonial Conference. He said—

"Having lately returned from Fiji, I have seen the pernicious results of the Exeter Hall policy of Sir Arthur Gordon and Judge Gorrie, the High and Judicial Commissioners of Polynesia. I was witness of the supineness and indifference of the High Commissioner to the outrages committed. Native policemen have power to arrest White men on the moat frivolous charges; and the insolence of the whole aboriginal race of the South Seas proves Sir Arthur Gordon's public statement that these are not the countries for White men."

And the next extract was from an article—

"Both these officials (Sir Arthur Gordon and Chief Justice Gorrie) have been for years playing to the gallery of Exeter Hall, and, no doubt, have acquired in Great Britain a great reputation for philanthropy, earned, as results show, at the cost of the blood of their countrymen. To try cases before Judge Gorrie is a mockery. The Colonies should join together to protest that the property and lives of their citizens shall no longer be at the mercy of the High Commissioner or his judicial assistant."

Now, he asked the House, and he asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether that was the sort of language which we should wish to see applied to the officer who commanded Her Majesty's squadron in those seas? Sir Arthur Gordon took these attacks in that spirit in which a high-minded man took all attacks which it was part of duty, and he might say a condition of his calling, to face. When a civilian administrator undertook such a post as that of Sir Arthur Gordon, he regarded that sort of criticism as all in the day's work. But it would be in the highest degree calamitous if the chief representative of the fighting power of England was to be abused twice a-week by two out of the three Colonial newspapers as a partial magistrate and a maudlin humanitarian. It was an ordeal which naval officers could not be called upon to face, and which they should not face either for their own sake or for the sake of the country. That was not the way to maintain the popularity of our Navy. But, without taking the strong step of making the Commodore a High Commissioner, there was still something to be done. The Intercolonial Conference, among other recommendations, made two that were specially worthy of notice. They resolved that—

"Extended powers should be conferred upon the High Commissioners for the punishment of Natives of the said islands for any crimes or offences committed by them against British subjects."

And Sir Arthur Gordon supported their view in his very powerful Memorandum of the 26th of February, which was a sort of comment on their Report. He said—

"Unless a jurisdiction were created competent to take cognizance of offences committed against British subjects in the Pacific beyond Her Majesty's possessions, the infliction of punishment on British subjects for outrages against Natives in the same regions was sure to excite on their part not unnatural irritation and a sense of being treated with injustice."

Well, that great question—for a very great question it was—was beyond the scope and power of the Board of Admiralty, though they took the strongest view in favour of a change of system. But there was another suggestion of the Intercolonial Conference to which they had directed their earnest attention—

"That the more frequent visits of Her Majesty's ships among the islands would have a beneficial effect upon the Natives, and tend to lessen in a great degree the crimes now so prevalent."

That suggestion was enforced in an excellent and moderate series of articles in The Sydney Morning Herald; and the Admiralty had despatched two vessels—the Cormorant and the Beagle—to cruise in and about the islands, visiting every mission and commercial station, with a civilian Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Romilly, on board. The Admiralty had likewise taken the same view as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, to the effect that a naval officer should be appointed Deputy Commissioner, and that charge had been conferred on Captain Maxwell, who would now have, among other important powers, the all-important power of removing by deportation any British subject whose conduct was of a nature to produce or excite a breach of the public peace, from the neighbourhood where his presence was oppressive or dangerous. It was one thing for a naval officer to be High Commissioner himself, exposed to the fierce light which beat upon that post at Sydney or Wellington, and quite another to be a Deputy Commissioner on the high seas, with the redoubtable presence of Sir Arthur Gordon to stand between himself and public criticism. In the words of Lord North-brook's letter to the Colonial Office—

"My Lords were convinced that the influence of a sensible naval officer, whose duty is not confined to the distasteful task of punishment, but who can investigate and decide differences on the spot, will be more likely than any other measure gradually to produce a cessation of the serious outrages which seem to threaten the extinction of the valuable trade with the islanders."

That was what the Admiralty had done; for that lay within their own power. And Lord Northbrook's strong recommendation to the Colonial Office to obtain, if legally possible, authority to check outrages on the part of Natives by the course of law, instead of by acts of hostility, which too often confounded the innocent with the guilty, represented what the Admiralty, and he believed Her Majesty's Government, as a whole, regarded as at least a partial remedy for evils which could not be altogether remedied except by that policy of annexation to which hon. Gentlemen who most deprecated the severities and irregularities of the present system of retribution would, he imagined, be the last to urge them.

promised to lay the despatches on the Table of the House.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had given Notice that he would move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, recruiting for the Army should be suspended in Ireland pending the restoration of the constitutional liberties of the people of that Country;"

but he was mainly anxious, at present, to ascertain the number of Irish soldiers recruited into the British Army from time to time, their length of service, and the proportion sent to foreign countries. The Motion would be deferred until next Session. When his hon. Friend had raised the question on a former occasion, the Secretary for War promised him information in relation to it.

said, what the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had been promised was a Return showing the number of Irish soldiers as compared with English and Scotch soldiers sent on foreign service for a period of five years; also the number on foreign service at present. He had not had time to complete the latter Return; but he could supply the former. It was very curious that the proportion of Irish soldiers to the whole Army was exactly the proportion of Irish soldiers sent abroad—22 and 23 in 100.

said, he thought the answer would be satisfactory to his hon. Friend.

said, he wished to point out that while certain works in connection with the battery at Dover Pier had been estimated at £111,310, £136,210 had already been granted. Would the right hon. Gentleman give him an explanation of the excess?

explained, that in general terms the excess was due to the great storm at Dover a year or two ago.

said, it was a just ground of complaint that a very much larger sum was spent on fortifications in England and Scotland than in Ireland. He did not say that money should be spent simply for the sake of spending it; but he thought the amounts should be apportioned more equally. A very large sum was spent in protecting English seaports, and it was only reasonable that similar consideration should be shown for the Irish seaports. For that reason he should move to reduce the Vote by £50,000.

said, a very large sum had been spent on the fortification of Irish ports, and he did not think the amount had been inadequate.

said, there was an enormous sum of money scattered over the English coast, and if money was to be thrown away, he did not see why Ireland should not have a share of it. He should not consider that an argument for giving money to Ireland; but it was an argument for curtailing expenses in England.

replied, that Ireland should get its share of any money that was thrown away; but he did not intend to throw away any money. This Vote was merely for finishing off works which, were nearly completed.

wished to know how the examination of Militia officers had answered? He also observed that fewer commissions were now given both to those who passed through Sandhurst and also to those who entered through the Militia. One of the most difficult things the Secretary of State for War had to decide was whether the examinations were a fair and reasonable test of candidates' capabilities for the Service. He had known many men who had passed extraordinary examinations, and had got commissions, and were certainly not first-class officers, while many others who had not passed would have made far better officers. In that way many men who would have made first-class soldiers had failed to obtain commissions.

said, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Baronet on the last point, for what he had to do was to see that the examination was the best possible test, not merely of literary powers, but of fitness for the Service; but that was a most difficult matter. He had not been able to go thoroughly into the matter yet; and all he had been able to do was to lay down certain questions to be put, and to throw out suggestions, such as that about modern languages, in regard to which he had laid Papers on the Table. He hoped, however, during the autumn and winter, to go thoroughly into the question of the best examination both for the Line and the Militia; and he would rather not speak more definitely now, because it was a very large question. With regard to officers passing from the Line to the Militia, his own impression was that the present system was within limits not unsatisfactory.

said, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman intended to consider the examination question, and hoped he would also consider the doing away with such requirements as poetry. He knew of many young gentlemen eminently qualified for the Army, who had been rejected because they were not strong in the Faerie Queen and other poems. He wished to know whether there was to be any further change with regard to the number of candidates for commissions?

said, there would not be any reduction in the number beyond the extent already notified.

inquired whether candidates for commissions in the Infantry received any instruction in the use of the sword, in single-stick, and fencing? That was a most important matter, for our officers generally were the worst swordsmen in Europe. Scarcely one of them knew how to use his sword. The men were the worst shots, and the officers were the worst swordsmen; and he did not know how they could be otherwise when they received no instruction.

observed, that when he was at school fencing and single-stick and drill were commonly taught to boys of his own rank of life; but he was afraid that no progress in this direction had been made lately. He should like to see this instruction more common, and he would make a note of the matter.

thought the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Alexander) should not go uncontradicted. Having been in the Army himself, and having constantly engaged in single-stick exercise, he was able to contradict that statement so far as a great number of the officers were concerned; but he thought riding and swimming ought to be more generally required.

mentioned that this Vote included the Royal Military Academy and the Staff College, and drew attention to the fact that in the former metaphysics were taught, and in the latter French, drawing, fortifications, mathematics, and half-a-dozen other subjects; but there did not appear to be any instruction in military administration. If they compared what was done at the British Staff College with what was done in the German Army, or in the Military Schools of France, they would see that there was a good deal that was entirely left out in the programme of this country. The science of military administration was absolutely neglected, so far as the appointment of a Professor was concerned.

said, there was a Professor of Military Administration at the Staff College. There was none at Woolwich or Sandhurst. He quite agreed with the hon. Member that the question of military administration was of considerable importance.

asked if it would be possible to obtain a programme of the studies showing the curriculum for particular years at the Staff College?

said, he had no objection to show the hon. Member the Report on the College if he wished to see it.

wished to say a few words in regard to the manner in which the Royal Hibernian Academy was conducted. He thought that some of the officers of the School were overpaid, while the pay of others was not fairly or properly adjusted. In the first place, he found that the Commandant had altogether failed to give satisfaction either to the people of Ireland or to Her Majesty's Government. Questions had been asked in the House of Commons in reference to that gentleman; and he thought he was correct in saying that the answers given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War were not only not satisfactory to the House, but that they were not satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman himself. He believed the reason was that the right hon. Gentleman had not as much or as complete control over the Institution as he would like. The conduct of the Commandant in connection with the discipline of the School had several times been called in question; not that the officer in question was not a good commandant or a good governor, but because his treatment of the children was alleged to have been very brutal indeed. In some instances he had had the children stripped from head to foot, and flogged with some instrument he had brought from abroad. In one case, this species—this inhuman instrument—of torture was stolen by the Commandant's daughter, in order to prevent it from being used. The Commandant, however, charged the boys with stealing it, and beat them with such barbarity that the daughter, in order to save the boys, had to confess that she had taken it away. He believed that the Commandant had failed to give satisfaction to anyone in Ireland, and his conduct ought not to be passed over by Parliament. He received half-pay and 9s. 6d. a-day, and for such an amount of remuneration they ought to be able to secure the services of a humane officer who had not lost all his humanity, and who would render proper services. The Commandant also received half-pay as an Adjutant; and he (Mr. Byrne) was of opinion that the multiplication of offices in this way in the same individual was unsatisfactory. Then, again, he found, in reference to the chaplains, that while the Protestant chaplain received £200 a-year, the Roman Catholic chaplain only got £150, and the Presbyterian £60. He thought that such a disproportion was highly improper. He would venture to say that the number of Protestant children was not larger than that of the Roman Catholic children; and, at any rate, so long as they employed chaplains of different denominations, they ought to provide that their remuneration was the same. All the chaplains who administered to the spiritual wants of the children ought to be equally paid, and a sum of £60 a-year to the Presbyterian chaplain was certainly not sufficient to pay him for his time and trouble. If there was a sufficient number of children to require the attendance of a Protestant chaplain, the Government should provide that the chaplain was remunerated at the same rate as the Protestant chaplain—£200 a-year. Having regard to the want of humanity displayed by the Commandant, and the unsatisfactory manner in which that officer performed his duties, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £216 18s. 8d.

said, he agreed with the hon. Member in some of the remarks he had made as to the different rate of remuneration awarded to the chaplains of different denominations; and he had already stated, in reply to an hon. and gallant Member opposite, that, in regard to responsibility for these appointments, he thought a better arrangement might be made than that which now existed. But, at the same time, it was not possible to dispose of such a matter as the government of Kilmainham School at a moment's notice; and he could not undertake to say, on the spur of the moment, that he should be prepared to make an entire revision of the arrangements under which the Institution referred to was conducted. Passing from the general principle to the particular case the hon. Gentleman referred to, he believed that the state of the discipline of the Royal Hibernian School was not considered satisfactory by the military authorities last year; and Sir Thomas Steele, who was Vice-Chairman of the Governors, had in November appointed a Committee of Governors, presided over by that most admirable public servant, Sir Patrick Keenan, to examine into the state of the School, with reference particularly to the discipline administered by the Commandant. He had received their Report in the course of the spring, and, after careful consideration, he had come to the conclusion that it was not satisfactory—in fact, that it disclosed circumstances which were most unsatisfactory. It was accordingly sent back to the whole body of Governors for their consideration with reference to the facts disclosed in it. The Governors took great pains in going thoroughly into the whole question contained in the Report, and the end of the matter was that they—including the members of the Committee who made the first inquiry—unanimously reported that, although, in some respects, the Commandant had not been successful in carrying out the discipline of the School, yet, on the whole, he had made great improvement in the state of things which existed before he became Commandant. The Governors, therefore, recommended that he should be retained as Commandant until they had further experience of his efficiency. That was the unanimous recommendation of the whole body of Governors, including the three gentlemen who made the original inquiry. Upon that recommendation he (Mr. Childers) had felt it his duty to act, and the Commandant had been provisionally continued in his office. He (Mr. Childers) had taken very great pains in the matter, having read the whole of the Report and Evidence, and he had not come to this conclusion without being supported by those who generally advised him in such matters. He therefore hoped, under the circumstances, that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Byrne) would not press his Motion for the rejection of this item. If, after further experience, the conduct of the Governor was still found to be unsatisfactory, he would be removed. In regard to the emoluments of this officer, he thought the hon. Member was mistaken. As a rule, the gentlemen selected for these appointments were not old officers who had been retired; but they were paid in the same way as officers in the Army holding Staff appointments. As to the chaplains, the hon. Member stated that the Protestant chaplain received £200, and the Roman Catholic chaplain £150 a-year. The salary of the Protestant chaplain was originally £231, and it was now, in the present year, £200. The Government considered that that was a very fair salary, having regard to the duties performed. He believed, but he was not quite sure, that the Presbyterian chaplain was a gentleman who was engaged in the performance of other duties, and that the number of boys under his charge was very few.

said, he was much obliged for the courteous and full explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that in future he would make himself responsible for watching the conduct of the Commandant, and seeing that he did not commit any of the barbarous acts he had been charged with persistently committing. After the explanation of the right hon. Gentle- man, he would withdraw the Amendment.

thought the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Byrne) could take no other course than that which he had taken, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. But, at the same time, he wished that his right hon. Friend had been able to say a little more. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should insist on the entire abolition of punishments of this kind. It was a mistake to suppose that the boys of a British soldier could not be managed as other boys were. Nor was this sort of punishment given in all cases to English boys. They had, side by side, two Schools, in which the system pursued was entirely different. In one of them—and the boys educated in it were not inferior to those of any other school—no boy was allowed to be struck by anybody. The instruction given to a Sandhurst boy was that if he was ever struck he was to strike again, and no sergeant dare lay a hand upon him. It was absurd to tell the House that an English boy could not be managed without the use of the stick. He, therefore, hoped that his right hon. Friend would go a little beyond the statement he had made, and would see that in future the education in the Military Schools was conducted without corporal punishment, so that a stop might be put to this barbarous system of flogging.

said, that the general use of corporal punishment in the School was the special subject of complaint.

said, he had never in the past, and would never in the future, make a statement which he did not believe to be entirely capable of proof. If the right hon. Gentleman would direct an inquiry to be made, he would undertake on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) to bring evidence forward in substantiation of all the charges which had been made, and to show the brutal conduct of this gentleman.

stated that the case had already been thoroughly investigated, and the result was the censure upon the Commandant, which he had already explained.

remarked, that there was something which sank deeper into the mind of a boy than a blow, and that was words of opprobrium and insult. There was no doubt that in this case the Commandant had flagrantly offended, and the accusations against him had been repeated in every quarter of Ireland, until an amount of feeling had been excited against him which it was impossible to over-estimate.

said, that if any further serious complaint of the kind was made, and it could be proved, he could only say that the Commandant would not be allowed to retain his position.

asked the Secretary of State for War, if he could explain the reason why the expenditure on this Vote for 1879–80 was nearly double the amount of the expenditure in the three preceding years? In 1878, it was £27,000; in 1879, £28,000; and in 1880, £23,000; and they were now asked to vote more than £40,000.

said, he had not got with him an account of the expenditure for the last two or three years; but the increase this year had reference to services in South Africa.

said, there was a sum of £5,000 for extra batta, which had nothing whatever to do with the war.

wished to take up as little of the time of the Committee as he possibly could; but having last night given a silent vote when the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) moved the reduction of the Vote, he did not wish to repeat that step upon the present Vote. At the same time, he had no desire to do more than satisfy his own conscience; and he would, therefore, content himself by moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £6,360, as a protest again the Contagious Diseases Acts.

said, he must oppose the reduction of the Vote; and in regard to the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), said he had ascertained that the reason for the increase of the Vote was as he had stated—namely, that there had been a large expenditure in connection with the war in South Africa.

wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War in regard to colonels who were retired when in receipt of distinguished Service pay. Would they be allowed to retain that pay? He had also understood the right hon. Gentleman to say the other day that a colonel who was retired, and who had a prospective claim to a regiment, would receive the actuarial calculation of his chance of obtaining such regiment.

said, he would answer the hon. and gallant Member on a later Vote.

thought he would now be in Order in raising the important question he had referred to a few moments previously. It was a question in which a large number of officers were interested, and many of them were looking forward with anxiety for the statement which the right hon. Gentleman might make as to the amount it was intended to award, and the way in which the New Warrant was to be carried out. He would first take the case of the colonels; and he wished to know whether the case of those who had a claim to become prospective colonels of regiments would be taken into consideration? Would an actuarial calculation be made as to the sum they would in that case have become entitled to? The next question he wished to put had reference to the case of generals who were compulsorily retired, not on account of age, but on account of not having been employed for five years. He knew of one or two instances in which generals so retired were quite young men, and they found themselves mulcted of £10 per annum for every year they were under 62 years of age, so long as the amount did not exceed £100 in the whole. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would consider the point with the view of providing that when such officers reached 62 years of age they should receive the same amount as if they had been retired at that age—namely, £700 per annum. Many of these officers, as the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well, would be rather hardly dealt with under the New Warrant. They would be hardly dealt with in this way—that, being young, they had not been employed as they might have been, older officers having been selected in preference to them, simply because they were older officers. Therefore, some consideration ought to be given to their case. Then there was the case of officers who were retired at the age of 70 by the Warrant which was passed in 1877. There were not many of them—he believed not more than 12—but the officers who had been so retired had been looking forward with hope to the arrival of the time when they might get regiments. But regiments were scarce, and they had been retired on an allowance of only £450 a-year. Those who were fortunate enough to obtain a distinguished service pension had £100 a-year extra, or a pension of £550 a-year; but there were generals who had only £450. And he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in fairness to these men, he did not think the case was one which ought to receive serious consideration? He knew one officer who, after 50 years' service had been compulsorily retired on £450 a-year, with a distinguished service allowance in addition of £100 a-year. And this officer had always been on full pay, and repeatedly on active service. Where there was the prospective chance of obtaining a regiment, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether some allowance should not be given beyond the compulsorily retired pay of £450 a-year. Some of the more fortunate brethren of these officers, retired now under the New Warrant, would receive £700 per annum.

My hon. and gallant Friend has stated the two cases quite clearly. In the first case, that of the senior colonels whose case is specially provided for by the Warrant of 1877, but who will not be promoted under this New Warrant, they will be allowed such a rate of retired pay as will represent the full actuarial value of their prospect to obtain an honorary colonelcy of a regiment. Each case will be referred for calculation to the Purchase Commission. Therefore, I answer that question in the affirmative. The second question which my hon. and gallant Friend has asked me has reference to the case of general officers who have retired at less than the fixed age of retirement under the clause which relates to non-service, and who have a certain deduction made from the amount of their fixed retired pay. He asks me if it is true that since that scheme was laid down we propose that they may receive the full amount of retired pay when they reach the maximum age? Yes, Sir, we have determined that that shall be so, and I believe that the change will remove a great deal of heartburning on the part of general officers subject to retirement. Thus, major-generals will get their full rate of retired pay when they reach the age of 62. I believe that that is a fair and equitable arrangement. The third question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend is this, whether an officer retired under the Warrant of 1877, and who receives the present rates of unattached pay, will have a prospective chance of the value of a regiment? Certainly; he will have not only the prospect, but the £1,000 a-year in his turn, precisely as now. But I could not go back as to such officers and give them the choice of the new rates of retirement.

said, he did not think that his right hon. Friend had quite understood the question. What he had put was the case of those who chose to accept the scheme of retirement; and he had simply asked whether they would have any chance of getting an actuarial calculation of their pros- pects of getting a regiment. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider that point, and by allowing them an actuarial calculation give them a chance of getting the £1,000 a-year, or such addition to their pay as such a calculation would entitle them to.

I am not sure that I quite understood the exact proposal, but I will consider it.

said, that some time ago he had asked a question as to the pensions of officers who had been placed on half-pay. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was that, legally speaking, the officer was not entitled to a pension. He wished to know whether the Government would reserve to themselves the right of conferring upon these officers the rights they were entitled to if they had not been placed on half-pay?

The case has been most carefully considered, and, as I have already stated, it was treated in a purely judicial manner.

expressed a hope that no reflection was cast upon the half-pay officers of their having displayed any want of zeal in the Service.

Certainly; I did not look upon the question in that light. I did not understand that anything underlay the bare fact that they had been placed on half-pay.

asked whether the widow of a quartermaster who died with the rank of a captain would receive the pension of a captain's widow, and whether the widow of a quartermaster who died with the rank of a major would receive the pension of a major's widow?

said, the widow of a quartermaster who held the rank of a major while serving would receive the pension of a major's widow.

remarked, that it was an important point, and many officers were anxious about it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a definite answer before the close of the Session.

said, he would make inquiry, and take an opportunity of answering the question on the Report.

said, he was now able to answer the question which had been asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander). In the case of a quartermaster, riding-master, &c, the pension of the widow would be according to the relative rank of the officer while serving.

said, that upon the present Vote for Hospitals the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), two years ago, drew the attention of the Committee and of the then Secretary of State for War to the disparity between the remuneration paid to the Roman Catholic chaplain of the Chelsea Hospital and that paid to the Protestant chaplain at Kilmainham. In the first case the salary was £400 a-year, the principal inmates being Protestants, the Catholic chaplain only receiving a 16th part of that sum; but in the case of Kilmainham, where the great proportion of the inmates were Catholics, the Catholic clergyman only received £60 a-year, as compared with £400, notwithstanding the fact that the Catholic inmates of the latter hospital were four times as many as those which the chaplain of the majority had to deal with in the Chelsea Hospital. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State had promised to make an inquiry as to the number of Catholics and Protestants in the two Institutions, and to see whether in future some arrangement might not be carried out by which something like an equitable proportion should be maintained between the salary and the number of inmates attended religiously.

The stipend of the Roman Catholic chaplain in Chelsea Hospital was brought under my notice, and the allowance has lately been increased. Some questions were raised at the same time as to the facilities for attending Mass, especially in the case of children; and I believe the requests that were made have been acceded to. We are endeavouring, as far as possible, to act impartially towards the chaplains of different religious creeds.

stated that a representation was made to the War Office some time ago as to the inadequacy of the allowance made, not to the priest personally, but on account of the fact that the priest was compelled to keep a curate owing to the existence of the hospital in his parish. If it were not for the existence of the hospital in the parish a single priest would be sufficient to perform all the duties; but because the hospital did exist there, the duty was imposed upon the authorities of the Catholic Church of seeing that the Chelsea priest had a curate. He thought it was hard upon the Catholics of London that they should be saddled with the extra expense of providing a curate for a particular parish to do work for which the small remuneration of only £25 a-year was allowed by the State. [Mr. CHILDERS: The allowance has been increased.] That was not all. His main objection to this Vote was that while in London, where the majority of the inmates of the hospital belonged to the Established Church, the Protestant chaplain was allowed £400 a-year, and the chaplain of the minority only £25, in Ireland, in a similar hospital, where the majority of the inmates were Roman Catholics and the minority Protestants, the chaplain of the minority got four times as much as the chaplain of the majority. That was considered in Ireland to be a great grievance. The mere amount of money was not of very much consequence; but it was the feeling of religious ascendency which was involved, and which, until every trace of it was removed, would continue to work like a canker in the minds of the Irish people.

The present allowance to the chaplain at the hospital has been £250 per annum, but it is intended to reduce it. The allowance has only been provisional. The question of appointing chaplains to attend small numbers of men where a regular military chaplain is not necessary has always been one of considerable difficulty. This very day, it so happened that I had before me the question of chaplains in the Mauritius, where very few men required the attendance of clergymen, and I have been careful not to disturb vested interests, which happen here to be Roman Catholic. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the whole matter will be fully and fairly considered.

said, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman was the last man in that House to allow his own religious views to affect the distri- bution of the allowances of the State. He hoped, when the opportunity served, that the right hon. Gentleman would revise the present scale of allowances and render them more equitable. It was manifestly unjust that a Protestant chaplain should receive a larger rate of remuneration than a Roman Catholic chaplain, when the latter was attending to the spiritual wants of a much larger number of persons.

said, that where allowances were made to ministers, not regular Army chaplains, the rates were the same for all denominations.

said, the people of Ireland considered it very unreasonable that a sum of money should be annually voted for a Volunteer corps in England and none in Ireland. Some hon. Members were decidedly of opinion that there ought to be a Volunteer force in Ireland. At the same time, in the absence of such a force, it was a substantial injustice that the Irish people should be called on to bear a large proportion of the taxation for Volunteers. He did not see why a grant of this nature should be given to Volunteers in England when there was no corresponding force existing in Ireland. Then, in regard to the Yeomanry Cavalry, he thought they were all agreed that the money voted for that service was not required. The Yeomanry Cavalry were mostly farmers, who met together once a year for some seven days' drill. They were not soldiers at all, and would never make soldiers. He would, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote, unless he received a satisfactory explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War.

said, the Vote was for pensions, not for services rendered by existing officers and men, and he trusted the hon. Member would not move the rejection of any part of it. A farmer, or even a provision merchant, might be a useful member of a Yeomanry corps.

said, he could only look upon the member of a Yeomanry Cavalry corps as a tailor on horseback. Most of them when out for drill got thrown from their horses. But, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, these persons were not responsible for the weakness of their organization, and therefore he would not divide against the Vote.

wished to ask a question in regard to the Militia in Ireland. He understood that it was owing to the Militia not having been called out—

Order, order! I must remind the hon. Member that this Vote is simply for pensions for the Militia, and has nothing to do with the organization of that force.

asked if no question could be put in regard to the Militia?

It would not be regular upon this Vote; but if it were only a simple question, not likely to lead to discussion, perhaps the Committee would allow it to be put.

said, he was desirous of asking the question, because the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had hitherto been so courteous in giving information, and it might prevent the question being asked at another period. The Militia in Ireland had not been called out this year, and the consequence had been that a number of gentlemen had been deprived of the opportunity of serving for a sufficient period to qualify themselves for becoming officers of the Line. He wished to know whether any steps would be taken to place them in the same position they would have occupied if the Militia in Ireland had been called out this year, and whether provision would be made that they would not suffer?

I have done my best to meet the case referred to by the hon. Member. In some instances the officers have been excused from undergoing the full period of training, and in other instances they have been allowed to train with other regiments, so that practically we have met the case.

I propose now to take two items in the Supplementary Vote which I explained last night, and which has reference to the expenditure in South Africa to the end of the year.

asked whether this was a liberal Estimate, and would cover the whole of the expenditure to the close of the year? He also wished to know what number of troops it was proposed to withdraw from South Africa on the 1st of November, or about that time?

The Estimate is framed—I do not know whether "liberally "is the right word—on such accurate information as the Department can obtain; but, of course, these things are often merely conjectural. I am not quite sure that I can state at present the number of troops that will come home.

said, he did not propose to move the reduction of the Vote, or to oppose it in any way; but this was the last opportunity he would have this Session of protesting against the manner in which Vote 10 of the Army Estimates had been passed this year—absolutely without any discussion at all upon the merits of the items which went to make it up. It was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War at 10 minutes past 1 o'clock in the morning in an attenuated House, when not more than five Members were conscious that it involved the voting of millions of money. He had strongly protested, in general terms, against the propriety of introducing such a Vote on such a miscellaneous collection of subjects at such an hour and in such a state of the House. The money was at last voted, but without anything in the nature of criticism of the component parts of the Vote. The services which the Vote covered were never properly canvassed this year any more than they had been in previous years. He mentioned the matter only for the purpose of entering a further protest against the system upon which the Estimates were voted.

I regret that there was not a full discussion; but the circumstances of the present year have been such that I hope some allowance will be made.