Clause 2 (Provisions for securing Petty Sessions Clerks Fund from variation). On the Motion of Mr. LITTON, Amendment made, in page 1, line 20, after "salaries," by inserting "and retiring allowances." MR. HEALY thought the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone should give the Committee an explanation as to why the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. De La Poer Beresford) had not been moved. MR. LITTON said, the Amendment in question had been put down to meet certain objections which had been raised by some of the Town Commissioners in Ireland. The hon. Member was now satisfied that the Definition Clause with regard to "local authorities" rendered it unnecessary for him to propose his Amendment. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to patronage, simony, and exchange of Benefices in the Church of England."-(Mr. E. Stanhope.) SIR WILFRID LAWSON asked the hon. Gentleman opposite to explain the nature of this Bill. MR. E. STANHOPE pointed out that the proposed Bill contained exactly those proposals which the Prime Minister had said would meet with the support of the Government. The other portions of the former Bill would stand over for further consideration. As soon as leave was given to introduce the Bill, he should move that the former Order be discharged. MR. ILLINGWORTH rose to Order. He wished to know whether it was competent for an hon. Member, having already one Bill before the House, to introduce another upon the same subject before the original Order was discharged? MR. SPEAKER: The procedure of the hon. Member is quite regular. MR. T. P. O'CONNOR said, he had given his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Illingworth) his assistance on a previous occasion in dividing against the former Bill. He hardly knew what course his hon. Friend was about to pursue; but if he intended to persist in obstructive action, as formerly, he should give him his cordial support. MR. DILLWYN asked whether the Motion should not have been brought before the Committee of the Whole House? MR. SPEAKER: I see no ground for that course being taken. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."(Mr. Tillett.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, he thought the course proposed was somewhat discourteous to the hon. Gentleman opposite, who was simply asking leave to introduce a Bill which the Prime Minister had intimated would receive the support of the Government. SIR WILFRID LAWSON thought the other Bill should be withdrawn before leave was given, otherwise there would be two Bills running at the same time. MR. E. STANHOPE said, it was quite impossible for him to accede to this suggestion. The moment he received permission to bring in the second Bill he should withdraw the first. He was much indebted to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for the manner in which he had urged the House to agree to his Motion. One of the chief objections raised to the first Bill was that hon. Members opposite were in ignorance as to the clauses which would be proceeded with. They then considered that a new Bill should be introduced, and now opposed him in carrying out their own suggestion. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present, House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock. He the notice of the House. In 1864 a Memorial on the subject was addressed by seamen and marines to the then First Lord of the Admiralty. A favourable reply was given to it; and subsequently a Memorial of a similar kind was addressed to the late Mr. Ward Hunt when he was First Lord. was afraid that, owing to financial reasons, any favourable suggestions which might have been made by First Lords had not been well received by the Treasury, because nothing had been done to carry out the views of the Memorialists. The subject was one of the highest importance, and its importance had increased since it was first pressed on the Admiralty. The risk of accidents to seamen and marines had increased since then; and, as he showed on a former occasion, on successive appeals there was a decrease in the amount subscribed by the public to the widows and children of the victims. He thought that seamen might fairly feel that while every attention was given by the country to the widows of soldiers and Civil servants, the same could not be said in their case. The fact of the sailor being a married man was almost wholly ignored; but great numbers of them were married men, and very many of them had large families dependent on them. The seamen had fixed their eyes on one or two items of saving which came into the hands of the Admiralty, and thought that they had a claim to those savings, as, to a certain extent, they were their own property; but in the event of the Admiralty establishing a Pension Fund they were willing to have deducted in aid of that fund a certain portion of their day's pay. One of the items of saving to which he referred was the difference between the amount paid by the Admiralty for certain articles and the allowance made to the sailor when he did not use them. Then, if a seaman had confinement for six hours, a day's pay was stopped from him. That was another item of saving to the Admiralty. Those savings might be trifling in individual cases; but in the whole they amounted to a considerable sum. He was not asking for any increase in the seaman's pay; but as the seaman's life during peace was a much less comfortable one than the soldier's, and as the improvements in naval science and pro jectiles had increased rather than dimi- | occurred the other day to the Doterel. nished his risk of accidents, it was not According to the regulations in such unreasonable that he should be treated cases, a gratuity of one year's pay was as well as the soldier. It was stated given to the widow of each man who that the old non-commissioned officers lost his life; and in the case of a man were fast disappearing from the Army, who did not leave a widow, a similar and their places being filled by young gratuity might be awarded to his children corporals and serjeants. If such a thing or aged parents dependent upon him. should come to pass in the sister Ser- Besides that, the children of sailors who vice, then the personnel of the Navy was met with their death in the way mendoomed, for there was nothing on which tioned were educated at the expense of young sailors so much depended as the the Greenwich Hospital Fund-the boys. petty officers. Most of these men were at the Greenwich Hospital School, and married, and there was no better way the girls at certain private schools of attaching them to the Service than selected for the purpose. It was his by providing for those they left behind impression that the widows and children them. Secure of that, they were ready of soldiers were not so well treated. He to incur every risk. He should be the did not think it was well to mix the last man to stir up agitation among the pension question up with that of the sailors, for the rule among them was to savings between the cost price of arrefrain from all political agitation; but ticles and the allowance made to a sailor he thought that in again bringing this when he did not draw them. When the question under the notice of the First noble Viscount introduced the latter subLord and their Lordships' House, he ject on a previous occasion, he (the Earl was doing nothing beyond advocating a of Northbrook) gave an explanation legitimate desire. which it was not necessary for him to THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK said, repeat now. He did not suppose it was he could assure the House that the suggested that the Government should Admiralty were not indifferent to the undertake to pension the widows of all question. Three months ago, when the seamen. He thought a provision of that noble Viscount brought it forward, he kind ought, as a rule, to be made by (the Earl of Northbrook) stated that the the seamen themselves out of their pay; subject was one of considerable impor- and he was glad to be able to state to tance, but one requiring careful inquiry, their Lordships that the seamen seemed which he was resolved it should have. disposed to make it. Savings banks had He did not at that time hold out to the recently been established at the Naval noble Viscount the expectation that it ports, in addition to those on board ship; could be dealt with within a very short and His Royal Highness in command of period. When the Report of the Com- the Naval Reserves had told him that a mittee upon Pensions was made, he large number of the Coastguard insured would consider if it might properly be their lives. He could only repeat what laid upon the Table of the House. As he had said before-that, in his opinion, to the question itself, he thought it was there were certain funds which might not satisfactory that in such cases as that properly be set apart towards providing of the loss of H.M.S. Doterel, which hap-assistance for the widows of sailors who pened the other day, the aid to be given lost their lives by drowning or other to the sufferers should, to a certain ex- accident; but he hoped the House would tent, depend on an appeal to the public. allow him to say that any attempt to He had already had some communica- increase the expenses for the non-effection with his right hon. Friend the Se- tive portion of the Navy ought to be cretary of State for War on that sub-viewed with much jealousy in "another ject, and they had been in consultation place." Those expenses had grown from with the Royal Commissioners of the Pa- £360,000 to £560,000 within 10 years. triotic Fund, with the view of establish- In his opinion, all the money that could ing some system of dealing with such properly be saved in other branches of cases. At the same time, he must say the Service ought to be expended on the that he did not think the noble Vis-effective or fighting portion. The quescount gave quite sufficient credit to the tion of provision for exceptional cases country for the assistance that was now would, however, continue to receive his given in such calamities as that which careful attention. VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH thanked the noble Earl for his statement, and said, that he did not suggest that any provision should be made in respect to any other than the exceptional cases referred to. ARMY (THANKS OF PARLIAMENT). THE EARL OF POWIS moved for a "Return of the officers of the Army who have received the thanks of Parliament by name from 1813; showing the date at which and the rank in which they would have been retired from the Army under the proposed rule of five years' non-employment, and the appointments they may have held subsequent to that date: how many officers of distinction would have been excluded from employment by the proposed five years' regulstion, and the nation thus deprived of their services." The Return would be confined to those who were thanked as General Officers, as officers of inferior rank were not mentioned by name in the Votes of Parliament. THE EARL OF MORLEY said, he would be the last person to demur to giving information to the House on any important questions relative to the Army when he considered the information really useful, whether in favour of or against the scheme of Army Organization; but he submitted that this Return would serve no purpose whatever, because the conditions under which the officers who would be included in the proposed Return served would be entirely different from the conditions under which officers would serve in the new scheme. Had the rule which would in future enforce retirement after five years' non-employment been in force in former days, it was more than probable that many, if not all, the distinguished generals referred to by his noble Friend would have been retained by employment on the active list. He would point out that the effect of keeping a large number of officers of high position on the active list would be to keep younger men out. Those who had not been employed for five years, and who were not likely to be employed for some time, should go off the list, in order that the promotion might not be blocked. He hoped the noble Earl would not press for the Return. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, he had heard of Returns being refused because the information which would be contained in them was difficult to be arrived at, or because they would be so voluminous and expensive; but he had never before heard of their being refused because their production, in the opinion of the Minister, would not furnish cogent arguments against a system of which he approved. It was obvious that the motive of the noble Earl (the Earl of Powis in asking for the Return was that noble Lords who were not so well acquainted with military matters as he was himself might have put before them in precise and intelligible terms the argument against this five years' rule. Upon the cogency of that argument, he (the Marquess of Salisbury) did not desire to express an opinion. In the opinion of his noble Friend behind him, it was a valuable and an effective argument; and he thought that to withhold information from the House simply because the noble Earl opposite did not agree with him was a very unusual course. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, he did not altogether agree with the noble Marquess opposite. What his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) said was not that the argument to be founded upon the Return would not be cogent, but that no argument could be founded upon it at all. Suppose a Return was asked for which had no application to the subject, he should say that was a reason for refusing the Return. No argument of any importance could be founded upon the Return asked for. However, as it would be neither volu minous nor expensive, his noble Friend would not resist the Motion if it were pressed. LORD DENMAN (not having heard the speech of the noble Marquess) said, that the noble Lord who made this Motion had pointed out that Viscount Hill and Viscount Hardinge could not have been employed as they were if this proposed system had existed in their time. He (Lord Denman) wished to point out the fact that the rule as to colonels retiring at the age of 58 had been re-considered; and as the Minister for War might refrain from employing a general for five years, and so dismiss him from active service, it would be an injury to the Profession if this regulation, or anything approaching to it, were established. Lord Lynedoch was 40 years old before he joined the Army. If he had been a general on retirement, he could not have again been employed-though vigorous till 80. This and other schemes for forced retirement House adjourned at Six o'clock, Ten o'clock. Report-Local Government Provisional Orders (Berwick-upon-Tweed, &c.) [138]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) [139]. QUESTIONS. 1806 VACCINATION ACT, SECS. 29. 31. STATE OF IRELAND-LANDLORDS' PROPERTY DEFENCE ASSOCIATION. MR. HEALY asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attendance of paid officials of the Government at meetings of the Landlords' Property Defence Association or Emergency Committee has the sanction and approval of the Irish Executive; and, if not, what notice has been taken of the presence at such meeting of Mr. Eaton, Resident Magistrate, Mr. Rice, Crown Prosecutor, and Mr. Fleming, Sub-inspector, at Fermoy, county Cork, on the 7th instant? MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he understood that neither Mr. Eaton, Resident Magistrate, nor Mr. Fleming, Sub-inspector, attended any such meeting as the hon. Member alluded to. Mr. Rice, Crown Prosecutor, informed him. that, as a private individual, he attended. a private meeting of gentlemen interested in the Property Defence Association. He did not think the matter called for the attention of the Govern ment. INLAND NAVIGATION DRAINAGE (IRELAND) THE UPPER BANN. MR. RICHARDSON asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in the course of an inquiry now being held on "Inland Navigation and Drainage in Ireland," it has been found that the powers of the Commissioners do MR. P. A. TAYLOR asked the Secre- not enable them sufficiently to investitary of State for the Home Department, gate the complaint laid before them, in Whether it is the fact that the Warring-regard to the serious damage caused by ton magistrates recently fined six persons £1 168. 6d. each (including costs) under section 29 of the Vaccination Act, which section applies only to children under twelve months' old, whereas the children in question were from three to six years old; whether this is not illegal and, whether he will direct that the fines be remitted? SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he only received this morning the facts of the case. It appeared that, as his hon. Friend stated, the conviction took place under the 29th section of the Vaccination Act, instead of the 31st, and the conviction, considering the age of the children, was, therefore, irregular. He would inquire into the matter, and see what was to be done with reference to the fines. the flooding of the Valley of the Upper Bann, and the lands adjoining Lough Neah and its tributaries; and, whether he will advise Her Majesty to enlarge the scope and powers of the Commissioners, and provide the Commissioners with the assistance of a competent hydraulic engineer for the purpose of reporting on a proposal placed before them, to discharge the surplus water by way of Nowry? LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH : The Commission referred to in the Question of my hon. Friend was appointed to inquire into the Northern inland navigations of Ireland and their effect upon the drainage of the country. In a preliminary Report, the Commissioners asked for fresh powers to examine into the practicability and expense of a new |