various bodies. The various Medical Corporations in England condemned his proposal on the ground that nothing short of a Conjoint Board to include the Universities would be satisfactory. The English Universities took the same view; the representations from Ireland were to the same effect; and from various Medical Societies in the Metropolis, who treated the question in a very impartial manner, he had received representations in the same direction. He was bound to say that the opinion of those various bodies and societies was opposed to his compromise, and he would not be dealing honestly with the House if he did not say that he could not resist the arguments they had brought under his consideration. Desiring to put the Bill into a shape in which it would be of real advantage to the Medical Profession and satisfactory to the whole country, he had reluctantly come to the conclusion that he must ask their Lordships to allow him to amend it so as to make a Conjoint Board for each of the three portions of the United Kingdom compulsory. The chief opposition to such a proposal came from the Universities of Scotland; but he hoped that his endeavours in the way of compromise would show them that he had, as far as possible, deferred to their views. When he found that he could bring no argument against a compulsory joint scheme, he would not be acting honestly if he did not make it a part of the Bill. He hoped, therefore, the Universities of Scotland would appreciate his motives, and see that he was doing what he believed would be best doing what he believed would be best for the Medical Profession and the public generally. With this explanation, he would ask their Lordships to go into Committee pro formá. VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT begged to congratulate the noble Duke on the conclusion at which he had arrived. He was convinced that only a Conjoint Examining Board for all the three Kingdoms would be satisfactory. THE MARQUESS OF RIPON said, that having from the first pointed out that a blot in the measure was the absence of the clause, which the Lord President now proposed to introduce, he begged to express his thanks to his noble Friend. He believed that the course proposed by his noble Friend was the most desirable in the interests of the public; and he hoped that the Universities of Scotland would, in the interest of the public, withdraw their opposition to it. But, however that might be, he felt convinced that his noble Friend had adopted the right course. EARL GRANVILLE also congratulated his noble Friend the Lord President on the change in his determination. Having accompanied a deputation from the University of London to his noble Friend, he could bear testimony to the patient attention with which his noble Friend listened to the representations made to him by that deputation. He believed that the change which his noble Friend proposed to make in the Bill would prove of great advantage to the public and the Medical Profession. House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported, without Amendment ; Amendments made: Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and to be printed as amended. (No. 90.) Resolutions [May 23] reported - Exchequer Bonds (£1,500,000); Consolidated Fund (£6,500,000). PUBLIC BILLS-Ordered-First Reading-Exchequer Bonds (No. 2) [186]; Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Committee * Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [44]—R.P.; Tenant Right (Ireland) [31]-R.P. Committee-Report-General Police and Improvement Provisional Order (Paisley) * [170]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Birmingham, &c.) * [165]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Lochgelly) * [171]. Considered as amended-Poor Law Amendment Act (1876) Amendment [134]. Third Reading-Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Mickleover) [161]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Droitwich, &c.) [163]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation [153], and passed. * women were identical. The English and | WAYS AND MEANS-considered in Committee— Irish Courts of Common Pleas respectively made Rules, as they were empowered to do by the Acts. These Rules were identical. They made it suffice if one of the Commissioners was a disinterested party. Acting on the faith of the Rules, many deeds had been executed before Commissioners, where one was an interested party. The question arose in England as to whether such an acknowledgment was not invalid, and the Rule itself ultra vires. The arguments, &c., were to be found in the Report of the case, In re-Ollerton, 15 C.B. Before judgment was given, an English Act was passed to validate such acknowledgments-17 & 18 Vict. This Act was never extended to Ireland. The same question had arisen in this country. If the proposed Act were not passed-(1.) A great injustice would be done in the particular instance in which the deed was executed on the faith of the Rule of Court. (2.) There would remain the absurdity of having the law in the two countries different on this important point. (3.) There was no saying how many deeds and titles might depend upon such acknowledgments. He (the Earl of Belmore) need only say, in addition, that this Bill, although introduced by a private Member into the House of Commons, had the cordial approval of Her Majesty's Attorney General for Ireland. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, he had no objection to the Bill being read a second time, as before the next stage * QUESTIONS. 160 NAVY WRITERS IN THE DOCK- MR. E. J. REED asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the arrangements for removing the disabilities of the mechanic writers in Her Majesty's dockyards are yet completed; and, if so, whether they will speedily come into operation? MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, that the question had been considered at the Admiralty, and their recommendations upon it were at present before the Treasury, and he had every reason to hope that the change would be carried out shortly. of the Bill was taken he should have an House adjourned at a quarter before Six HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, 24th May, 1878. MINUTES.]-SUPPLY-considered in Committee The Earl of Belmore BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS. QUESTION. MR. DILLWYN asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When it is proposed to adjourn for Whitsuntide, and for how long? He would also like to know, What the course of Government Business would be? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am afraid that I shall not be able to propose any very lengthened adjournment at Whitsuntide. The state of Business is such as will hardly admit of that. What I propose is, that we should have a Morning Sitting on Friday June 7, and should then rise till the following Thursday. With regard to the course of Business, the principal | referred to. He (Mr. Cross) knew Business which the Government have to nothing about him, except what the go on with on Government nights will magistrate-a person of considerable be the Committee of Supply. On Mon- experience-had told him. He was inday, as hon. Gentlemen are aware, we formed by him that that man had been propose to take the Supplementary long an incorrigible rogue and vagabond, Estimate for the movement of Indian who had been repeatedly committed; troops. If there is time on that evening, that eventually he was sent before we shall, of course, go on with the other Quarter Sessions, and received a year's classes of Supply; and on the Thurs- imprisonment; that he was afterwards day following we should also propose to offered his expenses to enable him to go take Supply. I mentioned the other back to Ireland, but that he refused to day that we hoped to fix a Morning go, and continued to lead the life of a Sitting before Whitsuntide for the Scotch rogue and vagabond until he was comRoads and Bridges Bill. I cannot mitted again to gaol. promise next Tuesday for that purpose, because of the engagement we entered into with those hon. Gentlemen who gave up their precedence to enable the debate which concluded last night to proceed; but on the Tuesday following-the 4th of June-we propose that there should be a Morning Sitting for the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill. CRIMINAL LAW THE REV. MR. DR. KENEALY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will explain to the House the grounds on which he refuses to release the Reverend Mr. Dodwell, who has been reported to him on high medical authority as being of perfectly sound mind, since the murderer Broomfield has been discharged because he had become sane? MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that Broadmoor Asylum, so far as insane male persons were concerned, was for those only who had been acquitted on the ground of insanity. That was the present rule. When the Rev. Mr. Dodwell was found to be insane by a verdict of his countrymen, he was sent in the ordinary course to Broad moor. Some time ago, letters were reIceived at the Home Office from Dr. Wynn and Dr. Forbes Winslow, as to the state of the prisoner. Those letters were sent on the 15th of April to the authorities of Broadmoor, with an intimation that when they were able to report that it would be consistent with the safety both of the public and of the prisoner himself that he should be either absolutely cr conditionally discharged, his case would then be considered by the Secretary of State, and not till then. No Report had yet been received. PARLIAMENT — FRANCHISE OF THE RESERVE MEN.-QUESTION. MR. ELLIOT asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the existing Law deprives a man of his Parliamentary or Municipal franchise when he is performing his duty in the Militia or in Reserve Forces, should his wife or family receive, | section of the Act, because none has during such period of service, parochial relief? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): Sir, the existing law deprives a man of the Parliamentary and municipal franchise should his wife or family receive parochial relief. That disqualification is not removed by service in the Militia or Reserve Forces. been required. The terms and conditions of service of the Native Forces remain precisely what they were when that Act was passed. All that has been done is this. The Governor General in Council in 1869 slightly altered the language of the form of attestation, so as to bring it into harmony with the public notification of the terms of enlistment and the condition of service relating to the MERCHANT SHIPPING-DYNAMITE, &c. Indian Native troops issued by the Go QUESTION. MR. M'LAGAN asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been directed to a paragraph in the "Liverpool Express" of the 23rd instant, headed "A Customs Blunder," in which it is stated that the bark "Enchanter," chartered with a cargo of salt and dynamite to Halifax, in Canada, was detained in Liverpool by a Government order; if so, whether it is correct that the vessel has been detained by a Government order, and whether a manufacturer of explosives in this country is to be prevented shipping as hitherto his products to his agents for sale in the British Colonies ? vernor General of India in 1856. lor of the Exchequer, Whether, before any portion of the revenues of India the transport of Indian troops to Malta, was devoted to defray the expenses of the expenditure was sanctioned by the Council of the Secretary of State for the House on what day this sanction India; and, if so, whether he will inform was given? MR. FAWCETT asked Mr. Chancel QUER: Sir, no portion of the Revenues of India has at any time been devoted to defray the expenses of the transport of Indian troops to Malta, and therefore no such expenditure could be sanctioned by the Council of State for India. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, that if the hon. Gentle-that on Monday, I will ask Mr. ChanMR. FAWCETT: I beg to give Notice man would allow him to do so, he would cellor of the Exchequer a Question to give him an answer to the Question. His the following effect:attention had been first called to the subject of the paragraph referred to by seeing the Notice. On inquiry, he found it was a fact that that vessel was detained, as stated in the Question; but the whole subject was under the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown, and, until he was in possession of their opinions, he could not answer the last part of the Question. THE MILITARY FORCES OF THE "Whether it is not provided, in the 41st section of the Government of India Act, that no of India can be allowed without the sanction of grant or appropriation of any of the revenues a majority of the Council of the Secretary of State, and whether such grant or appropriation must not have been made when the money of India was advanced to defray these expenses ?” MR. CHILDERS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question, of which I have given him private Notice-namely, Whether he has any objection to state to the House now the form of the Vote for the Army Service MR. WADDY asked the Under Se- to be taken on Monday next? Perhaps cretary of State for India, Whether the I may, to save trouble, explain that my powers conferred upon Her Majesty by object is to ascertain whether the number the 57th section of the 21st and 22nd of men will be stated in that Vote, so Vic. c. 106, have ever been exercised; that they may appear as having been and, if so, whether he will give the date voted by the House. In further explaof any Order in Council made in pursu-nation, I may mention, that, according ance thereof, and cause the same to be printed for the information of the House? MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, no Order in Council has been made under the 57th Mr. Elliot to the Estimate which we have before us, £350,000 is to be voted to meet the additional expenditure for defraying the cost of the transport of Indian troops, and only below, in the explanatory state ment, mention is made of 7,000 men. My object is to inquire, Whether these 7,000 men will appear in the Resolution as voted by the House? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The right hon. Gentleman only gave me Notice of his Question just now across the Table. I have not the form of the Vote here. I apprehend, however, that the Vote will contain the number of men with respect to which the money is taken. SiR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked the hon. Member for Dundee, If he intends to go on with his Motion respecting the Supplementary Estimate for moving Indian troops? MR. E. JENKINS, in reply, said, that in view of the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) proposed on the Estimate to raise a question on which he (Mr. Jenkins) thought he was entitled to precedence, he should withdraw his Motion in favour of that of his hon. Friend. This would not, however, prevent the House from discussing the policy and expediency of employing Indian troops in the course of the debate. MR. MUNDELLA asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, for the convenience of the discussion on Monday, he was prepared to furnish a statement of the terms and conditions of the contract entered into for the transport of the Indian troops? MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, I am not in a position to furnish this information to the House, inasmuch as the information I have received has only come to hand by telegraph. MR. MÜNDELLA: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the information he has received by telegraph? ["No, no!"] PUBLIC BUSINESS-COUNTY COURTS BILL-VALUATION BILL. QUESTION. In answer to Mr. J. G. HUBBARD, MR. SCLATER-BOOTH said, that the adjourned debate on the County Courts Bill would not be resumed without due Notice. With respect to the Valuation Bill, he hoped that an early opportunity might be found for its second reading. MR. R. POWER asked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the deportation of Thomas Johnson, who was, on the 10th instant, removed from Ulverston Workhouse to Waterford, in Ireland; whether the statement be true that the said Johnson resided for 42 years in England, and for eight years was employed at Bedlington, and was in search of work at Ulverston when he sought temporary relief; and, if it was legal to remove him to Ireland; and, if so, can he hold out any hope that the Law may be amended? |