sufficiently considered, and that a fur- | had been tried and abandoned. If they ther Committee should be appointed. Their object, however, had been attained by the appointment of last year's Committee, and their position was therefore not quite that represented by the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan). SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, he had no doubt that the hon. Baronet himself had distinctly stated his reasons for the vote; but he would remember that he walked out of the House when the second Division occurred. were to do anything, they should do something efficient. He believed that the recommendation of his noble Friend, made on the first night of discussion, was a substantial reform in the proceedings of the House, while he was quite sure that the Rule of 1872 was no practical reform at all. It had been condemned by Her Majesty's Government during the whole of the present Parliament, and rather than adopt such an ineffectual plan as that, he (Sir William Harcourt) thought it better to leave the matter alone. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not want to go on with this controversy, but would suggest to hon. Members the desirability of coming to some decision upon the question before them with as little delay as possible, instead of repeating the same arguments over and over again. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down now says that the Rule of 1872 will be of no use at all. I admit that it leaves us still open to the difficulty with reference to the Army, Navy, and Civil Service Estimates; but we gain the grand point at which we aim. MAJOR NOLAN thought that the most sensible thing would be the adjournment of the House. MR. STACPOOLE considered that in the event of an adjournment some day ought to be fixed for the settlement of the question. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, there was a far more important question than that of consistency to be considered -namely, the question between the Rules of 1872 and 1-76. The former had been adopted, rightly or wrongly, in the last Parliament, and Her Ma jesty's Government, having had experience of that Rule, deliberately came to the conclusion that it was not necessary or proper for the conduct of Public Business. The former Leader of the House (the Earl of Beaconsfield) had come to the conclusion that the more this question was left alone the better. In 1876 a different policy was adopted. What was the Rule introduced by Her Majesty's Government? Was it the Rule of 1872? No. Acting upon their experience, they deliberately rejected that, and adopted the Rule of 1876, which they now asked the House to reject in favour of the one they themselves rejected. Of all the plans which had been proposed, that of 1872 was the worst. The House required that when Supply came on the Minister should make his Statement; but the Rule of 1872 made that impossible, inasmuch as the preliminary Motions could not, and would not, give way; for if they did, they would never get another oppor-bate be adjourned. tunity. On many occasions these Motions had been waived out of courtesy; but the proposal of the Government made it absolutely certain that these Motions would not be withdrawn, while it did not secure to independent Members of the House those opportunities for discussion which they desired, and which he thought they had a right to have. It seemed to him a most futile and most extraordinary result to a discussion of two nights that they should not take the recommendations of the Committee and of Her Majesty's Government in 1876, but an old Rule which Question put. The House divided :-Ayes 43; Noes 121: Majority 78.-(Div. List, No. 19.) Original Question again proposed. MR. DILLWYN moved that the de Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Debate be now adjourned."(Mr. Dillwyn.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE QUER: I shall, of course, not resist the Motion at this late hour-1.50. With reference to the continuanee of the debate, we shall propose to take it as the first Order on Monday next before the Army Estimates. Motion agreed to. Debate adjourned till Monday next. which had now sat during many years, had pointed out evils, from time to time, whenever they were shown by the Accounts before them to have occurred; but it had not stated the manner in INSTRUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE. MR. MONK, in rising to move"That it be an Instruction to the Committee of Public Accounts, That they have power to consider whether any alteration in the Law is desirable, providing that a statement in each case in which the Naval and Military Departments have obtained the sanction of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to any expenditure not provided for in the sums appropriated to such services in the Votes contained in the Appropriation Act, setting forth the representation made to them by the respective Department, shall be laid upon the Table of the House within a limited period after such sanction shall have been given," merely wished to remark that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, when he (Mr. Monk) brought forward the matter at the end of last Session, his intention that the subject should be taken up by the Committee of Public Accounts, and only urged in excuse of the oversight which had occurred that by some accident it had not been brought before that Committee. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had also said he would take care that it should be in future referred to the Committee. which those evils were to be prevented. The responsibility of supplying the remedy should rest upon the Executive. The Committee had not the practical knowledge to enable it to make important recommendations with respect to the mode in which the Estimates were to be framed. Suppose that the Committee, acting on their instructions, recommended a change of importance to be made in the Navy and Army Estimates. In the course of a year or two it might be found that this recommendation would have to be given up. Would not the authority of the Committee be much diminished by having made a recommendation afterwards found to be impracticable? Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present, House adjourned at Two o'clock. Ordered, That this House will not receive 14th day of March next, unless such Private any petition for a Private Bill after Friday the Bill shall have been approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee of Public Accounts, That they have power to consider whether any alteration in the Law is desirable, providing that a statement in each case in which the Naval and Military Depart-after Friday the 2nd day of May next: ments have obtained the sanction of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to any expenditure not provided for in the sums appropriated to such services in the Votes contained in the Appropriation Act, setting forth the representation made to them by the respective Department, shall be laid upon the Table of the House within a limited period after such sanction shall have been given."-(Mr Monk.) LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH replied, that it was the duty of the Committee of Public Accounts to examine the Appropriation Accounts, and to report to the House on all points which arose in connection with them. Those were That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Friday the 2nd day of May next. CRIMINAL LAW-BAIL IN CHARGES QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS. consider this subject, as within the last few years frauds on a great scale had been brought under the notice of a Committee of the other House of Parliament, which was appointed to inquire into the subject of foreign loans. The Question which stood in his name did not refer to steps that should be taken to prevent frauds, but only to the mode of dealing with persons accused of fraudulent practices. In the great majority of cases the law with regard to bail worked satisfactorily; but in cases of persons charged with great commercial frauds there was this anomaly-that if the person who was charged with the offence was really guilty, the greater the scale on which operations were conducted, the easier it was for him to escape trial. If a person had succeeded in fraudulently transferring hundreds of thousands of pounds from other people's pockets into his own, it was a matter of very little moment to him that he should forfeit a few thousands by way of bail. A case occurred some two years since which excited a great deal of attention that of Alexander Collie, who failed for some millions of money. He was arrested on a charge of fraud, and was admitted to bail. He, however, disappeared, and has never been heard of since. It would not be right to say that Alexander Collie was a fraudulent bankrupt, for, as he was never tried, he was never convicted; but his escape from trial involved a very serious miscarriage of justice. But if the law in England was unsatisfactory, in Scotland it was a great deal worse. There, everyone who was committed for trial, except for a capital offence, might demand to be admitted to bail on giving security to the amount of £300. As an illustration, he would allude to the trial of the City of Glasgow Bank directors. The bank failed about the beginning of October. The Crown acted with great promptitude. The directors were arrested immediately, and they were tried and convicted during the last month. He desired to guard himself against being supposed to criticize the conduct of anyone engaged in conducting that trial. He wished only to point out what appeared to him to be an unsatisfactory state of the law. The indictment against the directors was a very long one; but the only charge which made it possible to refuse bail to the directors was the charge of theft. They claimed, except Mr. Inglis, to be liberated on bail; but the Crown refused. The case was brought before the Court of Session, which held that the offence with which the directors were charged was an offence within the meaning of the statute for which bail might be refused. The Court was not unanimous. Lord Young, a very eminent authority, dissented on the ground that the offence with which the directors were charged could not be looked upon as theft, the offence charged being that bills intrusted to them for collection were discounted by them before they arrived at maturity. The directors were kept in prison for about three months till the trial came on. The Lord Advocate opened the case; witnesses were examined for the prosecution, and, on the second or third day, no witness having been called to speak to the charge of theft, the Lord Advocate said he withdrew the charge, as it was one he should have great difficulty in establishing. Great use—and he thought very legitimately—was made of that by the counsel for the defence. Suppose the directors had been innocent, and had been acquitted of the other charges, they would have had great reason to complain that they had been imprisoned on a charge of which they were not only innocent, but which had never been pressed against them. Although they were convicted of a most grave offence, still it was not a satisfactory state of things that in order to make sure of having men put on trial for a crime, however serious it might be, it should be necessary to commit them on a charge which no attempt was made to sustain. On the other hand, it could not be right that men charged with such frauds as those of which the Glasgow Bank directors had been convicted should be entitled to bail in finding security for the extremely small sum of £300 each. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, the Question of the noble Earl as it now appeared upon the Paper had assumed a different shape to that which it presented when he gave Notice of it. The Question brought to his notice a few days ago was, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to propose any measure for the amendment of the Criminal Law in respect of persons who may be charged with or convicted of fraudulent offences? and in answer to that Question he was prepared to say that a general measure had been introduced proposing the codification of the Criminal Law, making considerable changes in the distinctions which had hitherto prevailed between felonies and misdemeanours. That measure would, he hoped, in process of time, come before their Lordships, and any question which the noble Earl might wish to raise on it could be raised then. But since he came into the House, he found that the Question had been changed. The noble Earl called attention to the subject of the recent criminal trials in the Courts of Scotland, and now asked the Question in its present form. It would appear from the noble Earl's speech that his Question had reference to that recent criminal trial in the Courts of Scotland, and he (the Lord Chancellor) was not prepared to answer that Question as it was then put. He was not acquainted with the particulars of the case to which the noble Earl referred, except from general information; but he would make inquiry as to whether the law of Scotland with regard to bail was unsatisfactory in He must, its working. however, take leave to say one thing. He could not admit the suggestion of the noble Earl that the Lord Advocate of Scotland introduced into the indictment a charge of theft against the persons arrested, in order that they might be unable to obtain bail. He felt perfectly convinced that when that charge was introduced the Law Officers considered that they had evidence, or would have evidence, to substantiate that charge. It was introduced for that purpose, and in no wise with the view of debarring from the right of having bail. He did not know whether the noble Earl considered that any undue measure of justice had been meted out to them-he could only say that the general impression seemed to be that it was not so. THE-EARL OF AIRLIE said, the noble and learned Earl had misunderstood what he said. He said that he did not wish to criticize the conduct of anyone who was engaged in the conduct of that trial, and that, no doubt, when the Lord Advocate put that charge in the indictment, he believed that there was a reasonable probability of his being able to prove it; but he said, notwithstanding that, but for the circumstance of the in OF INQUIRY. ADDRESS FOR A RETURN. LORD TRURO, in moving for a Return showing the number of courts of inquiry held in each year in the Vo lunteer Force since its establishment, said, he moved for this information, because he thought it would be interesting to the public, to the Volunteers themselves, and to the authorities, to know the nature of the offences charged against Volunteers, and what had been the conduct of those who had been embelieved such a Return would be highly ployed as instructors of the Force. He creditable to the character of the Force since its commencement. Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Return showing the number of courts of inquiry held in each year in the volunteer force since its establishment; the number of volunteers of all ranks, the number of adjutants, and the number of instructors in each year on which such were held, and the several offences charged.-(The Lord Truro.) VISCOUNT BURY said, that if the noble Lord wished for information on any specific point, he would be glad to give it to him if it was within the reach of the War Office; but these courts of inquiry were held on the authority of the officers commanding Volunteer corps there were no records of them at the War Office. The Force had now been in existence 20 years, and to procure the information asked them the Department would have to apply to some 293 different corps, and ask them to go back on their records for that period. The Returns asked for would be inconvenient and expensive, if not impossible, and he hoped the House would not grant them. LORD TRURO said, he only wanted the Returns of courts of inquiry ordered by the War Office. Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn. What alteration of equipment, if any, | the question was settled by the requisiis contemplated in the appointments or uniform of the heavy dragoon regiment known as the King's Dragoon Guards, about to proceed on active service at the Cape of Good Hope, or those of the 17th Lancers, under orders for the same station? He thought it a very unwise step to send out the horses of the cavalry regiments from this country. Horses that had not been acclimatised in South Africa would be useless. He regretted that that most excellent force, the Cape Mounted Rifles, had not been maintained. The men were well drilled and accustomed to the country, and their native horses were thoroughly acclimatised and altogether they were a most useful body of men. VISCOUNT BURY, in reply, said, there had been some minor alterations in the equipment of the two regiments which the noble Lord had named. Cork helmets had been substituted for brass helmets; a second ammunition pouch, making a total of 40 rounds for each man, had been supplied; some extra leather had been put on their overalls; a clasp knife had been given to each man; also, waterproof saddle covers, waterproof sheets, and a certain number of sets of harness for lasso purposes. The changes of equipment had been of a very minor character. THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE wished to add that the two regiments in question would remain exactly as they were before, and although they had been sent out with these additional equipments there was the fullest permission to the commanding officers to put into store anything that was not required. Probably lances might not be found useful for service in the bush; but all lancers now carried the carbine as well as the lance. The noble Lord was in error when he described the King's Dragoon Guards as a heavy dragoon regiment. It was a medium regiment; and the men of both regiments were active, efficient, and not over heavy for their horses. With regard to equipments, the fullest permission was given to the cominanding officers to make necessary alterations. For instance, the Lancers were furnished with a carbine, as well as a lance; and if the latter were found unserviceable or not fitted for the bush, the commanding officer could have it placed in store. As regarded the horses, VOL. CCXLIII. [THIRD SERIES. tion from the Cape. It had been asked House adjourned at a quarter before HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, 21st February, 1879. MINUTES.]-NEW MEMBERS SWORN-Earl of PUBLIC BILLS-Second Reading-District Audit- QUESTIONS. 1600 RAILWAYS- CONTINUOUS FOOT- MR. THOMSON HANKEY asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has received any further communications from the South Western Railway Company, since the end of last Session, respecting the wish generally expressed by the public in favour of continuous footboards to all the carriages, and likewise as to the adaptation of the height of the platforms at all stations, so as to prevent the risk of accidents to passengers alighting from carriages without the power of placing their feet directly on the station platform? 3 F |