of Hartington) said the Opposition had | veyed to them by the hon. Baronet on made this a Party question; but he was that occasion. He (Mr. Onslow) besure the noble Lord would not accuse lieved that Russia did intend to advance him of having, at any time, made India upon Merv, and that at no very distant a Party question in this House. He date. It was said that nothing was to thought the whole policy of the retire- be gained by remaining in Pishin; but ment from Candahar was part of the he very strongly disagreed with that policy that the noble Lord sketched out view. If they were to leave Candahar, when he was addressing his constituents it was a great compromise indeed to in North-East Lancashire at the General stop at Pishin; and one of the strongest Election. The noble Lord had been de- reasons for that course was, that if termined to withdraw from Candahar, in the future they had to advance on no matter what happened, and no matter Candahar, they would be in a much what were the opinions of those now better position to do so than if they went capable of forming a judgment, and had away altogether beyond the old Frontier. denounced, in no weak language, the But they were not discussing this matter; policy of the late Government. Well, we and he only wished to impress on the had gone from Candahar, and it was only noble Lord, in his responsible position flogging a dead horse to discuss the mat- of Secretary of State for India, the neter any longer. He would venture humbly cessity, on all future occasions when to advise the Government with regard to discussions on Indian matters took place. these despatches from India-for it was that he should put before the House all the first time in his experience that he had the despatches and all the information known despatches of this kind to be sent he possibly could, and that if he could by parcel and not by the regular post- not give them all the despatches, that he that in future they should be sent as all should tell the House why he did not other despatches were transmitted. He do so. did not know whether the noble Marquess had communicated to the Viceroy his displeasure at the course taken by the Assistant Postmaster; but it certainly seemed most extraordinary that these despatches should have come by parcel via Southampton instead of the ordinary method via Brindisi. It was the first time important despatches had come in this way from India, and he hoped it would be the last. It was a most important circumstance, on a question of such vital importance as this before the country, that despatches of great consequence should have been withheld. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that he had stated, in the course of his speech, with frankness, that General Skobeleff had been recalled. Yes; but why did he say that? He told them, at the same time, or he indicated, that there had been a change of policy on the part of the new Emperor; and he endeavoured to impress on the House that the change of policy was such, that Russia had no intention of advancing on Merv, and that so strong was the intention of the present Emperor not to follow in the footsteps of his Father, that he intended, on the first opportunity, to recall General Skobeleff. Well, he (Mr. Onslow) contended that the despatches before them did not bear out the impression conMr. Onslow

COLONEL MAKINS did not wish the House to misunderstand the position of hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House. No one would for a moment accuse either the noble Marquess or the hon. Baronet of an attempt at a wilful suppression of despatches; but, at the same time, they could not lose sight of the fact that there were some despatches that were not forthcoming, and the Government should not have allowed the discussion to go on in the absence of those despatches. The hon. Baronet should have suggested to the Prime Minister the desirability of postponing the debate until such time as the despatches could be laid on the Table of the House. If that had been done, all this difficulty would not have arisen. He (Colonel Makins) had no intention whatever of bringing any accusation against any Member of the Government; and all he wanted to do was to point out that they had made a mistake in allowing the debate to take place before the production of these despatches.

LORD JOHN MANNERS said, he had heard, with great pleasure, the concluding sentences of the noble Marquess, because they seemed not only to justify the speech of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), but the original

MR. MONK replied, that the object | tion "not less than twenty Members?" of sending the Bill to a Select Com- Any hole-and-corner meeting might, by mittee was that the Amendments on the obtaining the presence of reporters, conPaper should be carefully considered in stitute itself a public meeting within the Committee upstairs, and evidence taken terms of the clause. Heobjected strongly if necessary. to leaving out the definition "not less than twenty Members."

Motion agreed to.

MR. HUTCHINSON said, his hon.

Order for Committee read, and dis- Friend had omitted the words at his charged.

Bill referred to a Select Committee.

COLONEL MAKINS asked whether this Bill did not come under the operation of the half-past 12 Rule, as there were Amendments?

MR. SPEAKER: The Rule does not

desire, for otherwise meetings of Churchwardens, Vestries, Local Boards, and other local authorities would be excluded from the Act.

COLONEL MAKINS thought meetings of Guardians, Vestries, and such public bodies might very well be alluded to specially in the clause; but he objected strongly to leaving out the limit as to 20 persons, having regard to meetings other than those specially mentioned.

MR. LEAMY wished to know why the hon. Member omitted the words "with the consent of the meeting," seeing that reporters could not report unless they were admitted.

MR. INDERWICK explained that

apply to Amendments when they are the ordinary course for reporters who only Amendments in Committee.

Clause 1 (Interpretation).

MR. INDERWICK said, it appeared to him and to some of his Friends

desirable to have some definition as to what were public meetings for the purposes of the Bill; and he, therefore, proposed that for the purposes of the Act the words "public meeting" should mean "any meeting to which reporters of the Press were admitted." As this was a Bill to give certain privileges to newspaper editors and proprietors, he hoped the Committee would be of opinion that the definition he proposed was sufficient to give them an intimation of what a public meeting was, and how far their liability extended.

Amendment proposed,

In page 2, line 3, after the word “advertisements," to insert the words "public meeting shall mean any meeting to which reporters for the press are admitted with the assent of the said meeting."—(Mr. Inderwick.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

COLONEL MAKINS saw considerable objection to proceeding with this Bill, even though it was unopposed, at that late hour; but he should like to ask the hon. Member why he left out the defini

were sent to private meetings was to ask if they were to be admitted; and if they were admitted, it was understood the meeting. But the words "with the that they were admitted by consent of it necessary to put the question to every consent of the meeting" might render Amendment in that form. He thought meeting. That was why he put the the Bill very reasonable, and he put this Amendment on the Paper in order that it might be discussed.

Amendment proposed was so different COLONEL MAKINS thought the in character from that already on the Paper, that it would not be right to consider it at that time. It raised many questions which would require discus

sion. He should move that the Chairman should report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Makins.)

Question put, and negatived.

MR. HUTCHINSON, gathering that the general feeling of the House was to adjourn the discussion, expressed his willingness to bow to that feeling.

MR. HEALY said, it was so seldom that there was a chance of making pro

gress, that it was advisable to discuss this important Bill.

MR. COURTNEY hoped the hon. and learned Member for Rye (Mr. Inderwick) would not press his Amendment. The Bill had been carefully considered by a Committee upstairs for several years, and he had the honour to consider it as a Member of the Committee. The first year the Chairman was the Attorney General of the late Government, and last year the Attorney General of the present Government was Chairman. The Committee considered the question of putting in words precisely defining public meetings, but they gave up the attempt as being really impracticable. They, however, inserted words which they thought were a sufficient guarantee. It would add materially to the difficulties of applying the Bill if it was attempted to provide precisely as to how reporters were to be present at meetings, and he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press the Amendment.

Clause 3 (No prosecution for newspaper libel without fiat of Attorney General).

MR. COURTNEY proposed, in line 33, to leave out the words "Her Majesty's Attorney General," in order to insert " Director of Public Prosecutions." This question was raised in Committee upstairs, and he was bound to say it was there decided against his opinion and in favour of making criminal prosecutions for libel depend upon the allowance of Her Majesty's Attorney General. It appeared to him at the time, and it had appeared to him more strongly since, that no allowance for a criminal prosecution should be left to the discretion of a political officer. It appeared to him that in many cases the task of the Attorney General would be one of great difficulty and delicacy. Many libels arose out of a political controversy; and it might happen that the Attorney General was of opinion that no allowance should be made for MR. INDERWICK said, he should a criminal prosecution, yet he might like to take the opinion of the Com-grant it, for fear that if he did not he mittee on the matter. His object was to extend the operation of the Bill, and he did not anticipate the difficulties pointed out by the hon. Gentleman. He should, therefore, take the opinion of the Committee as to whether it was desirable to introduce this definition.

would be accused of political partizanship. To relieve the Attorney General from the possibility of such a position he proposed this Amendment.

Amendment proposed,

In page 2, line 33, to leave out the words insert the words "the Director of Public Prose"Her Majesty's Attorney General," in order to cutions."-(Mr. Courtney.)

MR. WARTON thought the proposal most absurd. Two persons might meet together, and because they had a reporter present they became a publicHer Majesty's Attorney General' stand Question proposed, "That the words

meeting.

MR. DAWSON considered the words proposed to be introduced most proper words, for the presence of reporters at a meeting made it a public meeting in the most effectual manner. He heartily approved of the Amendment.

COLONEL MAKINS said, he should certainly vote against the Amendment; but, in the event of its being carried, he should move that a public meeting should consist of not less than 20 persons.

part of the Bill."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), suggested that, inasmuch as the Attorney General directed criminal prosecutions in Ireland, and as there was no such Officer in Ireland as "Public Prosecutor," the Amendment should read—“ Public Prosecutor in England and Attorney General in Ireland."

MR. HUTCHINSON said, the House was unanimous the other day in think

Question put, "That those words being the Attorney General by far the there inserted."

The Committee divided:-Ayes 13; Noes 40: Majority 27.-(Div. List, No. 202.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Newspaper reports of certain meetings privileged) agreed to.

best authority to whom this question could be referred, because he could be called to order in the House of Commons if there was any misuse of his power. This would not be so in the case of the Public Prosecutor. They need have no fear of the duty being honourably discharged by the Attorney

General for the time being; his social | assent should not be taken in the case of position and political status were suf- criminal prosecutions for newspaper libel. ficient to ensure an impartial administering of the Act. He disapproved of making any further differences between England and Ireland.

MR. WARTON hoped the distinguished legal authority who had just spoken (the Solicitor General for Ireland) would excuse him if he did not agree with him. He should infinitely prefer the Attorney General to the Public Prosecutor. One thing was most amusing. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), in moving the Amendment, did not know the name of the official he proposed to substitute for the Attorney General. He did not know whether it was the Prosecutor General, or Director of Prosecutions, or Prosecutor; and had to appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen sitting near him. The fact of the matter was that the office of Prosecutor was on its trial.

MR. INDERWICK said, this was a matter which chiefly concerned editors and proprietors of newspapers; and he understood they preferred to be in the hands of the Attorney General rather than in those of any other official. In his opi nion, it would be a great advantage to substitute the Public Prosecutor for the Attorney General. The Public Prosecutor was a permanent official; he was not a political Officer or a Member of the House of Commons, but was liable to give an account of his actions to the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Jus tice for the time being. Under these circumstances, it would be held by the public that he was a more impartial offcial than the Attorney General, espe cially in libels of a political nature, and he must support the Amendment.

Question, "That the words 'Her Ma of the Question," put, and negatived. jesty's Attorney General' stand part

Further Question put, and agreed to, Prosecutions' be substituted." "That the words the Director of Public

There was a staff of six clerks to be appointed; only one clerk had yet been appointed, and the whole Office was treated with discredit by everybody. The Prosecutor was a man of no weight; and there was no argument MR. COURTNEY proposed to add, which could be used in favour of the after the word "prosecutions," the words present proposition. The hon. Member" in England, or the Attorney General for Liskeard had said the duty would in Ireland." be a delicate one for the Attorney General to have to perform. No one ever supposed the Attorney General would act unfairly, no matter to which political Party he belonged. He knew the Attorney General was a most overworked man, and wanted to have no fresh duty thrust upon him. He was, however, the proper person to discharge a duty of this kind; and it was rather hard at this time of the morning to have an Amendment of this nature started upon them.

MR. HEALY thought this a most ob jectionable proposal. They wanted a Public Prosecutor in Ireland. He did not wish to obstruct the Bill; but it was a most disgraceful thing for them in Ire land, where political strife was at times so heated, to have to apply to the Attor ney General to be allowed to conduct the prosecutions. They had a recent case in Ireland-the case of Mr. Parnell and others against The Dublin Evening Mail. If Mr. Parnell and others had had to go to the Public Prosecutor or the Attorney General in that matter, the fiat would never have been granted. The Attorney General for Ireland would see the force of his remarks.

MR. HEALY thought they ought to establish a precedent in this Bill, and make the Public Prosecutor or Attorney General give this allowance without fee or charge. He therefore MR. JUSTIN MCARTHY said, his asked the hon. Member for Liskeard to hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) mistook the consent to add to his Amendment the scope of the Bill. It was not a Bill to following words:"The same will be protect writers, but to protect newspaper given free of all charge or fee." editors from the consequences of pub MR. LEAMY said, the Public Prose-lishing libellous reports. As they had cutor in Ireland was the Attorney Gene- no other official in Ireland than the At ral. He understood the Attorney Gene- torney General to whom a matter of this ral assented to other prosecutions. If kind could be referred, he should supthat were so, he did not see why his port the Amendment. Mr. Hutchinson