asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the fact that the names of householders who are workmen occupying houses belonging to their employers on a tenancy determinable with their employment, but paying rent in the shape of a periodical deduction from their wages, are in Mid Lothian and Fife inserted in the "Inhabitant Occupier" column of the Valuation Roll, whereas in Lanarkshire they are inserted in the "Tenant" column; in how many counties the former, and in how many the latter, system obtains; whether both systems are legal; and, if so, with whom lies the discretion of deciding in each case which system shall be adopted; and, whether on the adoption of the one or the other depends the having or not having of school board and municipal votes by a very large number of householders, especially in the industrial and mining districts?

I apologize for not being in my place when the Question was first asked. I was under examination upstairs before a Select Committee, and I assure my hon. Friend I would much rather have been here. I answer the first paragraph in the affirmative; 13 counties follow the first practice, and three the second; and in three counties the practice varies according to the mode in which the master holds the property. If he is proprietor, the occupiers are entered as tenants; if he rents the property in which his employés live, they are entered as inhabitant occupiers. The remaining counties have no cases falling under the Question. In answer to the third paragraph, I have to say that both systems cannot be legal, and the Registration Court is the proper tribunal to say which should be followed. I answer the fourth paragraph in the affirmative. It is certainly desirable that this matter should be brought to the test of legal decision, as the present position of matters is anomalous and unsatisfactory.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the purchasers of the Waterford estate, in County Derry, have applied to the Board of Works for a reduction in their annual payments, in accordance with the provisions of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," Clause 24; and, what reply (if any) has been made to their application?

This is a Question for the Treasury. I do not see my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary here at preent; but, no doubt, he will answer the Question subsequently.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If, prior to the second reading of the Channel Tunnel Bill, he will obtain and place in the Library, for the perusal of Members, a copy of a letter (which has been read by the present Secretary to the Board of Trade, and is in the possession of Lord Rothschild), from the late Earl of Derby to the late Earl of Beaconsfield, expressing opinions in favour of the construction of a tunnel to connect England and France; and also a copy of a letter from the Earl of Beaconsfield to the late Baron Lionel de Rothschild, enclosing, and concurring in, the foregoing letter?

I know nothing whatever of this matter, and the Secretary to the Board of Trade informs me that he is not aware that he ever read the letter referred to in the Question of the hon. Baronet. If the hon. Baronet thinks that a correspondence so antiquated is of material importance to his case, it is his duty rather than mine to provide for its publication.

said, in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, he should raise the question in another form.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any, and what, arrangement has been made by the Indian Government to send Nawab Zaighumud-Dowlah to this country; at whose cost, for what term, in what capacity, and at what salary; whether the same person was formerly appointed Rural Sub-Registrar in Bengal, and at what salary; whether he afterwards ceased to hold such appointment; and, whether the Government can state the reasons for such cessation?

The Secretary of State is not aware that Nawab Zaighum-ud-Dowlah is being sent to England at all in any capacity. The Bengal Civil Lists for January and April, 1888, show that this gentleman was on the 1st of those months a Special Sub-Registrar in the Durbhanga District; he was a probationer for six months; his salary was 75 rupees a month, and he enjoyed certain fees under the Registration Law. Beyond these entries in the Bengal Civil List, the Secretary of State knows nothing about this gentleman.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has received complaints of cruelty practised towards the officers and crew of the British barque Killeena, Captain Blake, and whether any, and what, action has been taken thereon; whether the complaints included the allegation of the non-issue of lime juice for 42 days on a voyage between foreign ports, and whether the present law is insufficient to meet this; and, whether such complaints also include the illegal imprisonment of two men, Smith and Malmberg, at Talcahuano, and what, if any, action has been taken thereon?

Complaints of harsh treatment at sea and in foreign ports were received from certain members of the crew of the Killeena. The Board obtained statements from all witnesses whose whereabouts could be traced. These statements do not contain allegations of gross misconduct, drunkenness, or tyranny on the part of the master such as would, under the statute, have justified the Board of Trade in sending the case to a Local Marine Board for investigation, with a view to the suspension of the master's certificate; but the Board called the attention of the owner of the Killeena to the complaints. The complaints included the allegation of the non-issue of lime juice. The present law does not cover cases of British vessels which do not begin their voyage in the United Kingdom. The Killeena was on a passage from one foreign port to another on the occasion referred to; but I find that, as the voyage commenced in the United Kingdom originally, the law is strong enough to meet such a case, and it will be enforced in the event of any future cases being reported. The complaints included the allegation of imprisonment. This has been investigated by direction of the Foreign Office; and Her Majesty's Consul at Valparaiso has taken steps with a view to prevent the imprisonment of any British seamen at Talcahuano without an order from the British Vice Consul at that port.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the 46th section of the Local Government Bill will transfer to each of the Rural District Councils in each of the six counties of South Wales, in respect of the highways situate within the district, all the powers, duties, and liabilities of a Highway Board; and, if so, whether these powers, duties, and liabilities will be the powers, duties, and liabilities created by the various Acts specially relating to the highways in South Wales?

It is intended by Clause 46 of the Local Government Bill to transfer to the Rural District Councils in South Wales the powers, duties, and liabilities which now devolve on the Highways Boards under the South Wales Highway Acts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing all cases in England and Wales and Ireland respectively, during each of the two years 1880 and 1886, in which a verdict of wilful murder was returned by a Coroner's Jury, but in which no one has subsequently been convicted of the crime, giving similar information as respects Scotland in cases where the Procurator Fiscal has reported to the Crown Agent that a murder appears to have been committed?

, in reply, said, if the hon. Gentleman moved for such a Return, there could be no objection to granting it.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the Memorial addressed to the Secretary for Scotland by the Procurators practising at Tobermory protesting against the abolition of the weekly Sheriff Court there; whether it is true that the Sheriff Clerk Depute has been removed from Tobermory to Oban, with all papers and documents connected with crofter applications and cases depending or to be brought before the Crofters' Commission; whether he is aware that the removal of the Court from Tobermory to Oban will involve much trouble and expense to litigants in many of the Western Islands; and, whether he would consider the advisability of deferring the proposed change at least till the Crofter Commission has dealt with the district of which Tobermory forms the centre?

My attention has been called to the Memorial referred to. There have hitherto always been Sheriff Clerk Deputes both at Tobermory and Oban, and there is no intention to alter this practice. I am not aware that the alteration will involve trouble and expense to litigants. So far as I can ascertain, this will not be so, but rather the reverse. As at present advised, I cannot adopt the suggestion in the fourth paragraph of the Question. The Courts are already being carried on under the new Order; and, with the exception of the Memorial referred to by the hon. Member, no representations have been made to me against the recent Order.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the Presentment Sessions held at Dungarvan on May 19, a police sergeant admitted that, although he believed the burning of a barn belonging to a Mr. Samuel Hood was an accident, he reported it as an "outrage;" and, whether his excuse for this was that, being bound to report the occurrence, he had no forms but such as were headed for "outrages?"

The Deputy Inspector General of Constabulary states that the sergeant did not report this case as an outrage, but as being an outrage in the opinion of Mr. Hood—an opinion from which the sergeant himself dissented. It was never recorded as an outrage.

Is it correct that there were no other forms available?

As I understand the matter, the police have only to report upon cases where outrages are alleged, and there is no objection to an allegation of an outrage being put on the form. It does not follow, however, that the case will find its way into the official statistics of outrages.

Who decides that?

The person who is responsible for the statistics—the Inspector General.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether District Boards of Lunacy who have, under the Lunacy Act, contracted with chartered asylums for the maintenance of pauper lunatics, are entitled, under reasonable regulations, to visit such lunatics?

I am not aware of any statutory right under which District Boards of Lunacy are entitled to visit lunatics for whom they pay in chartered asylums. They have a power under the Act of 1857 to appoint medical men as District Inspectors to visit such lunatics. I am informed that there is only one case in which any question has arisen ont his subject—namely, in Forfarshire; and in this case, though the Directors of the asylum declined to allow visitation as a matter of right, they stated that, as a matter of courtesy, they would welcome a visit from the District Board at any time.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that certain legally qualified English medical practitioners have lately been fined and threatened with imprisonment by some of the authorities for practising among invalids visiting Swiss health resorts; and, whether, in the interests of such invalids and of members of the English Medical Profession, he will make representations to the Swiss Government on the subject?

The statement in the first paragraph is true. The laws of Switzerland do not permit foreign doctors to practise there without the Federal authorization. Her Majesty's Government have for some time been endeavouring to arrange with the Swiss Government reciprocal privileges for the Medical Profession in either country; but as yet without success.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is the intention of the Government to provide a permanent home for the National Portrait Gallery?

This matter is under the consideration of the Government; but they are not prepared at present to make any proposal on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a police inquiry was held in Newmarket, County Cork, on the 2nd and 3rd of May last, at which Constable Oldfield was accused of not saluting Mr. Langley, J.P., and local bank manager, and Mrs. Langley; what was the nature of the evidence for the prosecution; what was the result of the inquiry; if he can state the approximate cost of this inquiry, which lasted two days, and which necessitated the presence of District Inspector Meehan of Charleville and Inspector Lanyon of Mallow; and, if Mr. Langley would be required to defray all or any portion of the expense of the proceedings in the event of the charge not being sustained?

The Inspector General reports that it is the case that the local Justice of the Peace referred to charged the constable with treating him with disrespect. The constable was acquitted. The approximate cost was something over £3. It will be a departmental charge.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the police authorities in Tralee have prevented the members of a fife and drum band in that town from playing through the streets and adjacent roads on Sunday, as was their wont hitherto for their own amusement and that of the public?

On one occasion only has the band referred to been prevented from playing through the streets of Tralee; and on that occasion the reason for preventing them was that the police believed the collection of a crowd would lead to a disturbance.

asked, whether there was a meeting being held on that day, or what was the reason that a disturbance was feared?

said, the day in question was the day before the trial of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. T. C. Harrington), and the hon. Member was expected to arrive in the town.

asked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether there was undue delay in the arrival of fire-escapes at the premises of Messrs. Garrould (in the Edgware Road) on the morning of Wednesday, May 30; and, if so, will he be good enough to state the cause of the delay?

(for Mr. TATTON EGERTON) (Cheshire, Knutsford): In answer to the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that the fire in the Edgware Road on Wednesday morning broke out just after the hour when the men on night watch with the fire-escapes went off duty. The firemen in charge of the fire-escape at Connaught Place had just lowered it and secured it for the day, when they were informed by a police-constable where the fire was. They should immediately have turned back, and taken the escape to the fire; but it seems that they neglected to do so, and for their neglect they have been suspended by the chief officer. It does not appear that if they had taken the escape on immediately they could have saved any of the lives; but, nevertheless, it was their duty to take it. All the engines reached the fire without accident or delay, and the water supply was prompt and ample. The conduct of the men in charge of the fire-escape is being investigated by the chief officer; and I may add that the whole of the circumstances connected with the fire will be thoroughly inquired into at the next meeting of the Fire Brigade Committee.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the case of the British Ship Vancouver, which sailed from St. John's, N.B., on March 18; when three days at sea the crew considered the ship unseaworthy, and insisted on her being put back to port; whether he is aware that on being surveyed at St. John's the Vancouver was declared seaworthy; the crew were imprisoned for eight days, and were only released on undertaking again to go to sea in her; and that on the subsequent voyage from St. John's to Belfast the Vancouver sprung a leak, the cargo had to be thrown overboard to save the ship, which only reached Belfast in a perilous condition; and, whether he will cause an inquiry into the nature of the survey held at St. John's, and also into the treatment of the crew?

Until the hon. Member put his Notice of the Question on the Paper the attention of the Board of Trade had not been called to the case of the survey of the Vancouver in St. John's, New Brunswick. A letter has been addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies with a view to obtaining such information as can be procured respecting the case, including the nature of the survey held at St. John's.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the practice in the County of Gloucester and other counties in England to deduct 2½ per cent from the salaries and wages of every member of the County Police Force for the purpose of establishing a superannuation fund for the benefit of every member of the Force after 30 years' service; and, whether this superannuation fund is secured to them in the Local Government Bill now before Parliament; and, if not, whether he will undertake to introduce a clause for that purpose when the Bill is in Committee?

Whatever powers with regard to the superannuation of the police were possessed by the Justices in Quarter Sessions will, under Clause 7 of the Bill, be transferred to the Joint Committee of the Quarter Sessions and County Council; and the funds in hand for superannuation purposes will be transferred to the County Council under Clause 63 (1), by whom they will be held for the same purposes and subject to the same conditions as they would have been held by the Justices if the Bill had not passed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Metropolitan Board of Works, at their sitting on Friday last, voted the sum of £440 out of the rates for the payment of counsel's fees on the present Board of Works inquiry; and, whether, as the Act upon which the Board rely as their authority for this charge upon the public was "prepared and brought in by the Home Secretary," he is able to state whether or not it was the intention of the Government to give the Board this power?

Yes, Sir; I have observed that such a sum was voted by the Board to pay for counsel's fees. The Government had no expressed intention of giving the Board the power of paying counsel's fees out of the rates, or they would have inserted a clause to that effect in the Act. They thought it, however, impossible to withhold from the Board, against whom grave charges were made, the right of appearing by counsel before the Commissioners; and they accordingly inserted in the Act a clause to that effect, leaving it to a Court of Law to determine, in the event of dispute, whether that clause carried with it a right to pay counsel's fees.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury Auditor, when auditing the Accounts of the Metropolitan Board of Works, will allow, or will be justified in allowing, the cost of counsel employed before the Board of Works Inquiry Commission to be charged upon London rates?

, in reply, said, he thought the hon. Member would see, on reflection, that he could not answer his Question. Nor did he think it would be proper for him to inquire from the Auditor what course of action he might take with regard to certain accounts which were not yet before him.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether James Clarke Clinton, a British subject, has been expelled by the French authorities from Assinee, on the West Coast of Africa, and whether the business carried on there by Adeline Clinton, also a British subject, the widow of his late brother, has been closed by order of the same authorities; whether the said James Clarke Clinton, having taken his residence in neutral territory adjoining Assinee, has been expelled from there by the same authorities; whether the French Resident at Assinee is one Verdier, a partner in the firm of Verdier and Company trading there, and rivals in business to the said James Clarke Clinton and Adeline Clinton; whether the steps so taken by the French authorities have been initiated and carried out by Treich la Pleine, one of the employés of the said Verdier and Company; whether the said firm of Verdier and Company are collecting and appropriating from the natives around Assinee the produce which such natives owe to the said James Clarke Clinton and Adeline Clinton; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are taking any steps for the protection of the said James Clarke Clinton and Adeline Clinton personally and for the protection of their property?

It is the fact that Mr. Clinton was expelled from Assinee. All the circumstances of the case are the subject of discussion with the French Government; and I am not in a position at present to express an opinion upon them.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any record in the India Office of a letter from the late Earl of Iddesleigh (then Sir Stafford Northcote) to Mr. Commissioner Tayler, of Patna, dated December 7, 1868, in which it was stated that Mr. Tayler's appeal had not up to that date gone before the Committee of the Indian Council, and the promise was given that the case should be looked into "fairly and fully?"

There is no record of any such letter.

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether, if I hand him such a letter, which I hold in my hand, he will undertake that it will be entered in the archives of the India Office?

I think I ought to have Notice of that Question.

asked Mr. Solicitor General, Whether he is correctly reported as having said at Southampton that, under the Licensing Clauses of the Local Government Bill, "no new tax was imposed upon the ratepayers at all," and "no new burden imposed on the people?" He also wished, before the hon. and learned Gentleman answered the Question, to ask him a Question of which he had given him private Notice, Whether, in the same speech, he (the Solicitor General) did not also say that where licences were forfeited for reasons for which they were forfeited now, not 1s. would be paid; but if, in the exercise of their absolute discretion, the Licensing Committee chose to take the licence away without alleging any ground, and without trying any question which the Justices were bound to try, then compensation would be paid, but paid out of the fund to be created by the extra Licence Duty of 20 per cent imposed on the licence holders?

As to the statements mentioned in the first Question, I did make them in the terms stated. As to the latter Question, I do not think the quotation exactly represents the words I used; but it represents with substantial accuracy what I said, and I shall be quite prepared in Committee to defend the statements which I made on that occasion.

asked, if the hon. and learned Gentleman gave the House to understand that he was speaking of the Bill as it stood?

said, he was speaking of the Bill as it stood; but in the same speech he referred to matters in reference to which the President of the Local Government Board had already made some suggestions.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he would state to the House the grounds upon which he refuses to perform the contract made in June, 1887, by him with the Committee of the proposed Victoria Jubilee Hospital at Folkestone for the sale of the site of the now dismantled battery at the "Bayle" as a site for such hospital; and, further, the grounds upon which he refuses to perform a subsequent contract made in July, 1887, by him with the Earl of Radnor for the sale of this battery site for the same purpose; and, whether it is true he has now decided to offer such last-mentioned site for sale by auction; and, if so, when and where the auction will take place?

There was no contract with the Committee of the Victoria Jubilee Hospital. The negotiations for the sale of the site to the Earl of Radnor have been suspended with his Lordship's consent. No decision has been come to to offer the site for sale by auction.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is correct, as stated in the Home Accounts of the Government of India (just issued), page 59, that the salary of the present Super- intendent of the Branch of the Store Department at the India Store Depôt is £900, whereas the maximum salary of that office is stated as £800; and, if so, what is the explanation?

The explanation is given in a foot-note to the Accounts. The present Superintendent, who was appointed in 1855, was granted a personal allowance of £100 per annum from May 9, 1882.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the sum of £300,000 per annum, estimated as the amount that would be received from the 20 per cent increase of the Licence Duties, is calculated on the total proceeds of such duties, not only in England and Wales, but also in Scotland and Ireland; and, whether the above Estimate includes any, and, if so, what allowance for the diminution in the duties that will take place wherever County Councils exercise the power of closing public-houses on Sundays?

My estimate in round numbers of £300,000 was based on the estimated revenue from the duties to be transferred to and collected by the County Councils in England and Wales, exclusive of Scotland and Ireland. The amount, of course, varies from year to year. No reduction was made in respect of any diminution of duty which would result from the County Councils exercising the power of closing public-houses on Sundays.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the following paragraph in the Report of the Auditor for Indian Home Accounts for the year 1885–6, dated May, 1887:—

"4. As regards…the prices charged by the War Office for warlike stores, I have to report that a Committee has been appointed, and is now sitting, for the consideration of this subject; so that the difficulties which have hitherto attended it may now be considered as in a fair way of solution;"

and also with reference to the following paragraph in the Report of the same official for the year 1886–7, dated May, 1888:—

"The question referred to in my last Report, relative to the prices charged by the War Office for warlike stores, still remains open;"

what Committee is referred to by the auditor; has this Committee reported on the question to which he refers; and, when is it likely that the Government will come to a decision in the matter?

The Committee to which the Auditor refers is one on which the Treasury, the War Office, and the India Office are represented, appointed in April, 1887, to investigate the prices charged by the War Department for stores supplied to the Indian Government. The Committee has not yet reported. Until the Committee shall have reported it is impossible to say when the Government will pass a decision on the matter.

(for Mr. CONYBEARE) (Cornwall, Camborne) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Mr. Robinson, the Vestry Clerk of the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, had received notice from both Mr. Lee and Mr. Fowler that, as they had been duly elected, they should attend and take their seats as Vestrymen at the meeting of the Vestry on May 31; and, whether the clerk has alleged that or any other reason as the grounds for his application to have a force of police secreted in the church of the said parish?

Yes, Sir; I am informed that the Vestry Clerk had received such notice. The clerk informs me that he applied for the assistance of the police on the ground that he had received letters which led him to anticipate that an attempt would be made to disturb the proceedings of the Vestry.

(for Mr. CONYBEARE) (Cornwall, Camborne) asked the President of the Local Government Board, Upon what grounds were eight ballot papers disallowed at the recent Vestry election in the parish of St. Giles- in-the-Fields on May 17; whether it is the fact that, in consequence of such rejection of votes, Mr. Cooper, of 1A, Church Passage, and Mr. Gardiner, of 110, Great Russell Street, were allowed to take their seats and vote at a meeting of the Vestry held on May 31; and, whether it is not the fact that, but for such rejection, Mr. Lee, of 25, New Compton Street, and Mr. Fowler, of 58, High Street, would have been elected by a majority of at least three over the first-mentioned gentleman?

The Local Government Board have no jurisdiction whatever with regard to the election of Vestrymen in parishes in the Metropolis, and they have no information on the subject of the disallowance of the votes alluded to. If there is any ground for questioning the legality of the proceedings in the case in question, I presume that those aggrieved would have their remedy in a Court of Law.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the meeting of farmers recently addressed by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) at Newtownards, If he can now state whether the hon. Member was closely followed by a detective in a car from Belfast to Newtownards and back; whether District Inspector Ward called with the hotel proprietor who owned the hall where the meeting was to have been held, and caused her to refuse the hall for the meeting; whether he is aware that Mr. M'Master, P.L.G., who engaged the hall, is the Honorary Secretary of the Newtownards Farmers' Association, which holds its meetings regularly in the same hall; whether several constables were placed at the door of the premises in which the meeting was held, and whether these constables endeavoured to intimidate the people by staring into the face of every man as he left the meeting; and, whether the hon. Member for East Mayo was followed by three policemen wherever he went, on that evening, through the town of Newtownards?

Sir, I have already answered one or two Questions on this point. I am sorry to say that I cannot give the further information asked for without a detailed Report from the locality. I have asked for the Report, and I hope I shall be able to give the information asked for on Thursday next.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Home Office on the Torquay District and Harbour Bill, 1886?

Yes, Sir; I shall be happy to lay this Report on the Table of the House.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is the custom that when a Presbyterian desires to swear by the uplifted hand, in accordance with his legal rights, he is almost invariably asked in the Irish Courts of Law—"Do you believe that form of oath is binding on your conscience;" whether such a question is asked in virtue of any statutable requirement; and, if so, can he indicate where this statutable requirement is to be found; and, whether, as this inquiry is looked upon as an insult by many of those to whom it is asked, he will consider how best to put a stop to this or similar questions being asked in future?

As the result of the inquiries which I have made into this matter, I have ascertained that a diversity of practice exists in the mode of administering an oath under the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member. Some Judges consider themselves bound to put the question referred to, having regard to the terms of the statute, which enacts that in all cases in which an oath has been administered to any person—

"Such person is bound by the oath administered, provided the same shall have been administered in such form and with such ceremonies as such person may declare to be binding."

This, however, is not the view taken by all tribunals; and any witness who may object to being asked the question is entitled to have the matter decided by the Judge as a question of law. In reply to the third paragraph of the Question, I have to say that the matter is one which must be left to the decision of each individual tribunal.

Arising out of the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I have further to ask him if he would consider the subject of legislation in this matter, whereby it would not be necessary for the future to ask questions of this kind, which are considered as insults by those to whom they are put?

I shall be very happy to consider the subject; but I must say that the putting of the question can hardly, in fairness, be considered anything of an insult, inasmuch as, whenever it is put, the Judge acts under the belief that he is bound to do so by the terms of an Act of Parliament. I have always understood that that Act was introduced into Parliament by a Member of the Irish Bar, who was himself a Presbyterian, in the year 1838.

Is not the real question whether the persons to whom the question is addressed consider it an insult?

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is not the common practice in Scotland to administer oaths by the method of the uplifted hand; and, whether such practice is based on any statutory enactment, or on the Common Law of Scotland, or through immemorial custom?

It is the invariable practice in Scotland to call upon any person taking an oath to do so with his right arm uplifted, and persons of all religious beliefs are generally willing to be thus sworn. But any foreigner who, for religious reasons, might prefer to be sworn according to the form in use in his own country, or by his co-religionists, would be permitted to be so sworn. I am not aware that the Scottish form is based on any known Statute. It has come down from time immemorial.

asked, whether it was the custom in Scotland to ask a person taking the oath whether he believed it to be binding upon his conscience?

said, he had never heard of any such question being asked.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What was the cost of the telegraphic message sent from the Colonial Office to the Governor of Adelaide, dated December 3, 1886, on the subject of New Guinea?

I presume that the hon. Member means the Governor of South Australia. No telegram was sent to the Governor of South Australia on the date mentioned by the hon. Member. One was sent to the Governor of Queensland at Brisbane, and its cost was £86 5s. 9d.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, When the Return of the amounts paid in the counties in respect of transferred licences and local taxation licences will be presented?

, in reply, said, the Government were making every effort to complete the Return as quickly as possible, and he hoped it would be ready in about a fortnight. He might point out that the Return would not embrace the Horse and Wheel Tax.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is aware that between 11.30 and 12.30 on Whit Monday, three Glasgow barges discharged several hundred tons of filth in Loch Long, and that discharges are daily occurring; whether the Secretary for Scotland has recently received four Memorials from the Local Authority of Cove and Kilcreggan, from feuars, residents, and fishermen, inhabitants of the shores of Loch Long and Loch Goil, in relation to the constant and continuing pollution of the waters of the Lochs; whether he has received a communication from the Chief Magistrate of Cove and Kilcreggan suggesting that, pending the final decision of the Government, the "Clyde Trust" should be forthwith compelled to deposit these dredgings in deeper water and in a swifter running channel, from Wemyss Bay down towards the Garroch Head, for which service their dredgers are quite suited as to seaworthiness in ordinary weather; and, whether he can now state what course the Government intend to pursue in the matter?

The facts are as stated. The Secretary for Scotland has received several Memorials and letters from parties interested in this matter, containing various suggestions about it. Of the six sources of pollution indicated by Mr. Fletcher, in his Report laid before the House, only one—namely, the deposit of alkali wash—is within the control of the Scotch Office, and that ceased altogether on the 27th of February. I will be obliged to the hon. Member if he will postpone the latter part of his Question.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is prepared to introduce a Bill adopting the principle contained in the Libel Law Amendment Bill, whereby every plaintiff, upon commencing proceedings, can be compelled to find security for costs?

In reply to the hon. Member, I am not prepared to introduce a Bill adopting the principle that every plaintiff upon commencing proceedings can be compelled to find security for costs, as, in my opinion, such provision would work great hardship upon poor plaintiffs who may have suffered great wrong.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to a case heard in the Shoreditch County Court on May 15, from the report of which it appears that Messrs. Lion Brothers, boot manufacturers, of Phipps Street, Finsbury, compel their workmen in the slack season to sign an agreement, which is, in substance, as follows:—

"We, the lasters and finishers, agree to deposit 2s. 6d. a-week, to be deducted from our wages weekly from this date, for 12 months, and, should we leave before that time, we forfeit that money to Lion Brothers;"

and, whether such a contract is legal; and, if so, whether the Government will consider the advisability of amending the law?

My attention had not been called to the case until the Question appeared on the Paper this morning; and I have not been able in the time to obtain information as to the accuracy of the statements therein contained. The question whether a contract embodying the terms referred to is legal depends upon the circumstances under which it was made. But it by no means follows that under such a contract the master would have the right of obtaining the total amount, as in some cases his remedy might be for damages only. As at present advised, I do not consider that any alteration of the law is necessary.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the First Report of the Royal Commission on Horse Breeding has been presented to Her Majesty; and, whether he will cause it to be laid upon the Table of the House?

The Report has been presented to Her Majesty, and will be laid on the Table to-night.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any Bill or Bills into this House during the present Session dealing with the tithe question; and, if so, when; and, whether, considering the grave importance of the subject to many parts of England and Wales, the Government will allocate to its consideration such and so many days as will reasonably insure such Bills becoming law before the Recess?

Two Bills dealing with this question have been sent down from the other House, and, when opportunity offers, will be proceeded with.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Bill for the creation of an Agricultural Department, which was promised by the Government on the 20th of February, is prepared; and, if so, when it is proposed to introduce it; and, if not, whether, having regard to his promises on the subject, he is able to say what is the cause of the delay?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, How soon Her Majesty's Government will introduce their measure for the establishment of a Department for Agriculture?

The Bill has been prepared, and will be introduced as soon as the state of Business permits. There are, however, one or two questions that remain to be solved, and they are receiving very careful attention.

said, a "regimental bazaar" means the shops and trading establishments with which the military population of any particular regiment in a cantonment deal. All other bazaars in the cantonment, of which the chief customers are the civil population, are culled "cantonment bazaars," and the chief of these would be called the "sudder bazaar."

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he could give the House any information as to the reported disturbances in Zululand?

In answer to my hon. Friend, I will read to the House a telegram which was received last night at the Colonial Office, and which is the latest information we have—

"Dinizulu and Undabuko having collected armed Native followers at Keeza, made raids upon and stole cattle of friendly peaceful Usutus. Warrants of arrest of Dinizulu and other ringleaders on charge of cattle stealing were issued 2nd June. Police, rifles, troops went to Keeza to execute warrants; were successfully resisted and compelled to retreat. Two men reported killed and two wounded. Levy of Basutos, under M'Kean, and reinforcements of troops proceed immediately to support authority."

It will be seen from this that the telegram which appeared in yesterday evening's and some of this morning's papers, to the effect that Dinizulu had attacked and routed Usibepu, is incorrect.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he would be able now to state the result of the arrangement which had been come to with reference to the Wine Duties?

With the indulgence of the House, I should like to make a statement on the subject. The House will remember the main principles on which I founded my proposals with regard to the Bottled Wine Duty. I regarded it as a rough way of reaching the higher class wines, and I looked to derive a revenue of £125,000 from the tax. I was aware that it would not reach all the expensive clarets, and on the other hand, that it would ftall heavil on some cheap wines, which could noy like the bulk of cheap wines, be imported in casks instead of in bottles. This consideration led me to accept the suggestion to modify, and, as it were, correct the inequalities of the tax by introducing a limit of value, provided the examination, which I undertook to make, should prove that it was possible to find a workable plan for giving effect to such a limit. I have now concluded my investigations, and they have proved the following points:—(1) That the total amount of wine imported in bottles is far more considerable than from the best calculations we were previously able to make it was possible to discover. (2) That of this wine imported in bottles by far the greater part is sparkling wine. The increase in the consumption of champagne of late years has greatly modified both the proportion of the amount of bottled wine to wine in cask, and of still bottled wine to sparkling bottled wine. It is this increase in the consumption of champagne which necessitates a great modification of the statistics based on the state of things existing when the old Bottled Wine Duty was in force. (3) The third fact which I have ascertained is that the proportion of high-priced still wine imported in bottle to low-priced still wine imported in bottle is very much smaller than that of high-class champagnes to cheap sparkling wines. The result of these facts is as follows:—As more wine is imported in bottle than previous statistics led me to expect, the total revenue which I should derive from the tax, as it stands, would be very much larger than that which I assumed it would be in the first instance. The second result is that only a small portion of this revenue would be derived from still wines, and a very small portion indeed—in fact, a quite inconsiderable sum—if the lower-priced still wines were exempted. It must be remembered that all still wines, even the highest qualities, can be imported in cask, and they come in cask even now. If the duty were to be maintained, the amount of high-class still wines imported in bottle, which is already small, would become absolutely insignificant. I may here say that I have received the strongest possible representations from the English wine trade with regard to the difficulty which an attempt to draw a limit between high and low-class wines would entail. I do not for one moment accept the statement that there would be such a degree of fraud and misrepresentation as is declared to be inevitable. But I am anxious to confine the difficulties of the limit of value to the smallest possible area. To return to still wines, the facts which I have explained seem to indicate that, with a limit of value, there would be a prospect of a minimum revenue and a maximum difficulty in collecting that revenue. With regard to sparkling wines the case is different. A far greater proportion of these are wines of high value, and there are far greater facilities for determining the value. I propose, therefore, to bring in a Bill whereby the additional duty of 5s. a dozen shall be limited to sparkling wines; while, in order to meet the case of Saumur and other cheap sparkling wines, power will be taken to reduce the duty to 2s. a dozen where the wine can be proved to be less than 30s. a-dozen in value on its arrival in England—that is to say, there will be the original tax of 5s. a-dozen on sparkling wine above 30s. in value, and a tax of 2s. a-dozen on sparkling wine below 30s. a dozen in value, in addition, of course, to the duty on the alcoholic scale previously existing for all wines. The duty on this basis will give me at least £100,000, and probably the full £125,000 originally estimated. I do not propose a total exemption of the cheaper class of sparkling wines for two reasons. In the first place, I think that cheap sparkling wine can fairly bear the additional tax of 2s. a-dozen, which is 2d. a-bottle. In the next place, the fact that even the cheaper wines pay something will largely diminish both the temptation to and the possibility of fraudulent representations as to the value of sparkling wines. In order to forestall any possible inquiries, I may state at once that I do not propose to return the extra duty paid since March 27 on the kinds of wine which will in future be exempted. It would be impossible in many cases to discriminate as to who would be entitled to such a return, as the additional tax has been paid partly by the importers and partly by the consumers. I have only still to add that the duty will be levied, according to the universal desire of the trade, on the gallon, and will not vary according to the size of the bottles—that is to say, the duty will be 2s. 6d. a-gallon on sparkling wines above 15s. a gallon in value; and 1s. on sparkling wines under 15s. a gallon in value.

It has been somewhat difficult to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer through his long statement. May we take this as a summary—That no additional duty whatever will be imposed on bottled still or non-sparkling wines, however valuable, though there will be ditties of 2s. 6d. and 1s. 3d. a gallon respectively on the dearer and cheaper classes of sparkling wines? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, considering the novelty of the proposal, whether he has any Papers of any kind on the subject to lay on the Table?

There is no great novelty in the proposal, for a proposition to tax bottled wines was made in 1880 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and modified by him after a certain time. A tax upon bottled wines also existed for five years in this country under the financial auspices of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. I will see what Papers can be laid on the Table. There are none in my mind at present, but if there are any I will produce them. It would be easy for me to embody the result of my investigations in a Statistical Report, which I should certainly feel it my duty to lay before the House if it were desired. The right hon. Gentleman has correctly described the effect of my proposals; there will be no duty on still wines, and there will be a duty on sparkling wines of 5s. on the higher class and 2s. on the lower.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the despatch of the Secretary of State to the Government of India on the subject of the Contagious Diseases Acts was assented to by the majority of the Council of India; and, if not, what Members of the Council dissented; and, further, whether there was any objection to the production of any opinions that might have been recorded by the dissenting Members?

, in reply, said, that of 13 Members of the Council, present on the occasion, nine voted against the despatch. Of these nine, six had recorded their dissent under the provisions of the Act of Parliament. The names of those who so recorded their dissent were—Sir Peter Lumsden, General Foster, Sir A. Arbuthnot, Sir John Strachey, General Strachey, and Sir Owen Burne. He believed it would be in accordance with precedent that the Minute of their dissent should be laid on the Table.

asked, whether he would be in Order if he now moved for the production of the Minute of the dissenting Members of Council?

The hon. Baronet can give Notice of the Motion which I understand that he now wishes to do.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention had been called to a statement in The Daily News of that day, that Mr. Hamilton, R.M., held a private Crimes Act inquiry in the house of a landlord named Olpherts contrary to the statute, which provided that the inquiry should be held in the place where the Petty Sessions of the district in which the offence was committed was usually held; and, also, whether the inquiry in question was held in relation to the rents of Mr. Olpherts?

I have not seen The Daily News; but I have reason to believe there is no foundation for the statement. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will put the Question on the Paper I will make inquiries.

As the matter is of importance, will the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to the Question appearing on the Paper tomorrow?

No; I will endeavour to have the information by to-morrow.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Return moved for by the hon. Member for Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) in relation to the increases of sentences on appeal in Ireland, would be in the hands of hon. Members?

, in reply, said, additional information on the subject had been asked for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) and there was no delay in the preparation of the Return.

, in rising to call attention to the existence and working of the Contagious Diseases Act and of the Cantonments Acts in India, and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, any mere suspension of measures for the compulsory examination of women, and for licensing and regulating prostitution in India, is insufficient, and the legislation which enjoins, authorizes, or permits such measures ought to be repealed,"

said, in dealing with this question, he disclaimed any intention of speaking in a Party spirit; indeed, he should be exceedingly sorry to endeavour to make Party capital out of it. The demand of those whose spokesman he was on the present occasion was a very simple demand; it was for the total and immediate repeal of every vestige of the Contagious Diseases Act and of the Cantonments Acts in India, as well as of every vestige of the regulations under those Acts. They entirely repudiated any compromise in the matter. He instanced cases where threatening letters were sent in order to compel compliance with the Act, and, having given a description of the regulations in force, he said the whole system in India was for licensing vice, putting it under control, and raising revenue out of it. He regretted to be compelled to bring before the notice of the House details so horrible and revolting and so discreditable to English civilization as were contained in the documents which it was his painful duty to refer to. The Act was in force in 74 Cantonments in India, of which 54 were in Bengal, seven in Madras, and nine in the Bombay Presidency. Major General Chapman's Memorandum based on the Act, which had been disowned and repudiated by the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cross), proceeded on the assumption that immorality must be licensed, and that prostitution was a normal condition of the human race. He ventured to say that this was a doctrine which the House would emphatically repudiate. The Natives deeply resented the system, and in 1879, when the Act was brought into operation in Bombay, the Bishop and 60 influential British and Native residents petitioned against it, and their Petition would be found in Return 200, f. 1,883. The reply of the authorities was that every care would be taken to prevent annoyance to respectable persons, the "respectable persons" being explained to mean in a later passage "mistresses of wealthy persons and kept women." These were the people whose susceptibilities were not to be wounded, while the unhappy poor were to run the risk of fine and imprisonment. The Municipality of Bombay resisted the enforcement of the Act, and were only induced to accept it by the stoppage of 15,000 rupees from their allowance. Lord Ripon, in a despatch of June 16th, 1882, strongly advocated the repeal of the Act, which he described as extremely distasteful to the Municipalities and the Native population generally, and the object of general denunciation by the Native Press. The whole religious community were in arms against the Act, and a Memorial requesting its repeal had been signed in the present year by 300 missionaries and representatives of 40 societies. The same view was taken by the Army chaplains, but the only reply of Lord Cross was that the protection of the health and efficiency of the British garrisons was the paramount duty of the Government. It had, however, been proved that in a sanitary point of view the result had been the exact contrary of that which the Act was intended to produce. If Lord Ripon's wishes could have been realized, the Act would have been repealed in 1882, but he was over-ruled by the noble Lord the Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington), who was then Secretary for India. He imputed no blame to that noble Lord, whose objection to the repeal of the Act was based mainly on the fact that the English Acts were still in force, and it was not till a considerably later date that the House had decisively condemned those Acts. The operation of the Act in India had been a complete failure. Vice had increased, and the promise of immunity from the consequences of vice had not been fulfilled. The remedy was said to be that the provisions of the Act should be enforced with enthusiasm. But he had in his hand a most painful return—namely, a fac-similie of the 13th annual report of the working of the Lock Hospitals in the North-West Provinces and in Oude, for the year ending December 31, 1886. Why was that Return not laid on the Table of the House?

It is not in the possession of the India Office.

hoped, then, that the Government of India would inquire why that was so, and also why Major General Chapman's Memorandum was not at the India Office. That Report contained the most painful details of the state of things which had been brought about by the operation of the Act, especially in and about Lucknow. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to make a severe attack on Major General Chapman, who, he said, although he was the author of the Memorandum of June, 1886, which had been so often referred to in the House, in reply to a telegram from Lord Cross in August, 1887, declared that neither the Government nor its officers had, directly or indirectly, encouraged prostitution. Referring to the case of the Memorandum issued in connection with the 2nd Battalion of the Cheshire Regiment, he protested as a Cheshire Member against the name of that regiment being dragged through the mire in such an infamous way. It was said that the Government of India were going to alter the regulations under the Contagious Diseases Acts and the Cantonments Acts. That was altogether unsatisfactory to him. If he and his hon. Friends did not get what they demanded that night, they would carry on the agitation until they did. Lord Cross said there was in future to be no compulsory system; but if compulsion were done away with the whole system would break down, and, therefore, what was the use of keeping the Acts on the Statute Book? Lord Cross very properly declared that he would not tolerate any regulation that assumed the appearance of encouragement of vice. If that determination was to be carried out literally the Government would be compelled to abolish the Acts, for it was an impossibility to preserve a shred or vestige of the Acts which did not assume the appearance of encouragement of vice. But apart from all other grounds for his Motion, there was the high ground of morality and the inherent wickedness of the Acts. Even if it were proved to him that the preservation of the Acts had been successful and would altogether abolish disease—and they had been, on the contrary, unsuccessful at every point—he and those who would vote for this Motion would not mitigate their opposition to them, but would still oppose them on the higher grounds that what was morally wrong could not be politically or physically right. Had the House no pity for these poor Indian women? Every one of them was as valuable as the daughter of any Member of the House, and their security and welfare should be as carefully guarded by the House. He was glad to see that a feeling of indignation was arising in this country. Rarely, indeed, had any question excited the same warmth of feeling and indignation. Those who felt that renewed agitation on this question was evil and undesirable should vote for the immediate abolition of the system, for by not doing so they were but opening the flood-gates of agitation. The women of England upon every platform would so denounce this system that every man and woman in the country should know of it, for they were persuaded that it only required to be dragged into the light of day to be universally condemned. They asked the Government, therefore, to save them from the necessity for such agitation by following in India what had been already done in England, and what, to his honour, had been done by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Lord Knutsford), so that this accursed system, the foulest that had ever been brought to the knowledge of the House of Commons, might be finally swept away. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Motion of which he had given Notice.

, in seconding the Motion, said, that he did not go into the question whether these Acts were good for health or not. He opposed the system simply on the ground that what was morally wrong could not be politically right, On that ground he voted against the English Acts when they were brought before the House, and he now appealed to hon. Members to do for India what they had already done for England. It had been argued that Parliament had no right to interfere with the Government of India; but he could not admit that Parliament was justified in sitting still and allowing the Indian Government to administer an unjust and immoral law. It might be said that the conditions of India were different to those of England, but every argument that applied to England applied with equal force to India; and, moreover, the existing system had been universally condemned by the missionaries of all societies as opposed to the spread of the Gospel, and they had been unanimous in asking the House to abolish the system. As Members of the great Christian community, the House of Commons ought not to disregard such an expression of opinion. Because he believed these Acts to give encouragement to vice, and that whatever gave encouragement to vice ought at any risk to be swept away, and because he believed that these Acts were a difficulty in the way of those who were devoting their lives to spreading the Gospel in India, he gave a cordial and earnest support to the Motion which he had the honour to second.

, who had placed on the Paper an Amendment to the effect that—

"Considering the large and alarming increase of venereal disease in the Army and Navy on the Home Stations since the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act, this House is of opinion that it is inexpedient to repeal the Acts now in force in India,"

said, he should oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Crewe. He con- sidered it his duty to take the position he did, because he was one of the few surviving Members of the Committee which sat some years ago to consider all the charges made against the administration of these Acts in England. The speeches he had now heard reminded him of those formerly made against the English Acts—the arguments were precisely the same. As a Member of the Committee which investigated the working of the Acts, he could assert that the inquiry proved that the Acts worked admirably in practice. With reference to the statement made by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) on a former occasion, that he knew nothing about these Acts, and that they had been passed sub silentio, he might call the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, spoke in favour of the second reading of the Bill of 1866, and afterwards moved that it should be referred to a Select Committee. The Acts were in force for 16 years, and their opponents, though repeatedly challenged to do so, had not been able to adduce a single case in all that time where a respectable woman had been taken up by the police and subjected to an indignity. He contended that the compulsory medical examination had produced most beneficial results. If evidence of this were required, it might be found in the following letters which he had received on the subject:—

said, he hoped the House would come to an early decision on the subject, because it seemed to him that the Resolution was calculated to support the policy of the Government rather than to express any censure upon them. In the discussion there were three separate points involved which in reality ought to be kept distinct, but which, he feared, it had been almost impossible to avoid confusing. These three points were—first, what was known as the regimental system; secondly, the question of the Contagious Diseases Act; and, thirdly, what ought to be done about the Cantonments Acts. He would endeavour to treat these three subjects, as far as possible, separately. He did not wish to blame hon. Members opposite for having, to some extent, confounded the three subjects, because they had recently been part of one system, and there had been a mistake, or an error of judgment, or worse, made with regard to one of these subjects. He thought that, in considering this subject, the House should remember the principle upon which the Government of India was conducted. It was conducted not by a Government in this country, but in India itself; and what the Secretary of State and Parliament in this country exercised was merely a control over a Government carried on elsewhere. Thus, the Executive Government of India was not in itself immediately responsible to the House in the same way as the Government in this country. The House could only act on the Indian Executive Government through the Secretary of State, who was himself, no doubt, responsible to the House, but only, so far as legislation was concerned as controlling the acts of the Government of India in the manner prescribed by the Statute. Parliament had created in India a Legislature deriving its authority by statute, and that Legislature alone had the ordinary power of making laws and regulations for India. He did not say that that House was not perfectly competent to establish any law in India, but it must be by Act of Parliament. With regard to the question of what was known as the regimental system, the telegrams and extracts from despatches which had passed between the Secretary of State and the Indian Government showed that Her Majesty's Government had taken active steps in the matter long before attention had been called to it in Parliament. In a telegram dated July 9, 1887, the Secretary of State had called the attention of the Viceroy to the regimental system, which had been referred to by the Bishop of Lichfield in the House of Lords. That telegram went on to say—

"I apprehend system is indefensible and must be condemned; meanwhile, please prepare full report in your Military Department, and send home with copies of all orders and regulations in your department bearing on this subject as distinct from the Indian Contagious Diseases Act, against which also very strong representations are being made throughout the country."

On December 7, 1887, a further telegram had been despatched to the Viceroy asking when the Report might be expected. He submitted, indeed, that there was nothing the Secretary of State could have done more than he had done. The Council had received front India official reports which were certainly calculated to lull their vigilance to sleep, with an intimation at the same time that the Government of India were making further inquiries, and that the result of those further inquiries would be communicated to the Secretary of State. On the 9th of March, shortly after the question was raised in the House of Commons in connection with the statements of Mr. Dyer, an advance copy of a despatch, dated in the Blue Book March 29, was sent to India, with a peremptory declaration that if anything like the practices alleged in Mr. Dyer's letter prevailed in India, they should be stopped forthwith. Here, again, he must ask the House to acknowledge that there was a full and complete compliance with the pledge which he was instructed by the Secretary of State on the 25th of February to give to the House. Indeed, from the time the Bishop of Lichfield's Question was asked in the House of Lords, in July last, down to the present day, the policy of the Secretary of State and the Government had never varied. The Government had said all along that if such practices existed they must be stopped, and they had only hesitated because they were officially informed in the beginning of the present year, on the authority of the reports received from the Government of India, that practices of the kind complained of did not exist in India. He hoped he had satisfied the House that the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cross) and the Government had acted in this matter with clearness, promptitude, and efficiency. With reference to the celebrated Memorandum of June 17, 1886, the hon. Member was generous enough to say that he did not make the present Government responsible for it. In point of fact, the present Government were not in Office at the date of that Memorandum, and, when its existence was brought to the notice of the Secretary of State, he condemned it in the clearest and strongest terms. It was ungenerous to charge Major General Chapman with anything in the nature of an offence. General Chapman was, he believed, an officer as distinguished for his piety as for his military ability. Men had before committed errors of judgment through excess of zeal, and that General Chapman had been guilty of more than an error of judgment he refused to admit.

asked whether the responsibility for the action to which objection was taken rested wholly upon General Chapman, or whether he was only the agent of a higher authority?

said, that he was not well enough acquainted with the details of military organization in India to apportion responsibility with exactitude in a case of this kind, and that he would treat the Circular as a Circular issued by the Military Authorities; and as such he deeply deplored it. The Secretary of State had himself expressed his deep regret that any such document should ever have been issued. The conduct of the Secretary of State in this matter, instead of deserving censure, ought to earn the thanks of the House and of all moral and religious people who were interested in this subject. He came now to the next point under consideration—namely, the operation of the Act for the prevention of disease. The Government of India, recognizing that the law in India must be administered on the whole in accordance with the moral and religious sentiments prevailing in this country, had taken steps to suspend the operation of the Act without waiting for the instructions of the Secretary of State. The supension, however, had since been approved by the noble Lord. Hon. Members opposite complained that the Act ought not to be suspended only, maintaining that it ought to be repealed; but they ought to remember that even in this country this legislation was suspended for several years before it was repealed. In the Crown Colonies also it was suspended before it was repealed, and in some of the self-governing Colonies, Victoria, Tasmania, New Zealand, and Queensland, there had been no interference with the operation of the Act. If the Government of India were to repeal the Act at once they would be taking an extraordinary course. He did not himself wish either to support or oppose this legislation, but he felt it his duty to say that in his constituency, to which the Acts for the prevention of disease had applied, public opinion had never to his knowledge pronounced against those measures. He had, of course, at various times visited members of all classes of the community, rich and poor, and he had never heard a single complaint about the operation of the Acts. The Guardians of the poor and other Local Authorities were unanimous in favour of the Acts. [Dissent.] Well, in his constituency he did not know who had protested against the Acts. He knew that the generality of the public deeply regretted the repeal of the Acts. Something had been said about the feeling of the women; but Miss Webb, who was second to none in her services for the reclamation of fallen women, lamented the suspension of the operation of the Acts because it interfered with her rescue work, to which she had devoted her life. He hoped, therefore, that the House would excuse any want of enthusiasm on his part for the repeal of the Acts; but, at the same time, he should be very illogical if he set up his judgment against that of the Council of the Governor General of India, and he was instructed by his noble Friend the Secretary of State to say that if the Council of the Governor General thought fit to repeal the Contagious Diseases Acts altogether he should assent to that repeal. If he might give advice to the House, he would advise it not to attempt to coerce a body like the Government of India, which had not shown any unwillingness to conform to the sentiments of the people of this country. He would appeal to the House not to interfere with the legislative independence of the Governor General. If they brought the people of India to regard that Council as a mere instrument of Parliament, and not as possessing any legislative dignity or independence of its own, they would greatly weaken its position. He passed now to the last head—what was to be done with the Cantonments Act? The House was aware that the cantonment was not a mere barracks; it was an extent of country. The Cantonments Act dealt with the preservation of the general health of the district, and from beginning to end of it there were only a few lines which had anything whatever to do with the subject they were discussing. He was sure the House would not desire that the Cantonments Act should be repealed. That Act provided, among other things, for the maintenance generally of the Cantonments in a proper sanitary condition; and, with reference to the sanitary question, the despatch of the 17th of May laid down the following principles:—

"The prevention and cure of ordinary disease (mentioned in the 6th section of the 7th clause of the Act) and the preventing the spread of other disease (mentioned in the 7th section) are equally matters of the highest importance, and all infectious disease ought to be dealt with as a question of police. No examination should be imposed compulsorily; but, on the other hand, no person who is reasonably suspected of being in a condition likely to spread the infection of any, dangerous disease whatever ought to be allowed within the cantonment except in hospital, and no one who is so suspected and who objects to such medical treatment as may be necessary ought to be allowed to remain within the cantonment at all."

Then the despatch proceeded—

"The rules which have been framed under Clauses 7–31 of Section 27 of Act III. of 1880 appear to me to require careful revision; and in such revision the principle should be steadily borne in mind that the efforts to control prostitution and to mitigate its attendant evils should not be developed into anything that can assume the appearance of an encouragement of vice by the Government and its officers. There should be no regulations which can be justly construed into a legalization of prostitution. Since I received your last despatch a paper has been placed in my hands purporting to be a copy of a Circular Memorandum issued from Army Headquarters in India, and I learn from your telegram of the 8th instant that such Circular is authentic. I have no reason to doubt that the copy placed in my hands is correct; and although it has already been withdrawn, I feel bound to express my deep regret, in which I know your Excellency shares, that any such document should ever have been issued, nor can I in any way reconcile its contents with the report made to you in Quartermaster General's letter, No. 3,713 B, of the 2nd of August, 1887, and contained in the enclosures to your despatch of the 24th of January, 1888."

These were the regulations, and it was not for him to interfere with the Government of India. He would entreat the Members of that House to put a little more trust not only in the good intentions of Her Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State, but also in the good intentions of those valuable public servants who had administered the government of India. He was horrified when he heard the worst motive attributed to them for the conduct which they thought it their duty to pursue. He heard an hon. Member opposite denounce what he called the atrocity of the Contagious Diseases Act, but did that hon. Gentleman remember who was Viceroy of India when that Act was passed? The Act was passed during the Government of Lord Lawrence, than whom no man would carry down to posterity a higher character for morality and religious teaching. He did not mean to say that grievous errors had not been committed in the administration of the government of India; but what he did claim was that the men who administered the affairs of India were guided in their conduct by the purest and the most patriotic motives; and anyone in that House or in the country who attempted to traduce the honour or the morality of the Government of India was guilty of a gross slander against a body of valuable public servants who were carrying on what he held to be, on the whole, one of the purest and one of the best Governments which the history of the world had ever seen.

said, that he did not gather from the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Government meant to oppose the Resolution or not. What they on that side wanted to know, and they wished to know it soon, was whether the Members of the Government were going into the Division Lobby against the Resolution. There was no answer as yet to that question.

I think I stated in the clearest terms that we do not regard the Motion as one brought forward with the intention of embarrassing the Government.

said, that might be so; but he wanted to know whether on a Division the hon. and learned Member and the Government would vote in favour of the Resolution or not. It was quite clear that there were some of the followers of the Government who would vote against it, and they intended to give those hon. Gentlemen the opportunity of doing so. Was he right in understanding the Under Secretary of State for India to maintain the position which he took up when, in reply to a Question in that House, he said that—

"The Government had no intention to interfere, nor had they the power to interfere, with the discretion of the Indian Legislature in making, repealing, or amending laws,"

and, further—

"that it would be highly unbecoming of Her Majesty's Government to interfere."

Did the hon. and learned Gentleman adhere to that statement? He did not make it clear in his statement whether he adhered to it or not. His hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. M'Laren) had pointed out that the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) had interfered to prevent Lord Ripon repealing the Contagious Diseases Act in 1882. The hon. and learned Gentleman might say that the noble Lord interfered to exercise the veto of the Crown which existed to prevent some piece of legislation being carried out. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had maintained something different from that, for in the reply to a Question to which he had referred, he stated that the Secretary of State had no right to interfere with the initiative of legislation. He contended that the hon. and learned Gentleman in making that statement, and in the position which he had taken up, had shown that he did not know his own business. When Lord Salisbury was Secretary of State for India he wrote a remarkable despatch on the 11th of November, 1875, in which the Secretary of State's power to order legislation was clearly laid down, while the details were left to the Indian Government; and Lord Salisbury added that he deprecated any attempt to prescribe to the Viceroy the mode in which the policy adopted by the Government should be carried out, and he proceeded to remind the Governor General that the cotton duties, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, should be repealed as being protective in their nature, and thus inconsistent with the policy which Parliament had sanctioned and which the Government on that account could not allow to be set aside in any part of the Empire under their direct control. They now called upon the India Office to act upon that dictum of Lord Salisbury's. Sir Henry Maine, however, strongly supported the position, and, grounding himself on Sir Henry Maine's Memorandum, Lord Salisbury insisted upon the doctrine that Her Majesty's Government was as responsible to Parliament for the Government of India as for that of any Crown Colony in Her Majesty's Dominions. He wished the Government now to act upon the principle laid down by Lord Salisbury in 1875, and which was acted upon then. If the Government did not repeal the system in India, they would be divided against themselves. Lord Knutsford had throughout the Colonies, with, he believed, the single exception of Fiji, ordered the total repeal of Acts of this character. He had ordered their suspension in Ceylon while the Repeal Bill was being prepared. This was very different from their proposed suspension in India, where it was done, not to secure repeal, but to secure that if the Government was dissatisfied with the result the Acts might be again enforced. That was not satisfactory to the opponents of the principle of these Acts. Not only must the Contagious Diseases Act be repealed as, by its 4th clause, violating the principle laid down in the despatch of Lord Cross, that no regulations licensing prostitution should be made, but the 7th section of the 19th clause of the Cantonments Act should be repealed, for under it the condemned regulations had been made, and therefore could be made again. He read extracts from the Reports of Indian Lock Hospitals in support of the contention that the Quartermaster General's Memorandum was a fair sample of the system; and he pointed out that the cure proposed for the failure of the system was practically that the state should obtain a monopoly of brothel-keeping. Was the House prepared to endorse that proposal? He did not blame the Government, who, he believed, desired to act rightly in this matter, so much as the wirepullers in the India Office and in India, who kept the Government very badly informed. The reports from the Lock Hospitals in India showed that this legislation bad failed in India, as it had done elsewhere, and had been utterly worthless so far as checking disease among our troops was concerned. He quite agreed that if that legislation, which had been in force for 17 years, were to be suddenly repealed, we must not look for an immediate benefit, because it would take some time before a moral system could have its effect in checking immorality. He referred to what he called the pièce de résistance in the whole of the statistics—namely, the report by Surgeon-Major Barclay relating to the averages of disease at different stations, and said that, incredible though it seemed, there was not one single average in the whole report but was taken wrongly. Any conclusion, therefore, which the Government founded upon it, and they had founded conclusions upon it, was worthless and misleading, and it was a disgrace to any man who dared to come forward to interpret statistics to the Indian Government and the British public that he should be guilty of mistakes for which a schoolboy would get a sound thrashing. The general position, then, was this—those who supported the Motion had by a slow educative process carried on throughout England got the House of Commons to pronounce a clear judgment, formed after a long and elaborate period of investigation. They claimed that that which was now the settled policy of England should be extended through the responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown to every portion of Her Majesty's dominions over which they had direct control. The Government had to decide whether they would or would not aid them in carrying out those views. The flimsy pretext was cut from under their feet that they had no right to interfere, and they stood face to face with the question whether they would that night get rid of or maintain a system which was founded on vice, built up of injustice and cruelty, and bolstered and buttressed by fraud.

said, that, as a Member of that House who had had some connection with the work of Indian Adminis- tration, he rose for the purpose of expressing the disgust and, he might say, the horror with which he read the disgraceful circular to which reference had been made so often in this debate, and also the disgust which he felt at the details of the so-called regimental system which had come under their review. That regimental system and that circular seemed to him to justify all that had ever been said with regard to the pernicious results of any attempt at the State regulation of vice. If Her Majesty's Government, or the Government of India, or the Indian Military Authorities had defended or oven excused or palliated that circular and that system, he for one would this evening have recorded a most emphatic vote against them. From a personal acquaintance with Sir Frederick Roberts, Sir Charles Arbuthnot, General Chesney, and many others among the highest military authorities in India, he would take upon himself to assure the House and the country at large that there were no men, whether in that House or elsewhere, who could feel more acutely the disgrace of these proceedings. He did not know personally General Chapman, whose responsibility for that most unfortunate circular had been dwelt on somewhat severely from the opposite Benches, but he knew him well by reputation, and he had been glad to hear the remarks which had fallen from the Under Secretary of State for India in defence of that officer, though not in defence of that miserable circular, for which no possible excuse could be alleged. He could only suppose that General Chapman had signed it as a matter of official routine, without being aware of the contents of the document. General Chapman was well known in India as one of the leaders in every good and religious work in that country, and he believed that he was one of the most active and prominent members of a most estimable and self-denying religious body, the Plymouth Brethren. He was glad to find that not only the Secretary of State, but also the Government of India and all the military authorities and the Quartermaster General's Department itself, entirely repudiated that circular, and denied that any such system as that which had been described that evening really existed in any force in India. They had pledged themselves that if it was existing anywhere it should cease to exist in the future. Since the Authorities had done so much he felt very great difficulty in taking upon himself to vote for any Resolution that would tend to coerce the Legislative Council of the Viceroy. There was no sign whatever to indicate that the Council had not entirely recognized their responsibility in this matter, and if the House passed such a Resolution as that suggested to it by the hon. Member for Crewe, it seemed to him that they would be taking upon themselves a most terrible responsibility, especially when it could not be denied that most Members would be voting with an imperfect knowledge of the peculiar sanitary conditions of India, and the effects of the climate in that country upon the propagation of disease, and, in fact, of all the conditions of the question which it was now proposed so summarily to decide. He would much prefer to see the ultimate decision as to the repeal of the Acts, which were at present suspended, left to the arbitrament of those distinguished men who represented public opinion, both English and Native, in the Viceroy's Legislative Council. It must be remembered that the Viceroy had around him the most authoritative body of experts in all such subjects as these in that Indian Medical Service which would always be the pride of our Indian Empire, distinguished as they were, not only for their skill in dealing with all such matters as this, but also for their high feeling of honour and integrity and devotedness to the well-being of those with whom they had to do. In consideration, therefore, of the many peculiar sanitary conditions, and the terrible nature of the subject before them, he would venture to urge the House to beware before it coerced the action of such men as these.

said, he did not wonder that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down felt it his duty to endeavour to defend the character of some of those members of that service in India of which he had himself been a member. No more severe condemnation was ever penned by a Secretary of State than that passed upon Major General Chapman.

said, he expressly stated that he in no way defended Major General Chapman's action in signing the infamous document referred to in the despatch. All he stated was that he believed that Major General Chapman's signature was obtained by a stamp signature, or in some way by which he had not full knowledge of the contents.

said, that if the hon. Gentleman thought by such an explanation he could do his friend any service, he should be sorry to stand in his way; but if that defence was to be received, then that let some light into the extraordinary manner in which Indian official documents were signed, and it only added one more to the matters which needed inquiry by Viscount Cross. But it was not in respect to the contents of the document that the severest censure was passed. Viscount Cross added—

"Nor can I in any way reconcile its contents with the report made by you in the Quartermaster General's report of August 2, 1887."

The fact of Major General Chapman being a man of deep religious character only added to the gravity of the situation. Had it come to this, that an officer of the highest religious character could, by the suppression of details in the report, draw forth such words of condemnation? This was why he and those who acted with him could not have that very high confidence in Indian officials which had been expressed by the Under Secretary and the hon. Member who had just sat down. Nor were they satisfied when it was stated by the Government of India that the operation of the Act had been suspended. The Under Secretary read a despatch from Lord Dufferin, dated March 27, 1888, stating that he had decided to suspend the operation of the Act in the localities mentioned, but there was absolute information that operations under the Act were in full swing in the middle of May, so that it would appear that certain officials had not received, or did not carry out, the suspension orders. The information upon which he stated this was contained in a letter from Mr. A. S. Dyer, who stated that he, in company with Mr. Gladwin, found on May 16 that the doors of the Lock Hospital were crowded, and the medical authorities had heard nothing of the suspension. There were 60 women in the hospital and 500 on the register. The acting police commissioner had heard nothing of the suspension, and examinations were proceeding. He could not, therefore, have confidence in the Indian officials. The supporters of the Resolution were determined to stand by its terms, that the legislation ought to be repealed, and they would be content with nothing less.

said, it was important to keep clear the fact that this was no question of objection to certain details of the Acts; it was an objection based on a principle of the broadest kind against any method of establishing harlotry in India or elsewhere, and against any recognition of it, except for the purpose of repression. It was extraordinary to hear the ignorance expressed by the India Office of what was known as the "regimental system." It was in existence in 1853, and he could not say how much earlier. In 1870 and 1871 there was a Royal Commission, which, among other evidence, took that of Lieutenant General Lord Sandhurst, and he stated, in the most explicit manner, that the regimental system was in full operation when he was in India in 1853. So to talk of it as a system established a few years ago was an extraordinary delusion, and he was sorry the Under Secretary of State (Sir John Gorst) should be under it. More than that, there was other evidence given before the Royal Commission, showing that the system was in operation before any legislation authorized it. That the House should understand, for, although the Resolution spoke of the repeal of legislation, there would still be attempts to work some system or other in the same direction as a substitute. Dr. Ross, in his evidence before the Commission, said the principle of the Act was carried out long before it was extended to India, and his evidence went almost as far back as the date already given. Much information was contained in the 13th annual Report of the working of the Lock Hospitals in the North-West Provinces and Oude for 1886; but the remarkable thing about that Report was, that it contained very little about the working of the hospitals in the sense usually understood, but it contained much about the building and furnishing military brothels, their sanitary arrangements, and staffing them with suitable persons. There was no disguising the facts, and in one instance the institution was referred to as the "regimental brothel." It really amounted to the same thing as was referred to by the religious Major General, who appeared to allow his signature to be attached to documents not knowing their contents. He (Mr. Wilson) was the last man to speak with contempt of genuine piety, but he could not have a high regard for the piety of a man whose signature was attached to such a document. The evidence showed every possible recommendation had been made except that soldiers should behave like decent men. If it was suggested that Europeans could not so behave in India, that was the severest condemnation against having a European Army in India at all. Now that all other plans had failed, let morality be tried. Give the men reasonable occupation and recreation. He implored the Government not to go on in defiance of public opinion and the voice of the country, which, he believed, in this case at all events, was the voice of God.

said, he could not see what object was to be gained by prolonging the discussion on a subject on which the House was agreed almost to a man. Nothing could be clearer than the speech they had listened to from the Under Secretary of State for India, in which he said that the licensing of this vice was not going to be countenanced any longer, though he pressed that the House should leave it to the Indian Government to take the initiative rather than take the initiative themselves in an unconstitutional way. He thought that by the manner in which it had been shown that the Indian Government was recognizing the opinion of this country on the subject hon. Members need not be in fear that the old policy would be continued. If the Indian Government did not intend to carry out what they had commenced, the speeches which had been made that night would be an incentive to them to carry out more resolutely and speedily the abatement of the intolerable system. It was necessary that some sort of restriction should be imposed on the entry of these women into the cantonments where our soldiers were. They did not want to place temptation in the way of the soldiers; but if the women insisted in going voluntarily into the cantonments they should be subject to police restrictions in the same way as persons suffering from small-pox, or fever, or other contagious disease. That was the sort of restriction, he believed, it was intended to enforce, and that kind of restriction, he believed, everyone would agree with most cordially. He only wished to say he was perfectly satisfied himself and delighted with the very plain and eloquent speech of the Under Secretary for India, which he felt sure would meet with the approval of the country, as he was sure it would of the constituency which he represented.

said, he thought the hon. Member who had brought forward this matter had done a great public service, for he had enabled the House of Commons to pronounce upon and condemn this system. We were in the habit of justifying our presence in India on the ground that we were a civilizing Power there, but this law was an insult to civilization. It struck at the root of the first principles of morality, and legalized a vice which all Biblical religion condemned. He preferred the moral argument to the constitutional which had been advanced. We heard nothing of the constitutional argument when we pressed the Indian Government for the repeal of the duty on cotton goods. If the matter went to a division, the issue would be morality versus vice. He hoped that the Government would see to the repeal of this legislation, and so rescue the British name from the dishonour which now rested upon it in consequence of this legislation.

, who had on the Paper the following Amendment:—

"That this House, while approving the recent action of the Government of India regarding the suspension of certain portions of the Contagious Diseases Acts in that Country, yet deems it unconstitutional to interfere by Resolution with that initiative in legislation which has been assigned to the Government of India by Act of Parliament,"

said, it was certainly true that, under the operation of the Acts in question, a certain class of diseases had not decreased as much as had been hoped for; but, nevertheless, it was impossible to doubt that the effect of that legislation had been beneficial in a physical point of view. The statistics and the medical evidence taken as a whole were conclusive on this point. If indeed at some stations a slight increase had been per- ceptible, that, he feared, was owing to certain causes which were arising in England, and to which he would not further allude. Though he denied that India owed the introduction of these diseases to England, still we were bound to take all the precautions we could to prevent them from spreading among the Natives. Passing to the moral aspect of the question, he desired to pay a tribute of respect to the motives that actuated hon. Members opposite in the course which they had taken in demanding the repeal of this legislation. He must, however, enter his protest against the unintentional exaggerations and misrepresentations into which an excess of zeal led hon. Members opposite, whose pictures were drawn somewhat after the Rembrandt or Salvator Rosa schools. He might say at once that he was not prepared in the slightest degree to defend or to countenance anything that could be regarded as immoral. He knew that the Government of India had never intended to contravene the principles of morality, and had never done so conciously. He could assure the House that the Army officers in India did all they could to promote the welfare of their men, while the medical officers, in the discharge of their delicate duties, showed the most humane consideration for the miserable class of persons with whom they were brought into professional contact. Hon. Members opposite, however, should remember that there was such a thing as a choice of evils. It did not follow that evils which had to be regulated were at all approved. Nor did it follow that the recognition of inevitable facts at all involved their authorization. He was afraid that the sudden repeal of these Acts would lead to an aggravation in India of vice and of human degradation, the very evils which hon. Members opposite were laudably striving to lesson. The recent despatch of the Secretary of State addressed to the Government of India was most satisfactory, as it carried out the promises which had been made by the Under Secretary for India. It was clearly understood that there was not to be any more compulsory examination of certain classes, and that there was to be nothing which could bear even the semblance of the authorization of immorality or vice. He was sure that those promises were to be relied upon. He acknowledged the utter indefensibility of certain despatches which had been disowned by the Government and condemned in that House. Admittedly the authorities in India had in one respect gone too far, and had unwittingly infringed sound principles at some points. But the Executive orders which had been embodied in the despatch of the Secretary of State went further than even such a measure as the repeal of these Acts. In fact, the Government had granted more than was asked for in the Resolution now before the House. While admitting, of course, that the British Parliament was the paramount authority in the Empire, he might point out that to interfere with the Legislative Council of India was a very serious matter; in fact, it was unconstitutional. Parliament might be omnipotent practically, still even its powers were limited by Acts passed by itself. For 50 years it had been the object of this Parliament to extend legislative powers to India; and to interfere with these powers, conferred by Parliament itself, was a very different matter from interfering with the Government in its executive capacity. To virtually direct that Legislature to repeal such and such Acts was tantamount to interference. The Indian Councils Act, passed by Parliament in 1861, expressly assigned full powers of law-making to that Legislature by Section 22. A veto was reserved to the English Government by Section 22, whereby a full control was maintained. These two sections were so explicit that, while providing this veto, they left the initiative to a Legislature consisting of the Governor General and his Councillors, aided by a certain number of non-official Members both European and Native. He could give instances where this Legislature had asserted its right of initiation even as against the English Government. Of course, the supreme power must ever reside in England. Certainly, if England insisted on having a measure passed, it could recall the Governor General and the Members of his Council, if they objected; but that would be an unusual course. The proper plan would be to leave the initiative in this case to the Government of India, who would act officially, and would not take an opportunity of running counter to the general observations they might re- ceive from Her Majesty's Government. He submitted that an authoritative suggestion, such as would be comprised in or implied by a Resolution of that House, would be tantamount to an order, and would be also equivalent to taking the initiative which had been assigned by Parliament to the Government of India. He did not for a moment suppose that a Resolution of that House could be treated as a brutum fulmen, as it was really a most serious practical matter. He submitted that the proper plan was to allow the Government of India to have the initiative in this and in all other cases. They would take note of the sentiments expressed in that House, and would in due time act faithfully and loyally in accordance therewith. In dealing with these particular Acts the Government of India would have much to think of. The Acts were various, extending from 1864 to 1880. They touched on many topics besides the diseases now under consideration. If parts of them had to be repealed, parts would have to be retained or reenacted. While studiously preventing any practices condemned by public opinion or prohibited by Parliament, the authorities must yet repress open vice, preserve public decency in the military stations, expel persons from military limits who were known to be dangerously diseased. Among the measures to be kept up was the maintenance of hospitals. He hoped that the charity and humanity of hon. Members would not object to Lock Hospitals being maintained for those who voluntarily resorted to them or who applied for relief. We ought generously to offer them relief when they sought it. We did not refuse medical aid to a man suffering from delirium tremens on the ground that he had brought it upon himself, or on the ground that when he came out of the hospital he would relapse into his fault. When cured in the Lock Hospitals, these poor people would have a chance of returning to an honest life, whereas if uncured they would never emerge from a state of misery, and they would die a most wretched death. In conclusion, he duly noted the argument which had been used by several speakers opposite to the effect that some remedy for this evil ought to be found as affecting our soldiers in the East. He admitted that there might be physical mitigation, but there could be no final remedy even if the law were administered with the greatest stringency. He entreated hon. Members as humane and sensible men to reflect upon the many disadvantages which beset the life of the soldier in India. The soldier was carried out to a foreign land with no family, separated from all his friends, and shut up for many months of the year from morning to evening in hot barracks, which were darkened in order to exclude the rays of the burning sun. Perhaps he was allowed one or two hours' liberty in the cool of the evening. Could not hon. Members imagine what were the temptations to which he was exposed in such circumstances? Despite all these temptations there had been such improvements in his lot and his surroundings, in his character, his conduct, and his habits as to encourage him (Sir Richard Temple) to hope enthusiastically for the future of the soldiery in India. There was only one perfect remedy for the state of things that existed in India, and that was that the men should be enabled to take their wives and families with them to India; but the House well knew that this was practically impossible. For the limited number of families that were taken out to India married quarters were provided, where the women could live happily and comfortably with all the best associations of an English home. It was said by hon. Members opposite that the men should not be allowed to be idle and so get drawn into temptation. That had been considered, and soldiers' gardens and workshops had been provided, and military industry was encouraged. Means of recreation, swimming baths, shady parks, and playgrounds, had been provided. There were also facilities for education. The men were encouraged to circulate books and to hang pictures on their barrack-walls. Well-lighted and properly furnished reading-rooms were constituted to allure men towards better things and away from low places of amusement. In fact, everything was provided that was calculated to raise the lives of the soldiers—physically, mentally, and morally. No matter was of more Imperial importance than this, because the precious reserve of European strength must be maintained intact and unimpaired, however much the Natives of India might be disposed to venerate our pure administration of the law. Native loyalty had been conspicuous happily. Still, behind it all there must ever be "the thin red line" and the central power on the spot. For the sake of sustaining that line and that power, he had spoken to the Amendment, though, under the circumstances of the moment, he would refrain from actually moving it.

said, he hoped that after the discussion of that night they would have heard the last of these horrible Acts in India. On his side of the House they had to consider not merely the independence of the Indian Legislature, but also the character of the English nation. The Medical Profession at one time was strongly in favour of the extension of these Acts, actuated by the wish to do good to the community because of the terrible results which followed from these diseases; but the horrors of the system and of the methods necessary for the suppression of the disease were found to be such as to outweigh, from a moral point of view, any benefits to be derived from the stamping out of the disease. It was now desired by the carrying of the Resolution before the House to express an opinion which would be an indication to the Council of India of the feeling entertained in England on this question. These Acts had failed in England, but they had in an especial manner failed in India. Looking at the statistics on the matter, he found that the number of cases of disease had been increasing year by year, and especially in the last two or three years. Whilst the number of cases in 1876 was 189 per 1,000, they had risen in 1880 to 249; in 1883 to 270; and in 1885 to 342 per 1,000, so that while the Acts had been in force, the disease, instead of being suppressed, had actually largely increased. The argument on the other side from the experiment made at certain stations, was based on unscientific methods and unscientific comparisons, single years being compared with the average of series of years, instead of single years or groups of years being compared with each other. It was said that the increase was due to the shutting up of the hospitals; but no one ever asked that the hospitals should be shut up, or that there should be no places open for the treat- ment of disease. He found, on examining the matter more closely, that this argument entirely failed, for at those stations where the system was allowed to continue in force the increase went on the same as in stations where the system had been suspended. In Cawnpore, for instance, where the experiment of doing away with hospitals had been tried, the number of cases reported per 1,000 in 1884 was 166, whereas in 1885 the number rose to 309, which increase was stated to be due to the abandonment of the hospital system, and of the regulations with regard to the suppression of the disease; but, in reply to this argument, he would take the station of Agra, where the regulations remained in full force. At Agra he found that there were no fewer than 223 cases reported in 1884, and that in 1885, when a diminution ought to have been shown to bear out this argument, so far from there being a diminution, the number of cases reported had actually increased to 416 per 1,000, so that here with all the advantages, or supposed advantages, of the system which was advocated by hon. Members opposite, the increase was about as great as it was in the station where the system had been abandoned, so that the argument based on the ground of the experiment of doing away with the hospitals failed altogether. He commended the result to the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite. As a member of the Medical Profession, to which were allotted the objectionable duties which the Resolution of the hon. Member condemned, he protested against any of his fellow practitioners being called upon to act in the manner they had now to act in India. They ought not to be asked to carry out what was a vile duty in the so-called interests of the Army of the Empire; and, on this ground, to say nothing of the immorality of the question, he would support the Motion of his hon. Friend. He would like to ask hon. Members what they would think of a medical practitioner who would perform the same duties in London for private individuals? It would be impossible that they could respect such a medical man. And yet this was the system which was allowed and systematized by the Government of a Christian country. What they ought to do was to find recreation for the men of the Army, mental, educa- tional and physical, and turn the Service for the poorer classes into what the Universities were for the wealthier classes. If they did this there would be no complaints that the men were kept in idleness. It was said that the men had long hours in dull barracks, and that they were entitled to two hours' recreation every evening. He was willing to concede that they shall have recreation of a moral kind; but in the interests of the morality, the courage, and the self-respect of the soldiers, the system in use in India ought to be put down, as it had been put down in England.

said, he rose, not to continue the discussion, but to suggest that it should now be brought to a close. The whole course of the debate, and the attitude and statements of the Government, had been of such a character, that he must congratulate himself and his Friends on the result of the discussion. The House had also every reason to congratulate itself upon the character of the statement made by the Under Secretary of State for India, and he did not in the least doubt what the effect of that statement would be. He would not enter into the Constitutional question raised by the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Richard Temple), for there was really no difference of opinion on the subject. The Indian Government, he agreed with the Under Secretary, ought to be treated with respect and in a courteous manner. No one, however, could dispute that Parliament had the power to legislate over the head of the Indian Government, and to direct the action of the Viceroy and his Council. The only practical question was, as to the manner in which the power of this House should be brought to bear, and he had no doubt but that the expression of opinion in the course of this discussion would result in the Indian Government honourably, and without delay, bringing their legislation and practice into accord with the views of the House of Commons. He desired to express his acknowledgments to Her Majesty's Government for the manner in which they had met the Resolution, and that was especially gratifying to him because the subject under discussion that evening he regarded as only the continuation and corollary of a long and painful struggle in which he had borne a laborious part. He had never desired to make it a Party question, and as some time ago the House repealed the Contagious Diseases Act, nemine contradicente, he hoped that it would now with similar unanimity adopt the Resolution of his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Laren). The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. Speaker stated that he thought the Ayes had it. But his decision was challenged, and it appearing to Mr. Speaker that the Division was frivolously claimed, he directed the Noes to stand up in their places, and no Member having stood up, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.

I beg to move that this Order be discharged.

Such a Motion is not consistent with the Rules of Debate.