the subject by gentlemen well entitled to express an opinion. In point of fact, it is well known that marriages have been solemnized at both the times in question. The subject is undoubtedly one of very great importance, and the Government are considering whether it may not be possible to bring in a Bill this Session to remove the doubts and to remedy the consequences of those doubts.

notice to this House that I intended to disregard the recent Resolution which it came to on this subject. I merely intimated to the House my opinion that, under all the circumstances of that majority, I thought it was desirable that the extent of that Resolution should be re-considered; but I think I have given abundant evidence to the House that I did not intend to disregard that Resolution. In answer to the Question of my hon. Friend, I have only KINGSTON ASSIZES.-QUESTION. to say that, in accordance with the Constitution of the War Department, the comMR. GILPIN said, he would beg to ask munications between the Commander-inthe Secretary of State for the Home De-Chief and the Secretary of State for War partment, If his attention has been called The Secretary of are very frequent. to a trial at the Kingston Assizes, where State, however, is responsible for the Adtwo men, Burton, aged twenty-three, and ministration of the War Department. He Hay, aged twenty-nine, were indicted for is responsible for what he says or does in burglary, before Mr. Baron Bramwell, and his official capacity in this House; and I sentenced to seven and ten years' penal cannot think that the House will expect or servitude respectively; to the fact that the desire that the Secretary of State should convicts were violent and abusive on re- be called upon to state the times, circumceiving their sentence, and, having been stances, and subjects of those consultaremoved from the bar by the police, were tions with the Commander-in-Chief, which ordered to be brought back by the Judge, are almost of daily occurrence. who thereupon sentenced them each to a further term of five years' penal ser

vitude?

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH: I wish to know, whether the right hon. Gentleman declines to answer my Question? ["Order, order!"]

CASE OF JOHN TOOMER.

QUESTION.

SIR ROBERT COLLIER said, he would

beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has any House a Copy of the Judge's or short-hand objection to lay upon the table of the

writer's notes of the evidence on the trial of John Toomer, who was convicted of rape and sentenced to fifteen years' penal servitude at the last Summer Assizes for Reading; and, of all Memorials and Correspondence relating to the case ?

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, when he lately gave notice to the House that he intended to MR. WALPOLE: Sir, I regret very disregard the recent Resolution of a ma- much that for reasons which I will briefly adjority of the House in favour of the abo-vert to I do not think that I am at liberty to lition of corporal punishmentin the Army, and to introduce the usual Clause on that subject in the Mutiny Bill, as if no such Resolution had been carried, he had consulted His Royal Highness the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief on the subject, and had the approval of his Royal Highness in making that announcement?

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I must, in the first place, take exception to the terms of the Question of my hon. Friend. I cannot admit that I ever gave

lay the papers to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers upon the table of the House. Those papers are of a peculiarly private and confidential character, and contain matters affecting the character and conduct of third parties, and unless an opportunity were given to those parties to explain such observations as might be made about them, it would be a great injustice to them to make the papers public. Moreover, there is no precedent for the production of such papers, and to establish one

905

was

of credibility, as any one will see who takes
the trouble to go through the evidence.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, but
recommended him to mercy. On being
asked what was the meaning of their re-
commendation, they stated that there were
extenuating circumstances; and on being
again asked what they meant by that, they
said that the prosecutrix had been indis-
The jury, however, did not ap-
creet.
pear to have any doubt that the crime
was proved against Toomer, and the
learned Judge was certainly of that opi-
nion, as also were many of those who
were present at the time of the trial. The
application which was made to me
for a free pardon; but the House will
see that I could not have recommended a
pardon to be granted without deliberately
deciding that the prosecutrix was guilty
of perjury, and that the two maid servants
ought to have been believed and not disbe-
lieved as they had been by the jury. This
was a case rather coming within the pecu-
liar province of a jury, as it was a ques-
tion involving the determination of facts.
It was a case relating to the credibility of
evidence, which could not be tried by me
or any other tribunal, excepting in one
way, and that was to allow Toomer to pro-
secute for perjury the person who had
A letter was accord-
accused him, and upon whose evidence he
had been convicted.

will virtually be an interference with the
prerogative of the Crown, and will make
the House a Court of Appeal in criminal
cases. Any one, I think, who considers
the subject, will agree with me that it
would be hardly competent for me to pro-
duce the papers asked for. At the same
time, I may say that the facts of this case
do not appear to me to have been suffi-
ciently well understood-nay, in some re-
spects appear to have been much misre-
presented if not perverted. Although,
therefore, I cannot consent to lay the
papers upon the table, because it would
introduce a precedent which would be very
inconvenient were it to be followed, yet I
wish it to be understood that any explana-
tions which I have to offer, or any re-
quirements which may be made of me
with reference to any conduct that I have
pursued upon the matter, are perfectly
legitimate subjects of inquiry, and I am
perfectly willing to offer such explanations
as may be required. Having said this
much, I shall now, Sir, with the permis-
sion of the House, venture to state what
really has taken place in regard to this
matter so far as I myself am concerned.
Toomer was tried for rape in July last. An
application was made to me a few weeks
afterwards on his behalf. Toomer himself
signed a petition, in which he stated his
own view of the case; said that the prose-
cutrix had been living with him on familiaringly written from the Home Office, giving
terms; that he was entirely innocent of no opinion upon the merits of the case,
the crime, and asking that further inquiry but intimating to Toomer that he would
might take place with the view of granting be at liberty to prosecute Miss Partridge
Had such a course been
him a free pardon. That Memorial was for perjury.
accompanied by other documents, and I, adopted, and had such an indictment been
in accordance with the course which I al- sustained, there can be no doubt that the
ways take upon such occasions, referred innocence of Toomer might have been es-
the Memorial and the other documents to tablished. But objections have been stated
the Judge who presided at the trial. The against the recommendation of prosecuting
learned Judge subsequently forwarded to the woman who gained the case for per-
me the notes of evidence and also his own jury. The first was that a conviction for
From those notes perjury could not be obtained except upon
opinion upon the case.
two things were clear-first, that whether the testimony of two witnesses, and the
Toomer was innocent or guilty of the second was, that as Toomer was a felon he
crime, it was perfectly clear that the state- had forfeited his property to the Crown,
ment which he made in his Memorial was and would have no means of trying the
not only unfortified but was totally at va-
riance with the evidence; and secondly,
that the whole matter apparently turned
upon the credibility of the different wit-
nesses. If the prosecutrix was to be be-
lieved, then the verdict of guilty could be
sustained. If, on the other hand, the two
female witnesses were to be believed, then
Toomer was certainly not guilty. The mat-
ter, therefore, resolved itself into a question

case.

In answer to the first point, I may
say that there were two witnesses-namely,
the servants-and I am told it is perfectly
clear that if these two servants could have
corroborated the evidence of Toomer as to
what took place on the Sunday night, and
there was no reason to doubt them, that a
verdict would have been obtained in favour
With regard to the second
of Toomer.
point, I may state that I made inquiry and

shall therefore not place them on the table. With regard to the other and more important Question put by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to state that to-night I shall put on the Paper a Notice that in Com

found that the property forfeited to the Crown was only a very limited proportion, Toomer having previous to his trial conveyed a very considerable amount of property to his father. Both objections, therefore, were such as could not be sus-mittee of the Whole House on the Repretained. The prosecution took place last autumn, and from that time to this I have received no application whatever upon the subject. Since the meeting of Parliament, I have been asked by hon. Members whether the sentence of fifteen years' penal servitude ought to be allowed to stand. My answer is that that point has never been brought before me in any way. Had any memorial been presented upon the subject, it would have been considered, or if any deputation had waited upon me it would have been received, and their representations would have received due consideration.

MR. GLADSTONE said, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any alteration in the arrangement or the provisions of the Bill for amending the Representation of the People before inviting the House to discuss the Clauses in Committee; and, whether he is willing to lay upon the table the Reports or other documents from which he quoted on Tuesday the opinions of the present and late Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue respecting the proposed taxing franchise?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, it is not my intention to lay on the table the communications from which I read freely, and without reserve to the House, the other night, but which were strictly of an informal character. I

sentation of the People Bill I shall move the omission of Clause 7-that is, the clause which proposes to give a second vote, in respect of which I act according to the statement I made to the House the other evening. With regard to all other controverted points, I beg to state that I think the House in Committee will be able to find the best solution, and that we shall enter into that Committee with the most anxious desire, in co-operation with the House, to bring the subject of Parliamentary Reform to a speedy and satisfactory conclusion.

VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: With reference, Sir, to the answer just delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to ask my noble Friend the Member for King's Lynn, who on a previous night said the Government would introduce a Bill by which they would stand or fall, what are the provisions of that Bill by which the Government will stand or fall?

LORD STANLEY: That, Sir, is rather matter for argument and discussion than for a Question; and when our debates on that subject are resumed, I shall be quite ready to answer any observations my noble Friend likes to make.

UTILIZATION OF SEWAGE ACT.
QUESTION.

SIR JOHN SIMEON said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, looking to the doubts that exist as to parishes, any part of which may be under the Local Government Act (1858), being able to avail themselves either of the Utilization of Sewage Act (1865) or of the Sanitary Act (1866), the Government is prepared to amend the Law so as to enable parishes so circumstanced to bring themselves under the operation of those Acts?

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, in reply that the object of the Sewage Utilization Act was to extend the powers and benefits of the Local Government Act to rural parishes. The reason why a parish, any part of which may be under the Local Government Act, is unable to avail itself of the Sewage Utilization Act, or of the first part of the Sanitary Act of 1866, was

Second Reading of the Bankruptcy Bill, in order that Commercial Associations in the provinces may have an opportunity for the due consideration of its provisions?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in reply, said, he should regret if the commercial bodies interested in such a Bill had not the fullest opportunity of considering its provisions; but if an opportunity between this and Easter arose for taking the second reading of the Bill, he thought that if he did not avail himself of it it would be equivalent to an abandonment of the measure. There would be abundant opportunities of considering any point that might arise, and he hoped the hon. Member would not object to the second reading should it come on before Easter.

the difficulty of avoiding contemporaneous will postpone until after Easter the jurisdictions and two systems of rating over the same area. Taking the case of Enfield, for example. That town was situated in a large agricultural parish, twenty miles in diameter. Farmers twenty miles off objected to be rated for the sewerage of that town. Enfield, therefore, put itself under the Local Government Act and rated itself and sewered the town. Now, it would be manifestly unfair that the whole parish should come under the Sewage Utilization Act, and erect a second jurisdiction over Enfield, and subject the town to two rates merely for the benefit of the rural part of the parish. The only way in which the rural part could obtain these advantages, as it seemed to him, would be to extend the boundaries of the town, and therefore of the operation of the Local Government Act also, over the whole parish. But here, again, the rating difficulty would stand in the way. This point, however, and other amendments in the Sanitary Act, were under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but he could not say what they might see fit to carry out during the present Session.

GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG.

QUESTION.

MR. SANDFORD said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any information of the sale of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to the Emperor of the French?

LORD STANLEY: Sir, in the course of this morning I received from the Hague a despatch containing a translation of a notice which appeared in the official organ of the Government of Holland. It is to this effect:-"We are requested by the Luxembourg Chancellerie to contradict most positively the report that a cession of the Grand Duchy has taken place." I apprehend there can be no doubt that communications have passed between the Governments of France and of Holland with reference to the possible transfer of that territory; but as to the result of those communications, I am not in a position to give any information to the House, not knowing what has happened.

BANKRUPTCY BILL.-QUESTION. MR. NORWOOD said, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether he

ARMY-THE WAR OFFICE.-QUESTION.

MR. O'BEIRNE said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any application has been made by the Secretary of State for War to the Lords of the Treasury, founded on a memorial from the permanent staff of the War Office, and recommended by the heads of departments and the Under Secretaries of State, for the payment of the salaries monthly instead of quarterly in the War Department; and, if such an application has been made, whether he intends to give orders that it shall be complied with?

MR. HUNT said, in reply, that such an application had been made by the War Office this year. Applications had also been made in previous years to a similar effect. But as it would be impossible to give that privilege to the War Office without extending it to the other branches of the Civil Service, which would involve an increase in the establishment of the Pay Office, the applications had been refused. At the same time, he might state that the clerks in the War Office whose salary was under £100 per annum were enabled to draw their pay half-quarterly.

CESSION OF RUSSIAN AMERICA TO
THE UNITED STATES.
QUESTION.

MR. WATKIN said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has received any official corroboration of the statement in The Times of that day relative to the cession of the whole of Russian America and the adjacent islands to the United States?

IRELAND-THE TYRONE MAGISTRATES and the Treasury?