HC Deb 08 August 1879 vol 249 cc531-80

who had given Notice of his intention on the Report of Supply being brought up to move the following Resolution:— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty graciously to withhold Her approval of the plan for the erection of a monument to the late Prince Louis Napoleon in the Royal Chapel of King Henry Seventh in Westminster Abbey"— having risen,


said: Sir, I rise to Order. I wish to submit to you, Sir, whether such a Motion as this could properly be brought forward upon the Report of Supply?


I have already informed the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle that the Amendment could not be moved on the Report of Supply; but, at the same time, the House is aware that general observations are allowed on the Report.


The Motion, I presume, cannot be put?




explained that he had, 10 days ago, placed his Motion on the Paper in the form of an Amendment on going into Committee of Supply; but, inasmuch as Supply was finished yesterday, he had had no alternative except to put it on the Paper as an Amendment on bringing up the Report of Supply. Although he could not take a Division on the Motion, he hoped to elicit from the House an opinion on the subject which he was about to bring under their notice which would accomplish his object as effectually as if the matter went to a Division. The reason why he gave Notice of a Motion was that he could not otherwise legitimately bring the matter forward; and he was induced to do so by reading a letter from the Dean of Westminster, which had appeared in the public journals, in which that rev. gentleman had said that when he had received the application for erecting the proposed monument in the Chapel Royal he had at once consented, subject to the approval of Her Majesty, in whose Chapel Royal it was intended that the statue should be placed. He had naturally inferred, from the terms of the letter, that the approval of Her Majesty was necessary before the proposed step could be taken; but he had since been informed that the matter was entirely within the control of the Dean of Westminster. He might be wrong, and, if so, there were hon. Members who would, no doubt, set him right. The Dean was, he believed, what was called "his own peculiar" in ecclesiastical matters, which enabled him to deal with such a subject as he pleased. That, however, did not interfere with the only object he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had in view, which was to obtain an expression of the opinion of that House as to the desirability of this monument; for such an expression of opinion would, he was sure, carry great weight with those who had the decision of the matter in their hands. The place in which it was proposed to erect the monument—namely, right over the tomb of Oliver Cromwell—was, he thought, most inappropriate. They had been told that this was a trifling matter; but "trifles," someone had said, "make the sum of human things," and the House was proud to attend to the smallest, as well as the greatest, matters. This was a "trifle," moreover, in which the public took much interest. He yielded to no one in respectful sympathy he, in common with the whole country, felt for the Empress of the French in her great bereavement. No manly or generous heart would do anything to aggravate her grief. But the manner in which this question had been brought forward made it necessary for them to speak upon it. The question was as to the place where the monument was to be erected. No one would, of course, find fault with the proposal to erect a monument to the Prince at Woolwich, or any other part of the Dominions of the Queen, so that all those who knew and loved him should subscribe their money for the purpose. It was only because the proposal was to put up the monument in a national building, thereby giving it a national character, that he had a locus standi in calling the attention of the House to the subject. Of course, some hon. Gentlemen might say that the Abbey was a place where we ought to erect memorials to any persons who excited much interest in the country. If hon. Gentlemen held it to be a kind of exhibition, they must, of course, oppose him. But he totally differed from that view. Westminster Abbey had been for generations looked upon as the home of our mighty dead—a place where we ought to honour those who had served the country well. And, in his opinion, this monument was not to be erected to one who had done any service to England. He had nothing whatever to say against the' Prince who lately lost his life, whose character, from all we could learn, was a pleasing and amiable one, and to whom The Morning Post had alluded as being a sensible, liberal-minded young man, and a model of modesty and good sense. He had no doubt that that was true. He had seen the Prince's own words quoted in a pamphlet the other day, which described an interview with him, and which somewhat flattered him. His words, in reply to some remarks which were made 'to him, were—"I do not merit your praises; I am only a young man who has as yet done nothing." That was spoken manfully, modestly, and with good feeling, and certainly did not suggest that he had rendered such service as entitled him to a monument in such a place. Ridiculous language had been made use of in the Press. One morning paper had, for instance, said— His life and death recall to English minds the beautiful existence of a Philip Sidney or a Falkland. This was great exaggeration. If the monument was to be erected in a political sense it was still more objectionable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them, the other day, that there was nothing political about the matter. He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman thought so. But we could not prevent its being looked upon as political. Abroad it would, and must be, so regarded. The Bonapartist Committee in Prance, only the other day, had said— A great neighbouring people has shown itself jealous of its duties towards our beloved Prince, and we cannot compete in the matter of homage with England, which gives him a place in Westminster Abbey, by the side of the illustrious dead who are her pride and her glory. It was not desirable that we should do that sort of honour to one who, after all, was only a pretender. We owed no homage to the Napoleon family. What was its history? The First Napoleon was the scourge of the world. The second we knew little of, because, fortunately for him, he died before he was able to commit the crimes of others of his race. And the Third Napoleon, what was he? Only the other day he road, in The Life of the Prince Consort, a letter in which the Prince said of him, "He was born and bred a conspirator." Then they came to this young Prince. Had he clone anything in a public sense which called for such a national tribute as this must be? They must speak the truth, and say that he had not. He said himself very honestly that he simply went out to Africa with our troops to advertise himself, and to make a name, in order that he might employ the influence he there obtained to overthrow the settled Government of our neighbours in France. To put up a monument in Westminster Abbey to one engaged in a work of that kind was something like an outrage to this country. The Abbey had been beautifully described as "the great temple of silence and reconciliation." A monument in it, therefore, needed to be endorsed by the nation itself, and the feeling of a large majority against it would destroy its charm and merit. He believed there were great multitudes of people in this country who would look upon this memorial as one that would degrade our great national temple. And this being the case, he thought it would be wise to concede to the feeling of what might be a minority, but was certainly a large minority—it would be wise for that House to express an opinion on this matter, so that those who had the ultimate decision in their hands might be guided to act wisely.


I cannot but think that it is a fortunate circumstance that the hon. Baronet has been prevented by the Rules of the House from submitting to the House as a Motion that which he had placed upon the Paper. I must say I could have wished that, being precluded from offering it as a Motion, he had taken the wiser course of abstaining from any remarks upon the subject. ["No!"] I have no wish to analyze the motives of hon. Members, of course; but I do think that it is much to be regretted that such a subject as this should have been introduced to the House of Commons in such a speech as that to which we have just listened. I will say but a very few words indeed on this occasion. I repeat what I said a little time ago, that the admission of monuments into Westminster Abbey is a matter which rests entirely with the Dean. It is perfectly true that, in a letter which the Dean some time ago addressed to the public newspapers, he mentioned that, in proposing to admit a monument to Prince Louis Napoleon into the Royal Chapel of Henry VII., he did so subject to the approval of Her Majesty, whose family interest in the chapel we, of course, are aware of. I presume that, in so acting, the Dean was taking a course of proper respect towards Her Majesty; but, at the same time, was in no way calling in question his own right to admit the monument. The proposal that was made originated, as I understand, with the Dean himself, or, at all events, with some of the private friends of the Dean, and in no way, I am authorized to say, did it originate with Her Majesty herself. The proposal was made with, no political significance, but simply with the view of expressing sympathy with the fate of a gallant young man who was known to many of us in England, and whose death, whatever else may be said about it, was certainly of a character to awaken sympathy both for himself and his widowed mother. I really think that Englishmen might, in such circumstances, abstain from attempting to give a political complexion to what can only be, at all events, an expression of national sympathy, and which many of us would have preferred rather to respect in silence and sorrow. I wish entirely to enter my protest against the view which the hon. Baronet has adopted, that Westminster Abbey is to be regarded as a national building into which no monuments and no funerals are to be admitted except at the desire of the nation, and in order to mark the sense of the nation of some services rendered to England, and that in admitting or questioning the admission of any particular monument into that church we are to go into the political character and antecedents of the person or the family concerned. I say this is an entirely false view of the case.


Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to explain? I did not say that it was only political services that were to be considered in this matter; I said some services to the nation.


Well, "services to the nation." I apprehend that a great many persons have been buried in the Abbey of whom no one can say they have done service to the nation. They were admitted for private reasons, and at the discretion of those who had the charge of the church. If you are to make the admission of a monument at the discretion of the Dean the subject of contest and discussion in Parliament, and if you make an analysis of the services which the person so admitted is supposed to have rendered to the nation, you are altering altogether the proper relations of the Church and State in regard to Westminster Abbey, and of the Houses of Parliament in regard to it. If you carry it much further, you would make it a question of discussion whether you do or do not agree or sympathize with the political Party with which the individual was, or was supposed to be, connected, and you introduce questions which we ought to keep clear of. I have to express my extreme regret that the hon. Baronet should have thought it right or in good taste to have made the observations he has made, and to have introduced to the notice of the House of Commons questions as to the dynasty of the Napoleons or the character of any of the ancestors of this gallant young man. It is not because he was a Frenchman, with these or the other views or connections, or because of political sympathy or political antipathy, or anything of the kind, that this proposal was made; but because the Prince had fallen in the service of this country under circumstances which awakened the sympathy of our countrymen, and because there was residing among us one with whom the country felt a very real and sincere sympathy. It was on that account the proposal was made by the Dean on his own responsibility; and I do think this House would be committing a serious and grave error if it were to attempt to pass a Resolution on this subject. I congratulate the House on the fact that the hon. Baronet is, by the Forms of the House, unable to present this Address, because I think the House would feel considerable difficulty in even attempting to pronounce an opinion on the question. It would seem as if we were dividing upon political questions which ought not to be introduced here.


said, he would avoid, in the few words he had to say, uttering a single word which could be any way regarded as intended to wound the feelings of anyone who was concerned in this matter; but, at the same time, he did protest most strongly against the tone that had been adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to his hon. Friend and his Motion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer got up and said, in effect, that this was a mere private church, over which a certain Dean had the control, and if he chose to put A, B, or C in the church it was nobody's business, and it certainly was not a matter in which they ought to ask the House of Commons to express an opinion. They might think it was a church in which they might bury the hon. Member for Stoke (Dr. Kenealy), with military honours, without anyone being able to say a single word about it.


I rise to Order. I wish to know whether it is in accordance with Parliamentary Rules for an hon. Member to refer in such disrespectful terms—disrespectful so unquestionably and indefensibly—to the hon. Member for Stoke?


The hon. Member-rises to Order; but I must say nothing reached my ears that appeared to me un-Parliamentary.


continuing, said, it appeared to him that the country would not think it discreet in the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have answered the hon. Baronet as he had done. There was a great deal that might be said in favour of the adoption of the proposal that a monument should be erected to the young Prince in Westminster Abbey. All the conditions under which he died, the circumstance of his residence among us, the fact that he had lived here a generous and manly and gallant life, and the fact that in all his associations those who had met him had learned to admire his spirit, and to admire, as well, the culture of his mind. All these things, together with his relations with the Royal Family, no doubt, did afford reasons that might be taken by many people as ample and sufficient, and justify the Dean in having granted to him the privilege of a monument in the Abbey. But that was not all. Unhappily, we could not separate this young man from his circumstances and from his family. The fact that the Prince had an asylum in England, known as it was in France, which was now under a Republican Government, continually challenged the existence of the Government of France. Then, before he left this country upon that expedition which turned out so fatal, he issued, in a letter to a friend, that which was practically a manifesto. He (Mr. E. Jenkins) was in Paris when that manifesto was issued, and was in communication with some of those who, one would have thought, would have felt the effects of that letter. They felt this—that the Prince was taking advantage of his position in England for the purpose of issuing a manifesto aimed distinctly at a friendly Government. There was much to be said in regard to that. They knew the object with which the Prince left for the Capo. They knew that he had confessed that in going to South Africa he wished to show that he could use a sword, and to give proof of a manly spirit; but with what object? Why, that he should carry out the infamous ambition of the Bonapartes. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, the most infamous ambition which ever degraded this earth was that ambition—an ambition which would wade through blood to a Throne, and would not hesitate to trample on the corpses of free citizens in order to reinstate a dynasty that had originally established itself in blood and had maintained itself in cruelty. They might say these statements were such as were calculated to give pain to some persons; but, after all, this young Prince, as they knew, was preparing himself diligently, under the care of St. James, to gratify his ambitious designs on France—Prance, in which Liberty seemed at last to have set her foot. Yes, France, where at last they saw some hopes of a prosperous and a free people. The question which the House had to consider was simply this—What was the appropriateness of the building, and what were its surroundings? It had been argued that other Princes had found an asylum there; but had they been pretenders? He did not use the word in its offensive sense. They had not been pretenders to the Throne of a friendly Power. If it were otherwise, let anyone give him an instance where any pretender to the Throne of a friendly Power had been granted a place in Westminster Abbey. Look at the circumstances. Was there any appropriateness in the person? Had he done anything which entitled him to the gratitude of the English people? The House could not but remember the feeling aroused in the country when the first meeting took place between the Sovereign of England and the new Emperor. They knew how many in England had their feelings wrought up by the fact that this usurper should be waited upon by one who represented the dignity of this country. Was it likely that the people of this country would be satisfied with the fact that such a person as this should be selected for the honour of a tomb in Westminster Abbey? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the Dean allowed all sorts of people to be buried there. That statement was misleading. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that it rested entirely with the Dean, and that he might grant a place for a monument to any person. The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though made, undoubtedly, in good faith, was misleading. [Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA: Is it not true?] It was not in the power of the Dean, he (Mr. E. Jenkins) ventured to say, to bury any person he pleased in Westminster Abbey, nor was it really in his power to grant a place for the tomb of any person he pleased in Westminster Abbey. Only a few weeks ago it was thought to be a proper thing to bring the funeral of Lord Lawrence under the attention of the House of Lords, and in reply to a Question which had been put to him by Lord Granville, the Prime Minister stated that the Government had offered the family the honour of a tomb in Westminster Abbey for the deceased Peer. (Cries of "A funeral."] Well, even if that were so, the body of Lord Lawrence would, he supposed, be buried in the Abbey. At all events, here they saw what was offered by the Government, and he wished to point out, in effect, that-that hit the influence of the Dean. There could be no doubt that while the Dean of Westminster had a technical right to place any monument he pleased in the Abbey, yet that, practically, there was brought to bear upon him a certain amount of influence in the erection of monuments. What did public opinion say of this? Why, there could not be a shadow of a doubt that from all sources there were protests against this proposal. Those protests were perfectly just, and reflected accurately the public opinion. ["No, no!"] Public opinion expressed itself thus—that although elsewhere monuments might be erected to this young Prince, neither the person, nor the place, nor the circumstances wore appropriate that there should be a monument in Westminster Abbey—the place which was dedicated to the virtue, to the nobility, to the highest character, and to the majesty of the English people, and which was never meant to be open to one who had neither by his deeds, nor by his condition, nor by his circumstances, won that right to an entrance into the great Valhalla of the British people.


wanted to explain why it was he had risen to Order in the early part of the evening. It was because he felt that such a Motion as that of the hon. Baronet opposite ought never to have figured on the Order Book of the House of Commons, and that it was most undesirable the House should be called upon to come to a vote on the subject. He did not propose in any way to reply to the arguments of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), because the wisest course, in his opinion, for the House to adopt was not to enter into a discussion on the internal politics of foreign countries. He might observe, with reference to the monument which it was proposed to erect to the late Prince Louis Napoleon, that the father of that young Prince had manifested great friendship for this country, that he himself had been brought up here, and had met with an untimely death while associating himself with our Army. He could not help thinking that the wish of some private friends in England, under those circumstances, to show respect for his memory was a matter which ought not to be introduced within the territory of politics or Party discussion.


said, he quite concurred with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken in the view that the occasion was one in which it was not desirable to enter into the discussion of questions of foreign politics. But as allusions had been made by some hon. Members to the First Napoleon as the modern Attila, he would venture to ask those hon. Members who might be presumed to know something of the world's history whether they were aware of what the state of Europe was towards the end of the last century, when the Holy Alliance was paramount, and when a bloody revolution became necessary in order to change the aspect of things? If they were he was surprised that they, as Radicals, should have spoken as they had done of the founder of the Napoleon dynasty, and of the effect which he had produced in causing matters to settle down on a basis which at the time was thought would be permanent. Speaking as an Irishman, he would say that there was not a peasant in the South or West of Ireland who did not reverence the name of the First Napoleon, whose career had contributed so much to bring about those changed circumstances which made the Irish people now, he trusted, loyal supporters of the British Crown. The members of the Bonaparte family were spoken of as pretenders; but he would not trouble the House by entering into questions of that kind, or allude to the Orleanists as being pretenders in France, further than to say that during the late American War they had seen the Due de Chartres and other French Princes bear arms in the cause of the South; and, again, in the Franco-German War, under Chanzy; yet they never heard of the members of the Legislatures of France and America rising to taunt those Princes with having had Philippe Egalité for an ancestor. He regretted that now, because the Bonapartist family were down, they should be taunted as they had been, instead of having spmpathy extended to them in their distress.


said, he should be glad if what he could not help regarding as a most painful discussion should at once be brought to a close. The question had been raised in the public Press in becoming, decent, and respectful language, and he hoped it would not be dropped there. But the most likely way of getting it dropped and rendering it impossible to have a cool and moderate discussion among reflective men was to make speeches such as they had heard that night. Speaker after speaker had used language which they would be ashamed to read in the morning'—if, unhappily, it was reported. No one, from the stern Republican who represented Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), to the fervid Bonapartist who represented King's County—[Sir PATRICK O'BRIEN: I am not.]—to the eminent Citizen whore-presented King's County, could fairly say that Englishmen, if they wished, had not morally and politically a right to erect a monument to the memory of an amiable and gallant Prince. There might be objections to its being erected in Westminster Abbey on other grounds; and there was a case which had occurred during the present Session, in referring to which his hon. Friend opposite, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey), would bear him out, for he as well as himself and other Members of the House were promoters of a project for the erection of a monument to an eminent patriot—he meant the late Earl Russell. The idea, however, of erecting the monument in Westminster Abbey had been abandoned, and it was to be erected in the Central Hall of the building in which they were then assembled, so that there could be nothing disrespectful to the memory of the late Prince Napoleon in the fact that the idea of erecting a monument to his memory in the Abbey had been entertained and afterwards abandoned, and an appropriate site—Woolwich, for instance—chosen instead. Westminster Abbey was the home of English history; there reposed the remains of those fellow-countrymen who had been most distinguished in the service of the State, in the Church, in literature, in science, and art. He offered these reflections for the consideration of the House; but he could not sit down without pointing out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in his love of law and order, he had created a despot to be alarmed at in the Dean of Westminster, who, he said, could raise a monument to whom he pleased, and as he pleased, like the former Duke of Newcastle, who averred that he had "a right to do what he liked with his own."


wished to bring back the House to the real question before them. They were asked to adopt the "Report of Supply," and the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle wished, instead, to censure the Dean of Westminster, because he proposed to erect a monument in Westminster Abbey, where he was supreme, to a gallant Prince who died in the service of this country'. The House was told that the French nation would take umbrage at this monument; not because it would have any offensive inscription, but simply because the Prince Imperial was a Pretender to the Throne of Prance. He would' remind the House that in St. Peter's at Rome there was a monument to the last British Pretender, which on the face of it bore the inscription that he was King of England, Scotland, and Ireland by the grace of God, and not by the will of man, erected to him in spite of the fact that he was a pensioner on our own Sovereign's bounty; and he defied any Englishman who had been at Rome to say that he had ever taken offence at that monument. Was there one Member of that House who doubted for a moment the liberality and charity of the Dean of Westminster, or would accuse him of mixing up political and religious partizanship with any act for which he was responsible in connection with the Abbey? Why, only a year or two ago he allowed to be put up in Westminster Abbey a monument to the two Wesleys. What would have been said if some Churchman had moved a Vote of Censure on the Dean for having erected a monument to one who, if not a Nonconformist himself, was the founder of the most powerful Nonconformist Body in England? If the House interfered with the act of the Dean of Westminster in this case, they would have to consider the case of every monument put up in the Abbey, which might be unpleasing to some religious Party. He thought nothing could be more objectionable. He therefore hoped that his hon. Friend, after the discussion which had occurred, would leave the matter alone and allow the House to go to Business.


said, he was very reluctant to interpose in the debate; but he should like to say a few words before the matter dropped. He could not think that it devolved upon them to discuss the personal character and qualities of the late Prince Louis Napoleon. He was willing to believe that he was as amiable, as accomplished, and as gallant as any of his friends claimed that he was; but the only question before them was whether he should have a monument erected to his memory in Westminster Abbey. Westminster Abbey was the last resting place of Kings and heroes. There lay greater men than many of their Kings had been—men who had won fame in the senate or the battle-field, in art, in science, and in literature. It could not be contended, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued to that effect, that it was quite an ordinary honour to erect a monument to a man in Westminster Abbey. He (Mr. Burt) wished to know why such an honour should be claimed for the late Prince Louis Napoleon? He did not inquire into his motives in going out to Africa; but he believed the Prince himself stated that he went there to got himself talked about; that he went to win a name and a reputation, in order to strengthen his position as a claimant to the Throne of a neighbouring and friendly nation. He saw nothing in the Prince going out to Africa to fight in a war of which Englishmen generally, would be proud. They were not proud of the war we were waging there. Prince Napoleon was not a Garibaldi going to fight for the independence of a people, or to emancipate an oppressed, nationality. He entered upon a war with which he had nothing to do. He took the side of the strong against the weak—he had almost said of the oppressor against the oppressed. He could see nothing to be admired in that. It was very difficult, if not impossible, to dissociate Prince Louis Napoleon's name from politics. Whether they did or not, they knew that in a neighbouring country, and also in this country, his career would be associated with political questions. He was quite ready to believe that the promoters of the memo- rial had not been influenced by political considerations, and that they viewed—as the great mass of the people of the country certainly viewed—with satisfaction the stable Government which was now established in France; but, undoubtedly, in France this attention to Prince Napoleon had had a considerable amount of political significance attached to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the monument was to be erected to the Prince, because he was a young man who had fallen in fighting our battles. He, however, denied the statement, and would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether no other men fell fighting our battles by the side of the Prince? Did they propose to raise a monument to them? His objection to this monument was not at all on account of the personal qualities of the Prince, but because he thought they were drawing distinctions between one man and another which ought not to be recognized. If they erected monuments to men in Westminster Abbey, it ought to be, not because of their rank or lineage alone, but because of their moral qualifications, and the great national achievements they had performed.


said, there was a curious misconception as to the purpose of this discussion. He would be sorry it should be thought that anyone in that House had any idea of passing a Vote of Censure on the Dean of Westminster. Like most other Members of the House, he had the honour of a personal acquaintance with the Dean of Westminster, and had received kindness from him; and certainly it would have never entered into his mind, or the minds of any of his hon. Friends, to think of being so absurd as to suggest a Vote of Censure upon him. But the Dean of Westminster must have known, when he came to so grave a resolve as the erection of a monument to Prince Louis Napoleon in Westminster Abbey, that something of public discussion must have followed on that resolution. The Dean was the last man who would have thought Parliament had no right to express any opinion on what he proposed to do, or to contend that he was merely the custodian of a private and insignificant building into which he might introduce a monument of anyone he pleased. The right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had made somewhat of a mistake in thinking he had discovered an analogy between this case and the case of a Stuart Prince buried in St. Peter's at Rome. St. Peter's claimed to be what he might call the parish church of all the Catholic world; and it was almost a matter of course that a great Catholic Prince dying within the shadow of the dome of St. Peter's should find a tomb or monument in its vaults. In this particular instance the case was different. It was not the custom in this country to bury foreign Princes in Westminster Abbey; nor did Westminster Abbey hold, in the history of the country, at all the same position which St. Peter's held in the history of Rome. Most distinctly, Westminster Abbey was, and always had been, intended to hold the tombs and monuments of the great men of English history. The hon. Member for the King's County ventured to assume that everyone in that House was an historian. He did not know that a House full of historians would be a very lively Assembly; but he would be glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should go through a slight course of study of that kind, when he remembered the description the right hon. Gentleman had given of Westminster Abbey as a place where the Dean might bury, and raise a monument to, anyone he pleased. Not one of the foreign Princes that had died in this country had ever, as far as he knew, been buried in Westminster Abbey. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew very well that if the Prince had been a man of no birth and no name, who fell fighting for us, no one would suggest the possibility of a monument to him in Westminster Abbey. It was because he bore the Napoleon name that this almost unprecedented honour was about to be accorded to his memory. The Chancellor of the Exchequer lectured hon. Gentlemen very sharply on their want of taste and of historical education; but it seemed to him (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) that there was something distinctly like a want of national good taste in raising this conspicuous monument to a Prince who no longer belonged to a reigning family, and who, disguise it as gracefully as they would, represented claims which the French nation no longer acknowledged. Prince Louis Napoleon, in joining the British Army in South Africa, had been inspired by a natural desire to gain distinction for himself, and there was not the slightest objection to his comrades and his admirers raising a memorial to him; but he did think that, on the ground he had stated, it would be an entire mistake to place his monument in Westminster Abbey.


said, that since this monument began to be talked about he had often spoken to working men on the subject; and, notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), he believed if this agitation had not been got up by a small section of the community every working man in this country would have approved what was proposed. We had educated the Prince, we admired him, he went out to Zululand to fight on our side; and when, in such circumstances, he met that most untimely death, it was most becoming in this country to recognize what he had clone for us. Therefore, though, he was not there to praise or to blame the Dean of Westminster, he was there to approve the monument; and he believed, if the country were polled, a vast majority would be found to support the proposal.


said, the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had stated that there was no precedent for erecting a monument to a foreign Prince in Westminster Abbey. He believed the hon. Gentleman was mistaken, because there was a monument to a Duke de Montpensier in Westminster Abbey. And if a Dean of Westminster in those days had been allowed to set up such a monument quietly, why should not the Dean of Westminster now be allowed to exercise his discretion with reference to a monument to Prince Napoleon? If hon. Gentlemen objected to the proposed monument on the ground that the late Prince represented the Napoleon family only, and not a reigning House, he, on the other hand, might say that the Duke de Montpensier to whom he referred was son of Philippe Egalité, and an exile. No considerations of that kind ought to enter into this question. The Dean of Westminster was within his right in starting this idea, and, with the generosity which always characterized him, he said he would cause a monument to be erected to the Prince, if it should not be displeasing to Her Majesty. They might, therefore, leave the matter where they found it.


said, he thought it was time to ask the House why they should meddle with this matter? He did not see why they should enter into what their political feelings were; and he would ask hon. Members whether they were not incurring serious danger by giving a political aspect to a question which had no political character? So far as he was acquainted with the traditions of Westminster Abbey, it had received within its walls many illustrious persons and monuments of persons who were not illustrious. The Houses of Parliament had not laid down any rules as to who should be admitted within the walls of the Abbey. The result of the discussion only went to show that they would run the risk of getting into great complications if they added to the already overloaded Business of Parliament the task of settling what monuments should be added to Westminster Abbey and their historic Cathedrals. They had much better leave that to those charged with the supervision of such places. Parliament was in no way responsible for who went into them, either dead or in marble, and it would be advisable that the House should decline to interfere.


said, he would not detain the House at any great length. ["Divide, divide!"] Hon. Members were crying "Divide!" but that would not prevent him continuing his remarks. They should show a little reason and forbearance. [A Voice: Pepper away like one o'clock.] He would ask the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade whether the erection of this monument had or had not a political meaning? That country, which had now the honour of being a Republic, would certainly not appreciate what was about to be done—[Interruption.)


I rise to Order. I think if anything can throw discredit upon this House the present course of action of some hon. Members will—[" Oh, oh!"]


I also rise to a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Briggs) wishes to address the House upon a point of Order.


That is my object, I merely wish to say that I could not catch what the hon. Member was saying, in consequence of the interruption of the proceedings from the other side of the House. In fact, there was one phrase which I caught distinctly from the other side, which I hardly think was Parliamentary. It was, "Pepper away like one o'clock."


I understood the hon. Member to rise to a point of Order; but I am unable to understand what the point of Order is. I call on the hon. Member for Ennis to proceed.


said, the Government and their supporters must not hope to get out of an awkward difficulty by refusing to hear what Members had to say. [Murmurs.] He was not to be put down by shouts, but must claim his right to be heard. Prince Louis Napoleon had for a length of time only an individual character in this country, and by attempting to commemorate his memory in a national institution they were offering an implied insult to the French Republic. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members might cry "No," and attempt to gloss the matter over, but history would record that England, whom the French might well term la perfide Albion, had clone an injury to a friendly neighbour. As the House appeared to be in a facetious humour, he would only say that if they felt condemned to turn Westminster Abbey into a second Madame Tussaud's they were welcome to do so.

First and Second Resolutions agreed to.

Third Resolution read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."


in moving that the House should disagree with the Resolution of the Committee, said, he wished to explain why he took such a course. The House had now been occupied for some time in discharging the duties of a vestry; and he, therefore, thought they might now devote a little time to the consideration of the question of education in Ireland. Last evening, when these Votes came before the Committee, the Irish Members allowed them to pass without challenge, and they did so advisedly. The Irish Members had no wish to delay the Sittings of the House; but they desired, upon the present occasion, to express their opinion upon those Institutions for which this Vote was proposed. They did not wish the House or the country to understand for one moment that, in allowing the Vote to pass, they approved of those Institutions. But the Government having initiated a policy with respect to University Education, they were desirous of giving them time, in order to see whether the people of Ireland would fall in with that policy. He hoped that the result of that policy which the Government had initiated would be that the Irish Members would be able to see their way to let those discussions which had taken place upon this Vote from year to year drop. The institution of the Queen's Colleges was commenced at a very unfortunate period—namely, when the celebrated Maynooth Grant was brought forward in the House of Commons. That was a period of great excitement; and such a no-Popery spirit prevailed that it was quite impossible for the then Government, who entertained wise and liberal ideas on the subject, to carry those ideas out. It was' well known that those Colleges did not meet the wants of the people in the South and West of Ireland. He knew that his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) would say—" Why did not the Catholics of the South and West of Ireland embrace the advantages of those Colleges?" but it appeared to him (Mr. Shaw) that when the Government instituted those Colleges they took very good care that the College at Belfast should be made acceptable to the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland, for the President was a Presbyterian, and the greater part of the Professors were Presbyterians. But the same care was not taken to make the Colleges in the South and West acceptable to the people. In Cork, the first President of the College was certainly a Catholic; but his duties compelled him to live elsewhere, and the acting President of the College for many years was a Protestant, and the great majority of the Professors were also Protestants. For many years the pervading feeling of the Colleges of Cork and Galway had been Protestant; and it was quite impossible to expect Catholics with their feelings, and perhaps prejudices, to make use of them. Now, he did not make an indiscriminate attack on the Queen's Colleges, which, he believed, had to some extent been useful; but they had failed lamentably to carry out higher education among the Roman Catholics of the South and West of Ireland. He knew 100 Catholic families in Cork and its suburbs whose sons naturally would have gone to the Queen's Colleges but for their religious feelings and principles. Those Colleges, which had been kept up for 35 years and largely endowed, had not met the wants of the people in the South and West of Ireland; and he asked whether it was not time to change that position, and bring those Institutions more in harmony with the wants of the people? He hoped that the Government would not stop with the Bill that they had brought in; but would see what could be done with regard to Catholic education. He did not want, at that time of night, to do more than raise this question, in order to express to the House and to the country the determination of the Irish Members that if these Colleges were not changed, and materially changed, they would raise these discussions year after year on the Estimates, until they brought the opinion of the House and the country in harmony with their views on this subject. The College of Galway was not used by people in the vicinity; and, in consequence, the students, to a great extent, came from the North of Ireland. He believed, when these Colleges were instituted, the Catholics made some demand that the Bishops should be members of the Governing Body; and he could not understand why so reasonable a request was not assented to. He most sincerely hoped that the Government, now that they had touched the question of Irish University Education, and had brought it, to some extent, to a successful issue, would complete their good work by making those Colleges what they ought to be—namely, educational Institutions for the South and West of Ireland.


regretted that the hon. Member for the County Cork had not expressed his opinion on this subject earlier in the Session, because he now admitted that these Queen's Colleges had been a success in an educational point of view, and might have been made, by slight alteration, acceptable to the Irish Catholics. It was evident, however, that an attack was intended to be made on these Colleges another Session; and, therefore, the Government must feel that they had made a very heavy sacrifice with regard to Irish University Education in order to secure a year's peace.


could not allow the observations of the hon. Member for Liskeard to pass without notice. He (the O'Conor Don) thought that, if anything, the Queen's Colleges Vote this year had passed without sufficient comment. The reason why there had been no discussion upon it was because there had been such full discussions upon University Education, both upon the Government Bill and the measure he had had the honour of introducing. Irish Members had abstained from commenting on the course of education carried on in the Queen's Colleges, because they believed they would have ample opportunity of entering into that subject when the Vote for those Institutions was proposed; but that Vote had been put off until the last week in the Session, after the University Bill had passed through Committee, and there was a general desire on the part of the Irish Members not to raise another discussion upon Irish education. The Queen's Colleges Vote, therefore, escaped the criticism which it would otherwise have received. He could not quite agree with the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) that these Institutions could ever be made acceptable to the Catholics, because he believed their principle was radically wrong, and, educationally, they had been failures. He believed that the education carried on at Galway was an educational sham, and did not deserve the support of the country or a Vote of public money.


thought that the hon. Member for Roscommon had misunderstood the meaning of the hon. Member for Cork, who had said that when proper provision was made for the University Education of Irish Catholics the chief ground of the hostility of the latter to the Queen's Colleges would be removed. Their objection to the Queen's Colleges was based on the ground that, whilst they were ostensibly created for Irish Catholics, they were so conducted that the Catholics could not make use of them.


thought that this discussion was due to the very successful way in which the hon. Member for Liskeard always contrived to misunderstand the Queen's Colleges question. He quite agreed with what the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had said with reference to the education carried on at Galway College being an educational sham, and thought that Cork College was quite as bad.


did not consider he should he doing his duty to his constituents if he gave a silent vote in favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for Cork. It was well the House should understand that the hostility of the great majority of the Irish people continued unabated to the continuance of this grant. To those to whom the State ought to give educational aid the Queen's Colleges were of no benefit. The conspicuous failure of these Institutions, notwithstanding the lavish expenditure on them each year, ought to convince Parliament that this system of education sought to be forced on the Irish people was opposed to their feelings and judgment, and would never be successful. The great preponderance of educational opinion in Ireland, even amongst Protestants, had pronounced against those Institutions. He would say, as had been said by the late Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, that he would tell any Prime Minister that it would be as easy to take St. Paul's in his hands as to attempt to change the settled religious convictions of the Irish people on this question of education.


said, it was originally intended by the Irish Members to offer a stout opposition to these Estimates, but, fortunately for the Estimates, the Government's University Bill was introduced, and it was then decided that opposition had better be deferred, at all events, until next Session. He wished, however, to point out that after the passing of the measure he had referred to the Queen's Colleges would occupy such an exceptional and unique position that it would be more than ever necessary to oppose these Estimates in future years. If the Government University Bill passed, all the old objections to these Institutions would remain, while new ones would arise. These Colleges would still remain, and they would be unused to an extent even greater than at present, since Catholics would be able to obtain a University degree without resorting to them. Therefore, they would have these Colleges in future years with a gradually diminishing attendance—they would, in fact, gradually expire. Under these circumstances, it must not be expected that in future years these Votes would be treated by the Irish Members with the leniency they had displayed on the present occasion, when it was thought desirable to do nothing to interfere with the progress of the Government measure.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 27: Majority 103.—(Div. List, No. 218.)

Fourth Resolution read a second time.

COLONEL ARBUTHNOT moved to reduce the Vote by £5,000, on the ground that, as he contended, the Government paid more for certain articles than was necessary.

Amendment proposed, "to leave out £1,330,000," and insert "£1,325,000,"—(Colonel Arbuthnot,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That '1,330,000,' stand part of the Resolution."


defended the Vote, maintaining that the contracts were effected on the best terms that could be obtained.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Resolution agreed, to.

Fifth Resolution read a second time.


in moving the omission of the sum of £3,800, the amount to be voted for the construction of the new hospital for two regiments at Regent's Park Barracks, said: I must ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, while I call attention, on this Vote, to a subject of great interest to the regiments of Household Cavalry, with one of which I have the honour to be connected; and I therefore beg to move, as a matter of form, the Amendment which stands in my name. Its terms are precisely the same as those of an Amendment which long stood on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) prior to this Vote being taken in Committee. I regret that my hon. Friend was not in his place last night when the Vote passed without discussion, somewhat unexpectedly; and I regret more his absence this evening, because, not only would the case be in better hands with him, but he would be in a position to speak for a considerable portion of the non-military public. Now, with reference to Motions of this sort, it always appears to me unfortunate that, in consequence of the Forms of the House, they cannot in their terms explain their own meaning. And, in this instance, it seems specially absurd that I should wish to reduce a Vote for a hospital which, is already built, and half of which is occupied by patients from my own regiment. There is thus all the more reason for explanation on my part of what is here intended. The objects of my hon. Friend are identical with mine, while our pleas are somewhat different; for we both desire the Government to acquire that ground and those houses between the east end of the new Hyde Park Barracks and the Duke of Wellington's Riding School, on either side what is know as "Tattersall's Passage." My hon. Friend, had he been present, would have urged a promise made to him by the late Secretary of State for War (Lord Cranbrook) that, if opposition to the site of the new barracks was withdrawn, these houses would be pulled down. The opposition was accordingly withdrawn; but the houses still remain. It is, however, no intention of mine to take up that argument. I am sure, if there be a promise of this sort noted at the War Office, my right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stanley) will give effect to it. But I rest my case entirely on military grounds, considering that the removal of these houses will remedy sundry defects in the new barracks at Knightsbridge the existence of which must seriously interfere with their efficiency—defects which arise simply from want of space. The greatest of these defects is the want of a hospital in the barracks. There is a consensus of opinon among all military men that a Cavalry barrack, at all events, is not complete without its hospital. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will, no doubt, admit this himself, if it be possible to place one among the buildings. I need not dilate on this point, more particularly as it was well spoken of last year by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute), when he brought this very question forward. Unfortunately, that was on the 6th of August, and at 2 o'clock in the morning, when little support could be expected; and the hon. and gallant Gentleman withdrew his Motion, pending an interview with the Secretary of State for War, to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman invited him and me, in order, if possible, to come to some compromise in the matter. Originally, in the plan for the barracks, was a temporary ward containing three beds; but the Secretary of State for War then proposed that the accommodation should be doubled. However, this was a compromise which could not be accepted; because, still, a double hospital Staff, and a double dispensary, would be requisite for Knightsbridge temporary ward, and Regent's Park hospital, as well as the daily ambulance. But I must now pass to the hospital in Regent's Park, and will not dwell on its excellencies and defects, except to make this remark, that there is only one infectious ward to contain all infectious diseases from both regiments. It will, naturally, be brought up against me that as the hospital is there it would be ridiculous now to build another at Hyde Park. No doubt, this argument, in a monetary point of view, is worth something, unless it can be shown, as I shall now show, that if the Knightsbridge proposal be agreed to the second hospital at Regent's Park can be otherwise utilized. At Regent's Park, certain Staff officers' quarters are by no means what they should be—entering by doors and staircases, &c., common to married non-commissioned officers. Moreover, at Regent's Park, we have a very considerable proportion of noncommissioned officers and men married with leave, who have to lodge out of barracks. At present, there are 10 non-commissioned officers and 23 privates who receive in lieu of lodging the niggardly allowance of 4d. a-day, while they have, probably, to pay some 5s. or 6s. a-week for their lodgings. My proposal, then, is to turn the second hospital into Staff officers' quarters—an alteration which canvas I am advised by the Engineer officers, easily be carried out—and to bring in as many of the non-commissioned officers as possible for the vacated Staff quarters. If this be done, a great boon will be conferred on a deserving body of men, and the Lodging Vote will be decreased in proportion. To return to Knightsbridge Barracks, I spoke of other defects there, one being the excessively inconvenient situation of the forage stores, in cellars approached by a steep curving stone stair. I may mention the entire absence of what in Scotland we call a "midden"—that is, an arrangement for the stowage of manure, and particularly the separation of the sections of the veterinary department, the sick horses being at one end of the barracks, the forge at the other, a quarter of a mile off. All these drawbacks can be done away with if the proposal to pull down the old houses be adopted, and the ground, west of the passage, taken in. Hon. Members have only to visit the barracks, and they will see for themselves that these houses must come down some day. It may be said—why has not this been already represented? It has been repeatedly represented by the commanding officers of the three regiments; but, what between those in authority, favourable to the unification scheme, and others who go in for economy at all costs, no heed was paid to the regimental officers. They ultimately came to Parliament last year, when their claims were advocated fully and clearly by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton. I have already alluded to the result of that; and now that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman sees how impossible it is for the compromise he suggested last year to be accepted I trust he will further consider the matter. And if he indicate his consent to adopt the proposal made, I am convinced he will receive the support of the tax-paying public and their Representatives here; for, by so doing, he will be the means of rendering the two Household Cavalry barracks as nearly perfect in efficiency as can be, and of carrying out a much-called-for Metropolitan improvement.


in seconding the Motion, said, he wished it to be understood that he had had no communication from his brother, who commanded one of the Household Regiments of Cavalry; but his attention having been drawn to the question by the Notice on the Paper, he had made a personal inspection of the buildings at Regent's Park, and after listening to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he had, as an old Lifeguardsman, much pleasure in supporting him. Apart from the general question as to the necessity for a regimental hospital in a Cavalry barrack, he cordially approved the proposal to supply better quarters to the staff officers, and to give additional accommodation to married non-commissioned officers.

Amendment proposed, to leave out "£853,300," and insert "£849,440,"—(Captain Home,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That '£853,300 'stand part of the Resolution."


thought that the hon. and gallant Member was flogging a dead horse in bringing forward this subject, which had been repeatedly inquired into. The course taken had given perfect satisfaction to the three regiments concerned, and if any real grievance existed it would be remedied if it were possible to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Resolution agreed to.

Sixth Resolution read a second time.


asked for explanations with regard to various matters connected with military education, and concluded by moving a reduction of the Vote by the sum of £500, being part of the salary of the Governor at Sandhurst. The aggregate salary of that gentleman—namely, £3,000 a-year, was most extravagant, and ought to be reduced. He contended that this Vote required the serious consideration of the Secretary of State for War.

Amendment proposed, to leave out "£165,800," and insert "£165,300,"—(Sir Arthur Hayter,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That '£165,800' stand part of the Resolution."


hoped the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Sir Arthur Hayter) would not be inclined personally to blame him, when he said that he had never heard of criticism of this character being applied at so late a stage of the Army Estimates. He would have been glad if his hon. and gallant Friend had communicated with him in reference to the subjects mentioned, because, in the absence of Notice of any kind, he had not at hand the particulars or details which, otherwise, he should have had. The subject, however, was, fortunately, not a difficult one; and he would, first of all, speak as to the supposed increase in the Vote. This was apparent only—not real. Owing to the larger number of cadets at Sandhurst and Woolwich, the annual expenses had, of course, materially increased; but, on the other hand, owing to the recommendation of a Committee over which he had presided, the cadets now contributed a portion of this charge in the way of their own expenses. This item, of course, appeared upon the other side of the balance-sheet, although it did not show upon the surface of the Vote. With regard to the salary of the Governor of Sandhurst, he must ask his hon. and gallant Friend to look at the manner in which it was made up. It was fixed some years ago, by a Royal Commission, at its present amount. Colonel Napier, it was quite true, received £1,000 a-year as colonel of his regiment long before he went to Sandhurst; and this, of course, could not, by any right, be taken away from him. With regard to the house and grounds, it had always been held that the Commandants at Sandhurst and Woolwich should occupy free quarters, which were given to them by the country. Whether the house now occupied by Colonel Napier at Sandhurst would be re-built at the present time for that establishment was nothing to the point. A good deal of the outlying land attached had been let off, and that portion of it only which was in close proximity to the house was occupied. His hon. and gallant Friend having asked him for information upon the question of physical qualification of candidates for the Army, he was in a position to repeat what he had said last year, that if they could get the same amount of brains, plus better physical qualities, they would get better officers for the service of the country, and they were, therefore, bound to take them. He was, however, not by any means willing to agree that physical qualities should stand in the place of brains. He had not changed the views which he had expressed last year; but was willing to say that if fair means could be devised the College should be open to every class of candidates to be tested in both physical and mental capacity. He thought those qualities should be properly considered and some test established; but, at present, the Government did not see their way to take the step, and he would, therefore, not go into the matter any further. With regard to the officers of the Militia nominated directly to the Line, he explained that upon the last occasion there were 45 or 46 vacancies, which was in excess of the number of candidates; under these circumstances, therefore, competition would have been absurd. So far as he was concerned, there was no intention of departing from the system under which Militia officers, properly qualified by age, should compete inter se for the vacancies that might occur in the Army.


said, that after the explanation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Resolution agreed to.

Seven subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

Fourteenth Resolution read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."


said, in rising to object to this Vote, he should confine himself entirely to the subject-matter of it, and would not enter into any question of policy affecting the Island of Cyprus. The question was one of administration, and was, in point of fact, whether it was expedient that the country should be called upon to pay this sum of £26,000 a-year for this force? When the Vote was first submitted it had assumed the appearance of a purely military force; and it appeared to him, and many other hon. Members, that it was clearly and entirely illegal. He had given Notice of a Motion, by which, no doubt, the attention of the Government was directed to the subject; and it would also appear that they consulted with the Law Officers of the Crown, who gave it as their opinion that the force as originally proposed was illegal, inasmuch as a force of aliens could not be enlisted in the Service of the Crown without an Act of Parliament, because, also, the Vote should have been in the Army Estimates, and because the force should have been subject to the Mutiny Act. The consequence of that decision was that the Vote was withdrawn, and another substituted for it in the shape in which it then appeared. When that substitution took place it seemed to him only natural to assume that there had been some substantial change in the force itself. The Papers showed already that there was in the Island a force far beyond its requirements. He had not been able to find out what the extent or expenditure of that force was; but from the Papers which had recently been laid upon the Table it appeared that the number of the police at that moment was 1,100. That he had pointed out the other night to be three times as large, proportionately, as the police force in any other country in the world; and, at the same time, he had shown that any increase was altogether beyond the requirements of the Island, and that the force might, to a great extent, be dispensed with. He had objected to the Vote that it was, moreover, not desirable to proceed further until they received from the authorities at Cyprus opinions as to the expediency of such a great augmentation of the police of the Island. The result, however, of the discussion a few nights ago had been such as to leave no doubt in his mind that the force in question was substantially a military force, and not a police force at all. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour), who appeared to be well informed as to the real intentions of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had described the uses of this force. It was employed in guarding stores, escorting treasure, defending the Island, if necessary, and throwing up defences. And, finally, he said it would save two battalions of British troops. How it was to do that he did not undertake to explain, nor could he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) understand. The conclusion was, therefore, left upon his mind that it was a military force. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had attempted to tone down the expressions of the hon. Member for Hertford by saying that the greater number of men would be employed in transporting treasure from one part of the Island to the other. The sum of money now asked for appeared to be a very large one for such a purpose. The result of these explanations was to leave it beyond all doubt that the force in question was a military force disguised as a police force. It had been admitted that, if a military force, it was illegal; and he need not trouble the House by pointing out that it was not by simply changing its name and calling it a police force that its character as a military force could be changed, or that it could be made legal. He contended that it was a military force, and, as such, it remained clearly illegal and unconstitutional. It remained to be considered whether it was necessary. He had already shown that augmentation of the police of the Island was unnecessary. Was it, then, necessary to add to the military establishment there? The Secretary of State for War had stated that evening that the military force at Cyprus had been reduced to 400 men, and he also said that it was not the intention of the Government to reduce that small force any further. This, at all events, showed that the Island of Cyprus could get on with 400 soldiers, and he could not understand why the House should vote 800 more in the guise of police. It seemed to him that the 400 soldiers now in the Island, supplemented by the 1,100 police already in existence, would be amply sufficient for all possible purposes for which they could be required there. He ventured to point to the parallel case of the Island of Mauritius, which was about the same size as Cyprus, with double the population, but where there were only half a British regiment and 500 police. The force, therefore, so far as the Island of Cyprus was concerned, appeared to him to be wholly unnecessary. If once this sum of £26,000 was voted, this expenditure would remain for many years a permanent charge. When once Votes of this kind were taken in the Estimates, vested interests and other circumstances would arise which would render it extremely difficult here after to get rid of them. He asked the House whether, in the present state of the finances of the country, it was wise or right to undertake this large expenditure on account of the Island, when, as he had already shown, no reason had been given to justify it? He ventured to remind the House that the Vote had not received the unanimous approval of Her Majesty's Government, and that it had, according to report, been the subject of vehement controversy amongst the Members of the Government. The Secretary of State for War had told the House that he would have nothing to do with the Vote, because it was illegal; he would not, for that reason, take it into the Army Estimates. Again, the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night had conveyed to his mind that he was by no means in favour of the Vote. It would, therefore, appear to have been forced upon the Government by the will of the Foreign Secretary, and he could only suppose that it had not the general approval of the Treasury or of a considerable number of Her Majesty's Government. He believed, if the House would take the matter into its own hands, and vote according to their views, they would give satisfaction to some of Her Majesty's Ministers, and, at the same time, relieve the country of an expenditure at once illegal and unconstitutional.


I have not hitherto taken part in the discussions upon this Vote; and I daresay the Government may think it somewhat unusual, after the discussions which have taken place, and after the Division of last night, that we should again challenge a Division with the view of reversing the decision at which the Committee arrived. But I think we are amply justified in taking this unusual course by the extraordinary character of the Vote itself. Of course, my experience is much shorter than that of many hon. Members; but I have had the honour of a seat for some years, and I have never known a ease in which a Vote open to such serious objections has been submitted to the House in so ambiguous a manner. We are forced either to consider the Vote itself as a trick and a subterfuge, or else we are bound to believe that in this Vote Her Majesty's Government are certainly disappointing the expectations their own assurances have raised—that there would be no public expenditure on account of the civil government of Cyprus. If it is to be regarded as a military Vote, then it is placed on the Estimates under the flimsy cover of a civil Vote, and it is a subterfuge and a trick. If it is really a civil Vote, then we are asked to vote a considerable sum for civil purposes; and, clearly, the Government are falsifying the expectation they raised that there would be no expenditure on account of the civil government of the Island. The Government must accept one of these alternatives; and, in either case, we are in an unfortunate position. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when the matter was before us the other day, said that he would not admit that the British administration of the Island would increase the expenses imposed upon the British taxpayers. Well, if that is the case, what is the meaning of this Vote? It appears to me that the Government are bound to show that, in asking for this Vote, they are not departing from their own undertaking. I myself look with the greatest possible suspicion on the balance-sheet we have laid before us; of course, it is very easy for a Government to prepare a Paper of the income and Expenditure of Cyprus; but I believe they will find the income is subject to many drawbacks, and I am sure the expenditure will not keep within the limits laid down in the Estimate. I have not much faith in the favourable balance shown in this Paper. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) says, and I think truly, that it is not necessary we should go into the general question of the administration of Cyprus, a question so well brought under the notice of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). Still, it is impossible for us to overlook the fact that the only excuse under which the Government ask for this Vote was given by the Under Secretary the other night when he said Her Majesty's Government had taken possession of Cyprus on high grounds of policy. Now, the hon. Gentleman made this statement with gravity of demeanour; and I must compliment him that, from his connection with the Foreign Office, he has attained considerable diplomatic experience, for he not unfrequently shows his appreciation of that diplomatic axiom that speech should be used to conceal our thoughts. It cannot be imagined that he believes in the high policy now talked about, or that there could be any high grounds of policy in taking this wretched place. It did impose on the public mind a few months ago I know; but that is passed and gone. I recollect, when the announcement was made that it was to be a "place of arms," we had visions of considerable bodies of British soldiers stationed at Cyprus; we had ideas of barracks, fortifications, and a magnificent harbour, in which should ride a squadron of British ships; and that arrangements would be made in order to make Cyprus a basis of operations to overawe Asia Minor, and enable Eng- land to issue forth in the event of Russia attacking the Northern districts of Asia Minor. But this is all gone; it was the phantom of a poetical mind; and I think no one who read the speech of the Prime Minister made a year ago at the Mansion House, will, with our subsequent experience of the pestilential Island in which we have only 300 men, entertain the idea of a harbour for British men-of-war. We have given up that idea. I do not suppose any Member of the Government will now say with a grave face that they think the possession of Cyprus will be used in the event of Russia attacking the Asiatic Dominion of Turkey, and to carry out a high policy. I suppose we are called upon to vote the money simply because Government imagine that something must be done with Cyprus; unfortunately, the place will lead to a great deal of expense to this country. When the Government did not know what to do with the 7,000 Indian troops they brought to Europe they sent them to Cyprus; and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said, gravely, it was necessary to be prepared to keep down any possible rebellion that might arise on the first occupation of the Island by Great Britain; but, of course, to everybody the idea of a rebellion was altogether absurd; the troops were taken away, then British troops were sent, and then they again came home at considerable expense for transport and serious detriment to the health of the men. We get involved in one expense after another; we are, therefore, bound, when we have the opportunity, by every means in our power to protest by our votes against what we believe is a foolish policy on the part of the Government; and I shall be glad, under all the circumstances, seeing the great objections there are to the Vote, the great doubt as to the wisdom of establishing this new force in the Island, and the serious question of the legality of the proceeding, I shall be glad if the Government, at this late period of the Session, see fit to withdraw the Vote, and leave it for another Session to determine our position with respect to this Island.


was not surprised that the Government had felt glad to withdraw their troops from Cyprus, and to make use of the Cypriotes instead. With regard to the illegality of the force, it seemed to be admitted that it was a force for military purposes, but that it had been discovered to be illegal to maintain it under that name. The illegality with which the Government were contending arose under the Army Discipline and Regulation Act which had just been passed, and their difficulty was due to the somewhat hurried and insufficient way in which that measure had been discussed. The Bill which Her Majesty's Government had brought before the House consisted of a string of Acts of Parliament undigested, and not put into the proper shape. However, the clause under which this difficulty arose was that which related to the enlistment in the Army of foreign soldiers, and which made it illegal to enlist more than one foreign soldier to 50 British soldiers. It appeared to him that there had been illegality in this affair; but, at the same time, he admitted that Cyprus, being an unhealthy place, it was expedient to make use of the Cypriotes instead of Her Majesty's troops, and hoped that his hon. Friend would not divide the House.


thought that it was quite plain that hon. Gentlemen opposite were becoming seriously alarmed lest Cyprus should become a success. It was equally clear that the charges which they had brought with respect to the Island had broken down. What seemed most extraordinary was that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) should have been gulled by a Greek Prelate (the Bishop of Citium), whose statements were afterwards disproved by his own mouth. The case of the Opposition had, no doubt, broken down on many points; and they had that evening brought forward another matter and endeavoured to cast ridicule upon the police force in Cyprus. He did not think it mattered much whether the force employed was civil or military as long as discipline was maintained; nor did he consider, looking at the character of the undertaking upon which we had entered, that the sum of money asked for was large. This, no doubt, would be recouped hereafter; in the meantime, the House would not expect that everything necessary with regard to Cyprus could be done in the course of a year.


said, he had been sitting quietly and somewhat sleepily in his place, and should not have taken any part in the debate but for the fact that the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) had made an elaborated attack upon him. He regretted to say that the hon. Member could not have listened to the two speeches which he had addressed to the House upon this subject; because, in his first speech, he had expressly dissociated himself from the views of the Greek priests, and had supported the Government in bringing both prelates and priests within the general law. He had afterwards raised the case, as did also the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), of the two priests who had been badly treated; but that case was one in which the Government admitted that a gross injustice had been done. But the hon. Member for Buteshire had said that all the charges made against the Government of Cyprus had been disproved. That was certainly not correct. On the first occasion, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had mentioned 21 matters which he thought to be deserving of attention, and 18 of these charges had been proved by the Blue Book itself. In the case of one or two, where the Blue Book contradicted him, he had sent the depositions of some 20 people to the Secretary of State; and these, he believed, were now in Cyprus for the purpose of further inquiry. Everybody knew that there was forced labour in Cyprus, and the House had actually before it the Ordinance by which it was established. He had pointed out, as a matter of fact, that it had been enforced, certainly in two, probably in more, districts of the Island; although he could not but believe that in the course of a year it would have to be repealed. He assured the hon. Member that he would have many opportunities of reviving this question if he so desired, for it was certain that answers would be returned from Cyprus to the depositions which had been sent out. With regard to the subject immediately under consideration, the contention put forward had nothing to do with the general question concerning Cyprus. They contended that the Vote was unnecessary, and should not have been pressed upon the House in the last days of the Session. As to the use of the force in escorting treasure, he believed the only treasure they would have in Cyprus would be the £26,000 they were going to send there. The hon. Member opposite had told him that this was a quasi-military force; but he took the opportunity of laying before the House the fact that, for any practical purposes, it would be useless as a military force. The very first condition of a military force was that it should be able to be moved about freely from one place to another; but there was no power to deal with this force outside Cyprus. On the other hand, if it was a police force, then the Civil Expenditure of the Island was being thrown upon this country. But it had been shown that there was already a large police force in the Island; and, therefore, they were now called upon to vote a sum of £26,000 a-year towards the Civil Expenditure of the Island in the form of expenditure upon an unnecessary police force.


said, the hon. Member for Beading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was very indignant because this Vote did not appear in exactly the same form as it did originally; but he had himself given very good reasons why this change was necessary. It was perfectly true that when Her Majesty's Government came to consider this question they thought it would be objectionable to put the Vote for the Cyprus Pioneer Force into the Estimates then before the House. He need not enter into the objections raised to the Vote in that form, because that was not the point before the House. He had little to add to the observations which he made a few days before upon this subject. But the hon. Member for Beading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had taken him to task for not speaking the mind of the Secretary of State with regard to this matter, and had gone so far as to say that he was not in the habit of speaking the mind of the Secretary of State, but that he only spoke from a brief. Now, he did not know what right the hon. Member had to lecture him upon that or any other subject. He could only say that where matters of accuracy were involved he should not follow the manner of statement which had been used by the hon. Member in the present case, because a more inaccurate statement than that had probably never been made. The hon. Member said the only justification which he (Mr. Bourke) had given the other evening for the existence of the force in question was that it would be employed in the escort of treasure from one part of the Island to another. This statement was certainly inaccurate. What he did say was, that the escort of treasure might be one of the duties deputed to the force; but he had, at the same time, mentioned that it would be employed in garrisoning small places in the Island, as well as in other duties. It was, therefore, perfectly inaccurate to say that the only reason given by him for the maintenance of that force was, that it would be wanted for the escort of treasure. But the hon. Member had gone farther than this, and assumed that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) did speak the mind of the Secretary of State. He would like to know what right the hon. Member had for saying that? The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would, he thought, be very much surprised to read to-morrow morning that the hon. Member for Reading was the person who came forward, to measure what was in the mind of the noble Lord, and to sum up as to who it was in that House who spoke the mind of the noble Lord. He did not much care whether the hon. Member for Reading spoke the mind of the Secretary of State or not; but he did his best to answer accurately the observations addressed to him, and he had no reason to think that the hon. Member had ever been misled by anything stated by him in that House. The hon. Member also said that the Government were not unanimous upon this subject; so that he not only spoke the mind of the Secretary of State, but also assumed to speak the mind of the Cabinet. He (Mr. Bourke) had no reason to think, and he had great reason to doubt, that the Government were at all divided upon this question; on the other hand, he believed them to be perfectly unanimous, because he looked upon this as an economical Vote, and one which could be justified in every way and upon every ground. Then it was said that the taxpayers of this country would be burdened with this expenditure; but he held that when once they had decided upon the occupation of Cyprus upon grounds of high policy, this Vote was about the most economical expenditure that could be made in carrying out that intention. He would not argue upon the expediency of occupying Cyprus. It was never intended or contemplated for one moment to leave the Island of Cyprus with only 300 or 400 British troops to guard it, without any other force. The Secretary of State for War had stated that it was desirable, in the interest of the Public Service, to reduce the garrison at Cyprus as much as possible, and it then became the duty of the Government to consider whether it would not be much more economical to establish a local force there; but after the objection taken to the Cyprus Pioneer Force the Government had determined to augment the police force. He would like hon. Members to recollect the cost of a British regiment, which would be, at least, £70,000, while the present arrangement would cost the Government only £35,000 a-year; and that was what he meant by stating the other day that the British taxpayers would not suffer. It was perfectly impossible to overcome the prejudice of hon. Members against this Island of Cyprus; and he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) in thinking that hon. Gentlemen opposite were perfectly beside themselves because of the success which had attended its occupation. The hon. Member for Reading had said that the police force in the Island was 1,100 in number; but that statement, he would point out to the hon. Member, was entirely inaccurate, as there was not more than half that number of men. The hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had alleged that they would not be able to take the new police force out of the Island. But they did not wish, nor intend to do so. The new force was to take the place of the defensive forces for the Island, and was to do civil duties in addition. In ordinary circumstances, a military force would have been called upon to perform civil duties, such as making roads; and the force in question would perform all the civil duties which would be required of it. In conclusion, he might say that the Government believed that the Vote was an economical one, and that it was free from illegality. They believed it would enable the civil and military administration of Cyprus to be carried out in an economical and efficient manner; and they considered that those objects could be effected in the manner proposed without making calls upon the Military Forces of the United Kingdom.


did not wish to dwell upon the alleged differences of opinion amongst the Members of the Government on this question. He desired only to say a word or two upon the purely financial bearing of the Vote, for he thought that that aspect of the question had not been sufficiently dealt with by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench. The Vote was asked for simply and solely because the Civil Revenue of Cyprus was inadequate to meet the Expenditure. The Vote had, therefore, been proposed for reasons which he could perfectly understand. Until the day previously they had had no Papers on the subject; and when the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) brought forward his Motion they had no information as to the financial prospects of the Island, although they were promised again and again that the Papers which had now been presented should be laid before them. From the accounts which had now been laid before them, they were able to see the exact state of the finances of Cyprus. In the second of the two Papers delivered on Thursday, they had the original estimate of the Revenue and Expenditure of Cyprus, upon which had been founded the very plausible declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Black Country during last autumn, that Cyprus would be able to bear all her civil expenditure. They could now see that those statements were made from Sir George Kellner's Paper. He wished to call the attention of the House and of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the statements of Sir George Kellner. In the first place, he estimated the Revenue of Cyprus at £170,000. Sir George Kellner, on pages 8 and 9 of the Paper, No. 7, detailed the Estimates of the Civil Expenditure of Cyprus, and if hon. Members would look there they would see that the cost of the British establishment in Cyprus was put down at £35,000; but, in addition to that item, there was certain expenditure in connection with Native establishments, and there was an item for the zaptieh police for one year. The total Revenue, as he had said, was put down at £170,000, and the expenditure in connection with British and Native establishments was estimated at £52,000, leaving a surplus of £118,000, out of which the tribute to the Sultan would have to be met, and something would remain for roads and public improvements. Sir George Kellner, in almost the last words of his Report, used the expression— The current Revenue will not only cover the annual payments and expenses on account of administration, but will also provide a fair outlay for roads and sanitary matters. He was bound to say that upon that Report his right hon. Friend was perfectly justified in the statement he made with regard to the Revenue of Cyprus. But, in addition to Sir George Kellner's Report of last year, they had now before them the actual estimate of the Revenue for 1879–80. The estimate presented a very different view of the matter to that which was given by Sir George Kellner; and he wanted to call the attention of the House to the extraordinary difference between the formal estimate now presented by the Government and the first estimate, which deceived the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and led him to make a statement entirely contrary to what the circumstances had since shown to be the case. They found that Sir George Kellner estimated the British establishments at £52,000, whereas it now appeared that the cost of those establishments would be £75,000; and whereas Sir George Kellner stated that there would be a considerable surplus to provide a fair outlay for roads and sanitary matters, yet not one single farthing was now to be applied to those purposes. Would the House believe that the whole expenditure in connection with buildings down to common repairs—that the whole expenditure in connection with roads—every shilling was to be borrowed? That expenditure was given, in the Estimate from which he was now quoting, at £34,000, or one-fifth of the total amount of the Revenue of Cyprus. To understand what that meant, he would put the case with regard to England. Suppose their Revenue was£80,000,000, and the Government had said that the Expenditure would fall within the Revenue, but when the Estimates were presented it was discovered that the total Expenditure would be £96,000,000, and that the sum which was to be spent on public works was to be borrowed. That was simply the fact with regard to Cyprus. The original statement was that the Revenue of Cyprus would cover the whole Expenditure, and including a "fair outlay" on public works. That was the Report upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement. But now it seemed that all the expenditure for public works would have to be borrowed. He would ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long that state of things was to continue? They were told that one-fifth of the Expenditure of Cyprus would have to be borrowed; but he would ask, from whom would they borrow it? It might be said that the Cyprus Government would easily borrow the sum from some bank, but was it certain that that could be done? But he would recall the attention of the House to the present Vote. If the Report of Sir George Kellner, which was the foundation for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, was looked into, it would be found that he divided the police expenditure into two parts—one part he described as the zaptieh police, with an expenditure of 500,000 piastres, or £8,000 a-year; and the other the military police. Therefore, according to Sir George Kellner, the Revenue of Cyprus was intended to cover the expenses of the zaptieh police and that of the entire military police force. There was not a single word in Sir George Kellner's Paper giving the Government, or Parliament through the Government, notice that any further expenditure of the kind would be required. Sir George Kellner stated, indeed, positively that the cost of the establishments would be reduced, and his words were—"It will be possible in the future to reduce the present charges for British and Native establishments." They now, however, found that the Revenues of Cyprus were insufficient to provide for the Civil Expenditure to the extent of £26,000 for police, the present y0te, and £34,000 for works, the subject of a loan. Thus, in the very first year of their rule, Cyprus did not meet her Civil charges by no less sum than £60,000. It must be admitted that that was a very serious sum. The excess in expenditure for salaries of the central administration turned out to be £5,800 more than Sir George Kellner estimated it, for he put it at £12,000, and it now seemed that it would amount to £18,200. The expenses of the district establishments were put down by Sir George Kellner at £13,500; but in the later statement those items figured at £20.000. Then, in another item for salaries of officials, whereas the amount was put down at £16,500 by Sir George Kellner, it now turned out to be £23,200. Upon those three items, therefore, the Expenditure of Cyprus was more than £20,000 in excess of the estimate given by Sir George Kellner. He could not but think that these differences showed great looseness of estimate, and that no reliance could be placed on Sir George Kellner's finance. But the main question was, that altogether the deficit on the Civil Revenue of Cyprus was £60,000; or nearly half the net Revenue, if the amount due to the Sultan were first deducted. Again, as to the loans for public works, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should toll them how long the expenditure upon public works was to go on. A great deal had been said by Members of the Government about harbours, and especially Famagousta; and a very detailed paper, with plans, had been presented to Parliament; but, curiously enough, it did not contain the smallest reference to what the work would cost. The Revenue did not provide a single shilling for the harbours, or for any one of the works which must betaken in hand. If, during the first year, there was a deficiency of £60,000, on a local expenditure of little over £120,000, he did not think that the Island was altogether in so satisfactory a condition as the Government had described it.


would not attempt to go into details upon that question; but he should say in a very few words what he thought was the real difference between the Government and hon. Members on the other side of the House. In the first place, with regard to the statements he had previously made with respect to the Revenues of Cyprus, his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract had spoken with perfect accuracy. The statement he made was based upon the estimate of Sir George Kellner, and the reason he referred to those statements was in consequence of the extravagant remarks that were floating about at the time that Cyprus was going to cost this country an enormous sum of money. On a former occasion, he ventured to say that according to the accounts they had received, and the other estimates that had been placed before them, they had reason to Believe that Cyprus would pay the whole of its expenditure. But he also said that in the first year he would not pledge himself that that would be the case. In saying that, he had in his mind the extreme improbability that when they were going to work a new system in an old country, and to introduce improvements such as were necessary for the purposes of British administration, it would turn out, when they had introduced them, that in the first year, at all events, the estimates would be exact. What he had then feared had turned out to be the case, and the Expenditure for the first year had exceeded the Revenue. He wished to remind the House what the difficulties in connection with Cyprus really were. They had an old estimate under which certain salaries were paid, and certain establishments were maintained, and those appeared on the face of them to be cheap. They were cheap to the Treasury out of which they were paid; but they were not cheap to the unfortunate people who had their taxes extracted from them. The taxes were collected in a way which brought little to the Treasury compared with the amount that was taken from the people. In the same way, in the administration of justice a great deal was taken by those who administered justice, in addition to the nominal salaries which they received. Under British rule those abuses had to be put an end to. The first effect was necessarily to increase the expenditure from the Treasury without at first producing a corresponding elasticity on the part of the Revenue. What he had thought very likely to happen had happened. For the first year there had been some deficiency in the Revenue. In the statements laid before them by Sir George Kellner's Paper (No. 7, page 9) it would be observed that there was a distinction drawn between the cost of administration during a portion of the year under the Turkish authorities and the cost during the remainder of the year under British administration. For four months of the year the Island was under Turkish rule; but during the remaining eight months it had been under British administration. That made a difference in the first year, because the administration under the one system was more costly than under the other. The same was the case with regard to the question of the police force. A great deal had been said about the zaptiehs—the Turkish police—and the military police. He thought he was accurate in saying that the Turkish zaptiehs were the police force during the first four months of the year, and that a military police force had occupied their place during the eight months of British rule. Without going too minutely into those points, the House would see that they had undertaken a new enterprize, and one which necessarily involved, in the first instance, some outlay of money. To some extent, the experiment they had undertaken must be costly; there was a great deal of work to be done, and improvements to be made which it was quite impossible to provide for out of revenue. With regard to the question of borrowing money for capital expenditure for the improvement of the country, he did not see any reason to suppose that the cost of those improvements would not be borne and covered by the improvements themselves under a better system. He did not think there was any reason why the Expenditure of tin; country should have been criticized in the manner in which it had been by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. With regard to the particular force now under consideration, he might say that the calculations made by Sir George Kellner were drawn up under the impression that there would be a considerable force of British troops maintained in the Island. It was afterwards thought better that there should be but a small military force; and, accordingly, the bulk of the troops had been removed, and considerable saving had been effected by the reduction of the amount for the maintenance of troops. But the withdrawal of the troops rendered it necessary that their place should be supplied by some other force, and accordingly the force had been instituted for which the Vote was taken. It could not be called a military force, for it performed duties other than belonged to the military. It would be a constabulary—something in the nature of a quasi-military force. If hon. Members would be patient enough to allow a novel experiment to be worked out, he thought they would find that the expenditure which had been incurred in the government of Cyprus was neither uneconomical nor injudicious.


said, that according to the Estimate of the Revenue of Cyprus for the year 1879–80 the total amount was put at £174,000. Out of that sum they had to pay to the Sultan £96,000, leaving £78,000 of revenue to meet the expenditure. It was now proposed to make a grant from our Estimates of £26,000, thus making the total Revenue for the benefit of Cyprus £104,000. He wished to point out that of the £104,000; the total Revenue to be expended for the benefit of Cyprus, nearly one-half, or £49,000, was to be expended upon the maintenance of a police force. There was one question with regard to the police force to which he should like an answer. He should like to know what those Cypriot Sepoys consisted of? Were they Turks, or were they Greeks; or did they consist of "Linobambakis," Christians professing the Mahommedan religion to secure the privileges attaching to Mahommedans? He desired to have an answer to those questions, because a good deal depended upon the character of that force. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had called attention to the fact that not one farthing of the Revenue of Cyprus was to be applied for improvements in the Island, but that every shilling to be spent for those purposes would have to be borrowed. It was said that the sum of £34,000 was to be borrowed in Cyprus; and when he looked at the Estimates he found that the rate of interest to be paid on that sum was calculated at 3¾ per cent. He should like to know whether the money was to be borrowed in Cyprus at 3¾ per cent by the Government of Cyprus, or whether the British Government was to advance the money? Was there to be any British guarantee for the loan? If there was not to be any guarantee, he should like it to be explained how it was that money could be obtained in Cyprus at 3¾ per cent, for that was a most unusual rate of interest for any part of the Levant? If Her Majesty's Government had already effected such reforms in Cyprus as to be able to borrow at 3¾ per cent upon the credit of the Island alone, then Cyprus would, indeed, be a model to the rest of Asia Minor, and they would quicken the reforming zeal of the Turks if they could show them how to borrow at this rate. He observed that the improvements which were to be carried out that year consisted only of roads, and repairs to roads, and some buildings, or repairs to buildings. Nothing whatever was taken for water supply, or for works of irrigation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had held out good hopes that the time was not far distant when Cyprus would stand in no need for any Vote from the Civil Service Estimates for a military or quasi-military police, but would be able to pay its own way, and he also hoped that something might be obtained out of the Revenue to pay for improvements. Knowing something of the resources of Cyprus, he (Mr. Dodson) would entertain some hopes that if the country was well irrigated and managed those desirable results might be obtained; but he would, wish to point out that one of the first necessities of the country—not second even to roads—was to provide means of irrigation. The means of storing and saving water, and obtaining water by boring in the soil, were improvements that were urgently required. If the fertility of the Island was to be developed, those things must be attended to; but there was no provision in the present Estimates for works of that kind. He hoped that in another year the resources of the Island might be such as might be available to be applied to that purpose, for until works of that character could be undertaken and carried out there would be little hope of Cyprus being able to pay its expenditure under British administration; for, however superior British might be to Turkish rule, it would necessarily be more costly. It was certain that they now had to pay an enormous proportion of the Revenue of the Island to the Sultan. They entered into a rash bargain, when it was agreed to pay the Sultan whatever the surplus of the Island might have been for the five years preceding the Anglo-Turkish Convention. The Turkish idea of the surplus Revenue to be derived from the Island was to take everything it produced and leave nothing behind. The result was the position in which they now found themselves; they had to pay away to the Sultan the best part of the Revenue that could be obtained, and all that was left, instead of affording a margin for works and improvements, was not even sufficient to maintain a civil administration of the Island under British rule.


said, that if the House desired it he could enter into the questions upon the Vote at some length. He did not, however, think that that was a favourable occasion for doing so; and he would confine himself to answering the questions which had been addressed to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson). First, with regard to the constitution of the police force, he might say that it was to consist of exactly the same class of persons who now formed the military police. Some were Greeks, and some were Turks, and the selection of the members of the force would be left entirely to the discretion of the Chief Commissioner. With respect to the sum taken for interest upon money borrowed, it must be remembered that the money had not yet been borrowed. The Estimate was one which had been prepared in Cyprus, and he thought that they at least knew there what interest would be required to be paid for money borrowed. The right hon. Gentleman very truly said that the money which was to be borrowed was not to be spent upon irrigation. The right hon. Gentleman was also perfectly right in dwelling upon the pressing necessity of irrigation but it had been thought best to postpone irrigation until the roads had been put in a satisfactory condition. Whether irrigation or the improvement of the roads ought to be the first matter taken in hand he did not know, and he could only say that it had been thought right to begin with the roads.


wished to make some explanation as to what he had said with regard to the number of the police. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had stated that he had not given the right number of the police. He wished to explain that he had no means of knowing the exact number of the police; but, finding what the number was in one district, he multiplied that by six, and so arrived at the number of 1,100. That number, he found, was to be maintained for the sum of £23,000.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 39: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 219.)