Commons Sitting of 24 July 1882

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—FORCES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN (Vote of Credit), £2,300,000; CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS, Votes 4 to 24.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Parcel Post* [254].
Committee—Conveyancing (re-comm.)* [246]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Labourers' Cottages and Allotments (Ireland)* [212].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Wellesley Bridge (Limerick) (re-comm.)* [249]; Civil Imprisonment (Scotland) (re-comm.)* [245], and passed.

NOTICE OF MOTION.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)— DESPATCH OF TROOPS FROM INDIA— INCIDENCE OF COST.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I have to give Notice that to-morrow, or on the earliest day in my power, I shall move the following Resolution:—
  "That, Her Majesty having directed a Military Expedition of Her Forces charged upon the Revenues of India to be despatched for service in Egypt, this House consents that the Revenues of India shall be applied to defray the expenses of the Military operations which may be carried on by such Forces beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions."
  MR. O'DONNELL: I beg to give Notice that I shall move, as an Amendment to the noble Lord's Resolution—
  "That it is unjust and iniquitous to charge the payers of income-tax in India with the expenses of a European war entered into most unjustly by Her Majesty's Government."

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY—THE CAMP AT ALDERSHOT.
  MR. CAINEasked the Judge Advocate General, How many troops are usually stationed at Alders hot; how many punishments have been inflicted on soldiers at Aldershot during the year 1881, and how many of these were for drunkenness; how many public houses and beerhouses there are in the district of Aldershot; and, how many publicans and beer sellers have been brought before the magistrates of Aldershot during 1881, charged with permitting drunkenness on their premises, or supplying liquor to drunken persons?
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): Sir, as the Question has been some time on the Paper, I am anxious to answer it as far as I can, although in one particular I cannot at present give my hon. Friend the entire information he asks for. The average number of men stationed at Aldershot during the year 1881 was 11,639. I cannot as yet state the number of punishments either for drunkenness or other offences inflicted on these men during the same period. Some of the regiments stationed at Aldershot are at present abroad; and although I have written for the information required, I have not yet received it—the fact being, I suspect, that the military authorities

  1527
  to whom I have applied have their hands full of other matters at present. All I can say is that my hon. Friend shall have the information as soon as I get it myself. With regard to the remainder of the Question, the word "Aldershot" is a somewhat vague one; but I assume that by it is meant the two parishes in which the camp is situated—namely, Aldershot and Farnborough. The total number of licensed public-houses in these two parishes is 49; of beerhouses licensed to sell beer on the premises, 51; beerhouses licensed to sell beer off the premises, 28; grocers and confectioners licensed to sell liquor, 9; licensed canteens in camp, 19—total, 156. Not a single licensed person in these two parishes was, during the year 1881, brought before the magistrates charged with permitting drunkenness on his premises or supplying liquor to drunken persons.

VETERINARY INSPECTORS (IRELAND).
MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Government Veterinary Inspectors in Ireland are on a much inferior footing with regard to pay, privileges, and allowances, to officials on the corresponding English Staff; whether it is a fact that Irish Veterinary Inspectors are liable to dismissal (without reason being assigned) at a week's notice, and without retiring allowance or compensation, even should they become incapacitated from the effects of accident occurring or sickness contracted whilst in the discharge of their duties; whether it is a fact that their monthly pay is issued most irregularly, sometimes ten days after it is due, instead of the first of every month, as is the case with other officials; and, whether, under the circumstances stated, the Government will make such improvements in the pay, pensions, and status of these officers as will assimilate them to their English brethren?
MR. TREVELYAN: I believe, Sir, that it is the case that Government Veterinary Inspectors in Ireland receive an inferior scale of salaries and allowances to those in England. It is a mistake to suppose that they are liable to dismissal, without reason being assigned, at a week's notice. If the services of any of them should be no longer required, he may be discharged on re-
1528
ceiving a week's notice, and is not entitled to a gratuity or superannuation. No case has occurred, so far as I can ascertain, of an Inspector having been dismissed on account of his having become incapacitated from the effects of accident occurring or sickness contracted while in the discharge of duty. With regard to the issue of their monthly pay, I find that it is almost invariably issued within the first week of each month. The salary lists have to pass through three Departments, and some slight irregularity consequently arises. I will see whether this cannot be remedied. The scale of salaries was fixed in 1878. No objection was raised to it at the time, and I do not think it now requires revision.

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE SUBCOMMISSIONERS—MR. RICHARD GARLAND.
MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Richard Garland, a Sub-Commissioner under the Land Law Act, still holds the office of Coroner for the county Armagh; whether, since his appointment as Sub-Commissioner, he has performed any of the duties incident to the coroner's office and received salary for same; whether, in view of the frequent occasions where the services of coroners in Ireland are required, he will call upon Mr. Garland to elect which office he will continue to hold, and require him to resign the other?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Mr. Garland does, I find, still hold the office of Coroner for the County Armagh. Since his appointment as a Sub-Commissioner, he has not acted as Coroner. He has received part of the salary duo for the half-year, and has paid one of the other Coroners of the county for doing the duty. The Land Commissioners were under the impression that he had resigned the Coroner ship. He will now be called on to resign either one appointment or the other.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE RESERVE—THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether men serving in the Auxiliary Force of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and belonging to the First Class Army Re-

1529
serve, will, in the event of the Reserves being called out, forfeit their situations in the former Service?
MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; the Reserve men in the Irish Constabulary will not be called out.

FISHERIES (IRELAND)—THE RIVER SHANNON.
COLONEL THE O'GORMAN MAHONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any complaints have been made to the Inspectors of Fisheries as to obstructions to the public rights of fishing in that portion of the River Shannon which runs through the county of Clare, by stakes and poles driven into the shores, which imperil the lives of the fishermen and cause injury to their boats and nets; and, whether he will direct the necessary steps to be taken to have such obstructions removed and prevented in future?
MR. TREVELYAN: Complaints have been made on the subject referred to in the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, and the matter is now in the hands of the Crown and Treasury Solicitor, who will lay a case on the subject before the Law Officers?

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, SEC. 37— VALUERS.
MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a report of the case of Fyffe v. Beatty, in the "Irish Law Times" of 15th instant, where the county court judge of the county Fermanagh applied to the Land Commissioners to pay a valuer appointed by him to assist him, but was informed that they had no power to do so, and that the expense must be borne by the litigants; whether it is the case, as reported, that he then remonstrated with the Commissioners on this decision, and requested to be provided with a competent valuer, as was done in the cases of sub-commissions and other county courts, but was informed that all their valuers were engaged; whether this was the result of the joint action of all the Commissioners, or the act of Mr. Commissioner Litton alone; and, whether the county court judge strongly animadverted on the position in which he was left, and the injustice to litigants?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have seen the report referred to in the Question of the hon. Member, and am informed that it is correct. The Land Commissioners have no power to pay a valuer appointed by a County Court Judge. The case of a County Court Judge requiring the services of an independent valuer is provided for by the 37th section of the Land Act. Under that section the costs must be paid by one of the parties or by both conjointly. The Land Commissioners have been most anxious to assist the County Court Judges, and relieve them from the necessity of employing valuers, and whenever the services of a Court valuer has been available they have been placed at the disposal of the Judges; but for some time back they have not found it possible to spare any of their valuers, as the services of all have been imperatively required in the appeal cases. The Land Commission acted in this matter on the general instructions of all the Commissioners. I see from the number of The Law Times referred to by the hon. Member, that the County Court Judge is reported to have made certain animadversions, which, however, appeared to be directed against the law rather than against the Land Commission.

BULGARIA—THE NEW MINISTRY.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true, as recently stated in several newspapers, that a Ministry has recently been appointed in Bulgaria, of which the President and the Home Secretary are both Russian Generals, quite recently introduced into the country; if it is true that M. Zancoff, the head of the late Liberal Ministry, is still in prison, and has only been given the option of taking up his abode in Russia, which he has refused to do; and, if it is the intention of the Government to intercede on behalf of M. Zancoff?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, we have no positive intelligence of the formation of a new Ministry; but the British acting agent has reported that it was in contemplation to appoint General Sovoleff to the posts of President of the Council of Ministers and Minister of the Interior. He is a Russian general officer. General Kaulbars has also arrived at Sofia, and is to be Minister of War. M. Zancoff is still interned at Wratza. We have no confirmation of the report

1531
that he has been given the option of taking up his abode in Russia. Her Majesty's; Government are not prepared to make any isolated representations on behalf of M. Zancoff, as they consider that if any such stop is adopted it should be taken in concert with the other Powers who are parties to the Treaty of Berlin.

IRELAND—THE LADIES' LAND LEAGUE —ERECTION OF A HUT FOR AN EVICTED TENANT.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (for Mr. LALOR)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that, when a hut was about being erected by the Ladies' Land League for an evicted tenant, James Stephens, of Derrylea, near Monasterevan, county Kildare, Mr. Sub-Inspector Purden stated to the persons who were engaged in the work that he would not permit them to erect the hut; and, if they persisted in doing so, he would have it pulled down again; and that he would not permit it to be erected within three miles of that place; if it is a fact that the constable of the district stated that—
"If a penny of the; Ladies' Land League Fund were expended on a house for this man, Stephens, there would be a decided objection to it;"
and, whether, in this case, the question had been previously referred by the police to the decision of the Lord Lieutenant, according to a recent promise of the Chief Secretary?
MR. TREVELYAN: In this case, Sir, the Constabulary, acting under the directions of the Resident Magistrate, prevented the erection of the hut referred to pending the receipt of the Lord Lieutenant's decision. The facts of the case were duly brought before the Lord Lieutenant; and, as it is alleged that the hut was about to be erected for purposes of intimidation for an evicted tenant on property of his landlady and against her wish, the Lord Lieutenant has directed the Sessional Crown Solicitor to proceed to the scene and investigate the matter and report the result. The Sub-Inspector and constable both deny having used the language attributed to them by the Question.

POST OFFICE—SALARIES OF POST MESSENGERS.
VISCOUNT EMLYNasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is proposed
1532
to bring in a Supplementary Estimate on account of the cost of the change recently made with regard to the salaries of post messengers; and, if so, when?
MR. FAWCETT: I believe, Sir, it will be necessary to bring in a Supplementary Estimate.

CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—CASE OF DANIEL COURTNAY.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has made inquiry into the circumstances under which a charge against a man named Daniel Courtnay, at the last Coolmagort Petty Sessions, in Kerry, of presenting a loaded revolver at several persons, was summarily dismissed by the only justice present, The M'Gillicuddy; whether the charge was substantiated by several witnesses, whose evidence was in no way questioned; whether the justice in question was also the landlord of the accused; and, whether he proposes to make any representation to the Lord Chancellor on the subject?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, no representation on the subject referred to in the Question of the hon. Member has been made to the Government. Any charge of misconduct against a Justice of the Peace ought to be addressed to the Lord Chancellor, who alone has jurisdiction to deal with it; and there are no facts before the Government to cause them to bring the matter before the Lord Chancellor.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE MAGISTRATES AT LISTOWEL.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now state the result of his inquiries respecting the composition of the bench of magistrates at Listowel, on Monday the 10th instant, before which Mr. Harrington and others were brought?
MR. TREVELYAN: The further inquiries I have made into the the matter referred to in the Question of the hon. Member have satisfied me as to the necessity for the presence of two Resident Magistrates on the occasion. The case was an important one, and it was thought necessary that there should be a strong Bench. The local Resident Magistrate, being required as a witness, could not preside.

LAW AND JUSTICE—THE REV. F. S. GREEN.
MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the time has not arrived for recommending to the Crown to exercise the Royal Prerogative, in order to release from prison the Rev. S. F. Green, who has now been imprisoned for more than sixteen months?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, in reference to this Question, I have to say that the Prerogative of pardon is exercised in respect of past offences, and the sentence is commuted where there is reason for doing so. But in the case of a committal for contempt of Court the thing is totally different. It is not a past, but a continuing offence. The committal is in order to enforce the authority of the Court. If, then, the Crown were to discharge a prisoner who had not purged his contempt, the Crown would set aside the authority of the Court. As far as I know, within the Constitutional period no such pardon has been granted, because the prisoner himself is still in open and continuing defiance of the authority of the Court and of the law. I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Green should be delivered from prison; but, as a right rev. Prelate very properly observed, his prison door is locked on the inside. He can open the door whenever he chooses to declare his desire to conform to the law, and I know nothing is more difficult than to get a man out of prison who insists upon keeping the key turned on the inside.

THEATRES AND MUSIC HALLS (METROPOLIS)—PRECAUTIONS AGAINST FIRE.
MR. MACFARLANEasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, If he can now state to the House the number of theatres and other places of public entertainment which have been reported upon as to the existing means of escape in case of fire; and, if he can further state what steps he proposes to take to enforce the necessary structural changes during the autumn, when such changes can be carried out with the least loss to the proprietors or lessees?
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, the number of places of public enter-
1534
tainment actually reported on, and with regard to which the Board have been able to take action, is 11 theatres and four music halls; but I am happy to say that the Reports of Captain Shaw on the whole of the remaining theatres in the Metropolis are on the point of completion, and will, I believe, be presented this week. With regard to enforcing the necessary structural changes during the autumn, I can only say that everything will be done to press matters forward; but much depends on the prompt compliance of owners with the Board's requirements, and on their carrying out the alterations without having recourse to arbitration as provided for in the Act of 1878.

NAVY—THE SICK BERTH STAFF.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is contemplated to do anything to increase the pay and position of the Sick Berth Staff of the Royal Navy?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, all I am able to say is that the matter referred to by the hon. Member is under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty.

NAVY—DOCKYARD EMPLOYES.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether a demand has been made on established men in Her Majesty's Dockyards for payment of an Inland Revenue stamp, such payment not having been demanded when they received their appointments, and what is the reason of such a demand?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The payments referred to by the hon. Member are required by the Civil Service Commissioners in pursuance of an Order in Council of March, 1879, which authorizes them to claim certain fees from all candidates who receive from them the necessary certificate of qualification. These fees are exigible in the Dockyards from all men appointed or promoted after June 1, 1881. The stamp referred to is merely the form in which, for convenience, the fee is collected.

LAW AND JUSTICE—THE SUMMER ASSIZES.
MR. EDWARD CLARKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-

1535
ment, By whose authority and advice there has been, for the first time, inserted in the Commission of Gaol Delivery for the Summer Assize the following proviso:—
"That, whenever any prisoner in our said gaol shall have been committed for trial at any sessions of the peace within the said county, you shall not deliver the said gaol of such prisoner, but shall order such prisoner to the gaol to take his trial at the quarter sessions to which he is committed;"
what is the reason of such a departure from former practice; and, whether he is aware that, at Maidstone, three persons charged with larceny and committed, two of them upon the 4th July and one upon the 1st July, have boon ordered by the judge to be kept in gaol until the Maidstone borough quarter sessions in October next, Mr. Justice Hawkins at the same time protesting against being compelled to make such an order when he was ready to try them, and when the result would probably be that they would remain in gaol awaiting trial for a longer period than they would be sentenced to if found guilty of the offences charged against them?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This Proviso has always been in the Commission of Gaol Delivery of the Winter Assize. It has been till recently omitted from the Commissions of the other Assizes; but about a year ago there occurred this scandal and inconvenience—that a number of prisoners had been committed for trial at the Sessions; and when the Assizes came on, and there was a gaol delivery, the persons prosecuting being only bound over for the Sessions did not appear, and seven out of 12 prisoners were discharged without any trial at all. Therefore, it was thought better to make the Commission the same both for the Winter and the Summer Assizes. All that should have been done in this case was that the magistrate who committed the prisoner after the Quarter Session, and before the Assizes, should have committed them to the Assizes.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—POLICE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will fix next Saturday for the Second Reading of the Police Superannuation Bill?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am as anxious, Sir, as the hon. and gallant Member can be to promote the progress of this Bill; but I think the House has not yet sufficiently recovered from the Sitting of Saturday last to contemplate another, which might lead to the superannuation of the House itself.

SURREPTITIOUS PUBLICATION OF OFFICIAL REPORTS.
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture, which was published in the "Times" of Saturday, will be distributed to Members of this House?
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had assured the House that Reports should not be given to any newspaper before they were distributed to Members. He wished to know whether they might receive the same assurance from the Home Secretary as to the future?
MR. GEORGE HOWARDwished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he himself had received the Report referred to in the Question?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the proper course in reference to the Report on Royal Commissions is that they should, in the first instance, be forwarded to Her Majesty, and after a Report has been forwarded to Her Majesty it is presented to this House. The Report in question was received at the Home Office to-day from the Commission, dated the 24th of July. I immediately forwarded it to Her Majesty, and it will be presented to the House this afternoon. I am unable to say how the Report in question was communicated to the newspapers; it was not done by my authority or with my sanction.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked whether the Report published in The Times was correct?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have not read either the official Report or the newspaper account of it, so that I am unable to say.

CHARITY FUNDS (METROPOLIS).
SIR THOMAS ACLANDasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that attempts are being made to induce the Trustees of the Parochial Charities of the City of London to make grants

1537
from the charity funds held by them to defray the expenses of a Private Bill brought in in opposition to a Public Bill which has been approved by a Select Committee of this House; whether he is aware that the Charity Commissioners have already expressed their disapproval of such an application of charitable funds; and whether he will be prepared, if any trustees should be certified to him by the Charity Commissioners as having committed a breach of trust by so applying charitable funds, without any statutable authority for doing so, to proceed against such trustees by filing an information in the usual way?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, he had no official knowledge of the circumstances, and he did not know what steps the Charity Commissioners would take in the matter. He could not pledge himself to the adoption of any particular course, but he would receive with careful attention any recommendations made to him. He might, however, mention that Lord Eldon had given a decision to the effect that such payments as those referred to in the Question ought not to be made out of charitable funds.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—DETENTION AND ARRESTS—JOHN VINE AND OTHERS.
MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will be so good as to direct the release of Mr. William Eiliff, who was arrested on the 24th of April, and is now detained as a suspect in Enniskillen Gaol, the district from which he was taken being perfectly quiet, and other persons from the same neighbourhood who were arrested at the same time having been released some weeks ago?
MR. TREVELYAN: William Eiliff is detained under the Protection of Person and Property Act on reasonable suspicion of shooting at with intent to murder. His case comes on for reconsideration to-day.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. John Vine, photographer, of Athenry, County Gal-way, who had come to Loughrea, County Galway, for the purpose of seeing some
1538
friends, was arrested as a "stranger" by Head-constable Payne, Loughrea, at eleven o'clock last Sunday night, and was remanded for a week to Galway Gaol, and upon what evidence, and by what magisterial power, this process was accomplished, seeing that the Crime Prevention Bill had not yet passed into Law; whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 14th instant:—
"The condition of Loughrea is deplorable. The markets, which were very good, have latterly dwindled down to nothing. The country people are afraid to come in, as the police are arresting every stranger on suspicion;"
and whether, in order to guard against such effects as those described, the Irish Executive will issue instructions as to the Police administration of the Crime Prevention Act?
MR. TREVELYAN: John Vine was found under very suspicious circumstances after midnight in the public streets of Loughrea. He was a stranger, and refused to give his name or any account of himself, and was arrested under the ordinary powers of a peace officer under suspicion of being about to commit a felony. He is at present in custody on remand, pending inquiries which are being made regarding him. There is no foundation for the newspaper statement quoted in the Question. The Sub-Inspector of Constabulary stationed in Loughrea informs me that the markets are as large as they usually are at this time of the year, and no stranger has been arrested there except Vine. Consequently, no such instructions as those alluded to in the final paragraph of the Question are called for.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what conditions Mr. Francis Gentleman, of Ballybunnion, was released from Kilkenny Prison?
MR. TREVELYAN: There were no conditions imposed on Francis Gentleman on his release. He was released with a warning, on the ground of his health failing.

THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— PAY AND POSITION.
MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Has any final decision yet been arrived at on the recommendations made to im-

1539
prove the pay and position of the Officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
MR. TREVELYAN: A Bill dealing with this matter is at present in the draftsman's hands, and I hope to be able to introduce it in a few days.

IRELAND—THE LADIES' LAND LEAGUE MEETINGS AT CASTLECOMER KILKENNY—PRESENCE OF THE POLICE.
MR. MARUMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that two policemen regularly attend the meetings of the Ladies' Land League of Castlecomer, in the county of Kilkenny, contrary to the wishes of the members of the same; and, whether he will take steps to have such action on behalf of the Constabulary discontinued for the future?
MR. TREVELYAN: I am aware, Sir, that these meetings have been attended by members of the Constabulary, and I consider this supervision is still necessary.

CRIME (IRELAND)—REPORTED THEFT OF RIFLES.
COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Times" of the 20th instant, that a van on the Water-ford and Limerick Railway, containing a large number of rifles and a quantity of ammunition, was broken into at Waterford, and the rifles as well as ammunition carried off; whether any of the stolen property has been recovered; and, whether it is true that the van was left without a military guard?
MR. CHILDERS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will be glad to hear that there is no truth in the report to which he refers.

ARMY—THE BRIGADE OF GUARDS.
MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is true that it is not intended to observe the provision of the Queen's Regulations, by which, when a brigade of Guards is ordered on active service, the brigade shall be commanded by a Guards' General?
MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; Major General the Duke of Connaught will command the Guards' Brigade. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to quote the paragraph in the Queen's Regulations
1540
to which he refers? At the risk of being considered hypercritical, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is no paragraph in the Queen's Regulations on the subject. The Guards' rules are different from the Queen's Regulations.
MR. O'DONNELLgave Notice that on the Vote he would call attention to the Regulation which had been violated, and in particular to the manner in which three distinguished general officers with from 32 to 34 years' service had been passed over. He would also ask whether these three were not men all of whom had been promoted for distinguished service in the field, and what were the influences to which the Government yielded in committing this act of favouritism?

ARMY—PRIVATE PURCHASES OF ARMS.
MR. PARNELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that last week upwards of 350, No. 12 gauge, double-barrel fowling pieces were purchased at Birmingham through Major King-Harman, R.A., Assistant Superintendent for Small Arms Factory, from Messrs. Webley and Son, Robert Hughes, Charles Pryce, and others; and, whether he has any information as to the purpose and destination for which those guns are intended?
MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that I know nothing of the details of the purchase, but that I have authorized a certain number of double-barrelled guns to be bought for use by the soldiers employed on personal protection duty, in preference to the single-barrelled rifle they now use.
MR. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has heard that Major King-Harman purchased these 350 guns, and if their destination is intended for the Orangemen?
MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; I cannot state the destination of any guns purchased except for the Public Service. I know nothing of this particular circumstance. I could not know except it was for the Public Service.
MR. HEALY: Might I ask if Major King-Harman is entitled to use his position as Superintendent of the Small Arms Factory to buy guns for private persons?
MR. CHILDERS: The hon. Gentleman must give me Notice of the Question. Speaking at the moment, I should say that the usual duty of a public officer is to act only in the Public Service.
MR. HEALY: I shall give Notice of that Question.

EGYPT—ALLEGED PILLAGE BY BRITISH SOLDIERS.
MR. O'KELLYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the correspondent of the "Times" at Alexandria, that "perfectly respectable inhabitants have lodged complaints that they have been robbed and their houses pillaged by English soldiers;" and, whether he will take measures to secure the prompt punishment of soldiers guilty of acts of violence or pillage?
MR. CHILDERS: The hon. Member does not state in what issue of The Times the assertion which he quotes was made, so I have not verified it; but Sir Beau-champ Seymour and Sir Archibald Alison have ample powers to repress and punish acts of violence and pillage.

EDUCATION (WALES)—HIGHER AND SECONDARY EDUCATION.
SIR ROBERT CUNLIFFEasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he is now able to state to what extent the Government are prepared to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee with regard to higher education in Wales?
SIR HUSSEY VIVIANasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether any decision has been come to relative to the measures to be adopted for the promotion of Higher and Intermediate Education in Wales.
MR. MUNDELLA: In reply, Sir, to the Questions of my hon. Friend and of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire, which are similar, I beg leave to remind the House that the recommendations of the Departmental Commission related to—first, higher grade board schools; secondly, grammar schools; thirdly, Colleges. I am now in a position to state that a Circular will shortly be issued by the Education Department to the school boards of Wales, explaining the facilities which we are prepared to
1542
give for the establishment of these higher elementary schools. The establishment of grammar schools will require legislation. As regards Colleges, I may say that a sum of £2,000, being the first half-yearly payment of £4,000, will be placed on the Estimates for the Aberystwith College this Session, and a sum of £4,000 a-year next year for each of two Colleges, one in North and the other in South Wales. This grant will not be continued beyond the 31st of March, 1884, unless by that time satisfactory progress has been made towards their establishment, and a scheme approved for their management and maintenance. Legislation for the establishment of grammar schools must stand over till next year. Thus two of the three recommendations of the Commission will at once come into practical operation, if the liberality of the Government meets with an adequate response from the inhabitants of the Principality.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS —CHRIST'S HOSPITAL—THE NEW SCHEME.
MR. FIRTHasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the new scheme of the Charity Commissioners as to Christ's Hospital is matured; and, when the same may be expected to be laid upon the Table; and what is the cause of the delay?
MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the Charity Commissioners have furnished me with the following statement in reply to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Chelsea:—
"After the publication of their draft scheme for Christ's Hospital, the Commissioners received from the governors of the hospital certain objections on points of great importance and difficulty, with which it was found to be impossible to deal without minute inquiry into the account books and other records of the hospital from the latter part of the 16th century down to the present day. This inquiry was undertaken by Mr. Fearon, and, together with the writing of his report thereon, occupied him during the greater part of the months of November and December, 1881, and January, February, March, April, and May, 1882. His report, covering upwards of 100 pages of printed folio, has been in the hands of the Commissioners for about a fortnight, and will require very careful attention. In these circumstances, it is impossible to say how soon the Commissioners will be in a position to submit a scheme to the department."

CYPRUS AND MALTA—EGYPTIAN REFUGEES.
MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any, and, if so, what, sum has been authorized by the Government to be expended out of Imperial Funds, by the proper authorities in the Islands of Cyprus and Malta in aid of the refugees from Egypt; and, whether, up to this date any expenditure has been incurred by such authorities from sources other than those of private charity?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, as to Cyprus, our information is that the Cyprus Government has spent some very insignificant amounts in aiding the refugees, and that the great bulk of the refugees there are not destitute. As to Malta, the Government there is drawing out of the Island Exchequer considerable sums, and the Colonial Office is at this moment in communication with the Treasury as to what assistance should be given from Imperial Funds.

RUSSIA—PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS.
BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What are the grounds for his statement that—
"The outrages which had taken place on Jews in Roumania and in Russia, and the burning of their houses, were the reaction of a poor and necessitous population against the gombeen men;"
and whether, in view of the great danger to which the Jewish population in Russia would be exposed if so serious a charge emanating from so high an authority, remained uncontradicted, he will quote or lay upon the Table of the House any Reports from Her Majesty's Consuls which he may consider to bear out the above statement?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I know not from whence the hon. Member has drawn the words which he puts in inverted commas. I do not think he heard me, or he could not possibly have put these words into my mouth, and I am by no means prepared to adopt them. The fact is this, I was not making charges against the Jews or anybody else engaged in money-lending. I was apologizing for the "gombeen" men, as they are called. I was pointing out that these money-lenders, though they may have in this case used their power unmercifully, are probably discharging
1544
a necessary function, and that their unpopularity does not prove that they were mischievous persons. I made no charge against the Jews.

EGYPT—ALLEGED MASSACRES OF EUROPEANS.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any confirmation of the reports of terrible massacres of Europeans throughout Egypt, made to the Khedive by Omar Soufti Pasha, and affirmed by the correspondents of all the English papers in Alexandria, and of the "critical position of 12,000 Europeans," described by the "Daily News"—
"At Port Said, many of them women and children, now at the mercy of Egyptian soldiers and fanatical Arabs;"
and whether, in view of the statement of the Correspondent of the "Standard," that—
"After providing for the safety of the town and palace, we have now five thousand men available for operations in the field, and two more regiments are expected to arrive here to-night. Were it not for orders from home this force would be able to put an end to the Egyptian difficulty in twenty-four hours,"
Her Majesty's Government will withdraw the orders referred to, which prevent the immediate action of the forces now at Alexandria; whether he can state also what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking, or intend to take, in order to preserve Cairo and the rest of Egypt from the fate of Alexandria; and, whether, in view of the fact that the British Government alone have been willing to resort to force, and that the interests of England in Egypt are greater than those of the rest of Europe, Her Majesty's Government will refrain from inviting the other five Powers to share in the occupation of Egypt?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It is believed that Europeans have been massacred in the interior of Egypt. The European population of Port Said are, I understand from the Admiralty telegrams, by no means at the mercy of the Egyptian troops and the Arabs, but can be perfectly protected by the English and French forces at Port Said. The remainder of the Question of the hon. Member comes within the terms of the statement made by the Prime Minister on Thursday last.

WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—SPECIAL WAR CHARGES—EXPLANATION.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will state the correct figures of the special war charges mentioned by him in the Budget speech as having fallen upon the years 1880–81, 1881–2, and 1882–3, respectively?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE)said, he might explain that some confusion had arisen from the fact that, owing to some accident, the speech in question had not been sent to his office for revision. The correct figures were—For 1880–81, £2,347,000; for 1881–2, £3,842,000; and for 1882–3, £1,570,000.

EGYPT—POLITICAL AFFAIRS—THE CONFERENCE.
MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Papers from Lord Dufferin as to the sole action of the several European Powers pending the deliberations of the Conference?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, a proposal made by the Italian Ambassador at the third meeting of the Conference on the 27th of June, that it should be understood that, while the Conference lasted, the Powers would abstain from any isolated enterprize in Egypt, was accepted under the reserve of force majeure, such as the necessity of protecting the lives of their countrymen (nationaux). At the next meeting, on the 30th of June, Lord Dufferin declared in distinct terms that Her Majesty's Government would consider any attack upon the Canal or any sudden change or catastrophe which menaced our special interests as comprehended under the term of force majeure embodied in the reserve appended to Count Corti's proposition. No comments were made in the Conference upon this declaration.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AMENDMENT BILL—THE WINTER ASSIZES.
MR. RANKINasked Mr. Attorney General, With what object it is proposed by Clause 7 of "The Supreme Court of Judicature Amendment Bill, 1882,"
1546
to extend the operation of the Winter Assize Act of 1876 to the month of February, seeing that the special assizes held by virtue of that Act now take place in the months of October and November; and, whether that proposed extension aims at the application of the grouping system to the ordinary civil and criminal assizes now held in January and February, notwithstanding the provision in the Spring Assize Act of 1879, that separate assizes in and for each county shall still be held twice a year?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, if Parliament gave its sanction to Clause 7 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, he thought there would be power to group Assizes for both civil and criminal business, and he thought such grouping would not necessarily interfere with the provisions of the Assize Act of 1879.

CYPRUS—THE HARBOUR OF FAMAGUSTA—COST.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If the Government have received the plans and estimate of cost of a naval harbour at Famagusta prepared by the engineer of the Cyprus authorities; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay the same upon the Table of the House?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: These Papers have been received, and will be laid on the Table of the House very shortly.

EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)— PROCEEDINGS OF THE FLEET—SIR BEAUCHAMP SEYMOUR'S DESPATCHES.
SIR JOHN HAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which he had given him private Notice. There was a despatch from Sir Beauchamp Seymour which appeared twice—namely, in the recently published Foreign Office Papers, and in the Report of Sir Beauchamp Seymour, which was laid on the Table on Saturday by the Admiralty. As these sets of Papers were to some extent discrepant, an omission occurring in one of them, while the other was apparently complete, he wished to know which of them was correct; and whether the omission had been made intentionally?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, that the Papers in question had been prepared in extreme haste by the Admiralty and the Foreign Office together. It bad been thought advisable to omit certain references to the subjects of a foreign Power, but these had not contained matter of any importance.

EGYPT—THE MASSACRE AT ALEXANDRIA.
MR. O'DONNELLasked the Prime Minister, Whether his attention has been called to the testimony of Sir Beauchamp Seymour and other British officers that the disturbances at Alexandria on the 11th of June had no political significance, but are only the consequences of a riot between Greeks and Arabs; whether those authorities have not praised the steady behaviour of the Egyptian troops and the good faith of the Government of Alexandria in dealing with the rioters; and whether the Government will take any steps to contradict the unfounded accusations of massacre that have been brought against the Egyptian National party?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have no information as to the latter part of this Question. With regard to the first part of the Question, referring to the statement of Sir Beauchamp Seymour in the despatch written hurriedly on the next day after the riot that it had no political significance, I have to tell the hon. Member that later information, in the possession of the Government, entirely contradicts that opinion. Sir Beauchamp Seymour was imperfectly informed as to the state of affairs when he sent that despatch.
MR. O'KELLYasked whether the troops had not assisted to put an end to the riot?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Four hours' delay occurred before the troops, who were in very large force, took any steps to suppress the riot. As soon as they appeared on the streets, the actual attack on Europeans entirely ceased; but looting continued.
MR. O'DONNELLasked whether, on the day of the riot or the following day, there was not a meeting at Alexandria of the British authorities and others, in which they expressly recognized the fidelity with which the Governor had kept his undertaking to protect the lives of
1548
Europeans till the time the troops entered the town?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The conduct of the Governor was approved; but the Sub-Prefect of Alexandria was one of those most gravely compromised.

MOTIONS.
  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, to move—
    "That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions on Tuesday, Government Orders have priority; and that Government Orders have priority on Wednesday."
    In making such a Motion as this, it is usual to state the time in past years when a similar course was proposed. In 1876 the Motion was made on the 9th of August, only seven days before the Prorogation, and in 1877 on the 23rd of July; in 1878 these days were first taken on the 16th of July, in 1879 on the 15th of July, in 1880 they were taken on the 13th and 14th of July; in 1881 not until the 2nd and 3rd of August. The usual practice of the House is that private Members' days should be taken at a late period of the Session. This year it has been observed that private Members have had no opportunity of bringing forward their Motions and pushing their Bills. That is perfectly true; but it is also equally true that the Government have had no opportunity of advancing legislation. The Bills upon which we have been engaged have merely grown out of the necessities of the moment, and, with certain small exceptions, are quite distinct from those projected and promised in the Queen's Speech. Of course, it is a question for the convenience of the House. I am aware it is a very great sacrifice that private Members are called upon to make; but still, with the prospects before us, if we are to wind up the Business of the Session within a reasonable time, I think this is a proper period according to the spirit, if not the letter, of former precedents for making this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions on Tuesday, and that Government Orders have priority; and that Government Orders have priority on Wednesday."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he was quite aware that at this period of the year it was usual to make a Motion of this kind, and it was for the convenience of the House, no doubt, that the Session should be wound up within a reasonable time. But he rose to ask one question of some importance. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that for the remainder of the Session these Orders should have precedence. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by "the remainder of the Session?" Under ordinary circumstances they should understand that the Session would close sometime about the middle of August, and with that view they would give precedence to certain Business. But they were informed that this year it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose that the House should only adjourn to meet again later on. He wanted to know when they were to meet again, and whether the Government Orders were to have precedence? In point of fact, they were entitled, under the circumstances, before acceding to this Motion, to have some distinct intimation as to the Bills with which it was intended to proceed. He did not think the House would or ought to be satisfied with a mere general declaration that there were certain Bills to be proceeded with, and others which might be proceeded with if they had time. They ought to be told what were the Bills the Government intended to proceed with, and they ought also to have some information about Supply. The House would remember that they were extremely backward in Supply. There were between 170 and 180 Votes still to be passed, and the time was approaching when it would not be so convenient for Members to attend who might wish to bring forward questions connected with Supply. He would also like to know what was to be the course of Business that night? His right hon. Friend (Mr. Bourke) had put a Question on the Paper with regard to the manner in which the Government proposed to proceed when they came to the Vote of
    1550
    Credit, and drew attention to the fact that when the late Government proposed a Vote of Credit they were appealed to by the Leader of the Opposition at that time, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington), merely to propose and explain the Vote, and then to agree to report Progress, so as to give the House time to consider what course it would take. In the present circumstances, and with their present information, he thought the House would find it very difficult to come to a decision on the Vote; but, no doubt, the difficulty might be greatly removed by the explanation that would be made by the Prime Minister in a short time. He thought what the Prime Minister had suggested was very reasonable—that they should wait until then in order to see whether they should be able to go on, or whether they should have to postpone the discussion. He was anxious in no way to impede the Public Service, and if it should be found possible to proceed at once, he should not desire to offer any impediment. But it was the duty of the House to consider the statement that would be made, and in the very grave circumstances in which they were placed, they ought not to be hurried if they had any reasonable ground to ask for a postponement. The Government, he understood, would first move the Vote of Credit, and would then ask for the number of men named. Perhaps the Government would be able to tell the House at what time they intended to move the remaining Estimates, as there might be various stages at which the conduct of the Government might, if necessary, be challenged. He would also wish to know what was the course the Government contemplated with respect to procedure on Public Business? He hoped the Government would tell the House whether they still adhered to the intention of having an Autumn Session, and whether the Resolution they were asked to adopt would apply to it.
    MR. GLADSTONE: There are three questions which have been put to me. Regarding the course of procedure tonight, I will state that distinctly when I rise to call the attention of the House to the Vote of Credit. It is quite understood, after my statement, that Gentlemen will consider for themselves whether, under the circumstances, it is

    1551
    or is not desirable to ask for an adjournment of the debate before proceeding to the Vote. The question remains open to both sides. The right hon. Gentleman also put to me two other Questions. He noticed—and justly noticed—that this Motion, as it stands, has been drawn in the usual form, and that it would cover the period during which we may be engaged in winding up the ordinary Business of the Session, and also cover what has been called the Autumn Sitting. The fact is, that according to our views that will make no practical difference. I thought I had explained two things—that it was our intention during this Sitting to ask that Procedure would take precedence whenever set down; and, second, that I had bound the Government—of course, setting apart cases of necessity—to put down nothing but Procedure. However, it is not necessary to raise that question now, as I will amend the Motion so as to provide that it shall only apply to the close of the month of August. With regard to the Bills which are to have precedence, I am not aware that anything remains to be discussed or explained by me. It is well understood that all our important Bills projected in the Queen's Speech have, generally speaking, been dropped. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are always a number of Bills relating partly to matters of form and partly to matters of very small consequence, which invariably make a formidable appearance towards the close of the Session. I am not aware of any question on which there is serious difference of opinion as to which the intentions of the Government have not been fully declared. [An hon. MEMBER: The Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill.] It is understood that we mean to go on with the Corrupt Practices Bill, if we can, and the question of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill is regarded as a bye question belonging to Scotland, which has been taken very much into their own hands, with the general assent of the House, by the Scottish Members. There is also the Bill relating to Scottish Entails, which, as far as I am aware, is a Bill that need not occupy many minutes of the time of the House. I believe there is a very general concurrence amongst Scottish Members with respect to the provisions
    1552
    of that Bill. I know not what Bill there is of a serious character. [An hon. MEMBER: The Ballot Act.] With regard to the Ballot Act, undoubtedly we cannot raise any contested question. We must be contented with putting it into the Continuance Bill in case of necessity. [An hon. MEMBER: The Disenfranchisement Bill.] I thought it had been declared that the Government felt compelled to abandon that Bill for the present Session. The regular course would be to discharge the Order. The Government do not intend to legislate nor to assent to Motions for Writs. Last year a short Bill of suspension was brought forward, and a similar Bill will be taken again this Session.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the Police Superannuation Bill and the Government Annuities and Assurance Bill?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the Government did not at present propose that there should be a Saturday Sitting for the Police Bill. They would delay deciding what course should be followed with regard to that Bill until they could gauge the amount of opposition which would be shown to the measure. The Bill was looked for with great anxiety by the police throughout England, and it would be a great grievance from their point of view if it were to miscarry. He therefore trusted that Gentlemen who were opposed to the Bill would not exhibit such opposition as would prevent the discussion of the measure.
    MR. MACFARLANEasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would consent to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of the crofters in Skye and the Western Islands of Scotland? There was a Notice of Motion upon this subject standing in his name upon the Paper, but he was afraid it would be inevitably shelved. He, therefore, appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to grant the request which it contained.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, that with reference to the Annuities Bill, he might remind the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) that the measure did little more than carry out the recommendations of the Friendly Societies Commission of 1875, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition

    1553
    was Chairman and the right hon. Baronet himself was a Member. He feared, however, that it would be useless at this period of the Session to attempt to pass the Bill in its present form. The only provision to which serious objection was made was that by which the maximum limit of insurances and annuities would be raised to £200. He was now prepared to move that the maximum limit should remain at its present point, and that the limit of annuities should also be £100. In view of this concession, he hoped but little opposition would be shown to the Bill.
    MR. ONSLOWcalled the attention of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who had charge of the Ballot Act Continuance Bill, to the fact that the Bill contained a great deal of contentious matter, and he did not think it would be got rid of in a short time. As to the Municipal (Unreformed) Corporations Bill, there were eight Notices of opposition to it, and it contained a great deal of contentious matter. He asked whether it was proposed to drop the Bill?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he must with great regret drop the Municipal Corporations (Unreformed) Bill. The vast majority of the places named in the measure were very desirous that it should become law, and the opposition to it came from a very small number of Members. The Ballot Act would be continued in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEthought that it might be fairly urged that the Corrupt Practices Bill, which imposed great changes in Constitutional Government, ought not to be considered at the fag-end of a Session. He hoped, at any rate, that the House would be told on what day they would be likely to have a chance of proceeding with it.
    MR. BLAKE, as one of those affected by the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, requested to be allowed shortly to state his grievance. For three months he had been balloting for a good place in order to bring forward a Motion respecting the condition of the Ryots of India. He had at last secured, as he thought, a certain place for to-morrow, as his name stood first on the list; but on the eve of the day on which he hoped to proceed with the Motion he had undertaken, the Prime Minister made a
    1554
    proposal which would, in all probability, shut him out for the rest of the Session. He ventured to think that his Motion was even of greater importance than the one the right hon. Gentleman proposed bringing forward. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might ridicule the idea; but he differed with them, and perhaps the day would come when they would agree with him. His Motion was—
    "To call attention to the miserable condition of the peasantry of India generally, and particularly those of Oudh and Behar; and to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire and report as to the means that ought to he adopted to ameliorate their condition."
    The subject dealt with the condition of fully 100,000,000 of their fellow-subjects. In Oudh and Behar alone there were 30,000,000; but as he was not confining himself to these Provinces, but would refer to the grievances of the peasantry in many of the parts of the Indian Empire, he was rather below the mark when he stated that the story of wrong, oppression, and suffering which he would relate to the House, when an opportunity should be afforded him, would extend to over 100,000,000 of people. They did not, it was true, all suffer equally; but there were 50,000,000, at least, in a wretched condition, and 50,000,000 more, who endured oppression and hardship in a lesser degree.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member for the County Waterford should confine himself to the subject involved in the Motion then before the House, and not take advantage of it to make a statement concerning the condition of the people of India.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, he did not then intend to deal with the entire Indian Question; he should select a more favourable time and place for that; but he contended that he had a right to state a small portion of it, at least by way of comparison with the one which the Premier proposed to substitute for it, in order to prove that the House ought to give a preference to a discussion on the condition of the peasantry of India. ["No, no!"] They were quite welcome to hold that opinion, mistaken even though it was. If he only got the chance, he thought he would convert them to an opposite view. He was prepared to show that there were bad laws in India, against which the

    1555
    people had strong reason to complain, and that many of the good laws were a dead letter. In many places, especially in Oudh and Behar, millions of the cultivators of the soil were ground under cruel exactions, and often grossly ill-treated, at the hands of their landlords, whatever their denomination might be—Talukdars or Zemindars. Notwithstanding all the boasted progress of India in commerce, railways, telegraphs; in the founding of colleges and other institutions; the building of Courts of Justice, and the appointment of a legion of officials for their administration, the condition of the great mass of the people was deplorable in every respect. Millions of them would welcome back their old Native rule to-morrow, bad as it was, in several respects. It was a terrible risk for England to allow so many of her subjects to have just causes of complaint, for if they remained unredressed they would seriously endanger the safety of their great Empire in the East. [Murmurs of dissent.]
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he should again remind the hon. Member that he could not then raise a discussion on the affairs of India.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, he had not the least idea of doing so. He only desired to show the Prime Minister and the House that the subject he wanted to bring forward was of sufficient importance not to be relegated to next Session. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have a very inadequate idea of the state of things calling loudly for redress and reform in India. On Thursday last, when he (Mr. Gladstone) announced his intention of absorbing, for the remainder of the Session, the private days of Members, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) asked him whether, considering its importance, he would not allow the Motion on India to be proceeded with to-morrow? The reply was, perhaps, the most astonishing that ever came from a Prime Minister—
    "He did not think the Motion afforded a sufficient reason for departing from a proceeding called for by the general convenience of Public Business; but his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India would be happy to give his best attention to any statements with which he might be favoured by the hon. Member (Mr. Blake) or his Friends."
    That seemed, indeed, a strange way to propose dealing with an important subject. What would be thought if an
    1556
    Irish Member proposed bringing forward some very important question relative to Ireland, and that the Prime Minister told him to have a private interview with the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in order to settle the matter? He (Mr. Blake) believed that the Secretary of State for India was anxious to ameliorate the condition of the people there. When lately in India he had become aware of his desire to do what was right in certain directions; but, granting him this disposition, there was much he could not accomplish without having the opinion of Parliament to back him; and how could the House of Commons be expected to pronounce until it had the facts laid before it. It had been his (Mr. Blake's) intention to rest mainly for the proofs of his case on the Reports of Commissions or the statements of officials who had the courage and humanity to make public the wrongs and sufferings of the people, as they came under their notice. Although he had been over nearly the entire of India, he had not intended to intrude much of his personal experiences on the House, except so far as they went to corroborate what he would state on higher authority. He could assure the House that he had seen enough while in India to convince him that strong and speedy measures were required to set things right as regarded the relations between the landed proprietors and the cultivators. The latter, nearly everywhere, could not be in a much worse condition; whilst the former lived, for the most part, idle, worthless, luxurious, and often profligate lives, on the money mercilessly extorted from their unfortunate tenants, frequently by the most cruel means. In common with many others, he had road the eloquent and heartrending accounts which the Premier had given to the world, both by pen and tongue, of the sufferings of the Neapolitans under the Bourbons, and the Bulgarians under the Turks; and he honoured him for the sympathy he had displayed for these victims of tyranny and misgovernment. But there were other people more closely allied to England, and whose woes it was very much in the power of the Prime Minister to alleviate, who merited his efforts and appeals quite as much. There were many millions of Her Majesty's Indian subjects who had as just complaints against the way they were governed as ever Neapolitan had against

    1557
    a Bourbon, or Bulgarian against the Sublime Porte. In conclusion, he earnestly asked the Prime Minister, in the interests of humanity, and especially of the unfortunate people on whose behalf he felt he had but very feebly pleaded, to grant him a day before the end of the Session, if he was resolved on depriving him of the one to-morrow, which he had so hardly earned, in order that he might lay their sad case before Parliament, and ask it to grant an inquiry, either by a Select Committee or a Commission. As the right hon. Gentleman could carry anything he chose, it was, of course, quite useless to oppose the Motion then before the House, if he was resolved on persevering with it. The Prime Minister and the House might rely that there never was a case where humanity, duty, and policy more imperatively demanded a thorough inquiry, with a view of mitigating the sufferings and redressing the wrongs of the gentle, enduring race whose unhappy lot, when he was amongst them, had so filled him with compassion that he had resolved to do what lay in his humble power to make their deplorable condition known to Parliament.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, before the Prime Minister replied he would like to make a further appeal to him with respect particularly to the two Bills he had previously mentioned—namely, the Police Bill and the Government Annuities Bill. The Home Secretary replied to him a few moments ago in a very menacing tone. The right hon. Gentleman said the Police Bill was one which was generally acceptable to the House, and he menaced him (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) for the opposition which he proposed to give to the measure. If there ever was a Bill calculated at once to diminish local control, and to increase the burdens of the ratepayers, this was that Bill, and he was confident it would receive very great opposition throughout the House. As to the Government Annuities Bill, he must disclaim the responsibility which the Postmaster General desired to place upon him; but he could show, if necessary, that the recommendations of the Royal Commission to which the right hon. Gentleman referred were quite different from, those embodied in the Bill. What he wished the Prime Minister to consider was this, that when last Session the Government were given the two days for which they
    1558
    now asked, they had reached the 2nd or 3rd of August, and this followed, that no Business which provoked any opposition was subsequently considered, except the Amendments to the Land Act, which came down from "another place." Last year, when this Motion was made, the House was more forward with Supply, and they had not before them a lengthened discussion on Foreign Affairs; yet it was found to be practically impossible to proceed with anything else but the business of Supply. He might fairly ask the Prime Minister whether he considered that the Corrupt Practices Bill and the two measures to which he had already referred could really receive adequate consideration if the House was to adjourn about the time stated. If these measures were pressed, they would be considered in a way which would reflect no credit upon the House.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he would be very sorry to oppose this Motion, which, under the circumstances, was, no doubt, more or less necessary; but, if the House did assent to it, they ought to do so on the distinct understanding that no other Business except that which was absolutely necessary would be taken. Considering the present state of Supply, and having regard to the long debate upon Egyptian Affairs, it was manifestly impossible that a measure like the Corrupt Practices Bill could receive this Session the attention it deserved.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he was greatly disappointed at not having been able to bring on his Motion in reference to the Income Tax, and wished to know whether the sum of money required for war purposes in Egypt would be raised by an addition to the Income Tax; and whether, if the House met in the autumn, private Members would have their usual privilege of bringing on discussions and Motions on Tuesdays and Wednesdays?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked what course the Government propose to take with respect to the Electric Lighting Bill, which was put down for the third reading on Saturday last; but the consideration of which was postponed in favour of a small Irish Bill.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Member for the County Waterford (Mr. Blake) had done him the honour to say that anything he proposed was quite certain to be carried. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, he need only point to

    1559
    a Motion which he made with great I earnestness and seriousness three weeks ago, and which was entirely defeated. He was sorry hon. Gentlemen who had Motions on the Paper should lose the opportunity of bringing them forward; but, having regard to the general state of Business, he could not find any expedient which would enable those Gentlemen to give utterance to their views. It was impossible that he could distinguish between the varying importance of the Motions of hon. Gentlemen. With respect to Bills, the Question just put by his hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) was an illustration of the difficulty in which the Government stood. If he were to say absolutely that no Bill which was opposed should go forward, so far as the Government were concerned, he would offer a distinct premium to any individual Member to oppose a Bill he did not wish to proceed. There was the case of the Electric Lighting Bill, which, he believed, did not receive a third reading on Saturday through a mere accident. The Bill was almost beyond the risk of serious opposition, but still it was in the Orders. The pledge he had given to the House was that the Government would press no Bill to which there was any serious or extended opposition, and if there was any exception to that, it was the Corrupt Practices Bill, because he believed it to be a very general desire of the House that the Bill should pass. It was simply with a view of winding up the Business by about the middle of August that this proposal was made to the House, and in a very short time it must become plain whether they would be able to go forward even with the Corrupt Practices Bill. In case there was developed any serious and extended opposition to that Bill the Government would not go forward with it. What they wished to do now was to close at once the matters relating to the Egyptian Question and the Tax Bill of the year, then to go steadily forward some days with Supply, and in a very short time it would be perfectly obvious whether they could or could not fulfil the wishes the House generally entertained with regard to the Corrupt Practices Bill, which was the only important Bill remaining to be dealt with. He would ask leave to withdraw his Motion, in order to re-propose it in the form suggested by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote).
    1560
    The Motion would then apply to the end of August only.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, until the end of August, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions on Tuesday, and that Government Orders have priority; and that Government Orders have priority on Wednesday."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYcomplained, that by the proposal of the Prime Minister he would lose an opportunity of bringing forward a Motion he had on the Paper with regard to the condition of the Irish agricultural labourers. He had hitherto been prevented from bringing the matter on owing to the course taken by the Government; and the condition of the labourers, in view of the coming winter, was something terrible.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR(who spoke amid cries of "Divide!") said, that hon. Members opposite seemed to think that it was only necessary for the Prime Minister to express his will, and it immediately became incumbent on all to bow and accept whatever was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. There never was a Session so entirely surrendered to the Government as this Session, and there never had been a Session when such a mess of confusion had been made of the Business of the House. He thought it would be well to consider the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman before assenting to it, because there were several important questions which must come before the House before the Session closed, and for the discussion of which the Government were bound to find an opportunity. Personally, he objected to the Motion altogether, and he wished to point out how much time had been wasted at the instance of the Prime Minister himself in taking up the Procedure Resolutions and the House of Lords' Committee on the Irish Land Act. In his (Mr. Arthur O'Connor's) opinion, time ought to be given for the discussion of the Vote of Censure on the Chairman of Committees, and also for Local Option, and the Army and Navy and Civil Service Estimates whenever they came before the House; but what guarantee had they that they were to have proper discussion in the future? It was high time that the House took this matter out of the hands of the Government. In Ireland they

    1561
    had suspended Constitutional liberty, and in that House they had mismanaged everything. He, for one, did not believe in an Autumn Session, though it would depend entirely upon the caprice of the Prime Minister. He should feel it his duty to oppose the Motion before the House.

PARLIAMENT—RULES OF DEBATE— UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE— MR. O'DONNELL.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he could fully understand the anxiety with which the House awaited the next exposition of the Liberal Estimates of a War Expenditure. The experience of the House went to show that Liberal Expenditure bounded up at the rate of £1,000,000 every two hours, and, therefore, the House was necessarily anxious to know what might be the wants of the Government at this hour. He was quite sure, if the full truth were known, that the typical £6,000,000 had been already exceeded. He rose for the purpose of replying to the remarks of the Prime Minister—that he could not draw any distinction in favour of the appeal of his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Waterford (Mr. Blake). He thought there was a strong reason for drawing a distinction between his appeal and that of others. The Secretary of State for India had given Notice that he would to-morrow move to burthen the revenues of the unrepresented people of India with large sums towards the expenditure of the war which now seemed the necessary consequence of the piratical bombardment of Alexandria. [Cries of "Oh!"] Surely that ought not to be done without some opportunity being given for examining into the grievances from which the people of India suffered. There was a special reason why the grievances of the people of India should not go unattended to—because it was seething with discontent at this moment. Everyone knew that in the mosques prayers were being offered up to Allah for the success of the enemies of England. During the last 10 years the Mohammedan population of India had increased from 40,000,000 to 45,000,000.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not confining himself to the Motion before the House. I must call upon him to confine himself to the Question which is now before the House.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would readily accept the ruling of the Chair. He was bringing forward an argument why the House should redress the grievances of the people of India—[Cries of "Question !"]—and why they should not accede to the Prime Minister's Motion. To his mind nothing could be more appropriate to the Question. He asked that the House should take into its own hands the consideration of Indian subjects. ["Order!"] The complaint he had raised was not only made by an Irish Member, but one of the most important, most liberal, and most thoroughly English of the newspapers of India declared—[Cries of "Question!" and "Order!"]—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now anticipating the discussion of a Motion of which Notice has actually been given by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India. The hon. Member must confine himself strictly to the Question before the House.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had not the slightest intention of anticipating that discussion. He presumed that the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen had prevented the Speaker from hearing the words he used. He confessed it was singularly embarrassing to a Member of that House to find that not only what he was stating should be objected to, but what he was about to say should be predicted for him by the presiding Authority and then decided upon—[Loud cries of "Order!" "Name!"].
Mr. HEALYwas about to speak, when Mr. GLADSTONE rose.
MR. HEALYsaid, he understood the Speaker had called upon him.
MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman rises to a point of Order.
MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to Order—to take notice of the closing words of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. HEALY: I rise to a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. [Cries of "Order!"]
MR. GLADSTONE: The words appear to me to be totally destructive of all authority. I move that those words be taken down. The hon. Gentleman stated that the Chair had made a prediction of the words he was about to speak, and had condemned those words. ["No, no!"] I move, Sir, that those words be taken down.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Before you put the Question, Sir—["Order!"]—I rise to Order—
MR. SPEAKER: It appears to me to be the general sense of the House that the words adverted to be taken down, and I have directed the Clerk at the Table to take them down.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to know whether it is competent for the right hon. Gentleman to make that Motion after some interval of time has elapsed between the observation being made? You, Sir, after an interval of time, called upon the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and he had already begun to address the House. [Cries of "No, no!"]
MR. HEALY: I wish to raise a point of Order. It has been decided in Committee that if a Member of the House—even the Prime Minister—rises to a point of Order while a Member is speaking, and after the Member to whose words the point of Order refers has concluded his speech, he cannot be heard. That has been decided by the Chairman of Committees. The Prime Minister did not rise until after the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had finished his speech—the right hon. Gentleman waited until he had consulted with the bellicose Home Secretary. [Loud cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]
MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to say that I did not catch the concluding words of the speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). When he sat down the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) rose, and then immediately the right hon. Gentleman rose. I concluded that the right hon. Gentleman desired to address the House on a point of Order; and thereupon I called upon the right hon. Gentleman. The proceedings are perfectly regular.
MR. BIGGAR: I beg leave, Sir, to rise to another point of Order. [Cries of "Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: The words as taken down are as follows:—
"The Chair had made a prediction of the words he was about to speak, and then decided upon them." ["No, no!"]
MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to move, Sir—if this is the regular course—that these words be taken into consideration to-morrow.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That those words be taken into Con-
1564
sideration To-morrow."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, "That those words be taken into consideration to-morrow."
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask you, Sir, as a matter of Order, whether the words to be taken down are to be the exact words used by the hon. Member, and not the interpretation put upon those words by the Prime Minister or any other Member of the House? The words attributed to my hon. Friend by the Prime Minister appear to me to be a distortion of the actual words used, and to have no resemblance to the words of my hon. Friend. That being so, I ask you, Sir, to decide whether this Motion which has been made by the Prime Minister, is a Motion that can be submitted to the judgment of this House? [Cries of "Order!"] I respectfully ask you this question, Sir, whether the words which are said to have been used by an hon. Member, and which, on the Motion of the Prime Minister, were taken down, must be the exact words used by the hon. Member? If that be so, as the words quoted by the Prime Minister are not the words used by my hon. Friend, I wish to ask you whether the Motion can be put from the Chair?
MR. SPEAKER: It is for the House to say whether those are the exact words or not.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I know they were not.
Mr. HEALY and Sir WILFRID LAWSONrising together—
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I think the House will agree with me—
MR. SPEAKER: I call upon the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy).
MR. HEALY: Sir, I observed that when the Prime Minister made his Motion there was a departure from the usual practice, which has hitherto been that the Question should be put, "That the words be taken down." The Prime Minister has simply moved that the words be taken down, and the Question was not put to the House in the usual way. This appears to me an extraordinary state of things. Does it arise out of the New Rules which we shall be discussing, I presume, at the Autumn Session? If a Motion is made that certain words be taken down, is that to be

1565
carried into effect without more ado, and without the House saying "Aye" or "Nay" on the Question being put from the Chair? Does the Prime Minister incorporate in himself the functions of the Chair? Can the Prime Minister arrogate to himself duties which do not belong to him?
MR. SPEAKER: I wish to put the hon. Member right on that point. When a Motion is made that words be taken down, it rests with the Chair to collect the sense of the House whether the words should be taken down. I so collected the sense of the House, and had the words taken down. This proceeding is quite according to the usual practice, and there has been no departure from the usual course.
MR. CHAPLIN: I rise to Order.
MR. HEALY: I suppose it is no departure from the usual course that a man may be allowed to continue his speech. I wish to ask you, Sir, then, by what process that collection takes place? ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to think that the presiding Officer of this House is outside the range of argument. I do not think so. I presume it is open to an hon. Member to question the Speaker and to argue with him. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite state their opinion. I state mine. When a Motion was made to take down some words of my own this week, the Question was put from the Chair, "Is it your pleasure?" and a shout of "Ayes" and "Noes" took place. Well, such an unholy din was being made in the House at the time when my hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) concluded his speech that I am utterly at a loss to know—no Question having been put, and it being possible to interpret the various noises heard by hon. Members in any way you please—in what way the sense of the House could be arrived at. Upon the Question that the words of the hon. Member for Dungarvan be considered to-morrow, I wish to know whether the Main Question before the House is not that all future Business shall be postponed till the end of August? How, then, can a Motion be interpolated that words used by an hon. Member shall be considered to-morrow? I wish to know whether any hon. Member can move that the Prime Minister's words be taken down, and then interrupt
1566
the proceedings of the House by moving that those words should be considered to-morrow? There ought to be such a thing as regularity, even in the present extraordinary proceedings. The Prime Minister has stated what the words used by my hon. Friend were—
MR. GLADSTONE: I did not state the exact words. I gave the best account of them I could.
MR. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman says he gave the best account of the words he could; but I am bound to say it was a very bad account. We had the garbled account of the Prime Minister—["Order, order!" "Withdraw!"] I suppose that by-and-bye it will not be allowable to say a word about the Prime Minister. I presume he will become as sacred as Vishnu. I did not use the word "garbled" in a sinister sense; but certainly the words the right hon. Gentleman used were "garbled." Then the Clerk at the Table was directed to take down words which had not reached the Speaker's ears, and which, owing to the din which prevailed, he (the Clerk) could not have heard—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make such observations, and I call upon him to withdraw those words.
MR. HEALY: I withdraw the expression, Sir, that the Clerk at the Table did not hear the words. I presume you must have some knowledge of the fact that he did hear the words. At all events, the words read out from the Table gave me the impression that he could not have heard them—because they were not the words I heard. We have, therefore, got into nice questions in what I may call auricular science. We hear hon. Gentlemen sitting next the hon. Member for Dungarvan giving one account of the words he used, the Clerk at the Table giving another, and the Prime Minister stating that he gave them to the best of his ability. I would suggest that a telephone or phonograph should be used in this House. Well, the Question is, that these words be taken into consideration to-morrow, and I am disputing the advisability of so taking them into consideration, and am showing that the Prime Minister, who is only half the distance from my hon. Friend that the Clerk at the Table is, did not hear the words with sufficient accuracy to give an exact account of

1567
them; whilst hon. Members are prepared to give it as their emphatic knowledge that the words taken down are not the words used. As far as I am able to judge, the words of my hon. Friend certainly do not merit the importance which the Prime Minister has attached to them; and instead of being taken into consideration to-morrow, it appears to me very desirable that the question should be postponed until the Autumn Session—["Oh, oh!"]—well, that is my opinion—and I think we shall then be more likely to have the opportunity of taking them into consideration than we shall to-morrow. If it does come on to-morrow it will interrupt the course of Business, and the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) will not have the opportunity of making his important statement, to which hon. Members are looking forward with some impatience. My objections, then, are these—first, the difficulty of hearing the words in question; secondly, their relative unimportance; and, thirdly, the interruption to Business which is likely to follow. The words imputed nothing derogatory in any sense to the Chair—they imputed to the Chair the spirit of prophecy, and in old times such a spirit was considered a qualification of exceeding excellence. It appears, however, from the statement of the Prime Minister, that if, in addition to the ordinary qualifications, hon. Members attribute to the Chair the spirit of prophecy, that is to be considered an imputation on the Chair. ["Oh, oh!"] My opinion is that it is not derogatory to the high conscientiousness of the Chair—
MR. LYULPH STANLEY: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Member for Wexford, under the pretence of defending—[Cries of "Oh!" and "Withdraw!"]—the hon. Member for Dungarvan, is not absolutely repeating in substance the imputation on the Chair?
MR. HEALY: I rise to move that the words of the hon. Member for Oldham be taken down. [Cries of "Name, Name!"]
MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for Wexford to confine himself to the Question before the House.
MR. HEALY: I submit that the hon. Member for Oldham imputes to me a pretence. I altogether disclaim that. If, however, it be the general sense of the
1568
House that the hon. Member is not out of Order, I will proceed. I fail to understand the interpretation of the hon. Member for Oldham, who always distinguishes himself in this House by calling out "Question!" and "Order!" [Cries of "Question!" and "Name, name!"]
MR. SPEAKER: I must caution the hon. Member—for the forbearance of this House has its limits—and I must distinctly call upon the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Question before the House.
MR. HEALY: That is exactly what I will do, Sir. As I understand the Question before the House, it is that the words used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan should be taken into consideration to-morrow; and that being so, I am stating that the words are not of sufficient importance either to be taken into consideration to-morrow or at any other time. In my view, the words of the hon. Member did not impute to the Chair the slightest disrespect—["Oh, oh!"]—and I add, further, that you, Sir, were unable, owing to the interruptions which occurred—["No, no!"]—to follow my hon. Friend in his argument. This House has many more important things to consider besides the words of my hon. Friend, whose remarks in this case have not the importance gone-rally attached to them. It is to be deprecated that the Prime Minister should constantly be in the habit of bringing in these small matters, and of interrupting the proceedings of the House by diverting its attention to personal issues. It is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has done so, and I think it too much to ask 500 or 600 Gentlemen to come down here to take into consideration, not the words of an hon. Member, but an erroneous account of some chance words used in debate, and in the heat of the moment.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he rose to express a hope, which he believed was shared by the great body of the House, that some means might be found of terminating a scene which was hardly creditable to that Assembly. They were assembled for the purpose of transacting very important Business. Not only the House, but the country, was expecting most important statements; and yet they had been, for he was afraid to say how long, engaged in a wrangle of

1569
a character which could not but lower the House in the eyes of the country, and, he might almost say, in the eyes of the civilized world. He understood the position of the ease to be this. The hon. Member for Dungarvan made use of some words which were objected to as reflecting on the conduct of the Chair. The Prime Minister moved that these words should be taken down, and they were taken down. [Cries of "No!"] At all events, some words were taken down, the precise accuracy of which was disputed by hon. Members who sat in that part of the House—and he was bound to say that he did not hear the words precisely as they were taken down, although the expression was to the same effect. A Motion was then made by the Prime Minister that the words should be considered to-morrow. This was a wise provision, which the House had always observed, in order to avoid as far as possible the heat of the moment; and it would be perfectly competent for the hon. Member for Dungarvan to explain or to qualify the words when the question of their consideration came on. But no good could result from the course now being pursued. They were now creating difficulties for themselves, that could only end in some unpleasant result; and he would earnestly request hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to divide, if they liked, against the Question of the words being taken into consideration—that was their affair—but, at all events, he hoped the House would be allowed to go on with the important Business before it.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he desired to make a suggestion in consequence of what the right hon. Gentleman had said. The defence of the Member for Dungarvan, as far as he understood it, was that the words were not intentionally insulting to the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman were to get up and say that he did not intend to insult the Chair, probably the Prime Minister would not press his Motion.
MR. CHAPLINwished, on a point of Order, to ask whether the words which had been taken down might not be again read from the Chair? There was considerable interruption at the time, and he could not hear all the words which were read by the Clerk at the Table; but that part which he did hear certainly did not tally with the words actually used by
1570
the hon. Member for Dungarvan. Nobody could be more anxious than he himself was to support the authority of the Chair; but he feared that in the noise and confusion which prevailed some injustice might have been done, and he hoped the words might be read again by the Clerk at the Table. Then, perhaps, the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle might be adopted.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the practice in these matters was laid down in Hatsell's Precedents, a book of great authority. An incident very like the present one was therein recorded. On a particular occasion Sir George Hungerford made use of certain words, and a cry was raised of "Write them down," several Members repeating the words, and all differently. Afterwards a Member asked the Clerk to read the words he had written down, and Sir George Hungerford then made some apology. He ventured to say that that was a very good precedent for the present case. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) said that the words used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) were not intended to be insulting to the Chair. The impression of the great body of the House was that they were intended as an insult to the Chair. They understood that the hon. Member for Dungarvan, after having been called to Order by the Chair, and directed to address himself more closely to the Question, instead of doing what any other Member of the House would be disposed to do and bowing to the ruling of the Chair, proceeded to attack that ruling, and to state that the Speaker had not only condemned that which he (Mr. O'Donnell) had said, but had predicted what he was going to say, and having so predicted had condemned it. ["No, no!"] Whether those were the exact words, that was the substance of what the House under stood the hon. Member for Dungarvan to say. It was quite true, as the hon. Member for Wexford had remarked, that the House had very important and most momentous Business before it, which it could not transact. They could not transact important Business if Members were to be permitted to insult the Chair. The very first condition for the transaction of Public Business was that there should be regularity, and that the authority of the Chair

1571
should be supported. Either the hon. Member for Dungarvan had intended to challenge the authority of the Chair—in which case it was plain that the House must support the Chair; or he did not intend to do so:—and if he got up and said that it was not his intention to do so, the House would be very willing to accept such explanation and apology.
MR. SPEAKER: As I have been asked by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) to read the words I will do so; they are to this effect:—"That the Chair had made a prediction of the words he was about to speak, and then decided upon them."
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether it would not be proper that the hon. Member for Dungarvan should be called upon to declare whether the words as taken down by the Clerk were accurately reported to the House?
MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he was sitting immediately opposite to the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and paid great attention to his speech, and immediately after the utterance of the words in question wrote them down as follows:—
"It was very embarrassing to a Member when, not only were his words prevented reaching the Chair, but they were predicted for him before they were uttered by the presiding Authority."
MR. O'DONNELL(who rose after repeated calls from the Ministerial Benches): Sir, as I have not been asked by the presiding Authority, since these charges were made against me, as to my version of the words I used, I wish only to say at the present moment that in anything I did say I had not the slightest intention of any insult against the Chair. I did intend—and I dare say when my words are read to-morrow it will be seen that I intended—to convey a very decided and strong protest against the disorderly and habitual interruptions which prevented my words reaching the Chair.
MR. GLADSTONE: I think, Sir, that although the different versions of these words vary materially, so far as the words are concerned, they are completely coincident as regards the sense. From the statement last made it appears that the Speaker, having called a Member of the House to Order, was told by that Member that he had predicted what that Member was going to say—["No!"] I may be quite wrong; but I understood that there was a distinct statement that the Chair had condemned words which
1572
had not been uttered. I cannot conceive a more distinct slight or offence conveyed to the Chair. Sir, the hon. Gentleman has just informed the House that he did not intend any offence to the Chair. It is not my desire to interfere for the purpose of pressing a division in the circumstances in which we stand; but I venture to express a hope that, whether intended or not intended as an insult to the Chair, no such words will ever be used again in this House.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The following is the Entry in Votes:—
[Mr. O'DONNELL, Member for Dungarvan, having in course of Debate stated "That the Chair had made a prediction of the words he was about to speak, and then decided upon them:"—
Mr. SPEAKER directed the Clerk to take down those words, and the same were taken down accordingly.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That those words be taken into Consideration To-morrow."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
And Mr. O'DONNELL having explained the words to which exception had been taken:—Motion, by leave, withdrawn.]

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— ORDERS OF THE DAY.
Question again proposed,
"That, until the end of August, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions on Tuesday, and that Government Orders have priority; and that Government Orders have priority on Wednesday."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
MR. HEALYsaid, that he was in possession of the House when the Prime Minister, a short time ago, rose and interrupted the proceedings, and prevented him concluding his protest against the taking away of private Members' days. In view of the uncalled-for attacks on the Land Act in "another place," and of the Motion of which Lord Brabourne had given Notice, in view, also, of the questions asked in this House in the landed interest, with the object of putting forward opinions hostile to the Land Act, he wished to know from the Government whether an opportunity would be altogether denied the Irish Members of stating the tenants' view of the Land Act? The territorialists possessed great power in that House, and uncontrolled power in "another place;" and the effect of taking away private Members' days, and giving no oppor-

1573
tunity to hon. Gentlemen representing the tenants of counteracting these attacks, would be that the Land Commissioners would be intimidated into making their decisions, not in accordance with the evidence, but in accordance with the opinions put forward in Parliament by certain distinguished persons. They were told that respect for the law ought to prevail in Ireland, yet hon. Gentlemen representing the landlords were allowed to speak of the Sub-Commissioners in that House as "confiscators." If hon. Gentlemen representing tenants were given the opportunity they would be able to show that the Sub-Commissioners did not deserve the names given them by the landlord party. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name, Name!"]
MR. SPEAKER: It must be quite plain to the hon. Member that he cannot, upon a Motion like this, challenge the conduct of the Land Commissioners.
MR. HEALY: I think I may say, without venturing to dispute your authority, that I was doing nothing of the kind. [Cries of "Name!"]
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will not pay attention to my direction I shall have no alternative but to adopt a decided course.
MR. HEALYdesired to repeat, with all respect, that he was doing nothing of the kind. [Cries of "Name!"] He was only pointing out what the effect would be if the Land Commission could be assailed as it had been, and private Members were deprived of the opportunity of vindicating it. If their time were annexed by the Government they would be compelled to take up time intended for Committee of Supply.
MR. T. COLLINSsaid, the Corrupt Practices Bill contained a great deal of good matter, and it would require a considerable time to discuss it. With 150 Votes in Supply to be taken, with debates on Egypt, and a great number of other matters to be disposed of, it was impossible that adequate time could be devoted in the next three weeks to the consideration of the Corrupt Practices Bill; and, therefore, he hoped it would not be persevered with.
MR. MACFARLANEgave Notice that he would call attention to the question as to which he had appealed to the Prime Minister on going into Committee of Supply.
Question put, and agreed to.

ORDER OF TEE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if it was for the convenience of the House that he should make his statement in Committee, he could only do so if hon. Members who had precedence with Motions on going into Supply were willing to waive their rights.
  Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—FORCES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN (VOTE OF CREDIT).

  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of submitting a Motion that a Vote of Credit be granted by this House for the sum required beyond the ordinary grants of Parliament towards defraying the expense that may be incurred during the year ending March 31st, 1883, in strengthening Her Majesty's Forces in the Mediterranean. I believe it has been already stated to the House that the Vote of Credit which we propose amounts to £2,300,000, and that it is divided between the Army and the Navy in the proportion of £1,400,000 to the Navy and £900,000 to the Army. But it is well to observe that of that £1,400,000 for the Navy by far the larger part, not very far from the whole, I think, or about £1,200,000, is for Army Service, and consists simply of the estimated amount that will be necessary to meet the charges incurred by the hire of transports to carry Her Majesty's troops from this country to the Mediterranean, and the point to which they may ultimately be destined. As regards the force which this Vote of Credit will enable us to send to the Mediterranean, I may state it roughly in these terms—Of Cavalry there will be 2,400; Infantry, 13,400; Horse and Field Artillery, 1,700; making in all 17,500; but, besides these, there will be garrison Artillery, Engineers, Commissariat Corps, Hospital Corps, and the like, amounting to 3,700 men; and there will be a reserve of about 3,100, to sail at a

  1575
  later date. Perhaps it may be convenient—for I have not to trouble the Committee with many details of fact—that I should at once mention to the Committee that we intend to move that a provision nearly equal to this sum, and ultimately exceeding it, be made by introducing a proper clause into the Tax Bill of the present year. The sum immediately to be met is, as I have stated, £2,300,000, and it is our intention to provide for it in the manner which has teen adopted on several occasions when the House has found cause to add to the burdens of the country at a time considerably after the commencement of the financial year—that is to say, by making an addition to the Income Tax, which will be charged upon the latter half of the year at double the rate at which it would apply for the whole year. In the present instance, we propose to make an addition of 3d. to the second half-year of the Income Tax of 1882–3, which would be equal to an addition of 1½d. for the tax of the whole year, making the tax of the whole year 6½d. The Committee is aware, of course, that not the whole of the Income Tax can be raised within the year under the present arrangements, greatly improved as they have been since the time when the present Income Tax was first proposed, and when scarcely half the tax, if half, was received in the financial year in and for which it was proposed. I ought to say that the sum intended to be the produce of the financial year of the imposition to which I have referred would be £2,262,000; but that sum is very moderately and safely estimated, and over and above that sum there will be between £500,000 and £600,000, which will not be received until after the present financial year. The Committee will, therefore, observe that the entire financial provision I ask Parliament to make will considerably exceed the charge we ask them to incur. With regard to the general state of the Revenue, I may say that I am not in a condition to submit any alteration of the Estimate to the Committee; but I am in a condition to say that some gain has been made upon the Estimates as far as our experience down to the present date is available, and in these circumstances I shall find myself able to make the grant promised for certain purposes in connection with highways, without asking the House to
  1576
  disturb the present law as to the tax upon carriages. An imposition of that kind, which must, of course, have some effect in disturbing trade, need not be made at a period when we are asking the House to make a much more considerable and a much more direct addition to the taxation of the country. Having stated so much simply for the sake of clearness, I now must go on to say that, in proposing the Vote of Credit to-night, we look, as the next stage of the proceedings, to bring down a Message from Her Majesty, declaring emergency to exist to-morrow, in order to form the foundation on which we should ask the House to make an addition to the present Vote of men which would be necessary in order to enable us to send a force to the Mediterranean such as I have recently described. In due time, in this series of measures, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India will also ask the House to give its consent to the action of Indian troops in conformity with the Act of Parliament, and then what will remain for us will be to ask the House to go into Committee on the Tax Bill for the purpose of making the pecuniary provision. That will be the series of steps we shall have to take in order to give effect to the resolution at which Her Majesty's Government have arrived. And now it is necessary to consider what is the state of things in Egypt which this provision is designed to meet. It is a state of things which we must describe, except in the City of Alexandria, as one of lawless military violence. And I am sorry to say that state of military violence is apparently aggravated by cruel and wanton crime. It is not for me to assume the ultimate state of the facts as they may appear when we have before us more full and detailed information; but we have before us certain facts which are as significant as they are happily rare in previous history and experience. That the fortifications of a town should be bombarded is of itself a very grave fact, sure to be attended with serious damage; but that that town itself should, not by the bombardment, but by the action, entirely apart from the bombardment, of those who are in positive possession of the reins of Government, and in the exercise of the powers of Government—that a conflagration should be brought into that town upon the re-

  1577
  tirement of an army which must have known itself perfectly able to hold the town—nay, must have known that for a time, at least, it could hold that town without risk of attack, and that, with that conflagration, there should be let loose on the town those who were to sack and pillage it—these, I say, are dreadful facts which, if they be made good, and we have no reason at present to doubt they are such as I have described—deserve the appellation of cruel and wanton crime. And now, Sir, we have advanced one step further. The Committee is probably aware that the great town of Alexandria is dependent for its supply of water upon the great work called the Mahmoudieh Canal. The water of that Canal is a matter of almost entire insignificance as far as Her Majesty's Forces are concerned. They are possessed of scientific means and machinery by which their wants can, as we are informed, be adequately and amply supplied. The measures, therefore, that have been taken—some say for contaminating it with salt water, but of that there is some uncertainty—but for cutting off the supply of water, are measures directed not against the comfort only, but also against the very lives of the mass of the population of Alexandria, whose offence can amount to nothing but this—that they are not offering an armed resistance to the forces of the English, and the authority of their lawful Ruler the Khedive. Until within the last few weeks, we looked on those who have established the reign of military violence in Egypt as misguided and ambitious men who had broken the law necessary to bind political society together. More grave charges now come up, and it will be for those who have hereafter to consider what course shall be taken to determine, upon careful investigation, whether we can or cannot pronounce to be mitigated the appearances, now too conclusive of barbarous and brutal conduct, directed to objects at variance with the first impulses of humanity. This being the case, as far as Alexandria is concerned, over the rest of Egypt, the same Military Party is acting in violent opposition to the authority of the lawful Ruler. I am not aware that any charge has ever been made against him. We have never learnt that he has in any way abused his trust so as to deserve to forfeit his
  1578
  position. We have not the smallest reason to believe that the popular feeling of Egypt is adverse to the continuance of his rule. What we know, so far as our knowledge goes, is that this same rule of violence is put in force, as far as the power of the Military Chiefs can do it, in every part of the country. The Governors in three out of five Provinces have been dismissed because they were not willing to become the tools of the Military Party. It is, in fact, a case in which we see established the essence of civil strife in its most intense and highest form—the lawful Ruler shut up in Alexandria, where he receives, we believe, the willing obedience of the people; but the bulk of the country, for the present in the possession of the Egyptian Army—that Army, whether a willing or unwilling instrument, directed by its ambitious commander for the purpose of achieving the ultimate fruits of rebellion, and apparently for the purpose of setting up some military dictator. It is not within a circle of associations like these that liberty can grow. There have been periods in this history at which it has been charitably believed, even in this country, that the Military Party was the popular Party, and was struggling for the liberties of Egypt. There is not the smallest rag or shred of evidence to support that contention. In truth, military violence and the régime established by military violence, are absolutely incompatible with the growth and the existence of freedom. The Reign of Cromwell was a great Reign; but it did nothing for English freedom, because it was the rule of military force, and it has not left on the Statute Book the record of such triumphs as were achieved by peaceful action under the, in many respects, base and infamous Reign which followed it—the Reign of Charles II. The Reign of Napoleon was a splendid Reign; but, being a reign founded on military power, it did nothing for freedom in France, but tended rather to increase the embarrassments which have continually clogged the succeeding history of a great and noble nation. But, if that be the state of the facts, the question may be asked—"What have we to do with it? Why do we not leave the strong to exercise the rule of strength until in the course of nature, from within the circle of the country itself, and by its own resources,

  1579
  a just retribution is inflicted?" Well, Sir, that is a question fair and right to answer, because, undoubtedly, the fact that you have great interests in a foreign country, and that those interests are seriously suffering in consequence of its civil war or its anarchy, does not of itself suffice to establish the theory of the right of a stranger to enter into that country by force and undertake to find a solution for its political difficulties. Let me, then, Sir, proceed to answer the question—"What have we to do with the solution of this great difficulty in Egypt?" The Egyptian Question, under its present conditions, lies entirely outside the general question of non-intervention. Circumstances have happened from the direct consequences of which we cannot escape, which we are bound to take into account, and which the present Government have found to be imperatively regulative of their conduct. The question, "What have we to do with the internal concerns of Egypt," if it were to be asked at all, ought to have been asked earlier. We admit that we have undertaken some of the most important functions of government in Egypt by international engagements; and it is not free to you with honour, after once entering into such relations, to say that you will regard those engagements as if they had never been contracted, and will fall back upon your own doctrine that non-intervention in the internal affairs of a foreign country is in general to be approved. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT made an observation which did not reach the Gallery.] I wish the hon. Gentleman would contain himself for one moment. It was some years ago that this question was really decided, and the groundwork was laid upon which the action now proposed is founded. It was not difficult to foresee that embarrassments and complications such as are now before us would probably arise from undertaking engagements such as wore formed in Egypt some years ago. I have no doubt that many foresaw them. It is in my own recollection—and I will venture to trouble the Committee by quoting myself—that I did not fail to deliver a warning on the subject. On the 6th of March, 1876, when it was proposed to send a Commissioner to Egypt for the sake of assuming some powers not very fully and clearly defined over Egyptian finances, I said—
  1580
  "I should, therefore, wish to know whether, if the proposition for the appointment of such a Commissioner he entertained, the right hon. gentleman means the appointment of a Commissioner who would really have such an effective control over all arrangements and the mode of accounting for these revenues that he could guarantee to us the receipt of the whole that it might he applied to the purpose in view? If this is what it does mean, it appears to me that we are only shifting the difficulty one step further; because in that case our Commissioner is to take into his hands the administration of a very important portion of the government of Egypt; so that the measures which we may think necessary as a matter of prudence to cover the proposal which we are to consider may entail upon us still greater difficulties and mix us up still further with a heavier responsibility for a portion of the internal government of Egypt. (Hear, hear.) When we have begun with one portion of the internal government of Egypt, we may pass on to another. We may come to occupy the entire ground by a series of degrees not difficult to contemplate."—[3 Hansard, ccxxvii., 1426.]
  Well, Sir, nothing was done at that period to bring about the realization of such anticipations. But, in the year 1879, decisions were taken which supply the real starting-point of the whole of the recent political Correspondence. In 1879 a change was effected in the Supreme Ruler—at least, in the legally Supreme Ruler—of the country at our instance, or nearly at our instance, and the present Ruler, Tewfik Pasha, succeeded one who was compelled to withdraw. Even by the fact of that succession we incurred a great responsibility to the person thus elevated. The Committee will see that unless the person so chosen and so preferred failed in his duty, it became more our duty, and no small amount of obligation, to support him in the exercise of the rule to which we have had a large share in preferring him. But that was not all; because Controllers were appointed by the positive action of the English and French Governments, who became members of a Council in Egypt corresponding with the Cabinet in this country, or, rather, exercising a much larger and wider power than the Cabinet of this country, and invested with a real and substantial control, extending directly to a great part of the Egyptian finances, and virtually, perhaps, extending to the whole of it. Under these circumstances, it was impossible for any Government of England or France to decline advising the Council in the internal affairs of Egypt. You could not say to the Ruler, when he asked your

  1581
  help and assistance—"It is no affair of ours." You could, but give him the best advice of which the circumstances admitted; and it is by giving that advice, time by time and step by step, that we have arrived at the present position. We have arrived at it by a series of steps which form a chain that cannot be broken. I am not going now to pronounce an opinion as to the wisdom of the original proceeding. After having read to the Committee the sentiments I have myself declared, it will not be supposed I was prejudiced in favour of that policy. I have never been called upon to approve or condemn it. We found it existed as a fact, and we recognized frankly the claims of honour and duty which it appeared to us to impose. And thus we have arrived at the point where we now stand. It is fair to say, however much—and I think it is greatly open to question—we may question on grounds of policy and prudence whether the present embarrassments ought not to have been foreseen, and whether the course taken in 1879 was wise—it is but fair to say—I add my own testimony to the many testimonies forthcoming—that no inconsiderable benefits have been conferred by what was done upon the people of Egypt. It may be that, in certain respects and within very narrow limits, new abuses may have grown up; but it is a fact of a hundred times greater importance that the condition of the cultivator of the soil, which in Egypt was miserable almost beyond belief, has been greatly reformed with the limits—I think it may generally be said, capable of proof—within the limits of something like regular law and order. That being the state of the case which we have had to meet, I will now explain the manner in which we have arrived at our present position. It is not necessary for me to go into the details of that position, for they have been set forth fully in the Papers that are now upon the Table of the House, and, perhaps, with adequate fulness, in a consecutive manner, in the lengthened despatch from Lord Granville, dated July 11th. But the point which I conceive to have been the turning point in this series of transactions was when the long festering military discontent, that had already broken out into occasional acts of aggression and violence, at length reached such a height that in the first place, the military dic-
  1582
  tators thought fit to summon the Notables, without the consent of the Ruler of the country and in defiance of the law, and then when those Notables, highly to their own honour and with conduct that really gives better promise than any other single occurrence in the whole series of circumstances before us—when those Notables declined to be parties to these proceedings; when those military dictators persevered in the course on which they had entered, and, casting off the mask, determined to govern the country without the consent of the Notables, as well as without the consent of the Khedive. The condition of thorough and violent illegality, hopeless for the people of Egypt, having thus been achieved, and we, feeling ourselves under an obligation to recognize it as a state of things for which it was our duty at least to take part in devising a remedy, it is time that I should endeavour to state to the Committee what the general view we have taken is of the mode in which that remedy ought to be applied. We had to take into account the Sovereignty of the Sultan in Egypt. We had no desire to impart a shock to the fabric of the Ottoman Empire. Some Members of this House appear to think that a general crusade against the Ottoman Empire had been taught by this Government or by some Members of it. Probably where that idea prevails there is hardly anyone who is more in the view of those who entertain it than myself. But I have never taught a crusade of that kind. I have always held, in language perfectly unvarying, that we ought to insist upon the duty of making some acknowledgments with respect to the condition of the subject races in Turkey—of making those acknowledgments in more than mere words when opportunity offers. But I have never ceased steadily to maintain that we were the best friends of Turkey; and if, on a certain occasion, which was the very highest climax to which I ever ascended, I did contemplate the removal of Turkish power from one Province—the Province of Bulgaria—I said then what has proved to be true—namely, that those who then professed themselves the friends of Turkey would lead her to the loss of that Province, and of a good many more also. Well, such has been the teaching of history in this matter; and we have approached the question of the Turkish Sovereignty in Egypt with

  1583
  this same feeling, that we were earnestly desirous to maintain that Sovereignty within the limits of lawful right. We, therefore, looked first of all to the Turkish Power as the quarter from which intervention would be most desirable, when once the point had been reached which made the intervention of force absolutely necessary. We did all we could to soothe the susceptibilities of the Sultan. We received from him, over and over again, the most gratifying assurances. We cherished, as long as we could, the expectation that to him we might look for the restoration of order in Egypt. We invariably held out to him the Firmans given by himself and his Predecessors as supplying the political basis on which we desired that the Constitution of Egypt should stand. We endeavoured to remove from the minds of himself and his counsellors every trace or shadow of suspicion as to the views and intentions with which we ourselves had entered upon the consideration of the matter; and even so long as up to the day of the bombardment we held firmly by the idea that if the Sultan had recognized the opportunity he had then, possessing, as he did, the knowledge that we and the other Powers of Europe were prepared to give him every countenance and assistance, he had then an opportunity, easier and more effective than ever, of restoring tranquillity to Egypt by the exercise of his authority and the use of his Military Forces. I have no right and no disposition to judge the policy which has been pursued by the Sultan; but, in our opinion, that opportunity appears to have passed away. We are no longer able, viewing the actual condition of Egypt, viewing the confusion and disorder, viewing the continual reports that reach us of pillage and murder in parts of the country where the affording of help is totally impossible—we are no longer able to hope that a remedy for that state of things can be or will be applied by the use of the military power of the Sultan. He has had the case before him, not for weeks only, but for months. There is no reason that I know now why he should arrive at a resolution to which he has been so long and so earnestly pressed and urged, but which he has, up to the present, declined to take; and we are, therefore, reluctantly, but decisively, compelled to turn our view towards other courses.
  1584
  Sir, next to our desire that the Sovereign of the Ottoman Empire should discharge the first duty of Sovereignty, by bringing about a restoration of order and tranquillity in Egypt, was our desire to make an appeal to the common authority of Europe, and to avoid, above all things, the exhibition of a disposition to a line of isolated action, on grounds which it is needless to question at length—grounds alike of policy and of principle—on the ground of policy, because in that way we felt that we were taking the wisest course for the purpose of avoiding future and entangling complications; and, on the ground of principle, because I believe that it is the just opinion of reflecting men that there is nothing more important for the future of civilization than to make free resort, wherever it can be done, to that authority of united Europe which, when it does speak, does really speak with a weight which causes it to be felt that it has a real title to be heard. It is certainly very difficult to bring that authority to bear, and the history of endeavours to make use of it is a history of partial successes and of partial failures. There was a partial failure to bring it to bear in 1853–4, before the Crimean War, and yet there was also a partial success. There was also another interesting instance that happened many years before, in the case of Greece, when it was impossible to move either Prussia or Austria; but when France, Russia, and England formed a combination, which combination, casting aside every selfish view which any of the Powers singly-might have been tempted to entertain, brought about by a shorter course than might have been expected the establishment of a free Greek Kingdom. Well, for these reasons we laboured hard to bring together the Conference which has been sitting, and is still sitting, at Constantinople; and important good, undoubtedly, we have obtained from that Conference, because we have obtained a solemn appeal to the Sultan to take into his own hands, under conditions approved by civilized Europe, the settlement of the Egyptian Question. But we have obtained more than that. We have obtained the negative result that the Powers themselves are not willing, as a body, to be directly parties either to military action in Europe or to granting a Commission, or, as it is sometimes

  1585
  termed, a Mandate, to certain of their number to exercise that military action. But we have obtained, I think, to our entire satisfaction, the moral support and concurrence of Europe in the policy which we are pursuing. There has been a universal recognition that a case has arisen where, in the interests of humanity and of the future, force should be employed to put down the military dictatorship in Egypt, and a recognition that, although it unfortunately be true that Turkey has not been found ready to take into her own hands the discharge of the duty appertaining to Sovereignty in that respect, yet that it was a duty which ought to be performed. Of that we have had full and adequate assurance, and it forms an important part of the case on which we stand. On this matter, of course, we have looked in a very special degree to our great neighbour France, not only on account of her power and influence, but because of the close and direct relations in which we were placed with her under the arrangements of 1879. And here the principle of concurrence has obtained something more than moral assent, because as to one important part, at least, of the Egyptian Question—namely, that which concerns the free passage of the Suez Canal—we have succeeded in obtaining the direct and active concurrence of France. France, I believe, so far as the French Government is concerned, holds herself now prepared, along with ourselves, to guarantee the safety and the free use of that great maritime highway. We have no present reason to suppose that France will go further. It is not for me to predict what she will do, or what she may not be prepared to do, in the exercise of her undoubted right; but I should be deceiving the Committee if I held out to them the expectation that we were entitled to look for her naval or military concurrence in operations in Egypt further than with respect to the security and defence of the Suez Canal. Well, now, the defence of the Suez Canal does not, in our view, meet the necessities of the case, or the obligations under which we are bound to the present Khedive of Egypt, or the international arrangements that have been in force now for several years. Perhaps I may, in one single sentence, say with regard to the Khedive that undoubtedly the circumstances of
  1586
  his accession to power gave him a right to much consideration at our hands, the circumstances of his conduct during the last three or four months of difficulty never surpassed, and of danger to his life most formidable and alarming. His conduct, I think, has been without a single step in deviation from the one direct line of honour and of duty, and has greatly enhanced his claims upon us. But the insecurity of the Canal, it is plain, does not exhibit to us the seat of the disease. The insecurity of the Canal is a symptom only, and the seat of the disease is in the interior of Egypt, in its disturbed and its anarchical condition. We do not feel able to be satisfied that we should fully have discharged our duty without endeavouring to bring to bear adequate means of converting the present interior state of Egypt from anarchy and conflict to a state of peace and order. During the time that yet remains to us we shall still look to the co-operation of the Powers of civilized Europe; if it be in any case open to us. It is with us a policy, and it is with us a duty, to hail such co-operation, not merely as lightening our burden, but as strengthening our title, and as divesting it of an aggressive character. If, therefore, it be available we are prepared and desirous to hail it. If, after having exhausted all chances; if, after having failed with Turkey, and not having succeeded, at any rate, in bringing the full authority and force of the Powers represented at the Conference to bear upon this question—if every other chance is exhausted, we shall not, Sir, shrink from undertaking the duty by the single power of this country. It is, no doubt, a serious charge; but it is a charge which seems to devolve upon us from our duty, and which we believe to be within our means. We believe that it will have the full sanction of all those who are observers of our policy, and we are convinced that we shall be performing a great service to Europe and the world. Well, now, Sir, let me say a few words on the subject of what our action thus far has been. We sent ships to Alexandria in pursuance of a practice well established—that, when there is serious danger to our fellow-subjects—to the subjects of the Government in a foreign country—to endeavour to afford them, at least, the means of refuge through its Naval Force, and that was the main

  1587
  and the justifying cause why our ships were first sent to Alexandria. The danger increased; the number of those ships was not adequate to that augmented danger, and it was enlarged. I do not suppose the contention will be raised in this House, or, at least, I do not believe it will be widely supported, that these ships ought to have been withdrawn from Egypt. There were practical questions to be considered which would not have permitted us to entertain such a view; but I will not enter into argument until I find we are challenged upon that point of our policy. We believed that our ships were lawfully and rightfully in Alexandrian waters, and, feeling so, that it was our duty to take whatever measure might properly be taken, and might imperatively be called for in the interest of self-defence. With a view to the security of that Fleet, authority was given to interfere with the persistent endeavour to extend and to strengthen the fortifications of Alexandria; and those who have observed what was done on the 11th July may be apt to believe that had the process been allowed to continue for a much longer time, I will not say that it would have been fatal to the British Fleet, but I will say the consequences might have been much more serious. We justify the act of bombardment simply, strictly, and exclusively as an act of self-defence. Such was our object; but the question is raised—What ought to have been our conduct? And the answer given by some is that we ought to have sent with the Fleet a sufficient force for the purpose of preventing conflagration and pillage. I shall be very curious to hear that matter argued out. I should like to know what is meant by a sufficient force. A sufficient force, in the first place, must have been a force adequate, not only to meet in the field, but to drive out of every street and lane in a great city an Egyptian Army which was reported to us, according to the best accounts, to be between 10,000 and 15,000 strong. What would that sufficient force have been? I do not think I overstate it if I put it, for the sake of hypothesis, at 10,000 men; and I want to know in what way the sending of a sufficient force could by any possibility have been made to cohere—even decently to cohere—with our profession that our Fleet was in Alexandrian waters without the
  1588
  intention of offence, except what might be necessary for its own security. It would have been absolutely to belie our professions if we had sent such a force. It would have meant an invasion of that country; and an assumption of authority to determine the Egyptian Question by our sole action would not only have utterly belied our whole action in reference to the title and object with which we sent our Fleet—not only would it have belied our professions as regards the Power reigning in Egypt, but it would have been grossly disloyal in the face of Europe and of the Conference we had brought together. I want to point out what is the real charge against us, and let us be challenged on that charge if it is thought fit. We had brought together, with great pains and difficulty, the Powers of Europe, the aid of whose endeavours we had invoked to bring Turkey into the field. We had warned the Conference that if they failed to bring Turkey into the field we should still urge on it the consideration of other and effectual measures. Was it possible for men to go further than we had gone? We invest that Conference with a title to our forbearance, at least, from anything that might be in conflict with the policy which had met with the approval of what is undeniably, after all, the highest authority known in the civilized world. To have sent an invading Army to Egypt when the Conference had but recently met, and when it had not been able even to make its application to the Sultan, would, in our opinion, have disentitled us to every claim to respect in the eyes of the Powers of Europe, and it would, in truth, have been a flagrant contradiction to all of our professions. But I am bound to say I go a little further still. I want to know what force of 10,000 men, or of any number of thousands of men, could by any possibility have prevented an army in the occupation of a town from setting fire to it before leaving it? There is no force that could have done it. We should have been acting disloyally towards Europe; and, in addition, I believe it would have been impossible for us, by landing forces after the bombardment, to prevent the deplorable occurrences which took place in Alexandria through the wanton and gratuitous excesses of the Egyptian Army. There are many bombardments known to history; but I doubt very much

  1589
  if you will find a case in which an army possessed of the town of which the fortifications had been bombarded has retired from that town, setting fire to it in many places, and exposing vast portions of its population—not Englishmen, for they were all gone; not Europeans, for the population was not confined to them; not Christians, because it was not confined to them, but the general population of the town—to all the horrors of sack and pillage. So much, then, as to what we have done. And now I have a word to say about what we intend to do. I only speak of the object with which we shall move. As to the instruments with which we move, I have already said that we look to co-operation as long as a likelihood and prospect of co-operation remain; but the spirit of our action, with co-operation or without co-operation, will be this. We hope to put down that tyranny which now reigns in Egypt, and when that preliminary step may have been achieved—and God grant it may be soon—we hope to promote a settlement of Egyptian affairs, based upon the maintenance of international right, based upon the avoidance of every selfish purpose and design. We shall desire to strengthen the Throne worthily occupied by the present Khedive, if we have reason to believe—and I feel confident we shall have every reason to believe—in the continuance of that worthiness. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) has more than once put upon the Paper, within the last few weeks, a sympathetic Question addressed to me, and evidently intended to convoy the suggestion and the hope that in any measures which we might take or share in for the settlement of Egyptian affairs we should not forgot the liberties of the Egyptian people. Sir, I requested the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that Question for the time, and I did so because I was of opinion that to raise any particular question in respect to any particular right or object which it might be proper to hold in view when we come to a settlement might possibly arouse susceptibilities, and give rise to misconstruction. I have to thank the hon. Gentleman for not having put that Question to me at a time when it seemed unreasonable. I can assure the hon. Gentleman it will be a sacred part of our duty to favour equal laws in Egypt,
  1590
  and, within the limits of reason, to favour popular liberty. We must not be too hasty in our favourable assumptions; yet I, for one, do certainly believe that Egypt is a country which has, not economically, but socially and politically, made great progress; and there is reason to hope that when the incubus which now afflicts her is removed, and a reign of law is substituted for that of military violence, something may be founded there which may give hope for the future—something which may tend to show that the desire for free institutions is not wholly confined to Christian races, but that even in a Mahomedan people, whose circumstances are certainly less favourable to the development of free institutions, a noble thirst may arise for the attainment of those blessings of civilized life which they see have been achieved in so many countries in Europe. Sir, these will be the purposes with which we shall move. It will be premature now to enter into details as to a general re-establishment of the status quo. It is impossible, for example, to form at this time any judgment with reference to maintaining or changing what is called the Control in Egypt; but what I do wish to convey is this—that whether we go to Egypt alone or in partnership we shall not go for selfish objects. Even if it happen that our action be isolated, except for the happy conjunction with France I have already noticed with respect to the Suez Canal—and I venture to think that conjunction may be considered assured—if our action should be isolated, not isolated will be our purpose. Our purpose will be to put down tyranny and to favour law and freedom; and we shall cherish something of the hope that it may yet be given to Egypt, with all her resources, and with the many excellent qualities of her peaceful and peace-loving and laborious people, to achieve in the future, less, perhaps, of glory, but yet possibly more happiness than she did once achieve when, in a far-off and almost forgotten time, she was the wonder of the ancient world.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,300,000, be granted to Her Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, in strengthening Her Majesty's Forces in the Mediterranean."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I must say it has never been my lot to have listened to a speech in this House which has given me more grave reason for consideration than that which we have just heard. I do not for a moment yield to the right hon. Gentleman in my conviction that if England sets herself to work in her single strength to accomplish the objects which, so far as we can understand, the Government are setting before themselves, she will show that she is competent to discharge that duty, and to accomplish the end desired. Of this, at least, I am certain—that if England undertakes that task it will be in the full strength of her sons of all shades of opinion. But I feel that this is a moment at which we require further explanation and fuller consideration than it is possible for us to exercise at the first blush of the statement to which we have just listened. There is much in that statement which has both surprised and, I think, disappointed the House. We find that we are no longer to look for aid either from the Porte—the legitimate Sovereign of Egypt, charged, as the right hon. Gentleman says it should have been, with the execution of the duty of maintaining peace within its own Dominions—nor are we to look for the assistance of any of the Powers of Europe, except in a limited degree. [Mr. GLADSTONE made a gesture of dissent.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain.
  MR. GLADSTONE: What I said was that all the hopes and chances of cooperation are not exhausted.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The "hopes and chances of co-operation are not exhausted!" Well, are we to live upon hopes? It seems to me that in those two words we have a clue to a great deal of what has been done. We can now understand that for 12 months, or nearly 12 months, it has been upon hopes and chances that the Government have been proceeding; and I am bound to say that, looking to the position of affairs as it is now represented to us, looking to the conditions under which we are to engage in this enterprize, looking to the enterprize itself, so mistily shadowed forth to us, and looking, at the same time, to the attitude of the other Powers, we require some little consideration before we commit ourselves to a support of the Government in this mat-
  1592
  ter. I am, and always have been, one of the very last in England to embarrass and weaken the hands of the Executive in a policy of a character involving military operations. If we are persuaded that military operations ought to be undertaken, and will be undertaken, we ought to give the Government our support and strength; but we ought to expect, and we have a right to expect, and it is our duty to demand from the Government, full explanations both as to the grounds on which they are proceeding, the object at which they aim, and, in such degree as is compatible with proper military considerations, full explanation as to the means by which they expect to attain the object in view. But what have been the statements of the right hon. Gentleman? He began by endeavouring, as far as possible, to throw the responsibility for the present state of things in Egypt from himself and his Government upon the Government which preceded him. If I thought I should not weary the Committee I should now be prepared to contend very warmly against the description which the right hon. Gentleman has given of this matter. I contend he has given an entirely erroneous description of the proceedings at the time of the Mission of Sir Stephen Cave.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, no.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Yes. To whom was the right hon. Gentleman referring when he told us that the groundwork of these proceedings was laid some years ago—in 1876?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No; I said in 1879. [Cries of "1876!"] The groundwork was laid in 1876.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I entirely dispute the accuracy of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my sentence he will find I am prepared to make good what I state. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the groundwork of these proceedings was laid some years ago; and then he referred to a speech of his made in the year 1876, upon the occasion of Sir Stephen Cave being sent out, as the right hon. Gentleman described it, as a Commissioner with very considerable powers. He then went on to say that nothing serious came of that, and what he was ready to point to was rather the

  1593
  decisions arrived at in 1879. I entirely dispute that the right hon. Gentleman's description is anything like an abstract of the proceedings of the late Government. I say that Sir Stephen Cave's Mission was one which was of a purely inquiring character; it was to enable us to obtain certain information; and the Control to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was not only originated in 1879, but it was entirely independent of the action of the Government—in fact, it was originally instituted upon the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) and his Colleagues. When we come to 1879, I wish to point this out to the right hon. Gentleman, if he will give me his attention for a moment—that the decree that was put out in 1879 greatly limited and reduced the powers given to the Controllers by the previous decree, which was the work of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) and his Colleagues. They were expressly excluded from the exercise of administrative functions previously given to them, and entirely removed from such a position as the right hon. Gentleman ascribes to them. They were told they were given a consultative voice and powers of investigation, but not such powers as belong to the Cabinet of which the right hon. Gentleman is the head. I am prepared, on the proper occasion, to enter at length into an explanation and defence of the proceedings of the late Government; but I maintain that on the present occasion I ought not to be called upon to do that, because it would be evading altogether the question really at issue. Whether the conduct of the late Government was or was not open to the remarks the right hon. Gentleman has now made, this certainly is to be said—that by his own admission, not only now on the floor of the House, both by himself and of his Colleagues, in State despatches and otherwise, the work we did was good work, that produced a state of things greatly for the benefit of Egypt, and greatly for the advancement of the prosperity of the people of that country. That being so, we have a right to come forward, having left things in that position, and say—"Why, if it was unsatisfactory, did you not alter or reverse it? If, on the other hand, it was satisfactory, why have you made this piece of work out of that which we
  1594
  left in your hands?" I contend that it will be found, when we come closely to examine these matters, that, to a great extent, the miserable condition to which things have been brought is due, not to the action of the late Government, but rather to the action, if we can call it action, of the present Government. I maintain that, from the beginning of the disturbances occasioned by the Military Party—of whom the right hon. Gentleman has spoken in terms of just indignation—from the beginning of those disturbances the conduct of the Government has been such as not to meet the emergencies of the case, but, on the contrary, to cut away and to embarrass the means of resisting it in the hands of the Khedive. With whom were we to have acted? When the late Government had to deal with a position of considerable difficulty in reference to the change in the position of the late Khedive, his deposition, or rather his forced resignation, at that time the Government of the day acted in cordial co-operation and concert with the Porte, as the Sovereign of the Khedive. But what has been the conduct of the present Government in regard to their relations with the Porte? They tell us they have looked to and desired that the Porte should exercise its Sovereign rights, in order to preserve peace in the Principality of Egypt. But how has the Porte been able to do it? The Government have hung upon its arm continually; they told the Porte that it was bound to exercise its functions; but they embarrassed it by sending troops there, and by taking other measures for the exertion of force. How have they acted in relation with France? I think, if we look at the relations with France, and read the whole story of the negotiations, we shall see that there has been an entire case of the want of a real and effective understanding between them. That is one of the points we put before them. They profess that we are in cordial co-operation with France. But when we ask—"What are you doing here—here is a difficult state of things growing up; what are you going to do?" The Government say—"Do not inquire; we are in cordial co-operation with France; we agree to act together; but, at the same time, we hold ourselves free with regard to any particular action that may be taken." I do not believe that, from first to last,

  1595
  there was anything that really could have been called an effective understanding with France, or that there was anything like an effective understanding between the two Powers. It was the sort of understanding that existed between the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) and his Colleagues. They agreed to hold together; but they were not agreed upon any effective action. At the date when it was necessary that something should be done they fell apart in toto. I am sorry as to the manner in which the Government have acted throughout this matter. They have, as it seems to me, taken exactly the most foolish and unwise course they could have taken, because they have fallen into the error of dawdling and endeavouring to succeed by their demonstrations. A policy of demonstration and dawdling is a most dangerous one. It may succeed, but it must be judged by results, and when we see what the result in this case has been, I am bound to say that we cannot form the best opinion either as to the wisdom or diplomacy of the Government. I am sorry that I have been forced to explain so much on account of the unnecessary attack which was made by the right hon. Gentleman upon his Predecessors. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] I see that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but he said something which was understood as an attack—and which we understood to be an endeavour to shift on to the Government which preceded him the exclusive responsibility for the position into which things have got. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the appreciation which he has expressed of the great importance of putting down the military tyranny to which Egypt is subjected; and I am prepared to say with him that the general course, not only of the late Government, but of any Government in this country for a considerable time, has been such as to make it impossible for us to look with indifference on such a state of things. The proceedings with regard to the Control are, after all, but an incident in the general history of our dealings with Egypt. If we look back to the days of the old Capitulations, and the substitution of judicial reform, even down to the time preceding Sir Stephen Cave's Mission, we shall see how the complications
  1596
  arose in connection with the obligations of Egypt to this country. Our claims on the tribute, for instance, were assigned, not under the late Government, but under a Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member. It was assigned as a security for the debt which was created in 1850 and 1858. When we look at the other interests which England has in Egypt, independent of her great interest in the maintenance of the Suez Canal, we shall see how important it was that Egypt should prosper and be peaceful; that she should be contented and happy. I may say that I think the action which each successive Government has taken with regard to Egypt has been both justifiable and beneficial, and has entailed on us the obligations to which the right hon. Gentleman has adverted. And now I want to ask one or two questions about the present state of things. We have been told that the object of our joint mission is to put down tyranny and reestablish good government in Egypt. All that may be very excellent. But we want to know, as far as it is possible to tell us, what are the steps by which we are about to proceed? We are about to go alone, with, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the sympathy and moral support, at all events, of every Power in Europe, and the aid of France to a limited extent. I think we ought to be told what is the attitude of other Governments, and we ought to have some assurance with regard to France, and as to the extent of the moral support and sympathy which are said to exist. When we see that we are going into an enter-prize of such magnitude and importance, and when we are told that no other nation but one is going to stand by our side, and that one only to a limited extent, we ought to have some evidence to show that we are not acting alone without the assent of these Powers, but that we are acting as a mandatory of them. We are forced to ask these questions, because the Government have not been very ready to tell us all that is going on. And I must say that with reference to the negotiations with the European Powers, and the representations of the Conference, we are left, at a moment like this, in a condition of darkness, which I hope the Government will very speedily terminate. We also want to know, if we are to go alone,

  1597
  what force is going to be employed, and if any contingent, and if so, what contingent is coming from any other part of the Empire? Are there to be any Indian troops? We have not heard one word about them from the right hon. Gentleman; but the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, in the early part of the evening, gave Notice of a Motion to show that it is intended to use Her Majesty's Forces, and that some part of the expense is proposed to be charged upon India. I hope we shall be informed with regard to that matter, and how far it is their intention to draw upon the resources of that part of the Empire. I hope that an answer will be given to the Question suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow)—namely, whether it is intended to charge the expenses of the employment of these troops on the Indian or the British Exchequer? These are all points on which we desire to have information. I do not, at the present moment, desire to express any final opinion on the proposal made to us by the right hon. Gentleman. I think we have a right to ask for a short time to consider the proposal. I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to press us to give a Vote tonight. I am quite sure that whenever we get an explanation such as we want, and have a right to ask for, the House of Commons will approach the question in a spirit worthy of Englishmen, and that there will be no unnecessary delay or embarrassment when we are satisfied that we are right in the course we are pursuing. Before I sit down I should like to ask whether there is any truth in the report which has reached this country that the Conference is already dissolved?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not heard, Sir, that there is any truth in that report. I was surprised when I found that the right hon. Gentleman meant to ask for time, because the right hon. Gentleman has already proceeded to make a partial reply to my speech. He entirely misunderstood what I said about Sir Stephen Cave. I quoted my own words, and those words had no reference to Sir Stephen Cave, but to a scheme which was not his, but one which the late Government aired at one time, but which they did not act upon so long as Lord Derby remained at the Foreign Office. I never said or implied that the
  1598
  functions of the Control were extended. The difference was this. The Control was established upon the authority of the English and French Governments, and, being so established, the Controllers were not dismissable by the Egyptian Rulers without the consent of England and France. A more extraordinary interference with the affairs of a foreign country cannot be conceived. I have made no attempt to exempt the present Government from responsibility for each and every step they have taken, and I defended them upon all the points on which I thought their policy has been challenged. But, I say, follow up those points; try them one by one, and if you follow them up, you will then, in my opinion, come to a certain epoch, which is the true origin of all that has since happened. That is, I apprehend, a perfectly fair method of proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman went so far as to say I made an attack upon the late Government, when I said expressly I was called upon neither to approve nor condemn, and I went out of my way to say that the Control had done good to the people of Egypt, and that is the reward which I receive for such an acknowledgment. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has taken that course; but if he desires that time should be taken, I shall not resist his proposal, and therefore I will not oppose the Motion to report Progress.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I did not make any Motion to report Progress.
  MR. GLADSTONE: If such a Motion is made I shall not resist it. [An hon. MEMBER: The Indian troops.] The explanation which I have given to-night is a strictly limited one. The proper time for explanations in regard to Indian troops will be when my noble Friend makes his Motion. My explanations tonight have been limited, and I do not attempt to describe the whole of our course on this subject.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had one question to put to the right hon. Gentleman. Was the Vote of Credit now proposed to be strictly limited to the expenses of the troops to be sent from this country? Did it include anything for the expenses of the troops to be sent from India?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: In no sense whatever. I stated that in my statement as

  1599
  clearly as I could. It is entirely for the troops to be sent from this country.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, there was one more question he should like to ask. For what period had the expenses been calculated which they were now asked to vote? They were told that it was to be a largo expedition; that 20,000 or 23,000 men were to be sent out to Egypt. It must be borne in mind that they were being sent to a very expensive part of the world; and it might be fairly assumed that the sum of £2,300,000, now asked for for military operations in Africa, would not last very long. He should, therefore, be glad to be told for what period the Vote was calculated. It would be a great satisfaction to find that the expedition could be conducted without a further appeal to the Exchequer.
  MR. CHILDERS: Perhaps I had better answer the question of the hon. Gentleman. The amount required to be taken for the Army—and I have no means at present of checking the details—has been caleulated for the period which those who advise the Government in military matters consider would be sufficient to complete operations. It is designed to cover a period of three months.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was not going to enter into any open question, or to follow the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. All he desired was to ask for information on one point. The right hon. Gentleman, in vindicating the course of action of the Government up to the present time, had made a statement to the effect that the terrible state of things in Alexandria was owing to action entirely apart from that of Her Majesty's Navy. Now, was it not the fact that the Government had received a distinct warning from various sources as to the unavoidable result of that course of action? It was not denied that Major Tulloch sent home distinct information to the Government to this effect. Now, who was Major Tulloch? He was a gentleman of unquestionable ability and of great experience, who had lived in Alexandria for a considerable time, and who was sent out by the Government for the purpose of collecting information. Major Tulloch did send home detailed information to the Government on the subject, upon which
  1600
  the Government might have acted, and by means of which some of the horrible consequences which had ensued might have been avoided. He wanted to know if that was the fact or not; and, if it was the fact, whether the Government would not lay on the Table of the House of Commons whatever information, if there was any, that had been forwarded to them by Major Tulloch? In the despatches which had been laid upon the Table there was information to show that most unquestionably did the British residents in Alexandria call on Her Majesty's Government to provide sufficient means for the protection of life and property. It was also stated that the bombardment of the forts would, in all probability, result in serious danger to the European population, and in regard to which the Government ought to have been prepared. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Will the hon. Gentleman read the despatch?] In one of the despatches it was stated that there was every reason to fear a recurrence of the horrors which had taken place; that the Europeans in Alexandria were absolutely defenceless, and that they had not the means of retiring, as in order to reach the harbour they would have to run the gauntlet of the guns through the streets. The despatch added that when the forts were disabled there would commence a great danger for Europeans. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would order the rest of the despatch to be given. He was sorry to find that the right hon. Gentleman had left the House, because this was a despatch which he understood the right hon. Gentleman to desire him to read, and he wished the right hon. Gentleman to hear the rest of the despatch. The despatch went on to say—
  "Then would commence a period of great danger for Europeans, who would be at the mercy of the soldiers, exasperated by defeat, while the British Admiral could not risk his men ashore, because his whole available force for landing purposes did not exceed 300 men."
  He (Mr. Chaplin) was bound to say, quite apart from the information which might or might not have been supplied by Major Tulloch to the Government—and he hoped the Committee would be distinctly told to-night that the information which had been supplied would be laid on the Table—he was bound to say that, quite apart from that information,

  1601
  there was contained in the despatch he had read sufficient to induce him to believe that the Government had ample warning of the fearful consequences likely to ensue from the bombardment, which fearful consequences actually did ensue, and which Her Majesty's Government took no sufficient moans to prevent. These were points upon which he hoped the Government would give the Committee distinct information and full explanation before the debate was closed that night.
  MR. CHILDERS: I thought I had answered the Question put to me by the hon. Member in reference to Major Tulloch the other day. What I said then was, that Major Tulloch was neither the agent nor the adviser of the Government in any sense. Major Tulloch was an officer on the Staff at Portsmouth, and, having a considerable local knowledge of Alexandria and the neighbourhood, he was sent by me to Sir Beau-champ Seymour to give him information about Alexandria and its vicinity. He was simply attached to Sir Beauchamp Seymour for that purpose before the bombardment commenced. He was not sent as the agent of the Government, nor as their adviser, to Sir Beauchamp Seymour; but it was felt that his local knowledge might be useful to the Admiral. I have already made that statement. Whatever information Major Tulloch possessed in regard to the neighbourhood of Alexandria he gave to Sir Beauchamp Seymour, but he was never asked to advise Her Majesty's Government on naval or military operations. Therefore it is not my duty, audit would be establishing an extraordinary precedent if, having appointed an officer for that purpose, I was to allow myself to be catechized about his personal opinions on subjects which were altogether beyond the sphere of his duty.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that was not the question. He had not asked for what purpose Major Tulloch had been appointed, or to whom he was credited, or what special powers he might have at this moment. What he did ask was, whether Major Tulloch did not send home information to the Government that probably a bombardment, unsupported by troops, would result in the horrible state of things which had since been witnessed at Alexandria? He had further asked whether, if Major Tulloch did send home information to that effect,
  1602
  the Government would lay it on the Table?
  MR. CHILDERS: That was not the subject of Major Tulloch's employment. He might send over his opinion as to the politics of the Cabinet; but that would have nothing to do with the purpose for which he was sent out. He was sent to Alexandria for a specific purpose—namely, to give Sir Beauchamp Seymour local information—information in regard to Alexandria and the neighbourhood. Beyond that, he had no other duties to perform, and I can certainly give no other answer than that which I have already given.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he thought there ought to be an understanding whether the debate was to be continued, or Progress was to be reported. The questions involved were of great importance, and a desultory discussion of this nature would only prejudice them. Either the debate should proceed regularly, if that was the general feeling, or it should be brought to a close. He felt very strongly the disadvantageous character of a desultory discussion of this kind.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had understood the Prime Minister to say that be would not be indisposed, if there was a general desire on the part of the Committee, to consent to an adjournment of the discussion. He thought the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Goschen) only expressed the feeling of a great many Members on both sides of the House. The statement which had been made by the Prime Minister was one of such extreme importance, and was made under such circumstances, that it was most desirable the House should have time to consider all the various and important issues which were involved; and he had, therefore, ventured to rise for the purpose of asking the Government until what day it would be convenient to adjourn the debate?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I propose to take it to-morrow; but, perhaps, the best course would be for me to withdraw the Motion I have made.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked if it was proposed that the House should meet to-morrow, at 2 o'clock?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he hoped the Government would tell the Committee exactly the number of troops it was pro-

  1603
  posed to bring from India, and the estimated cost.
  MR. GLADSTONE: To-morrow.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, the question would not come on to-morrow; the noble Marquess the Secretary for India (the Marquess of Hartington) had given Notice that he would not move his Resolution until after the present debate had closed. He thought the House and the country ought to know as soon as possible what the precise number of troops was that Her Majesty's Government intended to send to Egypt, not only from this country, but from India, and the estimated cost of the expedition. It was a matter of the highest importance that this information should be given.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not think it is desirable that the House should ask at the present moment for exact information as to the number of the troops. The exact composition of the force to come from India is still under the consideration of the War Office. I may state, however, that, as the hon. Member is aware, tolerably accurate information has been given in the newspapers. A force—I think it is called a division—amounting to between 7,000 and 10,000 men, has been warned for service in India, and the Government of India are prepared at short notice to supplement it if necessary. I am afraid I shall not be able even to-morrow to state the exact cost; but any information which I may be able to give will be most appropriately given when I move the Vote.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, that as a great deal had been said about a Question which he had asked the other day, he thought it only fair to say that he got no answer from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War. He had drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a passage in The Times. It was not necessary for him to read the passage; but the Secretary for War, in answer to the Question, simply stated, as far as he (Lord Eustace Cecil) understood him, that there was no accredited agent of the Government whatever in Egypt, and that he did not in any way consider Major Tulloch an accredited military agent. But there were official agents and non-official agents. They had had instances on more than one occasion of unofficial agents being employed by the Government. There was the case of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr.
  1604
  Errington), who was not long ago employed as an unofficial agent at Rome. There were also the cases of Sir William Gregory and Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, who had been unofficial agents in Egypt; and now they were told that Major Tulloch was an unofficial agent. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that Major Tulloch was an unofficial agent; but he had not asked exactly what the opinions of Major Tulloch were, but whether the whole story, as it appeared in The Times, was true or not? He wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the last portion of the story as it appeared in the letter of The Times' Correspondent. The Times' Correspondent related the whole of his conversation with Major Tulloch, in order to show that the Government themselves had received from their own trusted agent recommendations of a course of action which would have saved the whole of Alexandria. "Why," asked The Times' Correspondent, "have they failed to adopt it?" That was the point of his (Lord Eustace Cecil's) Question. He wished to show that the Government had received such information as they were stated in The Times newspaper to have received. But he got no answer to that Question. He did not care whether it was from Major Tulloch, or from anyone else, that the Government received the information. The material point was, whether they did receive such information. If the Government were really warned, as he was informed, several weeks before, that it would be a very improper thing to attempt to bombard the forts of Alexandria without being prepared to land a force on those shores, he asserted, advisedly, that the Government were most culpable in not paying attention to that advice. His Question did not turn upon the fact that Major Tulloch was or was not an accredited officer; but whether the Government did or did not receive the information contained in the statement in The Times? And to that Question he received no answer. They had had on that side of the House, on more than one occasion, to complain of the manner in which Questions had been answered by Members of the Government. A Question was put to the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) the other day by his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) as to what had happened to the guns of the

  1605
  Alexandra during the bombardment. His right hon. and gallant Friend was naturally very much interested in that Question, and he (Lord Eustace Cecil) could not, for his own part, see that it was at all an improper Question to put. Negotiations were going on in Europe, and any facts of this kind could not long be concealed. But the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty refused to answer the Question; and yet to-day he found a full statement of the damage done to the guns in the newspapers. He held in his hand an extract showing exactly what had happened, from which it appeared that in one case one of the tubes had burst, and that neither of the accidents was very serious. In point of fact, one of the guns was perfectly serviceable shortly after the accident. He merely mentioned this to show that the Secretary to the Admiralty could have given an answer if he had chosen without any detriment whatever to the Public Service. It was only fair and right that such information, if it could be supplied, should be given. He hoped that when Questions of this kind were asked, the occupants of the Front Bench would treat hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House with the same consideration and courtesy with which the Opposition treated them three or four years ago. At that time a great many Questions were put to the late Administration—Questions of a grave character which it was sometimes difficult to answer without injury to the Public Service; Questions which did not always display a great amount of discretion on the part of those who put them; but he challenged any hon. Gentleman to show that they were not invariably answered with perfect frankness. On two or three occasions the Opposition had a right to complain of the manner in which certain Members of the Government answered Questions, and especially on the occasion to which reference had been made in the course of the present debate.
  MR. CHILDERSasked what Question had been put to him which he had not answered?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: The Question respecting an accredited military agent at Alexandria.
  MR. CHILDERS: I answered the Questions put to me by the noble Lord categorically, and if my manner was not courteous I am very sorry for it. The first Question was—"Had the Govern-
  1606
  ment an accredited military agent at Alexandria?" I said, "No; not until Sir Archibald Alison arrived." When he arrived he was, of course, the agent of the Government. I was then asked if Major Tulloch was an agent for the Government? and I stated "No;" that he was neither the agent nor the adviser of the Government, but a subordinate officer on the Staff at Portsmouth who knew Alexandria, and was sent out to give local information to Sir Beauchamp Seymour as to the geographical features of Alexandria and the neighbourhood.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to correct him? I only asked if any communication had been received from an agent of the Government, and, if so, what was the date of it? I never said a word about Major Tulloch.
  MR. CHILDERS: Quite so; but the noble Lord referred to the paragraph in The Times in which Major Tulloch's name was mentioned.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: But I never got any answer.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that what the House had a right to complain of was, that information was given to the newspapers before it was given to the House, and apparently by Members of the Government. Indeed, information had been given to the newspapers which had been refused to the House—such as the information alluded to by his noble Friend (Lord Eustace Cecil) with reference to the Question he (Sir John Hay) had put to the Secretary to the Admiralty as to the guns reported to have burst on board the Alexandra. If the guns were inefficient, there could have been no harm in saying so; if they were not inefficient, it would be satisfactory to the country to know the fact. At the present moment the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had a large Vote of £350,000 for new guns in connection with the Naval Ordnance, and it was only right and proper that the House should know how the ordnance at present in the possession of the Navy stood its work at the bombardment. The hon. Gentleman, however, snubbed him, and said it was a Question he had no right to ask, and that it would be disadvantageous to the Public Service to give a reply. He was bound to say that he had always received the greatest possible courtesy from the right hon. Gentleman now Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr.

  1607
  Trevelyan) when he filled the Office of Secretary to the Admiralty. He had questioned the right hon Gentleman frequently upon naval matters, and was always treated with courtesy. Indeed, the replies of the right hon Gentleman were always given in a candid manner, respectful to the House, and were of the greatest advantage to the Service. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman the present Secretary would, in future, follow the same course; and that when a naval officer—there were not many in the House at the present moment—put a Question in regard to a matter upon which he was competent to form an opinion, the hon. Gentleman would at least reply in a courteous manner to the appeal made to him. He (Sir John Hay) was sure the Committee would see that when a sum of £350,000 was about to be voted for the purpose of providing Naval Ordnance, they ought to know whether the existing Naval Ordnance was of a character the public could rely upon. With all courtesy and kindness towards his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, he wished to say that the House had a perfect right to receive information on subjects of that character. He would only add, in reference to the Notice he had given to delay the Vote for Naval Ordnance, that he should not put the Committee to the trouble of discussing it.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the right hon. and gallant Baronet had said a great deal about a want of courtesy shown him. He should be the last person in the House to wish to have discourtesy attributed to him. If he had ever said anything in the nature of what had been called a "snub," he should be ready to apologize; but it was never his intention to say it. There was a distinction between answering Questions put from one Member to another in the House, and anything relating to the public interest. The Government had had a great many Questions addressed to them since he had the honour of filling his present Office—Questions, addressed to the transactions at Alexandria, and in reference to the presence of the Fleet in Egyptians waters, which appeared to himself and those with whom he consulted it would be injurious to the public interest to answer. Statements had appeared in the newspapers, perhaps rather tending to throw discredit on the Service, and these, on many
  1608
  occasions, had been immediately embodied in a Question, and the Government were asked whether or not such statements were true. He quite admitted that in some of the operations in which they were engaged there might, in some instances, be little danger in communicating information; but he would ask the House whether it was a good precedent that, being engaged in active operations of war, or in immediate preparations for such operations, any sort of Question a Member might choose to ask must be at once answered by the Government under penalty of being accused of a want of courtesy? He could only say to his right hon. and gallant Friend that he had no intention of behaving discourteously to him, or to anyone. Now, with regard to the two guns mentioned. As a matter of fact, he believed there were three guns injured on board the Alexandra; and why, it was asked, was not full information given of the amount of damage, and how the guns stood the work? The first reason was that the Government did not know, and that was a substantial reason in itself. And how could it be expected they should know two days after an engagement? Of the manner, the nature, and the effect of the injury, the Government were not yet in possession of the information, and therefore he might be excused, he thought, from attempting to give a hypothetical answer. And he would submit to the House, with the greatest deference, even if the Government had known, it was undesirable immediately to make public, and without full inquiry, damages of this sort. He thought he was justified, in the circumstances, even if he had full information, in declining to give an answer.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he accepted the hon. Gentleman's statement, and thanked him for the expressions he had used. He supposed he might gather from the statement that the apparently communicative paragraph in The Times did not come from the Admiralty?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, no communicative paragraph had been sent from the Admiralty. Nothing would be communicated to the newspapers by the Admiralty that would not be stated in the House.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, this desultory discussion was scarcely worthy of the gravity of the subject. It ought to be announced whether the debate was

  1609
  to proceed or not. If the Government really wished to adjourn it, they should do so.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is, that the Vote be withdrawn.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, then that should be done. These comparatively insignificant and not particularly relevant topics were unfitted to the gravity of the subject and the dignity of the House.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he desired to say a word on the question of the payment of the Indian Forces out of the Indian Revenue. That question had been alluded to by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) and others. He was sorry not to see the Postmaster General in his place at the moment, and he hoped that there would be a full discussion of this subject. It seemed to him that this question was decidedly an Imperial question, and that they were not justified in taxing the already overtaxed people of India for the payment of Imperial expenses. He was glad his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) had given a Notice on the subject.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is discussing a Vote down for tomorrow; it is not before us now.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, the point had been alluded to by others, and he only wished to say that when the question arose, he should give his cordial support to the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  MAJOR DICKSONasked if the Government had received any recent telegrams from Egypt which they could communicate to the House?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that none had been received that evening.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he desired to refer for a moment to the statement in The Times, and the answer in reference to it given to the noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil). That reply was a remarkable instance of the Minister for War's answers, and he took notice at the time of the words used. The right hon. Gentleman stated that a distinguished and experienced officer was specially sent by the Minister for War to Alexandria and the seat of operations to advise the Commander-in-Chief, Sir Beauchamp Seymour, with regard to the condition of Alexandria, and, of course, in regard to the events happening or
  1610
  likely to happen, and yet in the same breath he stated that this distinguished officer was not an agent of the Government, not an accredited official agent. He also declined to state whether the War Office had received, directly or indirectly, through Sir Beauchamp Seymour or through Major Tulloch, that information which every Member of the House was morally certain they did receive—namely, that to undertake the bombardment of Alexandria without a landing force to cut off the retreat of the enemy, would necessarily doom the city to destruction. The country would form its own opinion of the motives that made the right hon. Gentleman unwilling to commit the Government to an admission that they had received the information. They must have received such information not only from Major Tulloch, but from Mr. Cookson, the acting Consul, and probably from Sir Edward Malet, and they certainly knew it from communications from the leading British inhabitants of Alexandria. For days, for weeks, before, they had been told that that would happen which had happened. They were told so by inhabitants who had been in Alexandria for decades, and who knew perfectly well what would be the course of events. Then the Prime Minister had asked, how was it possible to adopt any other course than the bombardment, and how, in loyalty to the Powers, could a force be landed? But how, then, was it not disloyal now? If it was disloyal to the Powers, to the Conference, to the Porte, to send a force on the 11th of July, how was it legitimate or loyal to land a force a few days later? Last Thursday it was stated there were 6,000 or 7,000 troops in Alexandria. What was the object of this force? Was it with the vain and hopeless attempt to make the hand-to-mouth, drifting policy of the Government consistent with their statements in the House, that their policy was to protect life and property? The argument of the Prime Minister failed, because if such action was disloyal on July 11th, when it would have been effective, it was no less disloyal now. He hoped the hon. Members who had taken up the question as to Major Tulloch' s statement would press for an answer, which the House had a right to demand.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he would now ask the Secretary to the Admiralty a

  1611
  Question which he had down for that evening, but which, in deference to the wishes of the Prime Minister, he did not put before. He wished to inquire if the Secretary to the Admiralty could inform the House what vessels had been told off for the purpose of convoying our merchant ships through the Suez Canal, and also what vessels had been told off for the same duty by other Powers? Last week the hon. Gentleman stated, in answer to his Question, that an Italian man-of-war had acted as convoy. He would like to ascertain exactly what was being done in protecting the vast amount of commerce which this country had passing through the Canal. The Prime Minister had said that something would probably be done for the protection of the Canal; but what he was anxious to know was, what the English Government were really doing at the present moment for the purpose of convoying our commerce? Rumours had arisen of attacks by Arabs, and the Government had not stated what precautions had been taken to prevent such. The Question was one which, in the interests of commerce, demanded a specific statement on the part of the Government.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he must pursue his rôle of reticence and decline to tell his hon. Friend all the particulars for which he asked. He could perfectly understand his anxiety and that of others interested in the enormous amount of commerce passing through the Canal; but he could only say that from all he could hear there had been no danger of disturbance of the traffic yet, and the authorities on the spot considered the arrangements made and the force they possessed sufficient for purposes of protection. He could not give particulars of the British or other vessels there. It would not be desirable to give such information.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, so far as he could gather from the explanation of the Secretary for War of the reasons why the Government did not listen to the warnings of Major Tulloch, it was one of the most singular defences of a Government policy it had ever been his fate to hear. If he was not mistaken, the defence of the Government for not listening to the warnings of Major Tulloch was that Major Tulloch was sent out to Egypt in a totally different position; and when Major Tulloch warned the Government of the probable
  1612
  consequences of their policy and the imminent danger to life and property in Alexandria from the absence of a landing force, he was performing no business of his. These were the words of the right hon. Gentleman—it was no business of Major Tulloch's to warn the Government of the consequences of the bombardment. It was the most singular application of Spanish etiquette to this country he had come in contact with. A Spanish King was once unpleasantly near a blazing fire; but because the proper official was not present to put up a screen, His Majesty was allowed to roast. In a similar manner it seemed not to have been Major Tulloch's position to put up the screen at Alexandria, and the Government considered that Major Tulloch's presumption in trying to do that which was no business of his justified the Government in taking no notice of Major Tulloch's warning. This was the logical position assumed by the Government. For his own part, he entered his protest against the theory which had been enforced in the House, that the Arabs or the Egyptian Army set fire to Alexandria. He had no doubt whatever that, in the despair and exasperation of the moment, the work of conflagration was probably extended by the desperate Arab population; but he was perfectly certain of this, that the shells from the English Fleet originally set fire to Alexandria before a single incendiary extended the conflagration. [Cries of "No, no!"] The declarations of hon. Members opposite, some of whom had not taken the trouble to make certain of the facts, would not move him from his assertion that the shells from the English guns set fire to Alexandria hours before any incendiary assisted the work. When the manner in which the Fleet fought the fortifications was considered it would be seen how, without attributing any blame to the action of the Fleet, it occurred. The Inflexible fired on the forts from a distance of from 3,000 to 5,000 yards, and the slightest possible change in the elevation would be equal to a very wide deviation from the mark and would be sufficient to hurl the 1,700-lb. shells right into the centre of the town—if they missed the forts at the water's edge they must inevitably go into the town. The manager of the Anglo-Egyptian Bank, with 60 or 70 other Europeans, were witnesses of the fact that the shells of the

  1613
  Fleet in several cases fell into, and in a large number of cases went over, the town. Denials of this were of no use, because he knew that reports on the subject had been sent in from foreign officers who were witnesses of the bombardment, and these reports were in the possession of all the Governments of Europe; so if Her Majesty's Government wished to escape the blame of setting fire to Alexandria in a time of peace, they must choose some other line of argument than that their shells did not hit the town. They did strike the General Hospital, where the Geneva flag was flying—unintentionally he had no doubt—they did strike the English church; they struck the Arab quarter.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERrose to Order. Had these remarks any connection with the Question before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Vote is not yet withdrawn, and the hon. Member is in Order if he persists, though the right hon. Gentleman wishes to withdraw the Vote.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, this interruption did more credit to the worthy Alderman's patriotism than to his knowledge of the Rules of the House. He could understand the natural desire of every Englishman to throw a cloak over the black deeds of the 11th July. He would not dwell upon it, for it would be fully examined in the further progress of discussion. But he was struck by the statement of the Premier, in which he laid severe stress on the calling together of the Chamber of Egyptian Notables without the previous consent of Tewfik Pasha. On that he would remind the Committee it was a question with which Turkish allegiance and Mohammedan law had a great deal to do. The previous conduct and actions of Tewfik in authorizing the despatch of a foreign Fleet, with possibly hostile motives, to Alexandria, and his conduct in accepting a menacing declaration from England and France ordering him, under penalty of force majeure, to dismiss certain officers and Egyptian Ministers, made Tewfik de facto a traitor to the Sovereign of Turkey. That was a fact that created a powerful effect in Constantinople—that, before Arabi took any steps to oppose the authority of the Khedive, the Khedive had violated his allegiance both as a Mussulman and a Civil servant of the Sultan of Turkey. One reason why the Government could not get the Sultan to
  1614
  act decisively was because the Sultan was convinced that, before Arabi took any steps to defend Egyptian nationality against foreign invasion, the Khedive had violated his allegiance and become an ally of the enemies of Islam and Turkey. He also observed a strong statement in the Premier's speech to the effect that it was only in default of Turkish intervention that Her Majesty's Government determined on the course they had taken. But he was unable to see any signs of urging upon the Turkish Government to intervene, except under conditions that Her Majesty's Government ought to have known it was impossible the Caliph Sultan could satisfy. So far from the Sultan being opposed to intervention in Egypt, his interest as Suzerain would have prompted it. So far from Her Majesty's Government trying to counteract his disinclination to intervene, in the accounts and the despatches the House had before it the Government opposed to the utmost of their ability any design of the Sultan to intervene in Egypt, except under conditions that the Sultan Caliph could not accept. So late as the 18th May, Lord Dufferin reported, in his despatch to Lord Granville, that he had taken advantage of a visit paid to him by the Turkish Foreign Minister to do what? To recommend the Sultan to intervene? No; but to remonstrate against the alleged preparations for a Turkish expedition to Egypt. So that, when Her Majesty's Government tried to allege Turkish inaction as an excuse for their action, they were met by the fact that their statement was contradicted by their own official papers. Her Majesty's Government must have known, if they had any knowledge of Eastern Courts, that it was absolutely impossible for the Sultan to intervene in one of his own Provinces as the mere mandatory of the infidel Powers of Europe. At this present moment, in consequence of the action of the Government, the Mussulman feeling at the back of Arabi was very strong, as strong, perhaps, as that at the back of the Sultan himself. He could not accept it, in the slightest degree, as a defence or explanation that a number of European Powers favoured or supported the action of the Government. The interests of foreign Powers were not the interests of England in the East. It was part of their policy to see England impose conditions upon the Sultan.

  1615
  He knew how useless it was for him to make this protest. He had addressed the House in protest against former measures under the present and the former Government. Only two days ago, Her Majesty's Government decided that the South African Act was to be allowed to lapse; and he remembered, when he opposed that Act, he was treated with scorn, and his opposition was regarded as wilful, idle Obstruction, though it so happened that he was well acquainted with South African affairs. Two months ago, he had, in the course of debate, ventured to warn the Government that the course taken was calculated to imperil matters, and he was left to the suave assurances of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that his forebodings were unfounded; but now it appeared that what were called "gloomy forebodings" were true, and the optimist assurances of the Under Secretary turned out to be unfounded. He had failed to find any justification for the statement that the riot at Alexandria on June 11 was anything but what he had repeatedly stated it to be—the outcome of a desperate riot between Arabs, Greeks, and Maltese, in which European roughs were aggressors, and in which four Arab lives were taken for every one European. A foreign writer acquainted with the facts estimated the number of Arabs killed as 600 or 700. No misconception of facts could get over this—that wherever a force of troops was under Arabi's command, and he was allowed to control matters, there European life was safe. So long as Arabi and his troops ruled in any part of Egypt, previous to the aggressions of Her Majesty's Government, there European life and property were safe; the anarchy in Egypt was the direct result of the intervention of Her Majesty's Government. The Government were now entering on a course of aggression in Egypt, and he had very little doubt that Her Majesty's Forces would be quite successful in scattering the forces of Arabi; and he had no doubt that Her Majesty's Forces would in time, perhaps in a short time, reduce the whole of Egypt to obedience to such order as reigned in Warsaw. But after Arabi was driven from the field, and after the Egyptian forces were scattered, the whole of the problem in reality remained to be solved, and the whole Eastern Mussulman world would be enlisted in hatred of the English pirates.
  1616
  Wherever the name of Allah was invoked curses would be rained on the heads of Englishmen. Not long ago there was a solemn consultation among Mussulmans in India as to whether Mahommedans were bound in true allegiance to the English Sovereign of Hindostan, and Mussulman Doctors being consulted came to the resolution that so friendly and impartial had been the action of England towards Mahommedans, so just had been their conduct and friendly their relations with the Padishah, that Mussulmans, without any violence to their religious principles, could, and ought to, yield loyal, law-abiding allegiance to the English Sovereign. That binding consultation of the Doctors of Islam, which ranged the forces of Islam on the side of English rule in India, had been dissipated for ever by the shells of the Inflexible that burst over Alexandria. In reply to a Question of his, the Government denied that the shells had done any damage to the town of Alexandria; and he was tempted to inquire what was the amount of destruction which was likely, in the views of artilleryists, to be caused by the explosion of a 1,700-lb. shell amidst the houses of an Oriental town. But even though it was assumed that these 1,700-lb. shells had no influence in creating the conflagration, they had, at any rate, destroyed for ever the alliance which had lasted now for nearly a century between the Mohammedan Power in the East and the more or less Christian Power of the West. After Egypt had been occupied, after Arabi had been conquered and, if British chivalry had its way, had been hanged—for British chivalry had a peculiar way of exhibiting itself under some circumstances—after all that had been done, a greater difficulty remained before the Government. Never did an English Minister make a greater mistake if he fancied that Europe meant more than to further complications for English policy, and to further embarrass England's position, by egging England on to the work she was now undertaking in Egypt. At this moment it was said that questions about the future position of Holland and Luxembourg towards the German Empire were among the little matters with which Prince Bismarck would approach England as a quid pro quo, and as determining his attitude towards proceedings in the East. Austria would make her claim—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going very far from the Question; he must not discuss other matters than those connected with the Vote.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he intended to say but a few words to show that the policy of the Government was not a solution of the difficulty, but was the beginning of evils. He felt the same confidence with which he predicted, five years ago, that the South African Act would not be a solution but a beginning of difficulties in South Africa—that the policy in Egypt was the beginning of difficulties in Europe.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would appeal to the Committee to do one thing or the other. It was not the wish or desire of the Government that the debate should be postponed—the desire of the Government was that the debate should go on that night; but, in answer to an appeal from the other side, the Prime Minister felt that there were reasonable grounds for the appeal, and he had, therefore, decided to give way, and had asked leave to withdraw the Vote until to-morrow. That being so, it was rather unfair for hon. Members to address the Committee—many of whom had left the House—and to carry on the discussion partly by a desultory conversation upon minor topics, and partly by speeches going over the whole ground, like that to which they had just listened. He would not attempt to follow the hon. Member in his speech; but there was one point in reference to a question of fact that he would notice. The hon. Member said that the events of the 11th of June arose out of a quarrel between Arabs and Europeans, in which the latter were the aggressors. Now, the information he had in the Papers before him left no doubt that such was not the case. He had not only read the depositions taken before the Commission at Alexandria, so far as they went—for the Commission broke up upon the withdrawal of the Consular Agents—but he had spoken with the British Commissioner and with American missionaries and others from Egypt, and the evidence thus obtained placed it beyond doubt. There could be no doubt left on the mind of anyone that the first accounts received of the massacre were accounts of a very imperfect kind; and there could be no doubt now that the massacre of June 11 was premeditated, and that arrangements were made beforehand for carrying it out.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, with regard to preparations among the Arabs, to which, probably, the hon. Baronet referred, no doubt there were such; but the hon. Baronet omitted to state that there were previous proposals for brigading the European inhabitants into a regular armed force; and though this was rejected by Her Majesty's Government, the knowledge of the fact came to the ears of the general population of Alexandria, and the consequence of this proposal for arming 3,000 or 4,000 able-bodied Europeans in Alexandria was to spread a feeling that the authorities in Alexandria were engaged in a plot to form, in fact, an advance guard of an army of occupation. The Under Secretary could not deny that proposals wore laid before Sir Beauchamp Seymour, previous to the riot, for forming the European inhabitants of Alexandria into an armed force, ostensibly for purposes of self-defence; and the Committee would at once see the influence such a proposal had on the minds of the Arab population. But the riot itself arose out of a quarrel commenced by Greeks and maltese
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that, impressed by the importance of the subject to the shipping interest, he desired to follow up the Question put by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley). He would not ask for any particulars in the answer; but he hoped the Government would try to give some assurance in reference to the protection of the trade and commerce in the Suez Canal. It was a very serious thing for the mercantile community, and "a fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind." Seven-eighths of the trade was British, and they were in a great state of anxiety and perplexity to know what to do. One of the chief uses of a Navy was to protect our trade; and they ought to have some confidence that the Canal trade would be protected. Would the Government, then, speak out at the present time? He did not want particulars; but let the Government give an assurance that the shipping would be protected, and be allowed to proceed on its way; and, seeing that we had so many ships to do the work, it was fair to ask the Government to say that the shipping interest should be looked after.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member asked for a positive declaration; and if that declaration had not

  1619
  been already made—and he thought it had by the Secretary to the Admiralty—he could assure his hon. Friend that the Government intended to give every protection.
  MR. THOMAS COLLINShoped the Committee would have clear information at what hour the House would meet to-morrow.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
  (1.) £23,110, to complete the sum for the Houses of Parliament.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would agree with him, having regard to the length of time hon. Members were now called on to spend within the four walls of this House, that every arrangement, within reasonable limits, should be made for their comfort and convenience inside the building. But the arrangements were open to great improvement. Last year £1,200 was voted for rooms to be given up to the House of Commons by the House of Lords, and there was another Vote of £400 for the same object this year. The result of the alterations had been that hon. Members who were smokers had had an elegant, convenient, and comfortable Smoking Boom provided for them; but he was anxious to know what arrangements were to be carried out for the convenience of Members who did not smoke? Those hon. Members who were more interested in the Tea Boom than the Smoking Boom were told last year that this Session additional accommodation would be provided for them. There was a room which had been devoted to judicial purposes which was to be given up to them; but he understood that owing to the delay in the completion of the New Courts of Justice, the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to place that room at their disposal this Session. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) wished to get a distinct statement from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the appropriation of the room to Members next Session. He should also like the First Commissioner of Works to inform the Committee whether the new Tea Boom, like the new
  1620
  Smoking Boom, was to be for the exclusive and private accommodation of Members? There were many reasons, which it was unnecessary for him to point out, but which everyone must appreciate, why hon. Members should have a room to which strangers wore not admitted. With regard to another matter to which the right hon. Gentleman had promised his attention should be given this year, but which, no doubt, had escaped him, was anything going to be done to improve the conveniences in the News Boom? At present, if hon. Members went into the room in anything like numbers—if there were more than 20 present—great difficulty was experienced in getting a newspaper or obtaining a seat.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, that with regard to the external repairs to the stone work of the building, he should like to know whether they were to go on steadily for the future, and whether they were not mainly necessary in consequence of the imperfect stone which had been used by the original contractors? He believed the imperfect stone came from the same place as the perfect stone, but from a different bed. How was it that during the, comparatively speaking, short life of this building such extensive continuous repairs were necessary? Then, as to lighting, he should like to know whether it was intended to adopt any of the now perfected systems of electric lighting in the House, and whether it was intended to replace the gas in the Tower by electricity '? The hon. Member who had last spoken had referred to newspapers in the News Boom. He (Mr. Firth) endorsed the hon. Member's observations. He had found 10 copies of The Daily Telegraph—no doubt, a very interesting journal—in the room, but not a single copy of The Standard, which some hon. Members might prefer to read. How was that?
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that all would agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that there was insufficient accommodation in the House for hon. Members who did not smoke. But, in his view, even the accommodation for Members who did smoke was not so good as it might be. All hon. Members who smoked—or the majority of them—were aware of the advantage of the St. Stephen's Cloister for their accommodation. On more than one occasion Me-

  1621
  morials had been placed before the Predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works requesting them to make inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining whether it would not be a satisfactory arrangement to glaze over a portion or the whole of the Cloister. Inquiries had been made as to the cost of glazing over the centre of the Cloister, because if the cost of glazing over the whole would be too much, all hon. Members would desire would be, that part should be covered in, and that the bay windows should be opened down to the ground. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any information in his Office on the subject, and whether he would give it his attention between this and next Session? There was another point to which he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. He had noticed that in the Estimates for the present Session there was no reference whatever made to the decoration of the Houses of Parliament. Well, since they last met, a large picture painted by Mr. Herbert had been put up in what was formerly intended to be a Court of Appeal, but which was now the Court of the noble Lord who presided over Railway Committees in the House of Lords. The subject of the picture was "The Judgment of Daniel." He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to proceed with the decoration of the Houses in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission which sat many years ago to consider the subject? In the room he had mentioned there were several blank spaces that might be very properly filled; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Mr. Herbert was to be intrusted with the work, or whether it was intended now, or at some future time, to submit proposals for filling the spaces with pictures by the best living artists? He had taken interest in this matter for a long course of years, but had never been anxious to see public money spent in this way; but in the present instance, as the work had been begun, it would be quite as well that they should finish it. As two spaces had been filled in Lord Redesdale's room with pictures, steps might be taken to fill the vacant places. Probably they might do what was done, or suggested, when the decoration of the Houses was
  1622
  in contemplation—namely, obtain prize pictures. Some of the pictures in the building were very much in want of varnish and some attention; and he would, therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take into his counsel those who had the care of the pictures in the National Gallery or South Kensington Museum. With the knowledge and under the direction of these gentlemen the pictures might be put into a proper condition.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that, looking at the length of time hon. Members had to spend in the House now-a-days, they were entitled to have their comfort attended to, and he thought it would be admitted that since he had occupied his present Office, he had not been neglectful of that comfort. After making the needful inquiries he had been successful in obtaining from the House of Lords three additional rooms for the convenience of hon. Members. One of these was now the new Smoking Boom, another was the new Dining Room, and the third was to be a Tea Room. The last named was now used as a Court of Appeal; but it would cease to be used as such in the course of the coming autumn, and the room would then be handed over to the House of Commons. He had said this apartment was to be used as a Tea Room; but that might not be literally correct. It might be found to be convenient to devote the room to other purposes; but if that were done, another room would be given up for the purposes of a new Tea Room. Questions had been put to him with reference to the supply of newspapers in the News Room. He was afraid the subject had, since he promised to consider it, escaped his attention; but he would undertake that the same thing should not occur next year. He would bear in mind what had been said, and see what could be done for the convenience of hon. Members. As to the external repairs to the stonework of the building, he was sorry not to be able to hold out any hope to the hon. Member that the expenditure on this work would be less in the future than it had been in the past. The stonework would be perpetually requiring repair, a fact which was due to the stone used in the building having been taken from a quarry that turned out to be not so good as was expected, and to the

  1623
  bad atmosphere of London which had an injurious effect upon the very best stone. As to the subject of lighting the House by electricity, experiments in that direction had already been made; but they had not been so satisfactory as to induce the Government to adopt that method of lighting, and no further experiments would be attempted until it was believed, from what was experienced elsewhere, that the electric lighting had been brought to such a condition that it would be advantageous to adopt it in the Houses of Parliament. It would be acknowledged by everyone that the lighting arrangements of this House were about as perfect as they could be under the system of lighting by gas. This, in fact, might be described as about the best sample of gas-lighting in London. It had been determined to light the New Law Courts by electricity, and that would give them an opportunity of forming an opinion of the character of that light, and of the advisability of adopting it in the Houses of Parliament. If the experiment was successful in the Now Law Courts, he would introduce the electric light into the outside chambers and corridors of this building, leaving this room—the House of Commons—the last to have the gas taken from it. As to additional smoking accommodation, he had given considerable attention to the question of the practicability of covering in the Cloister. Great objection had been taken to the proposal from structural reasons; but he had discarded the idea on giving hon. Members the extra Smoking Room to which he had referred. That room was a substitute for the Cloister, the cost of covering which would be very considerable.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: But not the cost of covering in a part?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the cost would be £5,000 or £6,000, and that would be an expenditure which he did not think he should be justified in incurring, seeing that he had such a very short time ago provided additional accommodation for hon. Members who were smokers. He had been asked whether he was prepared to continue the decoration of the Peers' Room, where there were already two pictures by Mr. Herbert. The two pictures had been obtained at considerable cost. Originally, when it was intended to decorate the whole of the room, the outlay
  1624
  was put down at £10,000 for four pictures. That sum was subsequently considered too little, and Mr. Herbert, he thought, had received £9,000 for the two pictures. It was not intended to continue this expenditure, at any rate, at present. The first of the two pictures by Mr. Herbert had given universal satisfaction. The second picture had only been recently placed in its present position, and it was, perhaps, too soon yet to express an opinion with regard to it. It was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, so far as he was aware, nor did he think it would be fair to Mr. Herbert, to give an order to anyone else for the completion of the decoration of the chamber in question.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he had seen a Question on the Notice Paper to-day which was similar to one he should have liked himself to have put to the Government. There had lately been great complaints of the objectionable smells experienced by persons passing the entrance to the Speaker's Court, and at other parts of the building. An hon. Member had put on the Paper a Question with regard to it.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that was so, and he had asked the hon. Member to postpone it so that he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) might make the necessary inquiries into the matter. He did not think there was anything to apprehend from the drains which came into the building; but, at the same time, he knew there had been complaints as to the bad atmosphere outside some parts of the building. This arose, he believed, from the bad air which came out of the building, and if he were right in that supposition, it would be a thing over which he would have no control. It appeared, also, that certain foundries and manufactories on the other side of the river at certain times discharged a large quantity of smoke which affected the atmosphere surrounding the Houses of Parliament.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman would allow him he would take him to a place on the land side of the House where he could smell the drains at all times of the day and night.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his Question. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would cost £6,000 or £7,000 to glaze over the whole of the

  1625
  Cloister; but that was not his (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) point. He had suggested that one or two bay windows might be covered in, and if that suggestion were adopted, it would not be at all necessary to interfere with the structural character of the House. The stonework need not be touched, and it would be quite sufficient to do what he proposed. If his recommendation were carried out it would be a source of great satisfaction to a great many hon. Members who were fond of their cigars or tobacco. When the House was at all full it would surprise people to see how crowded that part of the building to which he was referring became. When the Memorial, signed by a large number of hon. Members, was presented to the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor (Mr. Adam), the reply given to it was that the question would be taken into consideration in all its bearings, not only as to the advisability of covering in the whole of the Cloister, but a portion of it—one or two bays, perhaps, not quite up to the side door. He would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to take the matter into his serious consideration and place it before the surveyors, who were officials of his Department. If these gentlemen were of opinion that the improvement would be injurious to the building, that opinion could be circulated through the House, and the matter would drop. If he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) were alive next year, he would repeat the Question.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he found items in the Estimates for gas, oil, and so on; but he found nothing for ice. It was no use mincing the matter; the House had been insufferably hot during the last few nights. Something had been said about it a night or two ago, and almost immediately a paragraph appeared in The Daily News on the subject; and those who had charge of the building were so extravagant as to use a ton of ice in one day. But let them take to-night, or even the night of a Scotch debate, hon. Members could not remain in the Chamber for any length of time without becoming sleepy from the condition of the atmosphere. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman obtained the opinion of the Committee, he would find there was a general belief that the arrangements for cooling the House were not so good as
  1626
  they used to be. There was a time when this apartment used to be the best ventilated in the building; but now, if a person wanted to get cool, instead of coming into this Chamber, he would have to go outside on the terrace. An over-heated atmosphere had an effect on the temper, and for that reason, as well as many others, the right hon. Gentleman should issue orders for there to be no stint in the supply of ice.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not think there had been any stint of ice, and hon. Members would agree that the atmosphere of the House was fairly cool.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he should like to get an expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the means of communication between this Chamber and other parts of the House. The right hon. Gentleman would be surprised to hear that in the newspaper offices they had a better knowledge of what was going on in the House than hon. Members had in such parts of the building so little removed from this Chamber as the Dining Room or Smoking Room. There were several telegraphic instruments which could be used to acquaint hon. Members in other parts of the building with what was going on in this Assembly. Telephones could be used, and it would be very easy to have an official at one end of the wire whose duty it should be to answer all inquiries from various parts of the building as to what was going on in the Chamber. There was another point to which he wished to draw attention. He did not know exactly how much of the Ladies' Gallery was at the disposal of Mr. Speaker; but, although he did not wish unnecessarily to interfere with any of the right hon. Gentleman's privileges, he thought, from what he had heard, and seeing the limited extent of the Gallery, that it would be as well that the right hon. Gentleman should not have exclusive rights over such an amount as one-third of the Gallery. Mr. Speaker's Ladies' Gallery, he supposed, was rarely more than half filled; therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had privileges of which, although they really interfered with the rights of private Members, he was unable to make fair use himself. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had considered the subject of the removal of the grating from

  1627
  the Ladies' Gallery. Some months ago he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was in the House of Representatives of America, and he observed that there they managed these things much bettor than they did in England. Anyone was at liberty to enter any of the Galleries in the House, except one or two reserved for diplomatists. During the two or three days he had attended, he had seen in the Galleries a large number of ladies, who, apparently, took the liveliest interest in what was going on. The American Legislators did not seem afraid of beholding the ladies, and the ladies, on their part, did not seem anxious to conceal themselves behind a veil of iron. The practice of hiding the females from the gaze of the other sex seemed to him to be an objectionable recognition of an Oriental custom in this country.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, with regard to communicating from that Chamber what was going on in other parts of the House, he would make inquiries into the matter, and ascertain if it would be convenient to adopt any of the electric inventions to which the hon. Member had referred. With regard, also, to the Ladies' Gallery, he would consider the point, and see whether the existing arrangements could be altered. He could not say more than that.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £550, to complete the sum for the Monument to the Earl of Beaconsfield.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he could not help saying that he thought this the most appropriate Vote that could have been brought forward at this time. He believed there was to be an inscription on the Monument recording the services that the late Earl of Beacons-field had rendered to his country, and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would suggest that to that should be added a line commemorating the faithful imitation of the noble Lord's policy by Her Majesty's Government.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £88,064, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings in Great Britain and the Isle of Man, including various special Works; for providing the necessary
  1628
  supply of Water; for Bents of Houses hired for the accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon."
  MR. DILLWYNasked for some explanation of the Vote for repairs of Admiralty Buildings, &c.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he should like to have some information with regard, to the Orange Street Waterworks; and, with regard to Westminster Bridge, he noticed that there was a charge made upon the Imperial Revenues for its repairs, and he should like to be informed whether it would not be possible to put that charge on the local rates?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he should be glad to have some explanation, of this Vote of £3,200 for repairs to existing Admiralty Buildings; and, perhaps, at the same time as the right hon. Gentleman gave him some explanation, he would tell them whether he intended to bring forward a Supplementary Estimate in regard to the construction of the new War Office?
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he noticed that there was a sum of £835 to be devoted to the repairing of Whitehall Chapel, and this was £755 more than was voted in 1881–2. He did not think it was at all too soon for a large sum to be spent upon the building, and he was glad to see that this amount was to be devoted to the purpose But what he wished to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman was this—he did not know whether there had been any plan prepared for the repair of the Chapel, but at present he noticed all around the Chapel what appeared to be a number of festoons of cloth that at one time had been of a crimson colour, but which were now completely covered with dust. It would be a great advantage if these decorations were removed, because they did not seem to have any sort of congruity with an ecclesiastical building. There was also another item in the Estimates to which he should like to draw attention. He saw there was a sum of £198 to be voted for Lincoln's Inn Appellate Court. He wished to know whether it was necessary to retain that Appellate Court, and whether there was not sufficient accommodation in the New Law Courts?
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEcomplained of the drainage of some of the Government Buildings, and desired to know whether any steps had been taken to recover compensation from the contrac-

  1629
  tor or clerk of the works who had been guilty of neglect on this subject?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that, with regard to the Admiralty Buildings, there had been a transfer of the grant from one Vote to another, and the total amount was £11,300, of which £3,600 was for repairs, and £6,400 for rents. Hon. Members wished to know why this largo sum was charged. It was true that a Bill had been passed for the acquisition of a new site for the War Office and Admiralty Buildings, but he apprehended that some considerable time must elapse before the work would be completed. It would be necessary to retain an architect, and competition of some kind would be invited. This would involve some considerable time, and it would be obvious that it would be necessary to go on repairing the existing buildings during the interval, and that the Votes in question were necessary. With regard to Westminster Bridge, no doubt, when there was a Municipal Government all over London, the desirability of putting the cost of maintaining the Bridge on the rates would come under consideration. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had already written a Memorial on this subject; but in the meanwhile he did not think it worth while to raise the question. With regard to Whitehall Chapel, it was, no doubt, true that for a long time the interior of the building had been in a very discreditable and disreputable state. The hon. Member who had offered criticism upon the condition of the Chapel would, no doubt, be glad to hear that they had provided for repairs and improvements in the Chapel. Whether the antique festoons would be removed or cleaned he could not say, but he could promise, at any rate, that something would be done. With regard to the Appellate Court, he had every confidence that there would be room in the new building; and as for the sanitary arrangements of the Public Buildings, an adequate Estimate would be taken this year, it having been decided that altogether some £30,000 would be required for putting all the Public Offices in a sanitary condition. It was not very satisfactory that such a large amount should be required for such a purpose; but, after all, it was not to be wondered at, seeing that all these buildings were very old, and that when they were constructed our knowledge of sanitary matters was much less than at the present
  1630
  time. A considerable sum of money had already been spent upon putting the Public Offices in a satisfactory sanitary state, and he thought he was correct in saying that £6,000 or £7,000 would have to be spent immediately for that purpose. The remainder of the Vote was required for Somerset House and other buildings. On the subject of Orange Waterworks, the Return would shortly be presented to the House. He believed that the costs of the works there would be £1,400.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcriticized the mode of preparing 'the Estimates, and objected to the repeated changes in the classification of the outlays on buildings and other public works. One of the most useful checks on such kinds of outlay was secured by uniformity of charging for works. A change in the arrangement of items destroyed the continuity which was so essential for comparing one year's outlay with that of other years. Then, besides maintaining this uniformity, it was also necessary to separate the distinct kinds of outlay. Instead of this being practised, they found new works, repairs, rents, and furniture, new and old, thrown higgledy-piggledy into one Estimate.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERremarked upon the item of £40,000 for Rents and Assurance. He should like to know what sum in the shape of rent would be saved in future years after the buildings for which Parliamentary sanction had been obtained were completed; and he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was going to be done with that property in the hands of the Government between Downing Streeet, Great George Street, and the Houses of Parliament, and which spoilt the finest street in Europe? Further, he should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman was going to do with the buildings adjoining Westminster Hall when the legal business was transferred from them to the New Law Courts.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the total saving in rents from the erection of the New Government Offices was £16,000 a-year. As to the property belonging to the Government in Parliament Street, that was no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was acquired, as a new site had been determined upon for the erection of a War Office and Admiralty. They had bought the property, the removal of which would enable Par-

  1631
  liament Street to be widened, on very reasonable terms, and any public body which in the future might take it off the hands of the Government at the price they had paid for it, by selling or renting a portion of it at a fair price, would be able to carry out the improvement in question without any loss. He would make a suggestion of this kind to the Metropolitan Board, and see if they would carry it out.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he should like to know whether the plans for the construction of the New War Office and Admiralty would be obtained from a limited competition or an open one? He said this, because recently there had been a competition at Glasgow, open to the whole world, for plans for new Municipal Buildings, and the gentleman who had been successful out of 125 competitors—a friend of his own—was not a person well enough known to have been selected in a limited competition.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was going to give a practical turn to the discussion by moving' a reduction of the Vote. He was not satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to the expenditure on Westminster Bridge. It was no use telling them that the expenditure would be avoided when a measure was passed dealing with the Municipal Government of the Metropolis. There was no reason in the world why they should be called upon to pay nearly £3,000 a-year from the National Exchequer for the repair of the Bridge any more than they should be called upon to pay for the repairs of Pall Mall, or any other street in London. He would move that the Vote be reduced by £2,790, the amount proposed for the repairs of Westminster Bridge.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £85,274, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings in Great Britain and the Isle of Man, including various special Works; for providing the necessary supply of Water; for Rents of Houses hired for the accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  MR SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that before he dealt with the question raised by his hon. Friend, he would say a word as to the point referred to by the noble Lord. He had not yet decided what form of competition should be invited.
  1632
  There was some objection to open competition on the part of the great architects, who would decline on the score of expense to enter if there were too many competitors. He was thinking of having a double competition—first, a sketch design competition; and then selecting the authors of five or six of those sketches to compete for the complete design. In that way, he thought, it would be possible to overcome the objection of the great architects. All he could say was that it was his desire to have a competition, but the exact nature of it had not yet been determined on. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), he was bound to say he did not think the cost of repairing the Bridge could be thrown on the locality by a decision of this Committee. There was an estate vested in the Government for the purpose of maintaining the Bridge. There were several houses in Parliament Street, the rents of which went to the maintenance of the Bridge. The question, therefore, was not so easy to dispose of as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. It would be decided, whenever the subject of the Government of London was finally dealt with; but he did not think it would be desirable to attempt to settle it by a vote of the Committee.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he feared that the amount which was paid in the shape of rents for Government Offices would remain the same in future years in spite of the fact that a New War Office and Admiralty would be in existence. If hon. Members had studied the expenditure for rents for a series of years, they would find, as he (Sir George Balfour) had found, that in spite of the erection of new Colonial, Home, and Local Government Board Offices, the rents for the other years had not diminished. Then, the objectionable practice of having "rents" estimated for in separate Estimates was open to great objection. Either the rents for separate Departments should be presented to the House, or the rents for buildings for all Departments put into one Estimate. But neither course was followed.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that special police were charged for in connection with the Record Office. Were those Metropolitan police? If so, they should be charged for under the Metro-

  1633
  politan Police Vote. It was extremely inconvenient, as they found on the Public Accounts Committee, to have these separate police charges under different heads.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he could not answer the question. If they were not Metropolitan police they should be charged under this Vote; but if they wore it would seem desirable that they should be charged under the other Vote.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he should like to know what was the precise sum derived from the Westminster Bridge Estate, which was never stated as a set-off against the charge put on the public?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he could not state at this moment what the exact amount was; but he thought about £5,000 a-year. The rents were considerable, he knew.
  MR. DILLWYNagreed in supporting the objections urged.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he should support the hon. Member on a division, because the point raised was the principle whether the ratepayers in London were to bear burdens to which those in other boroughs throughout the country had to submit. A penny in the pound rate in London represented £100,000 per annum. The explanations of the First Commissioner of Works almost made the thing worse, for it appeared from that that Parliament had acquired an estate which did not bring in sufficient to pay the interest on the money advanced. He hoped the question would be raised again and again whether the wealthiest city in the world should have a part of the burden of its local expenditure defrayed out of the general Exchequer.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORrose to a point of Order. He believed the Government had already taken part of the Vote on a Vote on Account. Was it not necessary to move the reduction on the balance left? Such had been the ruling of the Chair previously.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was not usual to apportion the sum among these smaller amounts.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 131: Majority 86.—(Div. List, No. 296.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (4.) £12,860, to complete the sum for Furniture of Public Offices, Great Britain.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, hon. Members would see, if they looked at the Vote on page 24, that this Estimate provided only for the furniture of certain Public Offices in London and Edinburgh, and that further charges for certain specified Departments were made in the Votes for those Departments in Class I., and then, again, that there was a third series of charges for War Office, Admiralty, and Science and Art Departments. It was perfectly impossible to find out what was really spent in furniture. He should like to ask the First Commissioner of Works what was the actual expense of furniture throughout the Service; and, again, he should like to know how this furniture was procured? He had heard all sorts of rumours of gigantic jobs in connection with the supply of furniture. Was it supplied by contract, and, if so, by limited tender or otherwise; and, further, where the furniture was stored, and what became of the condemned furniture?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he could not say what was the aggregate cost of furniture, and in regard to this Vote some of it was obtained by contract and part by running accounts. He did not think there were any such "jobs" as the hon. Member spoke of in connection with the supply.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not say that there were jobs, but only that he had heard rumours of such. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would not mind laying on the Table a statement of the amount expended in furniture, the details of running contracts, and the amount spent under each?
  MR. HEALYsaid, this was a Vote for the Offices in Great Britain, and in reference to that he would mention that for years and years furniture to the amount of £500,000 in Colonel M'Kerlie's Department, and others had been allowed to go unregistered, and anyone might have stolen the property without the Board of Works in Ireland having cognizance of it. Would the Secretary to the Treasury state whether he would assent to some stock being taken of the furniture attached to the Office of Board of Works (Ireland)?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must remind the hon. Member that he was raising a point of detail that was not included in the Vote.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Vote was for Offices in Great Britain; was not Ireland in Great Britain?
  MR. WARTON: No.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, Ireland was not included in the Vote.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £177,011, to complete the sum for Revenue Department Buildings, Great Britain.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that, ever since the transfer of the buildings of the Revenue Department, now four or five years ago, to the Commissioners of Works, the outlay had been largely on the increase, as a comparison of the Estimates for the several years clearly showed, for the last Estimate showed an increase, in comparison with 1880–1, of £30,000, and now this Vote showed an increase over last year by no less than £75,000, so that there had been an advance in the two years of £105,000, and the increase was much larger, if contrasted with the Estimates of the first year of the transfer. He was sorry to see this vast increase in the expenditure of public money on buildings. It seemed to be no use for Members of that House trying to be economical. He attributed the increase to the fact that no control was exercised by the Department over this outlay. There also was another marked feature in the accounting system—that repairs were mixed up with new buildings in a way that prevented proper knowledge being arrived at in regard to the amounts used for new works, separately from the charge for current expenditure. (He (Sir George Balfour) had, year after year, urged the strongest objections to this vicious practice. The outlay on new works or additions was the investment of money in permanent works, and practically increased the property of the Kingdom, and should be kept separate from the outlay on repairs, which maintained the public property, and, like salaries, became current charges of the year. If the noble Lord, whose loss they all deplored, had lived, that bad syetem would have been remedied. Then, the mode for accounting for furniture was objectionable. In four or five places the Votes for furniture were
  1636
  distributed. An hon. Member said there was neglect under the Irish Board of Works; but here there seemed quite as much mismanagement and want of system. The first and foremost consideration was to separate the charges for new works, for repairs, and furniture under distinct and separate heads, so as to improve the power of check.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that a large sum had been set down for new buildings for electric telegraph purposes. Now, he could understand that the Post Office might be put to some increase of expenditure on that account; but £25,000 was a large increase for the Service. Had there been any exceptional or new development of the telegraph system calling for that largo expenditure? He was under the impression there had been nothing of the kind.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the item in the increase of the Telegraph Department was caused by an addition to the new Post Office buildings in London. That increase was entirely due to the enormous increase in telegraph business. After a good deal of consideration, it was intended to put an additional storey to the building, at a cost of £30,000, and that was an alternative to erecting a new building, which would have cost £500,000. As to the complaint that no control was exercised, this was an illustration to the contrary, for by careful inquiry it was found possible to add this new storey instead of erecting a new building.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, had not the Government recently received urgent representations from the Inland Revenue Department as to the insufficiency of office accommodation, and did they propose any steps to remedy this?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, no; he had heard nothing about that.
  MR. HEALTwished to say a word in reference to postal pillar-boxes. He observed in certain parts of London the boxes contained an arrangement showing when the box would be next cleared. It would be a great convenience to the inhabitants of London, and, indeed, generally in the country, if this reform were generally adopted. It very frequently happened that, in the night collections from the boxes that the postman was a quarter of an hour late; and it would be a great convenience to those who had

  1637
  occasion to despatch late correspondence to know, when they came to a pillar, whether the postman had passed or not. In some places this information was given; but could the plan be generally adopted, as it was in France and Belgium? Could not the Department carry it out in all parts of London—he would not say all over the country; but in London, with its 4,000,000 of inhabitants, a little slab indicating whether the box had or had not been cleared would be a great convenience.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, this practice had been carried out in some parts of the country; he had noticed it in the town he visited every year.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was a matter for the Postmaster General, who, no doubt, would give the information if a Question were put to him.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £34,480, to complete the sum for County Court Buildings.
  (7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,098, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Metropolitan Police Court Buildings."
  MR. FIRTHsaid, £40 were paid for Hammersmith, and £50 for Wands worth; was there any intention to provide these two Police Courts with proper habitations? The Home Office did intend to make a new division of the districts.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he could not answer the question. He did not think there was any idea of a new building until the question of local government for London was settled.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was glad the question had been again raised as to charges upon the Exchequer for local matters, and some satisfactory answer would, he hoped, be ultimately obtained. But there had been frequent promises given by the Government, and he would be very glad to hear what practical steps were to be taken by the Government in the matter. It was certainly a most objectionable Vote, this continual charge from year to year; and he did not understand on what ground the Government could justify it, when similar buildings in other towns were entirely paid by the local rates. What practical
  1638
  steps would be taken to relieve the Exchequer from the charge?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, this was one of many items now paid from Imperial funds which would more properly fall on the ratepayers. But he thought, whenever the question came under consideration, there was another item on the other side to be considered—namely, that the City of London paid for its own police. When a Municipality was provided for the whole of London, no doubt the Government would contribute in the same proportion to the City Police as to the cost of the Metropolitan Police. But these were all parts of the larger question.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he would not enter into the question whether the charge should, or should not, be borne by the Exchequer; but what he wished to call attention to was the objectionable state of the Police Court at Wandsworth. Whether it was to be paid for by the Exchequer, or by a Municipality, to be formed hereafter, he did not care to inquire; but he must call attention to this point, for hitherto no information had been given. Had the Chief Commissioner ever been to the Wandsworth Court? He (Mr. Warton) had had occasion to attend there to defend a man from an outrageous charge, and he was never in a more disgraceful Court House. It was about 20 feet long and 12 wide, and into this space were stuffed the magistrate and his clerk, half-a-dozen policemen, prisoners, witnesses, counsel, and the public. £50 a-year was far too much for such a miserable cottage; it was not worth more than £30, and it was disgraceful accommodation at that. If nothing were done to remedy the disgraceful condition of Wandsworth Police Court he should call attention to it by Motion. It was a filthy den, and not a fit place for any policeman.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that he intended to deal with this matter. He (Mr. Dillwyn) should certainly propose a reduction of the Vote, because he thought it time that they should protest, in the name of the taxpayers of the country, against payments out of the Imperial Exchequer for local purposes.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that before they went to a division he would ask the hon. Member (Mr.

  1639
  Courtney) if he could explain the new item in the Vote—that was, extra receipts, £3,560. He found it stated thus—
  "Estimated extra receipts (including for 1882–3 £3,032 12 s. 8d. payable by the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police in respect of the new Bow Street Police Station) £356, 1882–83; £300, 1881–2."
  What was the meaning of this? He was not disposed to vote with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) with regard to the Westminster Bridge Estate; but he thought the taxpayers throughout the country had reason to complain of the relief given to the Metropolitan rates out of the Imperial funds; therefore he would support the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn).
  MR. WARTONsaid, that Hammersmith and Wandsworth formed part of the same district; but money had been spent on the Hammersmith Station, whilst that at Wandsworth was left without anything at all, and the Wandsworth Station was a wretched place, intolerable beyond all hon. Members could think of. Why, if the same principle was involved at Hammersmith and Wandsworth, was £2,700 spent on the former and nothing on the latter, which was in a most disgraceful condition?
  MR. COURTNEYwas understood to say that the reason was that it was intended to remove the Wandsworth Police Station nearer Clapham Junction.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that if £100 was given to a builder he would be able to effect a great deal of improvement.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would make inquiries into the matter and see what could be done.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 43: Majority 94.—(Div. List, No. 297.)
  (8.) £4,195, to complete the sum for the Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.
  (9.) £67,200, to complete the sum for the New Courts of Justice and Offices.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he merely wanted to refer the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to an answer he had given him some time ago, to the effect that the New Courts of Justice would be open before the Long Vacation. He understood that could not now be done, owing
  1640
  to the death of the architect. It would be an advantage to the public and the Legal Profession if they could be informed about when the Courts were likely to be opened.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had given an answer on the subject some months ago; but since that some delay had been rendered necessary, owing to the unfortunate death of Mr. Street, the architect. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), however, had great confidence that the buildings would be thoroughly complete, and the Judges would be able to enter them on the first day of term after the Long Vacation.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was glad these Courts, which had been so long building, were now about to be opened. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give them some information as to whether the old Courts would be pulled down when the legal business was removed from them, so that Westminster Hall might be seen in its original proportions.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had not consulted the Government in the matter; but it was his hope that the course indicated by the right hon. Gentleman would be pursued. The Government were under a kind of obligation when the new Courts were finished to pull down the old ones. It was believed that there were some flying buttresses to the hall built up into the brickwork of the Courts, and it would be an extremely interesting operation to lay those bare. What would be the general effect when the brickwork was removed he could not say; but, according to Sir Charles Barry, it would not be good. He could only hope that the eminent architect he had quoted was wrong in the view he took of the matter, and that the effect would turn out to be much better than was expected.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) £135,000, to complete the sum for Surveys of the United Kingdom.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, a question had been before the Public Accounts Committee with reference to the Survey Accounts in Ireland. The balance had gone on increasing, and nearly £11,000 was now due. The Treasury had passed certain regulations in November, 1881, which it was hoped would tend to a reduction of the balance;

  1641
  and he would like to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury that he (Mr. Courtney) would closely watch the working of those regulations.
  MR. PUGHsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee an assurance that some progress had been made with the Survey. The Committee were concerned to know in what number of years the work would be completed. It occurred to him to be a very strange thing that the headquarters of the Survey should be South Africa.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, there was a very large increase of this Vote last year. That increase was agreed to upon the understanding that the Survey would be completed by the year 1890. They were, therefore, within a measurable distance of the completion of this great work. General Cook had made some improvements, which would greatly facilitate the issue of the maps; and he wished to take this opportunity of expressing the thanks of the Government to General Cook for these improvements, which would cause a saving of £100,000, and, at the same time, facilitate the issue of some of the maps by some years.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, it was all very well to say the work would be finished in 1890; but the Committee would like to know what was really being done. How many counties, for instance, had been surveyed? This was a matter of great importance to the landed interest of the country, and the Committee would like more detailed information than they had yet received. Could the Government state, even approximately, the number of maps sold and the amount realized by the sale?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that if he might supplement the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), he would do so by suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman might present a Return to the House, in continuance of the Return presented last year, showing what progress had been made and indicating when the survey of the different counties would be completed.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was not able to give any specific account of the progress made. From General Cook's Report the Committee would see exactly what part of the country had
  1642
  been surveyed during the past year, and how far the work had been accelerated during the last 12 months by the increased Vote of the House. Of course, the present increased Vote would have its effect in the coming year. He could assure the Committee that General Cook was desirous of hastening on the Survey in every possible way.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, be could hardly agree that the year 1890 was within a measurable distance of the present time. He did not think they ought to wait eight years for the completion of this work. Some time ago a very strong opinion was expressed on both sides of the House as to the delay in completing the Ordnance Survey, and there was a general feeling that no public money could be better spent than in accelerating this work. The Prime Minister, in introducing the Budget last year, expressed himself strongly in favour of additional expenditure on this ground; and he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would urge the right hon. Gentleman to endeavour to increase the number of men employed upon the work. It was desirable, too, that when the Survey was commenced in one county, the work in that county should be completed before any other was undertaken.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, there was one point on which he should like a little information to be afforded to the Committee. If he recollected rightly, when, on a previous occasion, the Committee pressed on the Government the necessity of accelerating the Survey, the answer given was that the Government had not got the men at their disposal, and that it was impossible to get them at once; that men were required to be specially educated to make the Survey. What he wanted to ask was, what steps had been taken by the Government to provide engineers to make the Survey, or to provide for the education which the Committee were told, in previous years, was absolutely necessary men should receive before they could take part in the work. It was perfectly clear the work could not be pushed on with the rapidity the Committee desired, unless there was a large increase of the men employed.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Report of General Cook for the present year would give the information the hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. H. Paget) desired.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, it was most unsatisfactory to notice the way in which all questions asked were answered by the right hon. Gentleman, considering that last year the Committee voted £50,000 extra, with the object of facilitating the progress of the Survey. The right hon. Gentleman might have expected some questions as to the rate of progress, as compared with previous years. No information, however, had been afforded to the Committee on the point; but still a further increased Vote was not proposed. The right hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw the Vote until he could afford the information the Committee desired.
  MR. PUGHsuggested that General Cook should, next year, issue his Report before this Vote was taken. Such an arrangement would be very satisfactory.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, there was no wish on his part to keep the Committee in ignorance. With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler)—namely, the desirability of completing the Survey of a county when once it was commenced, the Government had received many complaints; but he had always felt great hesitation in interfering with the work of the Survey in this respect. General Cook laid down a scheme for general survey, having regard to economy and the acceleration of the work; and he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) thought that, on the whole, it was not wise to interfere with the arrangements made by the gentlemen in charge of the work. He must ask hon. Members not to press him further on the point.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was glad the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Pugh) had asked the Government to lay the Report respecting the Survey, and other Reports, on the Table, when they would be of practical use. A good many weeks ago the Secretary to the Treasury was pressed to say when the Financial Accounts for the last year would be placed on the Table, and the hon. Gentleman gave the assurance that every effort would be made to push on the work. It was now the end of July, and the Committee had not yet received the Financial Accounts, which ought to have been issued in May. Might he ask the Secretary to the Treasury how the mat-
  1644
  ter stood at present, and whether the Committee might expect, in the course of the next few days, to receive the Financial Accounts promised so long ago?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Financial Accounts would be published without delay.
  Vote agreed to.
  (11.) £17,599, to complete the sum for the Science and Art Department Buildings.
  (12.) £3,947, to complete the sum for the British Museum Buildings.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he had only one question to ask in regard to this Vote. In page 43, under the head B, there was a charge for—
  "Rent of rooms at No. 103, Victoria Street, Westminster, for the temporary continuance there of the collection of Antiquities and Ethnographical Objects presented to the British Museum by the Trustees under the will of the late Mr. Henry Christy."
  The collection was brought to Victoria Street last year, and a promise was then made that it was to be removed to the British Museum and South Kensington, and that this charge would cease. He would like to know if this had been done?
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he would like to receive some information about the Natural History Museum; for instance, he would like to know what steps had been taken in the past year, and what might be expected in future years, towards the completion of the work?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Natural History Museum Vote will be taken next.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that when the collection of antiquities and ethnographical objects was removed the Christy portion would be removed.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there was a magnificent building at South Kensington intended for the Natural History Museum. That building had been erected at a very large cost, and at the present time it was practically empty, and for the very reason that certain money was required in order to provide cases in which to put the objects of interest. If the Secretary to the Treasury would look at the Estimates, he would see that, so far as buildings were concerned, the Estimates were satisfactory enough, but not so with regard

  1645
  to the Estimates for internal fittings. For internal fittings the original Estimate was £177,570; the revised Estimate, £136,203; total amount of previous Votes and re-Votes, £97,337; total expenditure up to the 30th of September, 1882, £32,996; Vote required for year 1882–3, £37,336; voted 1881–2, £37,337; further amount required for completing the work, nil. There was an item of £4,356 under the heading "further amount required for completing the work," and with regard to that item he would like some explanation. The learned professor who was in charge of the Natural History part of the British Museum at the present moment was a gentleman who was getting into years, and he was extremely anxious to see the new arrangements completed in his lifetime. It was very necessary the Natural History Collection should be removed, and if the only difficulty in the matter was one of money he was persuaded it could soon be overcome.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Vote for internal fittings amounted to £37,000, and for that sum nearly the whole of the internal fittings of the building would be completed. Certainly not more than £4,000 or £5,000 more would be required.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £29,858, to complete the sum for the Natural History Museum.
  MR. G. HOWARDasked whether the building containing the collection of objects in spirits had been separated from the Natural History Museum, owing to the inflammable character of the contents of the former building; and whether it adjoined the building which was now used for the National Portrait Gallery, which building was not fire-proof, and the contents of which were of a far more inflammable nature than the objects in spirits?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, there was a considerable space between the building for objects in spirits and the National Portrait Gallery. The danger which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Howard) seem to fear need not be apprehended.
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNEsaid, that at present the spirit collection was placed underneath the Library of the British Museum. He agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. G. Howard) that it
  1646
  was to be regretted that the spirit collection should be kept so near the National Portrait Gallery.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the Trustees of the Museum had been for a long time anxious to separate the spirit collection from the other portions of the building.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not wish it to be supposed there was any real danger to the National Portrait Gallery by the proximity of the spirit collection. The two buildings were separated by such a distance that there was no real danger to be feared.
  Vote agreed to.
  (14.) £4,695, to complete the sum for Harbours, &c. under the Board of Trade.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTnoticed that £2,982 of this Vote was in respect of the Dover Harbour. A Bill authorizing the construction of a new harbour at Dover was read a second time only the other day, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade distinctly stated that the promoters of the Bill were to be answerable for all the expense. He understood from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that any expenditure on the part of the Board of Trade in regard to the harbour would cease, that the new Bill was not to affect the Admiralty Pier, and that the cost of maintaining Dover Harbour was to be undertaken by those who entered upon the work. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he had correctly interpreted his observations? He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman if it was not being carefully considered whether it would not be worth the Government's while to ask for a sum of money to be expended on Dover Harbour, so as to make the harbour one of real value to the country? The right hon. Gentleman had said the harbour when constructed would not be large enough for the accommodation of ships of war. It was to be regretted if, by the new works, the harbour was not made a really useful one.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not intend to convey, in what I said upon a Private Bill that was before the House the other day, that if that Bill passed into law ail charge upon the public funds in reference to the harbour would

  1647
  cease. That was not in question, and was beside the point raised by the Private Bill. Of course, if the Government should at a later period repeat the proposals of previous Governments and propose to hand over the Admiralty Pier to the Harbour Board, the expense upon the Admiralty Pier would, of course, in future be defrayed by the Harbour Board; but so long as the Government retain possession of property vested in them at Dover, so long, of course, there will be an annual charge for it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman takes the opportunity of asking whether we do not think the time has come for making some proposals to the House for the extension of Dover Harbour for military and other purposes. The position at present is this. We have appointed a small Departmental Committee to consider the question of convict labour. That Committee has not yet reported; but, no doubt, it Las under consideration the propriety of employing convicts upon some harbour works, and I know that it has specially and seriously considered the desirability of employing such labour at Dover. But until we get the Report of the Committee, we shall not be in a position to advise the House upon the subject. Under these circumstances, it would, perhaps, be as well if further observations on the subject were postponed until we get that Report.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to know whether the case of Galway had been brought under the attention of the Departmental Committee of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke? The right hon. Gentleman might imagine that he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had a particular interest in this matter; but the reason why he had risen to bring it to the right hon. Gentleman's attention was that Spike Island, the great convict establishment of Ireland, had been disestablished. Several Chief Secretaries for Ireland had given an undertaking that they would favourably regard the employment of convict labour at Galway to construct a breakwater, which would be useful, not only in connection with Galway Harbour, but for the safety of all the vessels on the West Coast. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the case of Galway Harbour as well as that of Dover.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: If I may be permitted, I will answer this point at
  1648
  once. We have under consideration the employment of convicts in Ireland as well as in Scotland and England. It appears that it is the opinion of the Irish Government that a very considerable number of Irish convicts can be profitably and advantageously employed in building, chiefly in connection with convict prisons. I am informed that a large number of them will be so employed, and that only a few will remain; and, of course, with only a few, it is not likely that they will be employed in any great work of harbour construction. How these few may be employed I do not know at present; but that is a matter which is still under consideration.
  MR. O'KELLYwished to know whether, in view of the necessity felt for harbours in the West Coast of Ireland, it would not be well for the Government to employ convict labour in the construction of breakwaters there rather than in the erection of prisons.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would raise the question on the Vote for Convict Prisons.
  MR. ROUNDsaid, he wished to ask a question with regard to Harwich Harbour. It was the duty of the Harbour Board to keep up the harbour, and to keep the navigation in proper order. That Board had existed for many years past, and consisted of members elected by the different localities in the neighbourhood. Some of the members were the nominees of different Government Departments—the Board of Trade, the Treasury, the Admiralty, and other Government Departments nominated some of them. At the beginning of each year the members elected a Chairman, and the question which he now wished to put to the Government was this. The Chairman who was elected at the beginning of the year 1881 was a Member of this House, and was greatly interested in the locality. His appointment, as was the case with all these appointments, might come to an end in five years. When his appointment as Chairman came to an end, at the end of last year, he was not re-elected, notwithstanding the fact that it was the almost invariable rule that the Chairman should be re-elected. He (Mr. Round) wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the reason why such an unusual course was taken, and why the late Chairman was not re-elected. He was not aware that

  1649
  there was any case on record since the commencement of the Harbour Board of any Chairman not being re-elected. The late Chairman was a man in whom the members of the Board had full confidence, or they would not have placed him in the position he had occupied. He had all the responsibility and work of the Board in his hands; and it was very unfair, unless there were some good grounds for it, that when his term of office came to an end he should not be re-elected. He (Mr. Round) hardly conceived that there could be any fault to be found with the hon. Gentleman he referred to, unless it was that he did not sit on the same side of the House as the present Government. He was quite sure that hon. Members on both sides would agree with him that that should not be a reason why a gentleman who enjoyed the confidence of the Board should not be re-appointed. He would like to say that he had no objection whatever to the gentleman whom the Government had put in that hon. Member's place, because that gentleman also formerly sat in this House, and was a gentleman who certainly ought to be on the Board for that district. The new Chairman was in every way a proper person to fill the vacancy. But he would ask the right hon. Gentleman what grounds there were for dispensing with the previous Chairman's services; and whether there was any case on record of a similar course having been taken before with regard to any former Chairman of the Board?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was glad the hon. Member had raised the question of Harwich Harbour, because it was one which was well worthy of the consideration of the House, with the view of seeing whether or not the charge for it ought to be continued at all. It seemed to him that if the Government had it in their power to nominate members of the Board, and to select the Chairman, it was a pity that they did not continue the Chairman in a position where those who knew him could recognize the value of his services. But what he wanted to know was whether it was worth while to continue the Conservancy Board at Harwich at all? If they were brought into liquidation now, their available assets would be about Is. 6d. They had had to do with a Railway Company on one side, and with the War
  1650
  Department on the other; and though, between the three Bodies, the town of Harwich had been greatly benefited, the Conservators did not seem to have done anything to justify their existence, and the result was that they owed a considerable amount of money to the Public Exchequer. There were entries of this sort in last year's accounts—Repayment of principal and interest of loan advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, £430; expended on works, £1,000; and other items of expenditure, £550. This year the amount expended on works was £350; and as the total receipts from dues, &c, were only £1,180 altogether, the result was that the deficiency last year was £820, and this year £150. The deficiency last year had to be made good by a Vote in these Estimates, and this year, similarly, £150 had to be paid. It appeared to him to be absurd to continue to keep on the books of the nation this liability of the Harwich Harbour Commissioners to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, which was never met except by the assistance of a Vote in the Estimates. He thought this item of loan should be knocked out of the Estimates altogether, and the balance duo from the Harbour authorities to the Public Works Loans Commissioners should be wiped off, just in the same way that a loan to a Scotch Board was wiped off last year.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member seems to have curious notions of the way in which the public purse should be saved, because his proposition is this—that the repayment, principal and interest, of loan, amounting to £430 per annum, should be dispensed with, and that in return we should gain an annual charge on the Votes of £150.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Yes; but last year it was £800.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; owing to an expenditure upon exceptional works. The result of such an arrangement would be a distinct loss to the public Revenue. But the whole question depends upon the peculiar circumstances of the case. Harwich is one of those harbours which is supported, to a considerable extent, out of the public money, because it is a harbour of refuge, the cost of which ought not properly to fall entirely upon the locality. The hon. Member says the Con-

  1651
  servancy Board is useless; but I do not see that at all. They have managed the affairs they had to deal with with very considerable still. Before the harbour was made they raised from dues an annual income of £1,500. So far as that is concerned, probably the amount received balances the expenditure, so far as the local harbour goes. But over and above that, we have an expenditure for a national work—for the harbour as a harbour of refuge. At the present time the charge is very small, and it has been considerably reduced of late years.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not know anything of the circumstances of the case which had been referred to by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Round). He quite agreed with him that politics should not alone be a consideration for public service; but he would inquire into the circumstances, for he thought there must be some explanation forthcoming.
  MR. ROUNDsaid, he had not meant to suggest that politics alone had been considered. As to what had been said by the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) about the Harwich Harbour Board, he thought that hon. Member was labouring under some misapprehension. To his (Mr. Bound's) knowledge, the harbour was being silted up years ago, when the Board was established. It was a most important harbour of refuge for vessels on the East Coast; and if the Harbour Board had not been established, and the work they had done carried out, the harbour would have been silted up, and there would be no Harwich Harbour at all now. The expenditure referred to, as having taken place last year, had been incurred over special works which were very much needed, and which had been very properly carried out. The results had been most beneficial.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked how it was that the estimated receipts at Holyhead were now only£2,600, as against £2,770 last year, while those at Dover showed an increase?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The estimated receipts at Holyhead show a decrease, because, under a recent decision of one of the Law Courts, ships have to be re-measured for tonnage; and they will pay smaller dues in future than they have done in the past. I suppose the
  1652
  increase at Dover arises from the regular increase of traffic.
  Vote agreed to.
  (15.) £81,088, to complete the sum for Rates on Government Property.
  (16.) £5,000, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Eire Brigade.
  (17.) £130,208, to complete the sum for Public Buildings (Ireland).
  MR. R. H. PAGETwished to know whether the House was to be furnished with any Report as to the Minister Model Farm, referred to on page 51 of the Estimate? A considerable sum was put down for the annual expenditure on that farm, and he thought a Report ought to be furnished to the House to show the way in which the money was distributed, because he did not see why such an expenditure should be provided out of the public purse for farming in Ireland, while there was no similar expenditure in England. He hoped the time would arrive when the State would possess a regular Agricultural Department, and when they might have a right to an agricultural model farm here in England as well as in Ireland.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was afraid he could not give the hon. Gentleman any information on the subject; but he would inquire, and, on Report or privately, he would give him such information as was to be obtained.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the hon. Gentleman could give any information as to the item for fishery piers? He wished to know whether the money, which was now to be voted, would actually be expended on the piers for which Parliament was asked to vote the money, because he believed there had not been a single year in which the money voted by Parliament for those piers had actually been spent upon them. Year after year the money which Parliament had voted for the benefit of the starving population on the West Coast of Ireland was paid back into the Exchequer. Some time ago there was a special Vote passed for the purpose of establishing fishery piers and harbours on the West Coast of Ireland, and they were assured that every effort would be made by the Government to push on works of such great utility at a time when a large portion of the population was in a starving condition. The employment was of the first importance

  1653
  to those unfortunate people; but, as a matter of fact, the works were never pushed forward as they ought to have been, and many of them were still in almost the earliest stage of commencement when the period of distress passed by. The Board of Works did not appear to have made any efforts to call upon the contractors, who were months in arrear with their work, to do their duty; and those contractors, who should have given employment to the starving people, were allowed to go scot free. There was not one instance in which any forfeiture was exacted, and the benefit which Parliament intended to bestow on the district was, of course, all the time entirely lost to the people. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman what was the present condition of the piers set forth on page 53, and whether they would be completed this year?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, it was impossible for him to say. The hon. Gentleman himself must be aware that work of this kind was liable to be interrupted. There had been no case made out for forfeiture in connection with these works, and, therefore, no forfeiture could be enforced.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwas very much obliged for the answer which the hon. Gentleman had given him; but he could not say that he had gathered any information from it. Possibly that was because the hon. Gentleman had not any to impart. As to the forfeitures which were incurred or not incurred by the contractors, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that, in many instances, the contractors had either incurred forfeiture, or that the contracts on which the works were let out were of such a nature that it would not have mattered if they had gone on for several years without the contractors doing what they had undertaken to do. Would the hon. Gentleman lay on the Table of the House copies of the contracts under which these different works were undertaken, in order that the House might know the exact position of things? If the hon. Gentleman would do that, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would be very glad, as it would be very useful in future cases of this kind.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, it was obviously impossible to do this where there were large contracts. If the hon. Gentleman knew of any special work which
  1654
  was being neglected, and would bring it under his notice, he would have the contract examined, and would see how the matter stood.
  MR. HEALYwished to know whether it was true, as had been recently stated in the newspapers, that the Government were going to erect some new buildings, either in the Phœnix Park or in the Curragh of Kildare, for the purposes of the new Irish police? Was that the case or not, and, if it was the case, on what year would the work be charged—this year or next? He wished also to ask in what place was the scheme of the Government with regard to the Irish potato experiments to be carried out? Was it to be in Glasnevin, or where, and what had so far been done in the matter?
  MR. COURTNEYwas afraid he could give no information in reply to the last question. It was intended to make an increase in the Constabulary Force in Ireland, and for that purpose he believed there would be some huts erected in the Curragh of Kildare. The Estimates would be laid before the House in due course.
  MR. HEALY: What is the estimated amount of the Vote?
  MR. COURTNEY: It is not yet settled. It is not included in these Votes at all.
  Vote agreed to.
  (18.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £6,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for Expenses preparatory to and of the erection of the Museum of Science and Art in Dublin, and of additions to the School of Art in Dublin."
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Lord Mayor of Dublin had requested him to ask a question as to this Vote. These questions were usually answered by the Vice President of the Committee of Council; and he would ask that right hon. Gentleman whether he could give any information as to the scheme which had been so often pressed upon him?
  MR. MUNDELLAwas not aware that he had any information to give on the point.
  MR. HEALY: As to the creation of a Science and Art Museum in Dublin?
  DR. LYONSasked what was the state of preparation, and what kind of buildings would be erected? He believed the plans were obtained by a system of limited competition.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the matter was now entirely out of the hands of the Science and Art Department, and in those of the Board of Works. This was their Vote.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, there was a general competition, out of which five competitors had been selected to work out their plans, and a final decision had not yet been come to.
  DR. LYONSsaid, it was very well to know that the final decision had not yet been arrived at, as there was much feeling in Dublin on this subject, and a strong desire existed to see erected a building of suitable proportions as the centre of a great National Museum for Ireland; and, so far as he knew, neither the Members for the City of Dublin nor any persons of public position had been consulted on the subject. He trusted that ample opportunities for inspection of the plans would be afforded before the work was finally decided on.
  MR. R. H. PAGETwished to know whether the sum of £3,500 had already been expended? That seemed to be so from the figures given on page 61.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the plan adopted in England was this—an Estimate, say of £ 100,000, was made for certain work. Then there was a revised Estimate made, which would go up to £150,000, or even £250,000. The money required was always voted—indeed, in many cases, a great deal more. In Ireland, however, the plan was reversed, for the original Estimates were cut down. The House voted a considerable sum; but the money was not expended, a large portion was paid back into the Exchequer to be voted and re-voted year after year, and none of the piers and harbours of Ireland were properly attended to. He would move that the Chairman should report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. The reason he did so was that the next Vote was one of very considerable importance to Ireland at this moment. The Vote related to the Shannon Navigation, and he was afraid the hon. Member who represented the Board of Works in that House was not at present in complete possession of the facts of the case. He
  1656
  doubted whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that there were very serious floods on account of the recent heavy rains.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he could not consent to report Progress upon this Vote, because the next Vote might be of a controversial character. He would like to get through the Votes in Class I.; at all events, let them see what they had to say about the Shannon Navigation.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would suggest that his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) should withdraw his Motion if the Government would postpone the Vote for the Shannon Navigation It would be well to finish the Estimates of this class, with the exception of the one relating to the Shannon Navigation.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not see there was any necessity to postpone the Vote. Of course, if a case was made out winch would justify a postponement, he would consent; but at present he could not consent to a postponement.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (19.) £7,512, to complete the sum for the Shannon Navigation.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, this was a debateable matter upon which he felt a good deal of interest. He received so many notifications of the amount of laud under water that, in the earlier portion of the year, he ventured to address a question to the Government in regard to it. He was told everything was going on satisfactorily, that the works were nearly completed, and they would prove of a most admirable character. At Whitsuntide he went over the works at Meelick, and, although he did not pretend to be any authority on engineering, he must say it seemed to him there was a very cardinal mistake made in the whole character of the works. The Shannon in this neighbourhood used to run a course which it did not run now. It was a very devious course—there were a number of islands and a great number of channels. The

  1657
  water was very shallow, and there was, amongst other channels, the Victoria Canal, which carried off almost as much water as the proper course of the river itself. It was found that the bed of the river was altogether insufficient to carry off anything like the flood water which from time to time flowed there. The engineers determined to cut, at the entrance to the Victoria Canal, two outlet channels, one of which was CO feet wide and the other 100 feet wide. Having made these channels, they made six sluices, and then constructed weirs, which robbed the river of eight feet on each side—in fact, the water-way had been reduced to 108 feet. The consequence was that all the water which ought to be carried off was not carried off. There was another matter deserving attention, and that was the constant inundation of all the low-lying land above Meelick. Some time ago one of the officers of the Government declared there had been no complaints made with regard to flooding in that part of the country, and that, if any flooding did take place, the proper course to take was to make representations to the Board of Works. It was all very well to say this in the House of Commons; but it was exceedingly difficult for the small farmers along the banks of the Shannon to make them heard. Unless the landlords would take the matter in hand, things would stand very little chance of being remedied. Inundations caused by the overflow of the River Brosna were a source of constant danger to all the low-lying lands above Meelick; and he was convinced that unless something was done a very largo amount of property must needs be destroyed along the whole of the Shannon between Athlone and Killaloe. He did not know whether the Secretary to the Treasury was able to give the Committee any detailed information either as to the state of the district or as to the steps which the Board of Works had resolved to take in the matter.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that, so far as he understood this Vote, it was one to complete works already commenced and now in course of construction. Last summer he had an opportunity of going over the Shannon from Killaloe to Athlone, and he was able to see the public works which were being carried out to relieve the flooding of the Shannon. The evidence of some of the
  1658
  best engineers of the day was to the effect that the only way to relieve the flooding of the Shannon was by means of weirs and sluices. The work was being rapidly completed, and he understood from the engineers who accompanied the Commission with which he was connected that the flooding of the Shannon would shortly be a thing of the past. The water-way would be increased, and by opening the sluices the water would be kept at summer level. The sum now asked for was simply to complete the work already in progress.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the first engineers of the world did not seem to be able to stop the floods. It was only on Saturday he received a letter in which the writer complained of the flooding. He confessed he knew little about engineering; but it was all very well for the engineers to tell the people that the floods would stop, when they continued as bad as ever. What the engineers were now doing was like a doctor feeling a man's pulse and telling him he was all right, when, at the same time, the man felt in a thundering bad way. The engineers ought to be able to do so, and public money ought not to be wasted. The flooding still continued; in fact, from the letter he received on Saturday, he learned that for six miles on the Brosna there was now flooding. He would suggest that if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) was not afraid of being shot, he should endeavour to spare a few days in which to visit the banks of the Shannon, and see the havoc created by the floods.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, the works in connection with the Shannon navigation were not completed, nor were the sluices in operation. The works which he saw in progress last summer would be completed by August or September next; so there could be no results at the present time. The flooding must go on until the sluices were in operation. If the flooding continued next autumn and next summer the matter ought to be brought forward.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, what had been stated by the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) was quite correct. The works were not yet completed, and it was not considered wise to open one sluice before the rest. It was confidently believed the works would be efficacious,
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, what he was particularly concerned in were the works mentioned in the Estimate—namely, those at Meelick. The whole of the drainage of the Shannon was being sacrificed for the bugbear of navigation. The navigation of the Shannon did not pay for the maintenance of the lock-keepers; yet, for the sake of this trumpery interest, the whole of the agricultural and drainage interests in the centre of Ireland were being wickedly sacrificed. At Meelick there was a large weir, called the Meelick Weir, which kept up the water and threw it into the Victoria Canal, which was part of the navigation system. In order to draw off the flood water from a point above Meelick Weir, there had been two channels cut, one 60 feet wide and the other 100 feet. This width of water-way was not maintained, however; but, by the construction of sluices and weirs, it had been decreased to 108 feet, and the flow of water had been greatly slackened. That appeared to him to be the act of a fool. The consequence was that the floods, which might have been abated to a very considerable extent, would still lie over land which otherwise might be expected to yield good crops.
  Vote agreed to.
  (20.) £6,650, to complete the sum for Lighthouses Abroad.
  (21.) £17,265, to complete the sum for Diplomatic Buildings.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he would like some explanation of the item of £1,500 for the purchase of furniture, &c. for the State rooms at Lisbon. It seemed a very large sum. In view of recent circumstances, he would also like some explanation of the sum of £450—
  "For rent, maintenance, and repair of Consular Buildings, including £36 for water rate, at Alexandria."
  It was possible the sum would have to be increased.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the gentleman who was recently appointed at Lisbon was not likely to remain there more than two years. He complained that the cost of providing furniture for the State rooms would be very heavy; and, under the circumstances of the case, it was thought proper that the rooms should be furnished at the public expense.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked, if £1,500 was a reasonable amount to be voted for State rooms of what, after all, was not a very first-rate appointment?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, there was no absolute rule laid down in regard to furnishing. With regard to the Consular buildings at Alexandria, it was impossible to say whether the present Vote would be sufficient.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he knew that certain Embassies were supplied with houses of furniture; but he never yet heard of a Minister having State rooms. There was an allowance for a Minister's house at Madrid; but no furniture was allowed, and no furniture was allowed to any Legation except that of Paris. He was informed that there was one room fitted at Madrid which was converted into a chapel, and it had not been furnished for any other purpose. His recollection of his connection with the Consular Service was that he had to provide his own furniture, and he had never heard any explanation of the State room at Lisbon; and he did not see why, because Sir Charles White remained there for two years, he should have £1,500 above any other Minister. If Sir Charles White had been going to stay there for five years he might have had this £1,500, but not for two years. He hoped the Government would give some more satisfactory account of this matter.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, there were a considerable number of Embassies of which the State rooms were furnished by the State, and small allowances were made on account of furniture. When Sir Charles White was appointed, inasmuch as he was not likely to remain at Lisbon long, it was represented that the furnishing of the State rooms would fall heavily upon him. He thought the hon. Member-was wrong in regard to the Embassy at Madrid.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked whether the right hon. Gentleman wished to lay it down as a precedent that, when a Minister was appointed to a post, in regard to which it was usual to give an annual allowance for furniture, if he said he was going to stay for two years he could ask for £1,500 for furniture?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREdid not wish it to be altogether considered as a precedent. This was regarded as an excep-

  1661
  tional case, and no strict rule or principle could be laid down.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

MOTIONS.
  DULWICH SCHEME.

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. GRANTHAMrose to move a Resolution, the object of which was to prevent the scheme being so altered as to injure Dulwich College in future, and his object could only be attained by sending the scheme back to be revised, and the effect of that he knew would be to destroy the scheme. Personally, he regretted very much the necessity of this step being taken after all that the House had done; but those interested in the College felt that justice had not been done by the scheme, although it was admittedly a great improvement upon previous schemes. There were many difficulties to be overcome; but he did not think they had been overcome as they might have been. He did not think that £4,000 a-year was sufficient for the maintenance of an educational department like that of Dulwich College, bearing in mind that the income of the College was £20,000 a-year. If the building had been smaller, and the education inferior to what it was, £4,000 might have been a sufficient sum; but they must take it as it was. The Governors were much to blame in having spent such a large sum on the buildings; still, there they were, and they would have to be maintained, and the great difficulty would be how to maintain them, and carry on the school out of £4,000 a-year. Without desiring to claim for the College a larger sum than was necessary, in their view, the present Governors were of opinion that a provision of at least £5,000 a-year ought to be made. Most of those, indeed, who had gone carefully into the matter thought that £6,000 would not be excessive. He knew he should be met with the answer that they could not give another £1,000 a-year without depriving some other portions of the scheme of money proposed to be given to them, that was to say, it would be
    1662
    taken from St. Botolph's, or St. Luke's, or St. Saviour's. So far as that was concerned, he could not object to it, because he considered that the sums given to those three parishes were in excess of what they were entitled to receive. The whole question depended upon whether these parishes were entitled to the large sums given to them under the scheme; and upon that question he could not do better than state the opinion of the Endowed School Commissioners on this question, because everything depended on whether these parishes had or had not a right to a large sum taken from the fund, or to be treated in a similar fashion to the parish of Camberwell. The Commissioners said, in a letter dated the 13th February, 1874—
    "The Vestry of St. Luke's base their claims on the assumption that the four parishes have equal beneficial interest in Alleyne's foundation, and that this interest is for each parish one-fourth of the whole.….This argument is not supported by the true interpretation of the instruments of foundation, or by the facts of the case.….There is, therefore, in our opinion, no ground for an apportionment of Alleyne's endowment into equal fourth parts, one for each of the four parishes. And in this opinion they are confirmed by the circumstance that, although this endowment has been many times the subject of hot debate before the Archbishop of Canterbury as visitor, before the Court of Chancery, before the Charity Commissioners, and before Parliament, no one of these authorities has ever recognized such view. On the contrary, their decisions and action have been entirely inconsistent with it.
    On the fullest investigation that he had been enabled to give the matter, he could not help thinking that the northern parishes had already been treated in far too liberal a manner, and this had occurred simply because they had powerful friends among the Governors, who had claimed for them these large amounts; but when they looked to the relative positions of the parishes—to the fact that the population of Camberwell was increasing, whilst that of the northern parishes was decreasing—they would see still more the injustice of the scheme, and that they were simply giving to those who had, and taking away from those who had not. In 1851 the parish of Camberwell had a population of 54,000, and now it had increased to 173,000—nearly four times as much as it was 30 years ago, whereas in all the other parishes the exact converse of this had taken place. In St. Saviour's, in 1851, the population was 35,731, but it

    1663
    had gradually diminished, until it now stood at 15,677. In 1851 the population of St. Botolph's was 12,499, but it was now only 6,107; whilst the population of St. Lute's had remained as near as possible stationary, the population being, in 1881, 54,995, and in 1851, 54,055. That being so, he thought the House would see at once that it was real folly to be increasing the educational endowments of parishes which were already provided with sufficient educational facilities—as was especially the case in St. Saviour's—and where the population had decreased so rapidly, and was very likely to decrease still more; because anyone who knew anything of that part of London knew that it was occupied with warehouses, or premises that would not permit of any increase in the population, certainly of that kind of population that required school accommodation—namely, children. He now passed on to the last objection he had to the scheme, and that was the increase in the fees of the boys who had entered the College since December, 1880, which were fixed at not less than £20, and not more than £30. To show the injustice of the scheme it would only be necessary for him to refer to what had been done in 1857. By an Act of Parliament of that year the fees were fixed at from £8 to 10 a-year, according to age. These fees had gone up gradually to £15 and £18, and now it was proposed to increase them to £20 and £30. He asked why that was proposed? It was because the £4,000 a-year was not sufficient for Dulwich College. It was admitted that that sum was insufficient, and to remedy that difficulty they increased the fees of the boys, instead of taking away from, or not giving so much to, the northern parishes. They were increasing the foes of the boys to increase their gross income. That was not dealing fairly with the parents of the children educated at the College, because it was very well known that the great increase in the income of Dulwich College was derived entirely from the people who had built large and valuable houses on the estate, paying large ground rents for those houses, and having located themselves there for the purpose of looking after the education of their children—in consequence of the exceptional educational advantages that had been held forth to them as lessees on the estate. Now, if these people were to have that educa-
    1664
    tion made more expensive by an increase in the fees, it was, to a certain extent, a fraud upon them, because they believed in settling there that they were going to got their children educated for a very moderate sum. He did not mean to say that the education would not be obtained for a moderate sum under the scheme; but the fees were considerably increased, and they now reached a figure which was not anticipated when the houses were erected. Under these circumstances, and in order that the scheme might be reconsidered, he would suggest that it should be disallowed. The matter had been a long time before them, and had been thoroughly threshed out; and if his Motion for disallowing the scheme were carried, a fresh proposal might be made to Parliament another year that would meet with the approbation of all the parties interested.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to disallow the Dulwich Scheme, now lying upon the Table of the House, because, firstly, by Section 5,—
    "That the first Co-optative College Governors shall be so many of the non-elective governors in office at the date of this scheme as are willing to accept the office:
    "Also, That the said first Co-optative College Governors shall be appointed to office for the term of their respective lives, and their appointment shall take effect from the date of this scheme:
    "Secondly, by Section 40,—
    "That, Seventhly, They shall pay to the college governors for the purposes of Dulwich College (only) the annual sum of £4,000, to be carried by them to the credit of the Dulwich College Account and to be treated as income:
    "Twelfthly, They shall carry to separate accounts the annual sum of £500 for the educational benefit of the parish of Saint Botolph Without Bishopsgate, and the annual sum of £500 for the educational benefit of St. Luke, Middlesex:
    "And, Thirdly, by Section 42,—
    "To set apart for the purpose of a middle school or middle schools for the parishes of Saint Boltoph Without Bishopsgate and Saint Luke, Middlesex, a capital sum of £50,000:
    "By Sections 36 and 79,—
    "That all boys who have entered the college since December 1880 may be called upon by the governors for fees not less than £20, nor more than £30, a-year for any boy,"—(Mr. Grantham.)
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he was obliged to oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and, in doing so, he would state shortly his reasons for thinking that it should not be allowed to pass. The hon. Member was san-

    1665
    guine if he thought that by rejecting this scheme they would get a better one next year, which would be generally approved of and assented to. This subject was most difficult and troublesome; it was now 10 years since the Endowed Schools Commissioners had taken up and tried to deal with Dulwich College. At least two schemes had been tried and had become abortive. There was no case in England, except that of Christ's Hospital, which presented so much difficulty and so many conflicting sentiments and interests. If the present scheme were rejected also, he saw no chance of anything being done—it might be years before another was obtained, and for years to come London would lose the benefits of this scheme. There was a general disposition—except on the part of those Gentlemen whom the hon. Member for East Surrey represented—to acquiesce in the present scheme as a compromise. The Governors did not say—and he himself did not think—it was a perfect scheme. The Governors had suggested some changes, though not the changes which the hon. Member desired; but, perceiving that they could not prevail against the opinion of the Charity Commissioners, they felt bound, as practical men, to give way and accept the present scheme rather than throw the whole matter back into uncertainty. The Vestry of St. Luke's originally objected to the scheme; but, finding that they could not have their own way, they agreed to petition in its favour. Even the Representatives on the Dulwich Board of Governors did not object to the scheme. The hon. Member's objection was that too much was given to the northern parishes, and not enough to Dulwich itself. The hon. Member had not told them all that Camberwell got. It got a very large share under the scheme of the benefits of the foundation. It got not only the splendid buildings and large grounds, and the £4,000per annum, but also a capital sum of £12,000 for the so-called Middle Class School, and an annual sum of £1,000 a-year for the maintenance of that school, besides the prospect—before long, it was hoped—of a large Girls' School and the School of Art. These were very substantial advantages, especially when it was remembered that Camberwell was not one of the parishes that the benefactor ap-
    1666
    peared by his will to have sought to benefit. He (Mr. Bryce) would call the attention of the House to what the original intention of the founder was. The College was founded by the will of Edward Alleyne, an actor, for the benefit of three parishes—St. Saviour's, St. Luke's, and St. Botolph's—Mr. Alleyne having been born in the last-named, and having a theatre in each of the former. No provision was made for Camberwell, which originally had no right to share in the endowment, and which only came in under an Act of Parliament. Was it right, therefore, for Camberwell now to come forward and to say that it should have a larger share of the endowment, and to grudge what was given to the northern parishes? With regard to fees, the present amount was 21 guineas, and all the difference that was made in the scheme was to enable them to grow up from £20 to £30, if it was thought desirable; but this was left to the discretion of the Governors. He did not imagine that they had any present intention of going up, at any rate, anywhere near that maximum. It must be remembered that the scheme provided no less than £2,000 for scholarships and exhibitions, which would be a very great help and benefit to the poorer residents who had children of promise likely to profit by the advanced education given in the College; whilst most of the parents whose sons now went to Dulwich were people in good position, to whom the education at fees of from £20 to £30 was really a cheap education. On the whole, without saying that the scheme might not have been improved, he thought the best thing was that it should now be passed, and the great foundation be enabled to fill more adequately the important functions it was charged with for the education of the people of London.
    CAPTAIN AYLMER, as one not representing the parish of Camberwell in any way, but as one who happened to live in the neighbourhood, considered it a monstrous thing that the fees should be raised so enormously—and having been raised such a short time ago—for the simple purpose of enabling Dulwich College to provide money for building, and other outside purposes. The Commissioners were attempting to make the institution do a great work on a very small sum. Last year the expenditure

    1667
    was £5,844, and now it was proposed to limit the amount to £4,000. It seemed hard to cut down the income of the College for the purpose of benefiting other places.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. M'ARTHURsaid, he thought the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham) had brought forward strong and sufficient arguments why the new scheme should not be carried out. In his opinion, the Vestry of Camberwell, which represented some 30,000 ratepayers, had good reason to complain, especially as it had asked for permission to be heard against the scheme, and had been refused. It was quite clear to his mind that the scheme would be very injurious both to the Upper and Lower Schools. Reference had been made to the population of Camber-well. That amounted to 185,000, and if the scheme wore carried out, the Lower School, which was intended for those classes which certainly could not afford to pay the high rate of fees, would be very seriously injured. He thought one of the speakers this evening had said that the average amount of the fees was £20. He did not believe that was correct; it was, unless he was mistaken, from £15 to £18; but, however that might be, it was a monstrous thing that power should be given—for there could be no doubt it would be exercised—to increase the fees to £30. The hon. Member had referred to the Endowed School Commissioners and their official letter. Well, it was not at all fair that a population such as that of the three northern parishes should be placed on the same footing as a population so largo as that of Camberwell. He believed the population of Camberwell more than doubled that of these three parishes; therefore, he thought it was not at all fair that the scheme should be so applied as to divide the sum amongst the four parishes. He should say that the present scheme would be very injurious to the people of Camberwell, and that it ought not to be carried out.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had so well stated the case against the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey (.Mr. Grantham), that very few words were required from him. This much he would say—that it would be a real calamity to education in the districts concerned if the scheme were allowed to
    1668
    drop. The hon. Member for East Surrey had practically moved the rejection of the scheme. Now, it had taken 10 years to arrive at it, as, owing to the great conflict of opinion between the four parishes, much difficulty was experienced in coming to an agreement on vital points. The Endowed School Commissioners had now brought about the nearest agreement yet attained. The scheme had been prepared with the greatest care; and Canon Robertson had pronounced it to be, as far as he could judge, the most equitable scheme that could be passed. The hon. Member for East Surrey contended that Camberwell did not get its share under the scheme; but they had been told the true history of the endowment—that the funds were left to the three northern parishes. It should be remembered that under the original Act, the School having been taken to Camberwell, the four parishes wore given an equal interest. Whilst St. Giles's, Camberwell, had 310 scholars in the Upper School alone, St. Saviour's had only five, St. Botolph's two, and St. Luke's 276; so that out of nearly 600 scholars, two out of the three northern parishes had only seven between them. Surely the Commissioners were right in making some allowance to the northern parishes, for although the populations wore not so large as that of Camberwell, which was a growing population, as the hon. Member had pointed out, many persons were going there and paying large ground rents and building fine houses, in the hope of educating their children cheaply—it must be remembered that these northern parishes had large populations, and that amongst them they ought to be enabled to provide middle class schools. So it was necessary that the provision which had been made should be made. It was a scheme approximating as nearly as possible to equality; and if they waited until all conflicting views were reconciled, and each parish got what it considered to be its share, they would probably never have a scheme at all. He would ask the hon. Member for East Surrey to remember what a magnificent institution they had at Dulwich; and it was but fair that, even if it cost £2 or £3 a-year more to the richer people, the poorer classes should participate in the endowment and in the £2,000 which was set apart for exhibitions and scholar-

    1669
    ships. He hoped the House, therefore, would sanction the scheme.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 50: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 298.)

    PARCEL POST BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. FAWCETT, Bill to amend the Post Office Acts with respect to the Conveyance of Parcels, ordered to be brought in by Mr. FAWCETT and Mr. COURTNEY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill254.]
    House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.