THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (MALTBY Lords, my noble Friend was kind enough INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (EAST STAINMORE COMMON) BILL. On Motion of Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the regulation of certain Lands forming part of East Stainmore Common, and situated in the township of East Stainmore, in the parish of Brough, in the county of Westmoreland, and the Provisional Order for the Inclosure of certain other Lands forming the remainder of the same Common, and situated in the same parish, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY and Mr. Secretary CROSS. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 174.] TREATY OF BERLIN-THE BALKAN OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION. EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, a report has appeared in the newspapers that the Sultan has given up his right to garrison the fortresses of the Balkans. That report would seem to be based on a speech alleged to have been made by the Russian General Obrutscheff at Philippopolis. I wish to ask my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Sultan has foregone his right under the Treaty of Berlin to garrison the fortresses of the Balkans? to give me Notice of the Question. I have brought down all the intelligence that we have with reference to the speech of General Obrutscheff. I do not believe that an entire report of the speech has reached this country; but the Consul General at Philippopolis has sent to us an extract. I will read what has been sent. It has been sent by telegraph. General Obrutscheff spoke on the occasion in question of the occupation of the Balkans. I may mention, in passing, that he is a distinguished General and an Aide-de-Camp of the Emperor, and that he was sent down, I believe, to facilitate the transfer of the government of Eastern Roumelia from the Russians to the Turks. He recently read a Proclamation at Philippopolis, and having concluded the reading of that document, delivered a speech in which occur these sentences Ministers, he was firmly convinced that the only object they had in view was the happiness and prosperity of the population, who would see no more Turkish soldiers, and who had arms against lawless bands." "From conversations with Sultan and Turkish He went on to say "Although the Sultan retains the right under the Treaty to occupy the Balkans, the Balkans will not be immediately occupied. Military considerations do not require the occupation of them; it is for the Bulgarians to prove that it is not necessary from a political point of view." Such is the information which we have from the Consul General. We have no ground for believing that the Sultan has entered into any engagement which precludes him from sending garrisons into the Balkans; but, as my noble Friend is aware, the provision in the Treaty is not, as some persons think, obligatoryit is permissive. The Sultan has a right to send garrisons into the Balkans for the purpose of defending them-of defending the Frontier. Of course, the Sultan, like any other potentate, will do that at the time most convenient to him, financially and politically. I do not understand that there is any intention of renouncing or indefinitely delaying the occupation of those garrisons; but I think it is probable that the Turkish troops will not be sent in till the Frontier is marked out and the evacuation finished. I may say, in conclusion, that it is a mistake to think that the renunciation of this right is a matter which depends | were subject to a penalty for paying on the Sultan alone. Even supposing workmen in a public-house. The object the Sultan was so misguided-which I of the present Bill was to consolidate and cannot imagine-as to wish to renounce this right, which is of considerable value for the purpose of defending his Dominions, he could not renounce it without the consent of the other Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Berlin. make uniform throughout the United Kingdom the enactments which related to the sale of intoxicating drinks on credit. By the 9th and last clause in the Bill, he proposed to introduce a new system into the English law-namely, to make a penalty on paying wages to workmen SUPPLY OF DRINK ON CREDIT BILL. in a public-house where intoxicating PRESENTED. FIRST READING. drinks were sold by retail. The practice of paying wages at a public-house was radically wrong, as it placed a premium on workmen immediately spending their money in drink either "for the good of the house," or in treating friends. It might be said that there would be diffi in Ireland it was already the law, and surely in England it would be far easier than in Ireland to find other places than public-houses to pay wages in. Bill to consolidate and amend the enactments which relate to the Supply of Intoxicating Drinks on Credit-Presented (The Earl STANHOPE); read 1"; and to be printed. (No. 84.) House adjourned at a half past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock. EARL STANHOPE, in presenting a Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to the Supply of Intoxicating Drinks on Credit, said, that the Select Committee of their Lordships' House had neither examined witnesses nor re-culties in carrying out this provision; but ported on this particular point. It was only the fringe of a great question; and though he did not believe in legislation as a cure for the drunkenness of the country, still it occasionally might remove temptations out of the way of those who frequented public - houses. The provisions of the Act of 24 Geo. II. c. 40, which applied to England and Scotland, were confined to cases in which credit was given for spirits of less value than £1 supplied anywhere, or of less quantity than a reputed quart delivered at the purchaser's residence. That Act was made more stringent by the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 38, under which publicans taking pledges for drink were liable to a penalty. Both Acts were, however, silent as to loans, promissory notes, or securities; and also as to wines and all intoxicating drinks other than spirits. On the other hand, the County Courts Act, 1867, did extend to loans and securities; but was equally silent as to loans and pledges, and to wines and other intoxicating drinks. In Scotland the law was the same as in England, except that the County Courts Act, 1867, did not extend to that Kingdom. In Ireland matters of that kind were regulated by 55 Geo. III. c. 19, the enactments of which were confined to spirits of less quantity than two quarts. In that country, as in England and Scotland, publicans were liable to a penalty for taking pledges; but, unlike the law applying to England and Scotland, the Act applying to Ireland provided that unlicensed retailers of intoxicating drink of any value were deprived of right of action for debts incurred for drink, and employers HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, 13th May, 1879. MINUTES.]-NEW WRIT ISSUED-For LimeSELECT COMMITTEE-Law of Libel, Mr. Egerton rick City, v. Isaac Butt, esquire, deceased. Hubbard and Mr. Blennerhassett added. SUPPLY-- considered in Committee-Resolutions PRIVATE BILL (by Order)-Select Committee- * First Reading Rivers Conservancy * PRIVATE BUSINESS. CITY OF LONDON SCHOOL BILL. [Lords.] MR. RAIKES said, that a Motion stood in his name upon the Paper in regard to this Bill. He need only say that this was a Bill which raised a rather important question as to the site of the City of London Schools. It was promoted by the Corporation of London; but certain objections were taken to it by the Charity Commissioners. He begged to move— "That the City of London School Bill be referred to a Select Committee, Three to be nominated by the House, and two by the Committee of Selection. "That all Petitions against the Bill, presented on or before the 17th instant, be referred to the Committee, and that such Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitioners. "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records :-That Three be the quorum." Motion agreed to. QUESTIONS. CRIMINAL LAW-CASE OF JOHN STANLEY.-QUESTION. MR. P. A. TAYLOR asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that a cabman, named John Stanley-who was convicted at Beaumaris on a charge of assault upon a policeman, on whose sole evidence the sentence of six months' imprisonment was passed, and whose evidence was subsequently proved to be perjured, in consequence of which Stanley was released by an order from the Home Office-is at present precluded from obtaining any redress for the wrong done him in consequence of the judges having come to no ccnclusion, after several months, in the case of The Queen v. Hughes, Hughes being the policeman on whose testimony Stanley was convicted, and who now seeks a reversal of his own conviction for perjury on the ground of an original informality in the warrant obtained by him against Stanley; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view of obtaining some compensation for the injury Stanley has suffered? SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, in reply, said, it was perfectly true that a man named John Stanley was convicted last year on a charge of assaulting a policeman on the sole evidence of that policeman; it was subsequently proved that the evidence was perjured; and on the recommendation of the learned Judge who tried the case John Stanley was released from prison. The Home Office had no means of knowing whether an action such as that referred to by the hon. Member was pending, and had no power to force the Judges to come to a decision upon it. With reference to compensation, it was open to Stanley to proceed against the policeman for damages if he felt that he was entitled to them. UNCERTIFICATED LEGAL PRACTITIONERS (SCOTLAND).—QUESTION. MR. MACKINTOSH asked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been directed to the number of uncertificated legal practitioners in Glasgow and other towns in Scotland, and whether he will give orders to have the laws as to admission and annual licence enforced? THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON): Sir, I have a good deal of information to the same effect as that contained in the Question of the hon. Member. If I were simply to reply to the Question in the affirmative, it might be misleading. According to the law of Scotland, no man is entitled to practise as an agent in any Court unless he is possessed of certain qualifications, and those who practise without these qualifications render themselves liable to penalties. Then, as to persons practising as conveyancers, they are required to take licences, or they render themselves liable to heavy penalties. Whenever infractions of the law in either of these respects have been brought to my attention, I have always directed a prosecution to be instituted. There is, however, a third class, regarding whom my information is that, not professing to be lawyers, they at the same time profess to give legal advice. on very moderate terms. As the law of Scotland at present stands, no penalty is incurred by those so acting unless they are guilty of misrepresenting their own character or position. EAST INDIA (DUTIES ON COTTON present Secretary and the Viceroy, show them to be of the nature of a private letter. The telegram sent by the Secretary of State in no way committed the Council to an approval of what was done. These communications will not, of course, be laid on the Table of the House. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether in the communications sent to the Viceroy of India by the Secretary of State, in relation to the repeal of the Cotton Duties, the provisions prescribed by "The Government of India Act, 1858, were observed, which require, by section 24-tion to the manner in which the design SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that, on an early day, I will call atten of Parliament in providing a Council, both in India and in England, composed of men experienced in Indian affairs, as advisers and checks upon the Administration, and particularly on measures relating to finance, have been evaded and defeated by the action of the Viceroy and the Secretary of State for India. ARMY-60TH RIFLES-COURT MARTIAL. MR. FRENCH asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take steps to obtain copies of the evidence produced at the trial by Court Martial of a sergeant of the 60th Rifles for retiring a picket without the order of his officer on an alarm of the enemy, at which he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude and reduction to the ranks? COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, he was informed that the proceedings of the court martial on a sergeant of the 60th Rifles would be forwarded for the information of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief. The proceedings of courts martial were held to be pri whether it is claimed that the communi- THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have communicated with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India upon this subject, and he informs me that it was not his intention to send, and it is not his opinion that he did send, any order or communication to India within the meaning of the section of the Government of India Act referred to. The telegrams in question were sent in reply to a telegraphic inquiry from the Viceroy, and they bore a heading which, according to an understanding between the last two Secretaries for India-the Duke of Argyll and the Marquess of Salisbury-as well as the SOUTH AFRICA-THE TRANSVAAL. QUESTION. SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he proposes to ask for the £69,000 expended in the Transvaal in addition to the Grant in the past year; whether Her Majesty's Representatives in Africa have authority to spend any more British money on the Transvaal Administration in the present year; and, if so, when Estimates for that will be presented; and when a Statement showing how the money has been expended will be presented? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, with regard to the £69,000 THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he regretted very much that any impediment had been thrown in the way of proceeding to the appointment of the Select Committee with reference to these duties. He did not quite understand upon what ground the opposition which he saw was offered to the nomination of the Committee by his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Isaac) rested. He thought that was the only opposition which was now offered, and it would be hardly fair if the matter were brought on at a period of the evening when it would not be possible to discuss it. It would not be easy, and would probably cause some inconvenience, if he were to propose to alter the other Business in order to take the Motion for nominating this Committee. He therefore trusted that his hon. expended in the Transvaal in a former Government, to carry out the decision of year, I think in 1877-8, that money the House? was expended out of the Army Fund in respect of services in the nature of Army services connected with the annexation of the Transvaal. I have not at this moment a Statement of the application of the money; but I will inquire of the War Office, and, if possible, it shall be furnished. The money was expended out of the Army grant, and the account of that grant has been before the Controller and Auditor General, and has been passed by him; and as there was no excess found, no grant has had to be asked for. With regard to the second Question, Her Majesty's Representative in South Africa has no authority for spending any British money in the administration of the Transvaal in the present year; but, if necessary, of course, an Estimate would be submitted. The only exceptional case might be that in the event of any serious military emergency he might, upon his own responsibility, draw on the Treasury chest, and in that case the funds would have to be supplied. No expenditure can be incurred in the administration of the Transvaal without the previous sanction of the Home Government. SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL asked, If there would be any expenditure this year? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will give Notice of that Question. THE SUGAR INDUSTRIES THE SELECT COMMITTEE.-QUESTION. MR. RITCHIE asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, seeing that the House of Commons and the Government have approved of the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Sugar Industries, and that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has officially intimated that Her Majesty's Government have decided to make no further representations on the subject to Foreign Governments until the Select Committee has reported, he will afford me facilities for nominating the Committee, as, in consequence of notice of opposition to the nomination of the Committee having been placed on the Paper, it is rendered practically impossible, without the assistance of the The Chancellor of the Exchequer Friend might be able to arrange that the Notice of the Amendment might be taken off the Paper. MR. RITCHIE asked the hon. Member for Nottingham if he should persist in his opposition? [No reply was given.] EGYPT FINANCIAL CHANGES - DIS- QUESTION. MR. E. JENKINS asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, although Mr. Rivers Wilson has been withdrawn from Egypt, the French Government has not declined to withdraw M. de Blignières; whether the idea of any joint action in regard to Egyptian affairs between the English and French Governments has been abandoned; and what, if any, difference existed in the grounds on which the application of the Khedive for permission to be granted by the French and English Governments respectively to Messrs. Wilson and de Blignières to accept office in Egypt was assented to by those Governments? MR. BOURKE: Sir, I shall be very happy to give a definite answer to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee. The hon. Member asks me whether the idea of any joint action with France in relation to Egyptian affairs has been abandoned. |