had attended the requisite number of drills. The War Office replied that, having decided that the commanding officer was efficient, it must require the Adjutant to include him in the Return; but they added that if it hurt his conscience so to do, he might add a rider saying that he inserted the name not on his own responsibility but by authority of the War Office. These were the circumstances up to that point; and it would have been much better if the noble Lord had taken the trouble to ascertain them, instead of coming down to the House and making a flaming speech about an Adjutant having been asked to violate his conscience by making a false Return. But further, notwithstanding that the War Office had a second time commanded the Return to be made, the Adjutant still refused, whereupon the Correspondence was sent down to General Sir John Garvock, commanding the Southern district, with instructions to investigate the whole circumstances. He did so, and examined a number of witnesses on both sides; and in the end he decided that Colonel Gordon had made himself efficient, and ought to be returned as such. Still, the Adjutant remained stubborn; but eventually, after a peremptory order, he did make the Return, accompanying it with a note that it was not done on his own responsibility but by authority of the War Office. In adding that explanation the Adjutant was, no doubt, perfectly right; but he was certainly wrong in putting himself in opposition to the War Office and the other authorities who had communicated with him on the subject. Had the matter stopped there, the conduct of the Adjutant might have been attributed to undue zeal; but he went further, by stating in company that his commanding officer had been guilty of falsehood in declaring himself efficient. That, of course, did not beget a very good feeling between the two officers; and, eventually, they got off speaking terms. At last, the Adjutant so far forgot himself as to refuse to salute his commanding officer in the street, or, indeed, to take any notice of him whatever. What was the War Office to do under such circumstances? Feeling that it was impossible they could serve together in the same regiment, the War Office took the earliest opportunity of transferring the Adjutant to another regiment. That was the full account of what had occurred; and the noble Lord knew quite well that if the same thing happened in the Regular Service the offender would have been tried by court martial, and probably cashiered. The leniency shown in the present case he did not consider altogether wise; but it certainly cut away the suggestion of the noble Lord that there had been any harshness of treatment in the case of the Adjutant. He was sorry the noble Lord should have made himself the mouth-piece of ex parte, instead of inquiring for himself into the circumstances, or of communicating with the War Office-it was very difficult to obtain any information but from the War Office-upon the subject. LORD TRURO said, the positive statement was made to him that the Colonel of the regiment asked the Adjutant to sign a Return which he-the Adjutantconsidered to be false. He (Lord Truro) had no account whatever of the War Office having sent down instructions for the investigation of the matter on the spot, and certainly no information that the Adjutant had refused to obey orders or had been guilty of breaches of discipline towards his superior officer. seemed to him that the War Office was ignoring its own regulations. It THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND rose to Order. The noble Lord had already addressed the House, and, as there was no Motion before it, was not justified in doing so a second time. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, if the noble Lord had submitted a Motion he would, according to the practice o the House, be entitled to reply. There fore, without their Lordships' indul gence, he could not speak a second time House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock. NOTICE OF QUESTION. GREECE-ALLEGED AGREEMENT THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, it was never contemplated that the Commissioners should fix any hard-and-fast scale of deductions; but it was proposed that they should have a certain latitude in the matter, and the scale of deductions MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I beg to would necessarily be determined by the give Notice that to-morrow I will ask circumstances of different cases and difthe Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whe-ferent trades. It was impossible for ther there is any truth in the statement him to inform the House what the demade by Safvet Pasha to the French ductions were. Ambassador at Constantinople, as reported by the Special Correspondent of The Standard of to-day, to the effect "that England had promised Turkey that she would not permit Greece to receive any additional territory, and that without this assurance Turkey would not have ceded Cyprus to England?" I will also ask whether the second secret document we hear of to-day, as having been signed at the Foreign Office on the 31st of May, had any reference to the future limitation of Greece? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think I had better answer the Question at once; but the hon. Member can repeat it again to-morrow, if he likes. There is no report, and there is certainly no document, of the character alluded to by the hon. Member. MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was no secret document signed on the 31st of May at the Foreign Office, or that it had no reference to the affairs of Greece? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There was no document signed on that day that had reference to the affairs of Greece. SCIENCE AND ART MUSEUM (DUBLIN). QUESTION. MR. M. BROOKS asked the Vice President of the Council, If he can state, -the title of the body which is to be intrusted with the local supervision of the Department of Science and Art in Dublin; the mode of appointment of such body, and the names of the persons already selected to form it; the powers and duties, with regard to the promotion of Science and Art in Dublin, and through the rest of Ireland, which such a body is to exercise? At LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: present there are no Commissioners in any way associated with the Department of Science and Art in Dublin; but an arrangement has been made by which the administrative work there will be carried on by a Director, as in the case of Edinburgh, who will be directly responsible to the Education Department for the disbursement of the sums annually voted by Parliament. The body to be intrusted with the local supervision of the Science and Art Museum is a Board of Visitors, consisting of 12 Visitors-four nominated by the Lord Lieu 865 Navy Mr. Henwood. (AUGUST 1, 1878] tenant, five by the Royal Dublin Society, | Whether it is the intention of Her INDIA-FAMINE IN CASHMERE. MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I am bound to say that I have not at present had time to give any attention to this question. It is my intention to consider it in the course of the Recess, and at the beginning of next Session I may be able to answer the Question. NAVY-MR. HENWOOD.-QUESTION. MR. RALLI asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he can give the House any information as to the extent and causes of the famine which was stated by the "Times" of India, as quoted in the "Observer" of Sunday last, to be existing now in Cash-reference to the " mere? MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; we have not at present received any official information upon the subject. ARMY PROMOTION OF GENERAL MAJOR O'BEIRNE asked the Secretary of State for War, If the senior Major in the Army is entitled to brevet promotion as Lieutenant Colonel, under paragraph 20 (P) of Royal Warrant for Promotion, on the death or retirement of a General officer of 70 years of age, although the vacancy may be absorbed and no Colonel promoted to the rank of General? COLONEL STANLEY: On the death of a general officer of 70 years of age, no promotion of any kind is made. On the retirement of a general officer of 70 years of age, the senior major in the Army could not be promoted, unless a colonel were promoted to the rank of major general in succession. THE LUNACY LAWS-LEGISLATION. QUESTION. MR. DILLWYN asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, VOL. CCXLII. [THIRD SERIES.] CAPTAIN PIM asked the Right honourable gentleman the Member for Pontefract, Whether he has seen the Petition of Mr. Charles Henwood, ordered by this House to lie upon the Table, and subsequently printed in the Appendix_to the Twenty-third Report on Public Petitions, No. 392, complaining of erroneous statements which have seriously prejudiced his professional reputation and prospects, in the Minute written Captain"; whether by the Right honourable gentleman in he was not led into error when stating in that Minute that the plan described a curve of stability," was "Mr. Henfor the "Duncan," and illustrated by wood's design;" and, whether, if such is the case, he will take steps to remove the stigma which has in consequence so long attached to Mr. Henwood's professional reputation? MR. CHILDERS: I might decline. altogether to answer this Question, as I am not a Minister, and it does not relate to any Bill or Motion of mine; but if my answering it will save the time of the House, which has already been a good deal taken up by Mr. Henwood's grievances, I will do so. year I have read Mr. Henwood's Petition, in which he complains of a Report on his plans made by the professional officers of the Admiralty in 1867, long before I was First 1871. Lord, and published in extenso by me in a Parliamentary Paper of the now, the I neither had then, nor have I means of determining whether those officers were accurate or not in their professional criticisms of Mr. Henwood's plans which my Predecessors had received and acted upon; and if it is any satisfaction to him to know that it was not my business, nor within my competency, to review 2 F {COMMONS} these scientific calculations submitted to a previous Government, he is welcome to the admission. CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND) - PRISON DISCIPLINE.-QUESTION. MR. MITCHELL HENRY asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the observations of the Chief Baron at the late assizes at Naas, and to his refusal to sentence women to imprisonment, except for crimes of violence, because they will have to pass many nights lying on a deal board, or plank bed, as it is called; whether this regulation of lying on a deal board is not a novelty introduced from England for the first time into Irish prisons; whether the Government is not aware that it has excited wide spread dissatisfaction amongst those who have to administer the Law in Ireland, and has been publicly characterized by Mr. Baron Dowse as a form of torture; and, whether the Government will forthwith revert to the use of beds or hammocks in Irish prisons? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (for Mr. J. LOWTHER): I have seen the remarks of the Chief Baron. I am unable to state since what time plank beds have been in use in the Irish prisons, but they have been used in many English prisons for a great number of years. The Irish prison rules have established a uniformity of practice in this respect. A great deal of misconception exists as to this particular incident of the sentence, and there appears to be some exaggeration in some of the statements that have been made. An adequate supply of bedding is invariably furnished to each prisoner, and under no circumstances is a prisoner obliged to sleep in his clothes. The working of the rule will be watched in the closest possible way, and I hope it will be found to be worked with consideration, and without any unnecessary harshness. MR. MITCHELL HENRY: The reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is no answer to my Question. I shall repeat it to-morrow, in some form or other; and shall, before the Session ends, endeavour to get a vote of the House on the subject. INDIA-THE INDIAN BUDGET. QUESTIONS. MR. BRIGGS asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the debate on the Indian Budget will take place? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In reply to a Question which was put to me on this subject some time ago, I expressed a hope that the Indian Budget might be taken at the beginning of this week; but since then the debate on Eastern affairs has come on, and has rendered it impossible that that hope should be fulfilled. We are now in such a position with regard to Supply, that it has become absolutely necessary that we should proceed with the remaining Votes as soon as possible; and it is, therefore, not in the power of Her Majesty's Government to name any particular day upon which the Indian Budget will be taken. We propose to take the Education Vote on Monday, and the Army Supplementary Votes on Tuesday, and to proceed with the other Estimates throughout the week. MR. CHILDERS inquired, Whether the Education Vote would be taken before or after the right hon. Gentleman's Statement in introducing the Supplementary Estimates? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think that my Statement will have to be deferred until Tuesday. The right hon. Gentleman will see that with regard to the Education Vote it is a matter of urgency; and, probably, the question of the policy of the Supplementary Estimates should rather follow than precede that Vote.. MR. CHILDERS asked, What was the gross amount of the Supplemental Civil Service Estimates? SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, that the amount of the Supplemental Civil Service Estimates would be about £80,000. He hoped that the Papers relating to them would be in the hands of hon. Members shortly. THE TREATY OF BERLIN-ARTICLES 2 AND 61.-QUESTION. MR. E. JENKINS asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin, assented to by England and Turkey at a period subsequent to the secret Convention of the 4th of June, did not supersede the second clause of the first Article of that Con- | he will state why the county and subvention, and substitute the surveillance inspectors of the Londonderry Royal of the Powers for any special right Irish Constabulary force do not receive granted to England under that Con- the same pay and allowances as the vention ? officers in the same position in Belfast; whether the men of both forces do not receive the same amount of extra pay; whether a recommendation in favour of the Londonderry officers was not made by the late Inspector General; and, whether the Government has any objection to lay such recommendation, and any correspondence relating thereto, upon the Table of the House? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): In my opinion there is no inconsistency between the Articles referred to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman. The general reforms in the administration of Asiatic Turkey, provided for under the Convention of the 4th of June between England and Turkey, will of necessity include those particular reforms in Armenia which are prescribed in Article 61 of the Treaty of Berlin. The Porte will be under an obligation to make known these latter reforms to the Powers, and they will superintend their application. This latter provision is not likely to interfere with the policy of Great Britain, whose only object is to secure by every possible means the due execution of the reforms required. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): The men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are sent to Belfast and Londonderry receive the same amount of extra pay, but the officers stationed at Londonderry do not receive the same pay as the officers at Belfast. Recommendations in favour of the former officers have been made, and are under consideration, and the Irish Government hope soon to be able to bring them under the notice of the Treasury. Papers relating to the subject are confidential, and not such as it is usual to MR. E. JENKINS: I beg to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he has not answered my Question. I did not ask him with regard to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Turkey, but with regard to the inter-produce. pretation of the two documents. I asked him whether the second document does not supersede the first? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): I am sorry I did not answer the Question so as to make myself intelligible to the hon. Member; but I should say most decidedly that the second Treaty does not supersede the first. VALUATION OF PROPERTY BILL. In reply to MR. HIBBERT, THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that there appeared to be no use in keeping the Order of the Day respecting the Valuation of Property Bill upon the Paper, and therefore it would be read and discharged. The SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON MR. MELDON asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he proposed to give facilities for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill; and if he could name a day when he could give such priority to the third reading of that Bill as would enable a discussion to be taken? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he was sorry that, in the present state of Public Business, it was not in his power to name a day for that purpose. MR. MELDON gave Notice that, on Monday next, on going into Committee of Supply, he would move that this House should resolve itself into Com Order for Committee read, and dis-mittee of Supply when the Order for the charged. Bill withdrawn. IRELAND-LONDONDERRY AND BEL- MR. CHARLES LEWIS asked the third reading of the Sale of Intoxicating BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-EDUCA. |