the Secretary of State for War had announced that it was his intention to give some pecuniary assistance to officers in the regiments which were to be converted into Rifles or kilted regiments-the amount of this assistance had not yet been fixed; but it would not be the same in all cases. With reference to what had been said by the noble Lord (Lord Waveney), he must remark that the change in the Militia from silver lace to gold had been recommended very strongly by a Committee on which there were some distinguished Militia officers. On the whole, he believed that change would be very popular with the Militia, and would take effect on the 1st of July. When the Militia required new uniforms, they would replace those which they at present wore with those of the battalions with which they were to be incorporated. As some time must necessarily elapse before all the arrangements in reference to the new uniforms could be completed, officers joining Militia regiments in the interval would only be required to provide themselves with undress uniform until then. With regard to the second Question, it was not intended in the present year, any more than in former years, to issue helmets for the use of the Militia. THE EARL OF GALLOWAY wished to know, Whether, in the case of the Royal Scots Fusiliers-which would be converted from a Lowland to a Highland regiment-the uniform would be entirely changed? He also asked what was the intention of the authorities as to the Militia regiment which was to be affiliated-the 21st Regiment? He did not think the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) was well informed when he said the change would be popular with the Militia. The Militia officers would not approve of having to wear gold lace; and the result would be that for the next 15 years a great many Militia regiments would remain in a piebald state, some of the officers wearing gold and some silver lace. THE EARL OF MORLEY asked that the Question should be put again privately, as he was not prepared to make a statement with regard to the Scots Fusiliers offhand. He might say, however, he did not know of any exception to the general Regulation being made in favour of that regiment. There The Earl of Morley would be no more helmets issued than usual. LORD WAVENEY asked, Whether, as the change from silver to gold was not to be made before the 1st of July, he would be guilty of any breach of regilation if he instructed the officers under his command, who were without uniform, to provide themselves with new uniforms in accordance with the new Regulation before the date mentioned? THE EARL OF MORLEY thought it would be better for them to wait till the 1st of July. House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, 20th May, 1881. MINUTES.]-NEW MEMBER SWORN-Thomas Committee Infectious Diseases Notification NEW MEMBER SWORN. Thomas Collins, esquire, for Knaresborough. THE PARLIAMENTARY OATH. SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Mr. Speaker, I rose as the hon. Member for Knaresborough advanced to the Table to take the Oath, intending to take the same course which the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote, was permitted to take last month when the hon. Member for Northampton presented himself. ["Order!"] MR. RITCHIE: I rise to Order. I wish to know, Sir, whether there is any Question before the House? SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I will conclude with a Motion. I presumed, Sir[Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!-I presumed, Sir, to follow the example which you permitted to be set by the right hon. "That, having regard to the precedent of April 27, 1881, when this House decided that a duly elected Member should not be permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath prescribed by Statutes 29 Vict. c. 13, and 31 and 32 Vict. c. 72, Mr. Thomas Collins be not permitted Member for Northampton-[Laughter.] There was not the slightest then. There -I mean the right hon. Member for was evidence, perhaps, of what his opiNorth Devon. You, Sir, on the occasion nions were some months ago; but there I refer to, allowed that right hon. Gen- was no legal or official evidence of what tleman to move and interpose a Motion his opinions were when he came to the when the Member for Northampton came Table to take the Oath. I say, again, forward to fulfil the statutory obligation, that this House has appointed a Parliabecause he had an objection to that hon. mentary Inquisition into the opinions of Member taking the Oath which the law Members. That I object to; but, if deimposed upon him; and I wish to follow cided upon, it ought to be carried out that precedent, because I desire to point fairly and impartially, and we ought to out to the House that we have now have a guarantee concerning every man's adopted a new course in this House. opinions before he comes to the Table. Forinerly, a person coming up to take What I meant to have moved I will read the Oath at the Table took it on his own to the House, because it explains what responsibility; and if he did anything I want to do, and explains why I think wrong in taking the Oath he was liable I was unfairly treated by having a noise in a Court of Law to suffer for what he made, and not allowed to move the Rehad done. But the proceedings of the solution, which I think, according to Leader of the Opposition have put this your ruling in regard to the right hon. question and the House in a totally new Gentleman, I ought to have been alposition. The House has now assumed lowed to move. The Resolution runs as to itself the guardianship of the Oath. follows::--It has relieved the individual from that responsibility, and taken it upon itself. Now, Sir, I, as you are aware, totally dissent from those proceedings. In my humble opinion, this House had no Constitutional right to interfere with a subject of Her Majesty in performing the duty imposed upon him by the Sta-["Order!"] tute Law, and I had proposed to move that such proceedings were illegal; but you, Sir, decided that that could not be allowed. If not allowed to move that the proceedings were illegal, I concluded that they were legal; and, being legal, I wanted to make them impartial. wanted, when the opinions of a person coming to take the Oath were previously inquired into, to see that such a proceeding was impartially carried out, and that we had sufficient guarantee concerning the opinions of every Member before he came to the Table. [Laughter. It is a more important question than some hon. Members seem to think. For the first time for generations this House has appointed a Parliamentary Inquisition to inquire into the opinions of hon. Members before they take the Oath. [No] Hon. Members say "No!" What do they mean? Is there any other reason why the hon. Member for Northampton should not be allowed to take the Oath, except that he holds certain opinions concerning the sanctity of the Oath? My point is that there was no evidence in this House at the time as to what his opinions were. ["Oh!" Order!" I am reading a Resolution which I had written out before he came up to take the Oath "to repeat the words of the said Oath until this House shall, by means of a Select Committee or otherwise, satisfy itself as to the nature of his opinions touching the sanctity of the Oath." II say that the House, having taken the Oath under its charge, should be most anxious that there should be no profanation of the Oath, and ought to take every precaution against anything of the sort. I have-I think unfairlynot been allowed to move that; but as I should like to hear from some of those hon. Members opposite, who so loudly shouted at me some articulate reasons why they would not allow me to perform my Parliamentary duty, I will conclude with a Motion which I would not otherwise have made-"That this House do now adjourn.” MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to second the Motion. It would be very amusing, if this were not so grave a matter, to see how grown-up men can treat a question of such deep significance as has been done by hon. Members opposite. I am very glad to say that the action of the hon. Baronet has brought us this result -that we now have it on your high | ing upon their consciences, and both of authority, Mr. Speaker, that if any them having been equally willing to Member rise when a newly-introduced complete their election by taking the Member is about to take the Oath, he Oath and their seats? shall not be listened to-that he shall have no right to interfere with the taking of that Oath. I must congratulate the House upon that result-proved by the way in which you have treated this matter. I am sure it is your deliberate judgment upon it, and we shall always be able in future to cite your demeanour on that occasion as a precedent. It cannot be read otherwise. When my hon. Friend rose, the Gentleman referred to and the Opposition side of the House knew perfectly well what he was about to do. They raised a clamour, they raised laughter, and they took care that my hon. Friend's words should not, Sir, reach you. And I have no doubt, Sir-I am sure I say it with all respect to the Chair-that you knew, by rumour or direct Notice, what my hon. Friend was about to do; but you were of opinion that my hon. Friend had no right to interrupt in the taking of the Oath, and that no one can question any hon. Member upon any views he may entertain. In seconding this Motion, I, therefore, congratulate the House that we have now a decision and a ruling-by the demeanour of yourself, if not by express utterance to which no exception can be taken. MR. STAVELEY HILL: I rise, Sir, to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. and learned Member is in Order in calling in question the authority of the Chair? MR. HOPWOOD: I have not in the least, Sir, called in question the authority of the Chair. I have pointed out what is the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the manner and action of the highest authority we have in the House. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.) MR. H. B. SAMUELSON: I beg to ask you, Sir, wherein the position of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, in regard to being sworn, before he took the Oath, differed from that of Mr. Bradlaugh, neither of them since their election having made any statement respecting their religious opinions, or as to whether they considered the Oath bind Mr. Hopwood MR. SPEAKER: I may state to the House that the hon. Member for Knaresborough presented himself at the Table of the House to take the Oath of Allegiance, as required by law, and according to the usual practice of this House. It had been reported to me, no doubt, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle intended to interpose; and I had determined that if any such interposition was attempted by the hon. Baronet or by any other hon. Member of the House-either to put any question to the hon. Member for Knaresborough, or to interfere in any manner-it was my duty not to allow such interposition. I wish to point out to the House that the case of the hon. Member for Northampton was essentially different. That hon. Member himself raised questions which demanded the consideration of this House, and led to those proceedings with which the House is familiar. Had he, in the first instance, presented himself at the Table to take the Oath, as the hon. Member for Knaresborough has done to-day, I should not have permitted any Member to interpose; and I am persuaded that in so doing I should have taken a course which would be consistent with my duty to this House. MR. GLADSTONE: I am not sure whether it may not appear officious on my part to say one word after what has fallen from you, Sir, as to the opinion of the Chair. But I may, perhaps, go as far as this-to say that I think the distinction to which you have adverted is an obvious distinction. My own opinion, if it be of any value, and the opinion, I think, of the great majority of those who sit on this side of the House, is very well known. It is that there ought to have been, ab initio, no interference whatever with Mr. Bradlaugh, or with any other person, in the performance of what he deemed to be his statutory duty. But that is not the question now before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle founds himself on the fact that such interference was permitted from the Chair on the former occasion, and he argues that the two cases are parallel, and that such interference should in consistency be per mitted by the Chair on the present oc- | by a side wind and in a manner intended casion. Now, the House will recollect to cast ridicule over the Oath. The questhat when the interference took place on tion is one of a very serious nature, the part of the right hon. Baronet whatever may be the opinion of the hon. opposite, it was permitted by you, Sir, Gentlemen on the other side. not on any technical grounds, but on the distinct and separate ground of the prior proceedings of the House. There are no prior proceedings in this case. Therefore, I submit that the two cases stand to be judged as separate matters and on their separate merits; and I do not think that my hon. Friend can justly contend that there is any kind of parallel, the one with the other. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I only wish, Sir, to add one word to what has fallen from yourself and the Prime Minister, which, I think, will further illustrate the difference between the two cases. In the case of the hon. Member for Northampton, when he presented himself for the purpose of taking the Oath, I rose, not for the purpose of putting any question to the hon. Gentleman, I rose for the purpose of objecting on the grounds known to the House, and which I was prepared to state and did state. I rose for the purpose of stating the objections that I felt, and which the majority felt, and ultimately showed that they felt, to his going through the form of taking the Oath. I did not rise to put any question to him. But the hon. Member for Carlisle rose, not for the purpose of objecting to the hon. Member for Knaresborough taking the Oath. He had no grounds-good, bad, or indifferent for objecting to the hon. Member taking the Oath, as I conceived I had on the occasion of the hon. Member for Northampton presenting himself; but he rose to put a question. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: No, to move for a Committee.] Well, he rose to move for a Committee without any grounds whatever upon which that could be founded. Of course, it was a matter of discussion on the occasion of Mr. Bradlaugh's admission whether or not the right course was taken. The majority of the House affirmed it and maintained their decision. It is open to the hon. Baronet to move to have that Resolution rescinded if he thinks good so to challenge it. But I maintain it is not open to him, and is not consistent with the decency or dignity of the proceedings of this House, that objection should be made to the hon. Member for Knaresborough taking the Oath SIR WILFRID LAWSON: May I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Motion? But I would desire to make a personal observation. I made the Motion for adjournment because of the interruption with which I was greeted on rising; and if you, Sir, had risen when I rose, and told me what you have told the House now, of course I should not have interfered; but in consequence of the disturbance, and not getting any information from you, I considered I had a right to move the adjournment of the House. MR. R. N. FOWLER: I wish just to say one word in reference to what has fallen from my hon. Friend opposite. My point is that there was no interruption. The hon. Member for Knaresborough is an old friend of a great many Members on this side the House; and considering the cordial way in which he was received by several right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, I apprehend he has the personal regard of hon. Members opposite. In these circumstances, he was received with great pleasure, not only by political friends, but by other Members, and it was owing to this circumstance that the hon. Baronet was unable to be heard. MR. CALLAN said, he had a sugges tion to make. Sometimes there was a difficulty about a good Party cry. At one Election, if he recollected right, the cry was "Beer and Bible." He would suggest to the hon. Member for Carlisle that he should go to the country with the cry of "Bradlaugh and Local Option." Motion, by leave, withdrawn. QUESTIONS. STATE OF IRELAND-" BOYCOTTING," CO. ANTRIM-MR. NOBLE. MR. LEWIS asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is aware that at the end of January or beginning of February last, a sworn information of Mr. Noble, a shopkeeper of Randalstown, county Antrim, as to a conspiracy on the part of certain persons to " Boy THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): No, Sir; I am not aware of any such information having been sworn. None such was ever laid before me. THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) CO. ANTRIM BLACK. But cott" him, or, in other words, to ruin | tenant of the county relative to the aphim in his business, was duly made; and, pointments of magistrates. These comwhether it is true that such information munications must be confidential, and I was laid before him, but that no pro- do not think I ought to answer Questions ceedings were taken thereupon? with regard to them. As to the third Question, it is wholly untrue that the Lord Chancellor, in the first instance or at all, refused to make the appointment of Mr. Black on the ground of Mr. Black's alleged connection with "Boycotting" shopkeepers in Randalstown who would not join the Land League, or on any other ground. I think it only due to Mr. Black, with regard to this Question, to say that he himself has informed me that there is no branch of the Land League in Randalstown, consequently there could not be any "Boycotting" by, or in connection with, the Land League; that he has never had any connection with the Land League in any shape or form; and, he adds, that he has never been connected with "Boycotting" shopkeepers in Randalstown. Mr. Black was the Liberal candidate for the County Antrim at the last Election, being selected as the candidate owing to his position, and he polled several thousand votes. With regard to the last part of the Question of the hon. Member for Londonderry, I hardly think I should be called on to reply to it. The grounds of the appointment were perfectly satisfactory to the Lord Chancellor, who thought that if high intelligence, unstained integrity, and large experience, and a large stake of property in the county were sufficient to qualify a gentleman for the magistracy of Antrim, Mr. Black was duly qualified. In reply to the hon. Member for Monaghan, I have not been able to ascertain the accuracy of the statistics; but I have no reason to believe they are inaccurate. I am not aware that any complaints have been made as to the constitution of the Bench; but my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland is always ready to remove any magistrate against whom just cause of complaint is made out. MR. LEWIS asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Samuel Black, of Randalstown, county Antrim, has recently been appointed a magistrate of the county; whether such appointment was not made by the Lord Chancellor after the refusal of the Lieutenant of the County to recommend the appointment; whether it is true that the Lord Chancellor in the first instance refused to make the appointment on the ground of Mr. Black's alleged connection with "Boycotting" shopkeepers in Randalstown who would not join the Land League; whether Mr. Black was a Liberal Candidate for the County at the last Election; and, whether he will state upon what grounds this appointment was ultimately made? MR. GIVAN asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that out of one hundred and twenty-six magistrates in county Antrim there are only sixteen Presbyterians and five Roman Catholics, although the Presbyterians constitute more than one-half and the Roman Catholics constitute a large proportion of the population; whether it is the case that the Lord Lieutenant of the County is an habitual absentee, and has not been in the county for seventeen years; and, whether much dissatisfaction does not prevail in consequence of the condition of the magistracy; and, will the Government take any immediate steps to remove this grievance, which seriously affects the confidence of the people in the impartial administration of justice? MR. W. E. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; it is a fact that Mr. Samuel Black has recently been appointed a magistrate for the county of Antrim. As to the second Question, I cannot answer as to comm- MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have not munications which have passed between that acquaintance with the Lord Lieuthe Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieu- tenant of Antrim to be able to say. MR. BIGGAR: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will state how often the Lord Lieutenant of Antrim has been in the county for the past 30 years? |