HC Deb 04 March 1880 vol 251 cc390-409

(24.) £35,170, Diplomatic Services.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

did not like to be constantly putting Questions to the Secretary to the Treasury on the same subject; but the hon. Baronet would now have an opportunity of answering his inquiry with respect to the item for telegrams more fully than he had done on a former occasion. He observed that the sum of £2,800 additional was required for telegrams, and farther, he saw that on page 12, Class II., Vote 5, there was another very large extra sum charged for the same purpose. The total amount spent on telegrams was, therefore, £17,200, which seemed to be a very large sum, considering the small quantity of information derived from that source. He had not objected to the Vote on a former occasion, because he was informed that the charge was for telegrams sent out from this country; and as he thought it was necessary that telegrams should be despatched in order to obtain information, he did not consider the amount to be extravagant. Now it was found that the cost of telegrams sent to the Foreign Office amounted to no less than £7,800, and that according to the Supplementary Estimate, the additional sum of £2,800 was asked for; and yet nothing was more remarkable than the slight amount of information which the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ever seemed able to afford the House upon any subject. He must say that, considering the little information that they got for the money, he considered the item for telegrams in the present Estimate excessive. He would like to know, now that the Committee were upon this Vote, whether Mr. Blunt, the Consul General at Salonica had yet sent home the further Report in the case of Mr. Ogle, which had been promised; and, also, whether, if it had not been sent home, Her Majesty's Government had communicated with him with the view of obtaining that Report? Mr. Ogle was murdered in March, 1878, and the Government shortly afterwards promised that a full inquiry should take place whenever it became practicable. When the murder was committed, that part of the country in which it occurred was in a state of insurrection; the House was even told, during the debate which took place in the month of May, 1878, that the country was in a state of war. Now, there had been nothing like a state of war about Volo for two years, and the country was not in any such condition as would prevent an inquiry being carried out. The neglect to hold this inquiry, therefore, showed that Her Majesty's Government were not as careful in protecting the lives of British subjects abroad as they ought to be. But it was not only the murderers of Mr. Ogle who had remained unpunished; there was another British subject who had been murdered by Turks in the island of Crete, and nothing had been done to bring the murderers to justice; and, at that very moment, a British ex-official was in the hands of Turkish brigands. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would give some information upon the point in question. When he brought forward the subject on a former occasion, his Motion had received the full support of the House, not one single hon. Member, except the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having spoken against it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had said that he was not asking for anything improper or unreasonable; on the contrary, he stated "that the demand was both reasonable and proper." The right hon. Gentleman, however, had taken exception to some parts of the Motion, which he had accordingly waived. Knowing that there existed a considerable feeling in the country to justify his inquiries into this matter, he desired to state that the only object he had in view in so frequently calling the attention of the House to the subject was that it appeared to be quite impossible to obtain from the Government the fulfilment of the definite promise which they had given in August, 1878. On the contrary, Her Majesty's Government had continually put him off upon one plea or another, while always asserting their intention to fulfil their promise. He wished to know whether the Government were willing to allow it to be understood that Englishmen might be murdered in different parts of the world, and that there would be no inquiry into the circumstances of their death? There had been no real inquiry into the circumstances of the murder of Mr. Ogle, and no witnesses had been examined, although there were witnesses who were willing to give evidence (the Blue Book, Turkey, No. 24, 1878, would inform hon. Members of the perfect correctness of his statement), whose whereabouts, as he had been informed by a gentleman lately returned from the part of Thessaly where the murder was committed, had never been lost sight of up to the pre- sent time. The deepest and greatest shame was felt by the Christians, not only of Greece but of that part of Turkey which had not been incorporated in the Hellenic Kingdom, at the apparent carelessness of England with regard to this murder. The day of the murder had, moreover, been kept as a sort of saint's day by the people of Volo out of respect to his memory, because they knew that when he met with his untimely end he was discharging his duty, and was actuated by the most philanthropic motives. Two years had now elapsed since Mr. Ogle's murder, and a year and three quarters since Government promised a new inquiry. The question was one which should as quickly as possible be attended to by Her Majesty's Government, or it would be too late to inquire into the murder at all. He had been informed, on every occasion of his referring to it, that it was their intention to deal with the case. The last answer received was that the case had been referred to Mr. Blunt, the Consul General at Salonica, against whom he had not one word to say, although he was obliged to remark that when he put forward a plea in favour of delay a certain amount of suspicion was cast upon his absolute impartiality, when it was remembered that he was the very person who held the abortive inquiry which had taken place into the circumstances of this murder, and who had signed every deposition. On the removal of Mr. Blunt on another mission, Mr. Fawcett was appointed to continue the inquiry, but he did not examine one single witness. Nevertheless, he had reported on the strength of the depositions taken, but not on oath before Mr. Blunt. What that Report was worth he had shown last year. He did not think that the Government had taken the proper course in dealing with this matter, nor did he think it right that it should be allowed to rest, because it was a matter which excited the greatest possible interest in the country, and because the honour of this country was distinctly involved in the question.

MR. BOURKE

said, that he did not suppose that the hon. Member really intended to dispute the correctness or fairness of the additional amount charged in the Vote for telegrams, but had simply taken the opportunity of that Vote for making a speech upon other questions. Probably the Committee on that occa- sion would not wish him to go into the question of the murder of Mr. Ogle. The hon. Gentleman, however, pointedly asked whether Her Majesty's Government were in earnest on that subject? As he understood, that was the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already stated, in answer to Questions put to him, that it was the intention of the Government to do all they could to obtain a proper inquiry into the subject of Mr. Ogle's death. But to say that the Government wished for an inquiry was one thing, but it was quite another to carry out that inquiry in Turkey. They had it upon high authority that it would be perfectly impossible for an impartial inquiry to take place at the present time. They had received other Reports from Sir Henry Layard, and also from Mr. Blunt, with respect to the matter. The latter said that, in his opinion, it was impossible to hope that witnesses would come forward to tell the truth at the present time, considering the state of the country. He (Mr. Bourke) fully admitted that the hon. Gentleman did make out a very strong case for an inquiry when he originally brought the subject forward. At the same time, he could not conceal from himself that the hon. Gentleman's case, although, no doubt, perfectly bonâ fide, was, after all, but an ex parte statement. That speech was sent out to Turkey, and it must be taken for what it was worth. No doubt, it was made by the hon. Gentleman in perfectly good faith, but no ex parte statement could be assumed to be altogether accurate. When an hon. Member of that House came and said that he was prepared to vouch for the statements he made, it was impossible for the Government to do otherwise than to believe in his accuracy. They could only say that they would inquire into the subject. The Government had done its best to obtain a further inquiry. They had, however, been told by their Ambassador that a satisfactory inquiry at present would not be obtainable. He did not think that the hon. Gentleman could, under these circumstances, charge Her Majesty's Government with having been guilty of any neglect in the matter; at all events, he did not think that that opinion was held by any large number of persons in England.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

said, that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had, no doubt, unintentionally, somewhat misrepresented his observations. No doubt he had answered him, as he always did, to the best of his ability; but he must say that there was nothing in the hon. Gentleman's statement which could be deemed at all satisfactory. They were told that the Government wished for an inquiry to take place at the proper time. Then, said the hon. Gentleman, "that it was one thing to wish for an inquiry, and another to obtain it." Now, he (Mr. H. Samuelson) wished to know what steps had been really taken to obtain it? The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State said that the statements he had made on the subject of Mr. Ogle's death were ex parte; but he could inform him that that statement was submitted to Lord Tenterden, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other Members of the Government before he made it; the names of the witnesses were not concealed from the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman, and the general accuracy of the assertions which he (Mr. H. Samuelson) had made in bringing the matter before the House had never been disputed. It seemed to him that Her Majesty's Government was strangely unwilling to take the proper steps in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a previous occasion, had informed him that Sir Henry Layard did not think that any good would be effected by an inquiry at the present time; but that, in his opinion, there was nothing in the state of Thessaly to prevent anyone coming forward to give evidence. But in order to fortify himself with the opinion of a witness on the spot, Sir Henry Layard wrote to Mr. Blunt. In answer to that letter, Mr. Blunt stated that he did not think it would be desirable to hold an inquiry, but he would himself ask for the opinion of another person on the actual spot. But to the present time the result of the inquiry by Mr. Blunt had not been communicated to him. He really must press for the Report which had been made by the person to whom Mr. Blunt referred; and in order to put himself in Order, he would move, unless he received proper information, that "The Chairman do now re- port Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

MR. BOURKE

said, that he had not the slightest idea that this case would have been brought before the Committee upon the Supplementary Estimates. It had been brought forward without the slightest Notice to him, and it seemed to him that it was very unfair to raise it at that time. He had already stated what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government were, and he would give the hon. Gentleman any further information if he gave him due Notice of a Question. The hon. Gentleman could put a Question to him to-morrow, or at any other time upon the subject; but he had no right to say that he had withheld any information.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

said, that he had not accused the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of any desire to withhold information. He had never made that statement, although the hon. Gentleman always accused him of making it to suit his own purposes. He did, however, complain that the hon. Gentleman never had any information to give. He might say that this case had been before the Government now for two years; he had put three Questions with regard to it that Session, and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) had put another Question; but it was quite impossible to get an answer of a satisfactory character from the hon. Gentleman because he always took care to answer Questions in so very literal a manner. It was in order to save the House from the constant repetition of Questions on the same subject that he had introduced the matter at that time. A number of Questions had been put upon this subject during the present Session; and he did not see, therefore, how the hon. Gentleman could complain that he had been taken by surprise. He thought that the Government might consent to lay the Papers upon the Table, and to inform him whether the Report which Mr. Blunt had led them to expect had been received.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that he quite acquitted the hon. Member for Frome of any wish to do anything unfair; but he certainly had placed his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in a position in which it was not rea- sonable that he should be placed. He thought that the Committee ought to know how the matter stood. There was originally an inquiry made into the circumstances of Mr. Ogle's death, and a certain Report was made. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Frome, who took a great interest in the subject, brought the matter under the notice of the House, and made a very interesting speech, in which he said that he was in possession of a good deal of information which would show that the result of that inquiry had not represented the real state of the case. A promise was then made to him by the Government that a further inquiry should be held whenever the state of the country was such as should make it possible to conduct an investigation without causing any inconvenience. The matter had been brought from time to time before the notice of the Representatives of this country in Turkey; but it had not been thought possible, owing to the condition of that country, to undertake an inquiry. The hon. Member had naturally, at intervals, put Questions on the subject, and the answers given to him had generally been that, in consequence of the unsettled state of Turkey, it was impossible to institute further inquiry. Some little time ago he renewed those Questions, and was then told that very recently communications had taken place between Sir Henry Layard and Consul Blunt. In answer to a Question, the hon. Gentleman was informed that Consul Blunt had wished to take the opinion of another gentlemen before answering the Question, no (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not able to say whether that answer had yet been given: but, at all events, he had not seen it. It seemed to him that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State could only answer the Question put to him in the general terms in which he had done so. He would state that the Government was anxious to proceed with the inquiry, if it appeared that it could safely and properly be done. But the hon. Member had taken the opportunity of the Vote for the purpose of making a sharp attack upon the Government, and threatened to move to report Progress unless his inquiries were satisfactorily answered. His complaint was that there was a difficulty in getting information. The only information which the Government possessed was that to which he had referred. If the hon. Gentleman had given Notice of the Question he was about to put, then the Under Secretary of State would have given him every information that was in his power.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

said, that he was entirely satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said upon the subject. He had informed him that the Report in question had not yet been received, and that when it was he would communicate it to him. He had endeavoured to get that promise from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State, but he had now received the assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, which he was unable to extract from the Under Secretary.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the question of the hon. Member ought to be put in a proper way to his hon. Friend the Under Secretary. He could not promise him that the Report should be laid upon the Table of the House, but an answer would be given in the proper way, when the communication in question was received.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would inform him when the communication was received?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Yes.

MR. MONK

said, that he wished to ask for an explanation with regard to an item in the Vote, under the head of Special Rewards and Services for "Mr. Harrison's expenses in connection with the Financial Inquiry Commission at Constantinople, £2,690." As that inquiry took place at the desire of the Turkish Government, he thought that the Turkish Government ought to be responsible for the expense. He should be glad to know whether this expense would be paid by this country or by Turkey? There was another item to which he also wished to refer, and that was "Expenses incurred by Officers employed on Special Service in Turkey, £1,350." First, they had the expenses of the Special Mission to Turkey, and then a vote was proposed for Special Service in Turkey. The latter Vote seemed to be for some anonymous employment, which, perhaps, the Secretary to the Treasury could explain.

MR. D. DAVIES

said, that £1,000 had been expended on account of the Alexandria Harbour Dues Commission. He wished to know whether that sum had been paid in the interests of the harbour authorities, or in the interests of the public? Was the Khedive going to repay that money to the country?

An hon. MEMBER said, that he should like to hear some explanation with reference to the additional sum for the Boundary Commissions under the Treaty of Berlin. The amount now charged, £1,800, was about five times the sum of the original Estimate, and he should like to know whether the cause for this expense had arisen recently?

MR. BOURKE

said, that first, with regard to the question of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) as to the expenses connected with the Financial Inquiry Commission at Constantinople two years ago, it was absolutely necessary for Her Majesty's Government to know, as nearly as possible, the exact financial condition of the Turkish Empire. There was no necessity for him to enlarge upon the importance to Her Majesty's Government, in a political point of view, of exact information on that point. It was thought most desirable that an English officer should be sent out to ascertain, as nearly as possible, what was the position of the Turkish Empire. Under those circumstances, Her Majesty's Government decided to employ Mr. Harrison, who was then at home on leave from India, he being a gentleman who was thought to be well suited for the business. When Mr. Harrison got to Turkey it was found, owing to representations made, that it would be best to appoint a Regular Commission, and Mr. Harrison was made a member of it. He had since made a Report that wont most fully into the question. That was the whole history of the case. So far as he was aware, everything that had been done in that matter, had been to the full satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government, so far as Mr. Harrison was concerned. Another Question had been asked with respect to the expenses of the officers employed on special service in Turkey. It was thought most desirable to employ officers particularly well suited for the special service in which they were to be engaged. Some of the officers were charged with missions in the neigh- bourhood of the insurgents, and others were stationed on the frontiers of Turkey and Greece. The remuneration of the officers employed, was not settled until some time afterwards. General Chermside, who was employed near Smyrna, had made a Report, which had appeared in the form of a Blue Book. ColonelSynge was also engaged on a similar mission with regard to the insurgents. With respect to the Question asked by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. D. Davies) as to the Alexandria Harbour Dues Commission, the matter arose in this way. For some years past large works had been going on at the Alexandria Harbour, and a large harbour and wharfage had been constructed. Some little time ago the Egyptian Government proposed to put a scale of dues upon all ships using the harbour, and also to charge certain rates for wharfage, and when that scale became known, the greatest dissatisfaction was produced. After various negotiations, it was thought desirable that this country should join in a Commission which was appointed on the subject, and that Commission had now prepared a Report. The Government of France also joined in the matter, and in all probability the labours of the Commission would result in a satisfactory conclusion. As for the Boundary Commissions under the Treaty of Berlin, those various Commissions were appointed to ascertain the boundaries of the different States. Those Commissions were five—namely, Bulgaria, Servia, Roumelia, Montenegro, and the Asiatic Commission. In consequence of the unwillingness of Montenegro, the labours of that Commission had not yet come to a conclusion; nor had the labours of the Asiatic Commission yet concluded.

Vote agreed to.

(25.) £2,000, Consular Services.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, that he wished to impress upon the Government the necessity of providing better salaries for the Consular officers in Bulgaria. He was assured that the salary given to the Consul General at Phillipopolis was utterly inadequate to the services which he had to perform. The Consul was a man of remarkable ability, and he trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not find it necessary to exercise any great caution in giving him a fair and proper remu- neration. There existed a great scarcity and dearness of provisions in his district, where there was very little food to he obtained besides geese. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not grumble at giving him an addition to his salary of £100 or £200.

MR. RYLANDS

said, it would be better to consider the matter when they came to the Estimate for the whole Consular Service, when they would be able to compare the salary of the Consul referred to with the various salaries given to officers in situations of a like character. He had observed that Consuls always had friends amongst Members of Parliament, who were ready at all times to point out that their remuneration was insufficient. He desired some information upon another point which the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would, no doubt, be able to afford. The Vote included a charge for deficiency through the stationing of Consular officers of a higher rank at Phillipopolis, Salonica, and Bourgas, and by the new appointments in Anatolia. On this point he desired to ask whether the officers so appointed were on half-pay, and why it was considered desirable to appoint military officers to these Consular posts?

MR. BOURKE

said, the selection had been made with the greatest possible care, and he thought that the best answer which he could give to the hon. Member for Burnley was that when the Secretary of State had to appoint men for the discharge of special duties, he had taken all points into consideration in selecting each individual person. He did not think it desirable to say anything more upon the subject, other than that he believed that the appointments made would turn out to be thoroughly satisfactory.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that the answer of the hon. Gentleman was of a very remarkable character; but it was quite in accordance with the whole of the proceedings of the Government, who took a line contrary to custom, and then, declining to give any information, expected hon. Members to accept, without any justification, a departure from the usual practice. It was an unusual thing to appoint military officers to the position of Consul; but the Committee were informed that there was some high policy involved in this proceeding—the old story when the Government expected hon. Members to accept their arrangements without question—and that they could not answer questions because it would be detrimental to the Public Service. It was perfectly right, however, for the Committee to inquire into any unusual course which the Government took in appointing persons to public offices, and he protested entirely against a departure from the usual custom being insisted upon by Government under the plea that to give information would be detrimental to the Public Service.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFE

said, he protested against the Consuls being considered friends of his. He had merely spoken in the public interest, and because he knew that it was very difficult for those officers to live on the salaries which they received.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he thought the Committee were entitled to receive something like an explanation of the nature of the services expected from these semi-military Consuls who had been appointed in Asia Minor. It was possible that the Government considered it too late to enter into any question of detail relating to this subject, and it did seem rather late to be discussing the proceedings of the Boundary Commission. A year and a-half had elapsed since the Berlin Treaty was executed, and at the end of that time he thought something should be known as to the policy of the Government in the appointment of these officers, because, although the hon. Member for Burnley had intimated that the Government might have some mysterious policy behind all that, he reminded the Committee that there was a Party in the country which considered that the Government had no policy at all. Whichever Party was right, however, it was well to know what was being done, and what was not being done, in Asia Minor. He confessed that with regard to a couple of the appointments in question, he had heard it stated by people who affected to know something about the matter, that military gentlemen had been appointed who really might not have got speedy advancement in another line. The Government, of course, would not like to say that there was nothing of importance in these appointments; and having taken part with Prince Bismarck and Count Andrassy at Berlin, and having come home as grand as the fly in the fable who said to the ox—"How we are carrying that cart along," Lord Beacons-field was, of course, bound to keep up the appearance of managing everything besides. It was quite possible that the country might find itself in a muddle in Asia Minor, as it had found itself in a muddle everywhere else, and when that muddle occurred, they would have it explained away by the Government. After this a little disaster would take place which the Government would also explain away; in short, everything would be explained down to the last possible point, when, no doubt, some fresh muddle would occur. He trusted that the appointment of military officers to Consular posts in Asia Minor would do no harm to the interests of the country or to the Conservative bogey—the Russian Empire.

Vote agreed to.

(26.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,704, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c, and for other Expenses in certain Colonies.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he did not understand how it was that Sir Bartle Frere was going to get five quarters' salary; upon which point, as also upon the next item for the salary of Sir Garnet Wolseley as Governor of Natal, he hoped to receive some information from the Colonial Secretary. He did not understand the position now held by Sir Garnet Wolseley in South Africa; and, further, he wished to be informed as to the position of Colonel Sir George Colley?

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, that by some technical error in the year 1878–9, Sir Bartle Frere had not drawn his last quarter's salary until after the end of that financial year, for which reason that quarter's salary appeared in the Supplementary Estimates of the present year. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had asked what was the position occupied by Sir Garnet Wolseley, to which he replied that it remained precisely the same as that which he originally occupied. Sir George Colley would succeed Sir Garnet Wolseley and Sir Henry Bulwer as High Commissioner and Governor of Natal.

MR. COURTNEY

What is to be the salary of Sir George Colley in his new position?

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

It is not yet decided.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, the question was a very important one; and it was quite clear that the Committee were not likely, at that advanced hour, to get any detailed statement from the Government. He, therefore, begged leave to move that Progress be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

hoped the hon. Member for Dungarvan would remember that the Committee were then discussing certain items which must necessarily be completed before the end of the financial year. A debate on the Government policy, with respect to the Transvaal, Natal, and other parts, might surely more properly come on at a time when the Estimates brought before the Committee the arrangements for the coming year. He was quite aware that it was working the Committee a great deal to go through the whole of the Votes at that time in the morning; but the Government were driven to that necessity by the fact that the Supplementary Estimates would have to be put into the Ways and Means Bill, which had to go through all its stages before the end of the financial year. On those grounds, therefore, he asked the hon. Member for Dungarvan to withdraw his Motion to report Progress, and to allow the Business in hand, which was of the utmost necessity, to proceed, and to defer the question of policy to the time when the Estimates for the coming year were in the hands of the Committee.

MR. MONK

said, he joined the hon. Baronet in appealing to the hon. Member for Dungarvan to withdraw his Motion, and allow the Vote to be taken. The hon. Member for Liskeard had received as full an answer as could be expected; but he must remind the hon. Baronet that they had been already seven hours engaged in the consideration of the Supplementary Estimates, and that they had passed a very fatiguing night. It must be clear that it was impossible to get through all the Votes that evening, for they would certainly take an hour or more to finish. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would consent to report Progress after the Vote then before the Committee had been taken.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, it was on the ground of absolute necessity that he had asked the hon. Member for Dungarvan to withdraw his Motion. He had admitted that it was working the Committee a great deal to continue, although there were occasions when the interest of the Public Service had to be considered. He again appealed to the Committee to finish the Supplementary Votes, as the delay of the Estimates might prevent the Government from getting through a Ways and Means Bill.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he should be the last person in the world to stand in the way of the Secretary to the Treasury in his desire to get all the Votes passed, if he thought that, under the circumstances of the case, it was absolutely necessary, in the interests of the Public Business, to yield to his opinion. He would remind the hon. Baronet that if the Supplementary Votes were completed on Monday, they could be reported on Tuesday, and there would, certainly, be ample time to get through a Ways and Means Bill before the end of the financial year. There were some other Motions on the Paper that would occupy some little time; and he, therefore, hoped that the hon. Member for Dungarvan would allow this Vote to pass, as he (Mr. Rylands) quite agreed that it should pass. With regard to the other Votes, he thought they should be taken on Monday along with the other Civil Service Estimates.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he also appealed to his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan to allow the Votes to go through that evening. He would point out that the Government had been calculating on beginning their Easter Recess on Thursday in Passion Week. The House had never sat either on Wednesday or Thursday in Passion Week before—at any rate, he had looked up the cases since 1857—but he had no doubt that the Government would get Tuesday in Passion Week given to them.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, lie should prefer the arrangement suggested by the hon. Baronet, which he believed would be much to the convenience of the House in general. The Government had a great deal of necessary Business to complete by the time named, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would allow them to get through the Supplementary Estimates that evening.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, as there appeared to be a general wish on the part of hon. Members that the present Vote should pass, he did not see why the Government should not take all the Votes that evening, and he therefore begged leave to withdraw his Motion to report Progress.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(27.) £4,450, Tonnage Bounties, &c, and Liberated African Department.

(28.) £10,425, Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.

(29.) £136, Treasury Chest Robbery.

(30.) £13,000, Superannuation and Retired Allowances.

(31.) £3,000, Belief of Distressed British Seamen Abroad.

(32.) £2,716, Pauper Lunatics, Ireland.

(33.) £9,110, Temporary Commissions.

MR. MACDONALD

said, it had been his intention to call the attention of the House at some length to the expenses in connection with the Accidents in Mines Commission. Considering, however, the appeal made by the hon. Baronet the Secretary of the Treasury, he would not stand in the way of the House passing the Vote, but would reserve his observations until the main Vote came before them in the Civil Service Estimates. He must, however, take that opportunity of saying that he did protest against the expenses incurred by this Commission. It was the belief of many that much loss of life in the mining districts would have been prevented had the subject been dealt with at once, instead of being referred to this Commission. He went further, than others. The manner in which this Commission was conducted—it being with closed doors—to his mind, was an outrage on common sense. Hundreds, from its privacy, never heard of it that could have given valuable evidence. But, beyond these, there were, among mine owners of the country and mine managers, hundreds that were not only willing for improvement, but were anxious to take advantage of all information that would enable them to save life, and to protect the limbs of the workmen who toiled under ground. Had the investigation been public, all information would have been scattered broadcast in the mining districts weekly. It had not been so from the Resolution of this worse than stupid Commission; and he would say that if there had been laid before it anything that would have prevented the loss of one single life, he charged that life to their action—which was a crime.

MR. DODDS

said, that amongst the expenses of the Accidents in Mines Commission, the sum of £650 was charged for travelling expenses. He should like to know how much of that sum had been spent for witnesses, and how much of it had been paid for the travelling expenses of those engaged upon the Commission?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that he could not undertake to answer the Question then, but would inform the hon. Gentleman upon Report.

Vote agreed to.

(34.) £9,869, Repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that he thought that some information was required with respect to various items in this Vote. The sum of £2,120 was charged for "special packets for the conveyance of distinguished persons." Perhaps, upon Report, the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would toll the House the names of those persons for whose conveyance the packets had been provided? It had been customary to adopt that course on similar occasions. He did not wish to move a deduction of the Vote for that sum, but only to obtain information. Then, with respect to the sum of £300 for a gratuity to Lord Giffard, V.C., for bringing home the despatches announcing the successful termination of military operations in South Africa, he thought that that matter had caused a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in the Army. There was no doubt, whatever, that that gratuity ought to have been given to the distinguished officer who was chiefly instrumental in capturing Cetewayo, and that he ought to have been sent off with the despatches to this country. Instead of Major Marter receiving the £300, it had, by some means or other, been given to Lord Giffard. That seemed to him, and to many persons, to be an instance of the grossest favouritism, which ought not to pass without some observation.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that he should like to know what was the meaning of the item of £331 19s. 3d. on account of the Record and Writ Clerks' Office, Chancery loss sustained by Mr. A. Ash and Mr. J. Warwick, as stamp distributors, in respect of stamped copies not called for?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that Messrs. Ash and Warwick were the stamp distributors in the Record and Writ Clerks' Office. It had been the custom in the Record and Writ Clerks' Office that solicitors should leave the deeds there to have the proper stamps affixed for them, and the deeds were made ready for the solicitors when they called. In course of time the number of deeds that had not been called for accumulated very largely, so that the value of the stamps on the deeds so left amounted to £820. Messrs. Ash and Warwick had paid for those stamps, and through no fault of their own, but entirely through a Rule with which they were bound to comply, the deeds were stamped and the money lost. In answer to their application for an allowance for spoiled stamps, the Board of Inland Revenue said that they could not admit their claim, inasmuch as the stamps in question were not spoiled stamps. The Treasury was desirous of compensating Messrs Ash and Warwick for the loss which they had incurred, and, consequently, the item in question had been included in the Estimates, under the head of Civil Contingencies Fund.

MR. MONK

said, that, perhaps, the hon. Baronet would inform the Committee why the sum of £2,500 had been awarded to Mr. Ford and wife, as compensation to them in respect of their illegal arrest?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he must ask the hon. Gentleman to allow him to ask that Question upon Report.

Vote, agreed to.

(35.) £4,300, Revenue Departments.

(36.) £7,400, Post Office Packet Service.

(37.) £985, Abyssinian Expedition.

(38.) £15,050 3s. 3d., Charges Defrayed by the War Office on account of India.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow. Committee to sit again To-morrow.