Criminal Law Amendment Association, to take with him to the gaol where Perryman is incarcerated a Commissioner to take a statutory declaration of the prisoner, and for him to sign a Petition to the House of Commons setting forth his innocence, of which the Society is satisfied, and that Mr. Elworthy and the Council of the Society may have access to the handkerchief with which the deceased was hanged? MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he could not understand why this application was not made to him in the usual form at the Home Office, instead of by way of Question in the House. He was not prepared to deviate from the rules and the usual practice as to visits to convicts under penal servitude. The prisoner was at liberty to sign any statement or Petition to the Secretary of State if he desired, but he could not be allowed to be visited by a legal officer with a Petition prepared by others outside. The handkerchief in question was produced at the trial, and was handed over to the police, who would certainly allow it to be inspected under proper restrictions; and one gentleman interested in the prisoner's case was so informed some time ago. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, Sir, it is the intention of the Government to propose such a Vote of Thanks, but I am not at the present moment able to say on what day it will be done. THE AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONTHE COMMISSIONERS.-QUESTION. MR. NEWDEGATE asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the House may expect that Her Majesty's Ministers will inform this House of the names of the persons whom Her Majesty will appoint as Commissioners, in accordance with the Address voted by this House on the 5th of this month, recommending that inquiry be made as to the depressed condition of the agricultural interest, and into the causes to which this is attributable; whether these causes are of a temporary or of a permanent character; and how far they have been created by and can be remedied by legislation? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Government have been engaged in carefully considering the proper composition of the Commission. This is a matter of considerable importance, and cannot be settled in a hurry. CHARTERED BANKS (COLONIAL) BILL. hon. Friend that no delay will take I can safely assure the House and my QUESTION. MR. FRESHFIELD asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he proposes to proceed with the Bill relating to Colonial Chartered Banks? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, this is a Bill that has received a good deal of consideration, and I am now only waiting for an opportunity of introducing it. I have hitherto rather delayed its introduction, with the view of avoiding any confusion between that Bill and the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill. place in communicating to the House the names of the Commissioners as soon as they have been decided upon. UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND)-ALLEGED PROPOSAL OF THE GO VERNMENT.-QUESTION. MR. FAWCETT asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the case, as has been alleged, that a proposal on the subject of Irish University Education was made not long since on behalf of the Irish Executive, and that a Petition in favour of this proposal, very influentially signed by the Roman THE AFGHAN WAR-VOTE OF THANKS Catholics of Ireland, was forwarded to TO THE ARMY.-QUESTION. MR. ONSLOW asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to move a Vote of Thanks to the Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, and Men of Her Majesty's European and Native forces for their gallant conduct during the recent Afghan War? the Prime Minister; and, if such proposal was made, whether he will inform the House of its nature; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Irish University Bill this Session; and, if so, on what day the Second Reading will be taken? MR. J. LOWTHER: No, Sir, it is not the case that any proposal on the CRIMINAL LAW-THE STRIPPING AND QUESTIONS. MR. H. B. SHERIDAN asked the Secretary of State for the Home Departmer: Whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the practice of stripping an searching all persons taken to po stations, whether male or female, or whe ther charged with criminal offences ornet: whether the indiscriminate searching of persons, if it be so, not charged with any criminal act is necessary; and, whether the method of searching is properly con ducted and not of a sort, as has be frequently alleged, to outrage decency and propriety? subject of University Education in Ireland has ever been made by the Irish Executive. At the same time, I need hardly say that private communications, unofficially conducted, have from time to time passed upon this, as upon most other subjects of public interest in Ireland, between Members of the Irish Government and persons representing or holding various religious opinions, a course which the experience of successive Governments has found conducive to the interests of Public Business. The hon. Gentleman asks whether a Petition, very influentially signed by the Roman Catholics of Ireland, was forwarded to the Prime Minister? I find that three Memorials, or Declarations, as they appear to be called, have been received by the Prime Minister. Two of these were from the Roman Catholic laity of Ireland, and are already in the hands of hon. Members as Parliamentary Papers. The third, which emanates from the Catholic Union of Ireland, will also be laid upon the Table. I find, on referring to these documents, that one of them ex-in custody. The search, however, was presses itself as follows: "We, the undersigned, deem it to be our duty to reiterate the opinions expressed by the Roman Catholic laity of Ireland in the year 1869 on University Education in Ireland." It then goes on to reiterate the opinions previously expressed at the date referred to. The other two documents urge the adoption of the Bill of the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don). In none of them, however, is there any reference to any supposed proposal from anybody else. It certainly is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Irish University Bill this Session, and I hope the second reading may be taken in the course of next week; but, in the present state of Business, I cannot name any particular day. MR. SULLIVAN: Is it not the fact, that on the basis of those semi-official understandings, proposals, or negotiations, a satisfactory conclusion was arrived at at the time, and that the proposal now before Parliament is almost a complete departure from that understanding? MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I have already frankly stated everything I know, and pointed out that there were no proposals or arrangements, semi-official or otherwise, and I must leave the House to form its own opinion upon the matter. Mr. J. Lowther MR. ASSHETON CROSS was understood to reply that persons charged wit felony and certain misdemeanours, and also drunken and riotous persons, were searched on being received at the police station, in order to secure the safe cus tody of their property, and to deprive them of any dangerous weapons while always conducted in the cell, and as decently as possible. In the case of appointed for the purpose. No complaist female prisoners, a female searcher was reached the Commissioner of Police, ani of any outrage upon decency had ever if any case of that kind came before him (Mr. Assheton Cross), he would take care that the offender was punished. MR. SHERIDAN asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had not been informed that a murderous conflict hai taken place at Derby owing to the searching of a prisoner? MR. ASSHETON CROSS replied in the negative, and asked the hon. Gentman to repeat the Question on Monday. SCOTCH BILLS.—QUESTION. MR. R. W.DUFF asked the Lord Advo cate, Whether it is his intention to proceed with the Poor Law (Scotland Bil and the Valuation of Lands and Assess ments (Scotland) Bill during the present Session? THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WAT SON): Sir, I propose to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill, and to introduce in lieu of it a short measure containing those five clauses which deal with medical relief and the superannuation of poor. house officials. I propose, also, by the Select Committee on Privilege, leave of the House, to withdraw the Tower High Level Bridge Metropolis Valuation Bill. Committee, be taken into consideration on Tuesday next at 2 o'clock. Motion agreed to. INDIA-THE NORTH-WEST FRONTIER. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In reference to an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Elgin Burghs a short time ago, I should like to know, Whether the Government have departed from the intention which they announced at the beginning of the Session, and afterwards on the adjournment for the Easter Holidays, of making themselves a statement on the position of I affairs on the North-West Frontier. understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he intended shortly to lay a despatch on the Table. I wish to know whether, on the production of these Papers, a discussion will arise? I think the right hon. Gentleman once said he intended himself to call attention to the position of these affairs. I should like to know whether that is still his intention? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I had forgotten the precise circumstances to which the noble Lord refers; but there will be no indisposition on the part of the Government to afford, or, if necessary, to make, an opportunity for a statement in regard to the position of affairs on the North-West Frontier of India. I have no desire to evade any arrangement which may have been made; but I had forgotten the circumstances to which the noble Lord refers. PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A) - TOWER MOTION. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. In reply to Mr. DILLWYN, THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that with regard to the Business of to-morrow, he could do no more than refer to the position of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill. He did not know whether it was to be anticipated that the Report would be agreed to to-day. If it were not, it would be proceeded with at a Morning Sitting to-morrow. In any circumstances, he hoped they would be able to close the consideration of the Report to-morrow, and be allowed to read the Bill a third time, to avoid the inconvenience of a Saturday Sitting, which would otherwise be necessary. With regard to Monday next, it would be necessary to take Supply, and the first Votes to be taken would be those for the Queen's University and Queen's Colleges, and the other Irish Votes. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now Stanley). THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In rising, Sir, to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice, namely THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-taken into Consideration." — (Colonel QUER: A few days ago, the House appointed a Select Committee to consider a question of Privilege. The Report of that Committee was presented yesterday afternoon by the Chairman, and we are promised the evidence in a few days, and I think we shall get it probably on Saturday. I think it will be convenient that we should wait until we have the evidence in our hands, and have had time to read and consider it, and I will, therefore, now move that the Report of "That no Bill for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army will be satisfactory to this House which provides for the permanent 1etention of corporal punishment for military offences;" it is necessary that I should say a few words in explanation of the reasons which have induced me to take this step tion might be expressed. Sir, that pr -a course which differs somewhat from posal was very definitely rejected by the that which was discussed on Tuesday right hon. and gallant Gentleman the last. The House will recollect very well Secretary of State for War. I also stated the general character of that discussion, that, in my opinion, if that suggestion and I think it unnecessary that I should could not be accepted, there was no refer to it at any length. But it is de- alternative for me and those who agreed sirable that I should remind the House in the view I took, as the matter the that on that day I stated my views on stood, but to vote for the total abolition the position of the question of corporal of corporal punishment. Well, Sir, a punishment in consequence of the action discussion ensued, and turned principally of the Government on the Army Discipline upon the mode in which the questi and Regulation Bill, and I made a sug- could be most conveniently brought be gestion to the Government. I stated my fore the deliberation of the House; and view that after what had passed it would the course which was finally considered be impossible that corporal punishment to be most convenient, certainly, the could be retained permanently in the course which I should myself have preArmy, except in a very limited class of ferred to take, was to wait until we came cases, and I made a suggestion which I to the clause referring to corporal punishthought would be acceptable in the cir- ment, and then, by moving the omission cumstances. Now, Sir, I find that there of a very few words, the question of the has been some misapprehension as to retention of corporal punishment might what exactly the scope of the suggestion have been raised in the simplest possible I made was, and, perhaps, it is desirable form. But it appeared, upon further that I should repeat it. I stated that I, consideration of the matter, that it was and a good many hon. Members on this necessary that the new clauses should be side-on all sides, I believe-appeared moved and considered first, as they would to be considerably impressed by one of take precedence of the Bill itself, and the arguments put forward by supporters that it was likely there would be a very of corporal punishment-that, on active considerable amount of discussion upon service and in a certain class of circum- the earlier clauses of the Bill, thos stances, there might be no alternative to clauses which refer to the cases in which the commanding officer but to inflict the punishment of death could be it the punishment of death; that the cases flicted, and in which, according to the in which corporal punishment is inflicted present proposal of the Government. were few in number and that, as I have corporal punishment might be inflicted said, there might be no alternative but instead. There would, therefore, bave to inflict the punishment of death instead been a considerable amount of discus of corporal punishment. Well, Sir, in sion upon details as to the limit and order to meet that argument, I sug- operation of this punishment before we gested to Her Majesty's Government the arrived at the main question itself; and adoption of a clause which had been laid I think hon. Members on both sides of on the Table, but was subsequently the House will be agreed that by far the withdrawn, by my hon. and learned more convenient course is to express an Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. opinion in the first instance on the main Hopwood); and in order that there might question-as I hope, without any very be no misconception as to the meaning long delay-and that, having expressed of Parliament in passing the clause, in this opinion, we might proceed to the order that it might be made quite clear consideration of the details. I, therethat it was not proposed that the sen- fore, Sir, thought it was the more contence of death should be recorded merely venient course for both sides that the for the purpose of corporal punishment question should be raised in a plain, simbeing inflicted, but that the intention ple manner by this Amendment, which was to confer on the commanding officer will enable the House to come to a cona power of commutation in cases where clusion on that question of principle. he thought the recorded punishment of Now, Sir, I have very little to add to death should not be inflicted, I took the day to what I said on Tuesday as to the soriewhat unusual course of suggesting ground which had induced me to take that there should be prefixed to that this course. I am not in the least surclause a Preamble by which that inten-prised to find, as I have found, that the The Marquess of Hartington course I have taken has been imputed to | unless for the purpose of obtaining that Party motives of no very exalted cha- party's assent to some change in their racter; but I must say I am surprised own policy, or for the purpose of conthat the first charge of that character ciliating a section of their own supshould have come, not from the Mem- porters who were dissatisfied with that bers of the Government who have seats policy. I am told that the conduct of in this House, who have a knowledge the Government, whatever it may have of what has occurred upon this Bill, and been, cannot possibly affect the merits who heard the statement I made on of the question, and ought not in the Tuesday last, but that it should have least to influence the course which is to come from a noble Lord, a Member of followed by the Opposition. Now, this the Government, and not in his place in subject is one which we must look at Parliament, but at a Party meeting of from a practical point of view. It is not his own supporters held last night. I a mere question of what form of punishfind that Lord Cranbrook saidment the military authorities would most desire to see enforced and maintained in "I see that only last night the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, having apparently entirely changed his vote, if he has not changed his opinion, attributed it to something the Government had never done and which a Conservative Government had never said." The noble Lord appears to have forgotten that his Colleagues, the Secretary of State for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were opposite to me when on Tuesday last I made a statement respecting what the Government had done and said in this matter, and that that statement was not in any one single particular challenged or controverted. I should be glad to know this: On what authority has Lord Cranbrook said that I have changed my vote, if not my opinions, upon something which the Conservative Government has never done and never said? It appears, also, somewhat extraordinary that charges of making this a Party question should come from a Member of a Government who, in my opinion, took the first and most decisive step towards making this a Party question. These accusations come somewhat strangely from the Members of a Government who, not very long ago, convened a meeting of their own supporters notoriously in connection with this very subject. I think that now these charges have been made, we are entitled to know something of the objects for which that meeting was called. We do not know what occurred at the meeting; but we do know, if the reasons for calling it are not on the surface, that the Government had up to that time received steady and consistent support in connection with this measure from almost the whole of their Party. There was no occasion, therefore, to rally their Party together to support this Bill, the Army. It is a question of what form of punishment it is possible to maintain, and of what, in the general interests of the Army, it is most desirable to maintain. It is a question which it has always been admitted cannot be altogether decided by mere argument in this House. It is a question which must be decided, to a great extent, by special authority; and we have always been accustomed to attribute that authority to the opinion of those who were responsible for discipline in the Army, and then to that of their Representatives in this House who are responsible to us. But we maintain that the authority in support of this punishment has been very considerably weakened, if not altogether destroyed, by the proceedings which have recently taken place. We say, that when the Government departed from the clear profession which up to that time they maintained upon this question when they no longer took their stand upon the firm ground that this punishment was absolutely indispensable to the maintenance of discipline, and that they could not hold the military authorities responsible for the maintenance of discipline if it were done away with-that when they changed their ground, and admitted that it was a subject which was open as a whole to re-consideration, it appeared to us that they so weakened their case, as almost entirely to destroy the authority upon which this punishment had up till then been supported and had rested. Sir, in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the other day in answer to me, I observed that he did not say a single word to the effect that in the opinion of the military authorities this punishment is indispensable if the maintenance of discipline in the Army |