Commons Sitting of 3 April 1884

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE — Turnpike Acts Continuance Act, 1883, appointed and nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered— First Reading—Board of Works (Ireland) (No. 2)* [165]; Land Improvement and Arterial Drainage (Ireland) [166]; Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) * [167].
Second Reading—Representation of the People [119] [Fifth Night], debate adjourned.
Committee—Army (Annual) [144]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Trustee Churches (Ireland) [157]: Married Women's Property Act (1882) Amendment * [155].
Third Reading— Summary Jurisdiction over (Children (Ireland) [75], debate adjourned.

QUESTIONS.

  METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK CORNER— SITE FOR, THE WELLINGTON STATUE.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is still the intention of the Government to give effect to the decision which he announced to the House on the 9th of August last in the following terms: —
  "Having carefully considered the Report of the Committee on the Wellington Statue, the Government have decided to invite a competition of sculptors for a new statue of the Great Duke, to be placed in front of Apsley House in lieu of the present statue?"
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he can now inform the House what decision has been come to with regard to Wyatt's equestrian statue of the late Duke of Wellington, and who is responsible for the decision; whether a new equestrian statue of the Duke is to be erected in the vicinity of Hyde Park Corner; whether the commission for this new statue is to be given to a Foreign artist, and whether there is no native British artist to whom this national work could be entrusted; whether it is intended to erect at the public expense a so-called "Quadriga" on the top of the triumphal arch on Constitution Hill, and by whom this "Quadriga" is to be designed and executed; and, whether the opinion of the "Institute of British Architects" has been taken as to the removal of Wyatt's statue from London, and as to whether the erection of the "Quadriga" would improve the artistic effect of the arch in its present position?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think, Sir, it would be more convenient that I should first answer the Question of the right hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr.

  1469
  Cavendish Bentinck). I stated some weeks ago that the Government had consented to a proposal of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales with respect to the decoration of the new place at Hyde Park Corner, the removal of the present statue of the Duke of Wellington to Aldershot, and the erection of a now statue in its place. Since then a full Report has been made by an important Committee, of which the Prince of Wales acted as Chairman, and has been published in the newspapers. I need not, I think, repeat it here; but substantially it carries out the proposal originally made. The Government, therefore, will submit a Vote to Parliament for an instalment of £2,000 on account of a sum of £6,000 which they have promised towards the new statue. Mr. Boehm has been selected by the Committee to which I have referred as the sculptor, and the Government have approved the choice. I must decline to canvass the relative merits of living sculptors. Mr. Boehm is a member of the Royal Academy, and has, therefore, been adopted by the Profession as an English artist. It is true that in August last I stated that the Government would invite a competition of sculptors for the new statue, which was intended to be limited to a certain number of the leading sculptors. After making this statement I received several letters from the present Duke of Wellington, protesting in the strongest manner against this course. It was also represented to mo that it would be impossible to get a good work of art in that way, as some of the leading sculptors would not compete. The Government has, therefore, thought it best to act upon the suggestion of the Prince of Wales, and to leave the selection of the artist to the Committee, by whom Mr. Boehm was unanimously chosen. The Report of the Committee recommends, among other matters, the erection of a quadriga on the arch on Constitution Hill, in accordance with Mr. Decimus Burton's original design. Its erection will depend upon whether sufficient funds will be subscribed in answer to the appeal of the Prince of Wales; but it will not be undertaken at the cost of the Government. I have not thought it necessary to consult the Royal Institute of British Architects upon any part of this scheme.
  MR. PULESTONasked whether the act of banishment of the present statue was irrevocable?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Government has decided to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, and the removal of the present statue is part of that recommendation. The amount will be involved in the proposal I shall make to the House to vote the £2,000 I have referred to.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that, in consequence of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, he should ask him to be good enough to give the House an assurance that this Vote would be taken at a time of night when it could be fully discussed; because, as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have departed from the terms of the original understanding, he should raise the question when the Vote came to be discussed in Committee of Supply.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered a very important part of his Question. He wished to know who was responsible for this decision? The right hon. Gentleman said that the Committee were responsible. He should like to know who were the Members of that Committee? If the right hon. Gentleman was not able to give the House the names of the Committee at once, perhaps he would lay them upon the Table.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Government is responsible for the whole thing. I have no objection to lay the names of the Committee upon the Table. Among them are those of the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Wellington, Lord John Manners, Sir Thomas Brassey, Sir James M'Garel-Hogg, Lord Hardinge, Lord De L'Isle, Sir Frederick Leighton, Mr. Fergusson. Mr. Mitford, and others, which I do not for the moment recall.
  MR. MONKasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give an order for the removal of the present statue until the Vote had been passed by the House?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No order will be given until after the money has been voted by Parliament. As to the removal of the present statue, no expense has yet been incurred.
  MR. RYLANDSasked who appointed the Committee?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Committee, as originally constituted, was

  1471
  appointed by myself; but several Members were subsequently added on the suggestion of the Prince of Wales.
  MR. MAC IVERgave Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the Vote, on the ground that no sufficient answer had been given to the Questions that had been put to the Government on the subject, and that the historical interest attaching to the present statue far exceeded any artistic value of any new statue.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked whether it was true that the name of Hyde Park Corner was to be changed?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I mentioned some time ago that the name of Hyde Park Corner is to be changed to Wellington Place.

  ARMY (INDIA)—THE MEDICAL SERVICE.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Undersecretary of State for India. Is the number of surgeons of the Indian Medical Service under and up to five years' service, as shown by the recently issued Bengal Army List of December 1883, who are employed on "unemployed" pay, in Bengal alone, twenty-eight out of a total of fifty-nine surgeons; is it a fact that all these twenty-eight surgeons employed on "unemployed" pay are not only supernumerary to the actual number of appointments, but are even also supernumerary to those surgeons who are only "officiating" for officers who really hold these actual appointments, but are at present on leave; is it a fact that, considering only the cases of all surgeons under and up to five years' service, as shown by the Bengal Army List of December 1883, fifty-four surgeons, out of a total number of fifty-nine joined, would have to retire from the list in question before any candidates who compete for the "appointments" offered for competition in February can obtain any of the rates of pay now termed "substantive;" what is the nature and value of the five ''appointments" advertised for competition for February 1884, and what is the nature and value of the five "appointments" that have been advertised for competition in August 1884; is there, in the whole Indian Staff Corps, one instance of an "unemployed Lieutenant" drawing the pay of 256 rupees per mensem, as alleged by
  1472
  him; and, is it a fact that when being "instructed," or doing duty, the officers of the Indian Medical Service actually receive less pay than their brethren of the same standing in the Army Medical Department?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, I will answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's six Questions as follows:—(1) Yes; of 53, not 59, surgeons of five years' service and under, shown in the latest Bengal Army List, 28 are on unemployed pay. (2) Yes; these 28 gentlemen, who form a portion of the Reserve needed for the Medical Service, are in excess of the officiating and substantive appointments. The ordinary reserve to meet furloughs and casualties is 20 per cent on the number of appointments; but the actual number of furlough absentees this year falls considerably short of that proportion. (3) I am not sure that I understand this Question, though I have spent two hours over it. It is obvious that substantive appointments must be vacated before new men can fill them; but the retirements will be at the top, and not at the bottom of the List. The average number of casualties for the last 10 years in the Indian Medical Service has been 31. Assuming this average to be continued, it will be the number of substantive appointments annually vacated. (4) This Question is asked under an evident misapprehension of the nature of the appointments to the Indian Medical Service. The Secretary of State advertised that an examination of candidates for five appointments in Her Majesty's Indian Medical Service would be held in February, 1884. These are simply appointments to the Indian Medical Service, and five candidates were selected from 21 who presented themselves, the whole 21 being duly qualified, (5) No, Sir; so far as I know, there is not one, nor have I ever made any allegation to that effect. There is no need for a Reserve for the Indian Staff Corps; but if there were any unemployed lieutenants, they would receive 256 rupees per mensem. (6) Yes; while merely doing duty with British or Native troops, officers of the Indian Medical Service draw less pay than officers of the Army Medical Department of the same standing in India; but for the remainder of their service their prospects are much better, and their average salaries much higher.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— SUPERVISION IN BELFAST.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the only police supervision over Newtonards Road, in the borough of Belfast, a leading thoroughfare nearly a mile long, which, with the streets running into it, contains a population of about 10,000, is one constable; whether complaints have been made of the lawlessness of some of the frequenters of the locality; and, whether he will take measures to have the grievances remedied?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Police Supervisor on the road in (question employed six men on patrol duty and two Superintendents, and two men do the duty at night and one in the day. The head constable and sergeant visit the place at various times. No general complaints of the character mentioned have been made. There was some stone-throwing on the 17th of March; but the police made the offender amenable, and he was fined by the magistrates. The Constabulary authorities of Belfast do not consider it necessary to strengthen the Police Force in this locality, which they describe as the quietest part of the town.

  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND)—THE SLIGO NATIONAL SCHOOL—PAYMENT OF RESULT FEES.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the result fees arising out of an examination hold on 28th November last, at Quay Street, Sligo, National School, have yet been paid; and, if not, what is the reason of the delay?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that, owing to circumstances over which the education authorities had no control, the order did not reach the person in question until it had lapsed. A new order had been issued.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—REFUSAL OF MAGISTRATES TO SIGN PROXIES.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether on 21st March Dr. Babington, J.P., and Captain Thompson, J.P., both for county Cavan. refused to witness proxy papers for Poor Law election in
  1474
  favour of a person named Leddy, the reason given for these two magistrates to witness the documents being that Leddy was a Land Leaguer; and, whether such refusal was a breach of duty?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I am informed that Dr. Babington and Captain Thompson refused to witness the proxy papers for the Poor Law election in favour of a person named Leddy. Neither of the magistrates gave as a reason that Leddy was a Land Leaguer. Captain Thompson assigns as a reason the lateness of the hour he was asked, and Dr. Babington does not appear to assign any intelligible reason at all. I am informed that there is no statutable provision requiring a magistrate to attest by his signature such papers.
  MR. HEALY: Well, what are magistrates for.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am sure I do not know.

  POST OFFICE OFFICIALS—SURVEYORS CLERKS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Postmaster General, Is it a fact that not fewer than fifteen on the second class of surveyors' clerks in the Post Office, or nearly one-half, are sons or relatives of surveyors or officers holding high positions in the Post Office; whether eight other officers, who are employed as surveyors' clerks, are also sons or relatives of surveyors or other high Post Office officials; whether, of the eight officers last referred to, two were appointed to these duties after a service in the Post Office of less than one year, and the other six after a service of from one to three years; whether two of them were under seventeen years of age when first employed; whether two of them are sons of the surveyors under whom they serve; whether, for the most part, the eight officers referred to entered the Post Office service at wages of about 12 s. a-week, to qualify for which they were required to pass a non-competitive examination of an elementary character only; whether these officers are drawing allowances of 15 s. per day, in addition to their pay and first-class railway fares; and, whether, seeing that the surveyors exercise control over Postmasters and others, and that these appointments carry with them a salary commencing at £150 a-year, and rising through two classes to £800 a-year, in addition to allowances of 15 s a-day and

  1475
  upwards, some means can be devised for throwing open these appointments practically, as well as nominally, to the; whole Service?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, some time before the hon. Member placed his Question on the Paper I noticed the facts to which he now directs my attention, and which are, in the main, correct. I came to the conclusion that it would be desirable to adopt some plan which would give to the Service generally a freer access to employment, whether temporarily or permanently, on the Surveyor's staff. I have not yet decided the best plan to adopt to secure this object; but there shall be no unnecessary delay in arriving at a decision.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS FOR DUNFANAGHY UNION.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.; Whether it is true that at the recent elections of Poor Law Guardians for the Dunfanaghy Union, five of the National candidates who were sufficiently qualified in respect of valuation, and entitled to vote in the Union, at the time of nomination were disqualified by the Returning Officer's refusal to place their names upon the voting papers; whether landlords were permitted to vote by proxy without having lodged the necessary claims; whether Captain Hill, who is not in occupation of apportion of the Mienacladdy Division, and who is only entitled to vote there by proxy, nominated a candidate for that Division; whether the nominations for Ards Division was made by a landlord whose initials were misprinted on the voting papers; whether a person named Edward Lafferty has been declared by the returning officer to he elected, although his name does not appear on the voting papers for that Division; whether the vote of James Mitchell was rejected on the ground that his name was Anglicised, the Irish spelling of the name being Meidhghall; and, whether an inquiry will be granted into the truth of these and other charges of irregularity preferred against the returning officer in connection with these elections?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the persons referred to in the 1st paragraph were qualified to vote, and did vote, but were
  1476
  not qualified as Guardians, or else their nomination papers were invalid. Landlords were not permitted to vote by proxy without lodging the necessary claims. Captain Hill, who is described as not being in occupation of any land in the division referred to, is in occupation of 1,100 acres. The error as to the names of the persons was discovered and corrected by the Returning Officer before the voting papers were issued. A voting paper purporting to be signed by James Mitchell was rejected because there was no corresponding Irish name on the register. These circumstances do not afford any ground for inquiry.
  MR. O'BRIEN: On the Motion for Adjournment I shall have something to say again on this subject.

  NAVY—PAYMASTERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, in view of the facts that the present senior Assistant Paymaster has over fifteen years' seniority, and is thirty-six years of age, that no compulsory retirement of Paymasters will occur during the present year, and that it is inevitable that some of the first fifty Assistant Paymasters now on the list, the junior of whom has thirteen years' seniority, must reach twenty years' seniority before being promoted, the Admiralty will take some steps, either by increasing the Paymasters' list, or otherwise, to ameliorate the condition of these officers; if not, what seniority may Naval Assistant Paymasters look forward to reaching before expecting any improvement in their prospects?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I have within the last three weeks answered a number of Questions on this subject, and my answers cover all the particulars in the hon. Member's Question. I would especially beg to refer him to my answers to the hon. Members for the City of London and for Limerick on the 20th and 27th of March. In replying to previous Questions, I have stated that we do not contemplate taking any steps in view of the temporary ! nature of the present slackness of promotion.

  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND — EXAMINING BOARDS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  1477
  Whether, at the examinations of the Royal University of Ireland, each examiner always takes up the same subject, or course of study, and whether this is the subject usually taught by him to students attending his class; whether students unable to attend such classes are expected to compete on equal terms with those who have the benefit of practical acquaintance with the examiner's special method of dealing with his subject; and, whether, at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, London, and Dublin, a different custom is followed to guard against the undue advantages arising out of the circumstance of invariably appointing the same examiner in the same subject to make awards to his own pupils as well as to other students?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I forwarded the hon. Member's Question to the Secretaries of the Royal University, and I have received the following observations from them thereon: —
  "The examinations of this University are conducted by Boards of Fellows and Examiners corresponding to the various departments of the courses of study. Some of these Boards consist of several persons. Every examination paper is required to be approved by at least two or more Examiners. The members of each Board apportion among themselves the branches of the subject in which candidates are to be examined, and we believe that it is the regular usage that the same person shall not examine at the successive examinations in the same branch or portion of the subject. All answers to honour papers are adjudicated upon by two or more Examiners, and in the course of the examination every candidate usually passes through the hands of all the Examiners in the department concerned. In this way every opportunity for possible unfairness or unevenness of examination is guarded against as far as practicable."
  I may observe that at Oxford and Cambridge Examiners examine the young men who have attended their own lectures, as well as others; but the endowments being very much larger, and the number of Fellows very much greater, the variety of choice of Examiners is greatly increased. With regard to the University of London, the Examiners are paid specially.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government are prepared to grant the Returns, of which Notices stand upon the Notice Paper, relating to the Queen's Colleges (Ireland) and the Royal University (Ireland)?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Government have come to the conclusion that it is desirable to hold an inquiry into certain matters connected with the Queen's Colleges, of a nature the result of which can be laid before Parliament. The inquiry will be by a small Commission appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. The exact terms of reference are under consideration; but I am of opinion that they will cover, as I think they ought to cover, all the points on which hon. Members have applied for information by Questions or Returns. Here I would observe that I do not think the inquiry will take in the special Questions relating to anatomy put by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). With regard to the Returns and Questions put on the subject, it is the intention of the Commission to afford full information. With regard to this, I need not repeat what I said the other day—that the Queen's College, Cork, asks for an inquiry. I hope that, under those circumstances, the hon. Member will not consider it necessary to press for the Returns.
  MR. HEALY: May I ask if any information is to be given with regard to the personnel of this Commission? There are strong grounds for thinking that this inquiry having been asked for by the Queen's College, it is proposed to make it a whitewashing inquiry.
  MR. TREVELYAN: That is hardly a proper supposition to make until there are some grounds for it. I have always been very frank with the House, and I have stated that a thorough inquiry was wanted. There are serious matters to be cleared up, and these are the serious matters that hon. Members have been agitating about.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Are we to understand that there will be an inquiry into the whole system of the University and Colleges?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I do not know that I need trouble the House by going into particulars; but perhaps I may just state the three principal points to be inquired into. Points of pure discipline the visitors must deal with. There are three important points, however, about which complaints have been made. First, that notwithstanding the amount of these endowments, the students of the Colleges do badly at the Royal University. Second, that the

  1479
  number of students is kept up by educational tests being unduly lowered. Third, that the College prizes, especially in the Scholarships and Exhibitions, are not fairly distributed amongst the various branches of learning. Thorough inquiry into these matters will cover all matters referred to in the Question and Returns.
  MR. O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a Commission appointed by this House would not satisfy the public better than one appointed by the Lord Lieutenant?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Government would be unwilling to resort to that course unless compelled to by a Vote of the House.
  MR. GRAY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends, in the Estimates for the current year, to ask that the same amount shall be granted for the maintenance of the same Scholarships and Exhibitions in the Colleges as heretofore?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir.
  MR. GRAY: Then, will the right hon. Gentleman insist on getting this Vote without giving the House the information asked for in these Returns, or does he expect that the Commission will report previous to the Vote being taken? Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman declines to afford the House the information contained in those Returns, which can be obtained at practically no expense beyond the cost of printing?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will hurry on the appointment and operations of the Commission, and when we come nearer the time when the Votes for the Queen's Colleges will be taken, I will be prepared to answer any Questions put to me by the hon. Member.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) — ATHLONE BOARD OF GUARDIANS—ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, By whose authority, and at whose request, was the election of Chairman, at the Athlone Board of Guardians postponed from the 29th March to the 5th of April; and, is it the fact that this election takes place in the neighbouring unions on the 29th March, and was it for the purpose of enabling ex-officio guardians, who attended these other unions on the 29th March to vote for the
  1480
  Tory candidate, to attend at Athlone, on the 5th of April, to vote for Lord Castle-maine, that this change was made?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the election of Chairman was not postponed. It could not legally be hold on the 29th of March, three days not having elapsed since the return of the Guardians of the Union. There is no foundation for the suggestion in the 2nd paragraph of the Question.
  MR. HEALY: At whose request was it postponed? That is the point of my Question.
  MR. TREVELYAN: It was postponed in order to comply with the law.
  MR. HEALY: My Question is—[Cries of "Order, order !"]—At whose request was this election postponed for several days? I am entitled to an answer. ["Order, order!"] The Question has been now on the Paper several days.
  [No reply.]
  MR. HEALY: I shall put the Question again to-morrow.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that neither Lord Castlemaine nor anyone on his behalf made any suggestion about fixing the election for the 5th of April.
  MR. HEALY: Did he make a request that it should not be held on the 29th of March? [Loud cries of "Order, order !"] I am perfectly in Order. The House did not object a while ago to 10 minutes' talk about the Duke of Wellington's Statue; and in spite of the interruptions of hon. Members opposite, or the sneers of the Home Secretary— [Loud cries of "Order, order !"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put his Question, and not make these remarks.
  MR. HEALY: I shall put the Question again to-morrow.

  EXCISE—BONDED GOODS (IRELAND).
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he would explain why it is that the new system of warehousing Bonded Goods is not yet applied to the Irish ports except in Dublin and Belfast, and is it intended only to apply it to those ports, and are Cork, Waterford, Limerick, Londonderry, and Newry, to be abolished as warehousing ports?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the new system of warehousing bonded goods already exists in the Excise warehouses at Cork and Limerick, and will probably be introduced elsewhere in Ireland in

  1481
  two or three months, as soon as some questions of detail are arranged. There is no intention of abolishing the five ports named as warehousing ports.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT— WORKING MEN'S INSTITUTE, BELFAST.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that about £80 has been transmitted as result fees to Belfast in connection with the Science and Art Department, South Kensington; whether, of that sum, only about £21 has been paid to Messrs. White, Ross, and Cumming, three of the teachers, and remainder has been retained by Mr. Robert Barklie, teacher of chemistry, and who is also a trustee of the Belfast Working Men's Institute; if the facts are as stated, does he approve of the distribution; and, if not, will he try to have it rectified; and, is the Mr. Robert Barklie above referred to the same Mr. Robert Barklie who was suspended from his position as a science teacher in 1867, for an attempted fraud on the department?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I will answer the Question, as it is connected with the Science and Art Department. The facts of this case are as follows:—£437 5s. was paid to the Committee of the Working Men's Institute, Belfast, through Mr. T. H. Browne, their Secretary, on the results of the science examinations of the Institute, in May and June, 1883. Mr. Barklie is one of nine teachers on account of whose instruction this sum was paid; but the Science and Art Department does not know how much of this was paid to Mr. Barklie, or how much to each of the other eight teachers. The arrangements between local Committees and their teachers are a matter of private contract between the parties. The Department only looks to, and pays, the Committees. The Mr. Barklie referred to in the Question is the person who, when a young teacher, was suspended in 1867 for some irregularity; but he has subsequently proved himself an able and energetic teacher, and it seems cruel that an offence, for which he suffered 17 years ago, should now be raked up against him.
  In further answer to Mr. BIGGAR,
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that when instruction was given by several teachers
  1482
  the Department paid the Committee of the Institution, and not the individual teachers.

  IRELAND —THE CORPORATION OF NAAS—ALIENATION OF THE CORPORATE PROPERTY.
  MR. LEAHYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, prior to the passing of "the Municipal Corporation Act, 1840," the Corporation of Naas was possessed of property of considerable extent and value; whether, three weeks before the Act of 1836, restraining alienation, a deed purporting to be executed some months earlier was registered whereby the Corporation granted without consideration, except the nominal rent to which the property was subject, the entire of the Corporation property to trustees for the maintenance and education of Protestant orphans from the town and neighbourhood of Naas; whether the value of the property so alienated is between £300 and £400 a-year, and is likely to be soon largely augmented by the falling in of old leases; whether evidence upon this subject was taken before the Local Government Board Commission in February 1877 and the Municipal Boundaries Commission of 1878; whether it appears from that evidence given chiefly by Protestant gentlemen and the Petition unanimously adopted by the Town Commissioners, Protestant and Catholic, that it is the wish of all creeds and classes in the locality of Naas that the Corporation property should be restored; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will institute an inquiry with a view to giving effect to the prayers of the Petition already referred to?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Sir, I believe it to be the fact that some time prior to the passing of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1840, the Corporation of Naas was possessed of property of the value of about £350 per annum. A deed of fee farm grant appears to have been executed on 19th November, 1835, to nominees of Lord Mayo, of the then residue of the corporate property, producing over £322 per annum, at a rent of £ 12 per annum, in trust, as I believe, for the maintenance and education of Protestant orphans from the town and neighbourhood of Naas. Some evidence

  1483
  was given on this subject before the Commissioners mentioned in the Question; and I have no reason to doubt there is a regret, largely entertained, that the Corporation property was not preserved. The deed of 1835 is stated to have been executed in pursuance of a Resolution of 29th September, 1832. Prior to 1836 a Corporation was quite at liberty to convey away property owned by it as any private individual could. If the deed of 1835, carrying out the Resolution of 1832, was in the then state of the law a valid transfer, I do not think it is a case in winch the Government could interfere. If it was not, the transaction may be still impeachable by the Corporation. I recommend to the perusal of the hon. Member the Report of the Municipal Commission of 1835, which contains, if correct, a strange and interesting history of the mode in which the Resolution of 1832 was drawn up, and afterwards carried.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE RIOTS AT LONDONDERRY—MR. FORREST REID.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Crown Solicitor, Mr. Forrest Reid, who attended on behalf of the Crown at the magisterial investigation in Derry, is also family solicitor to Mr. M'Corkell; and, whether Mr. Forrest Reid and Mr. D. B. M'Corkell attended and represented Mr. M'Corkell, senior, at a Board of Trade inquiry into the loss of the Nokomis?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, he was informed that Mr. Forrest Reid was the family solicitor of Mr. M'Corkell, and as such represented him at the Board of Trade inquiry referred to. Mr. Reid attended, on behalf of the Crown, the magisterial investigation at Derry; and he was informed by those who knew that gentleman that he was quite incapable of being influenced in the discharge of his duties by family ties.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the Government could not have got anybody to represent them except the family solicitor of one of the accused?
  MR. TREVELYAN: He is the Crown Solicitor.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES CONVENTION —THE INSTRUCTIONS.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, in conse-
  1484
  quence of the ratification of the North Sea Fisheries Convention, which comes into force on 15th May next, British fishing vessels engaged in the herring and mackerel fisheries on grounds frequented by Belgian and French trawling vessels on the East Coast of England, will, for the future, be more adequately protected by cruisers than has hitherto been the case; and, whether a sufficient number of cruisers will be employed to enforce Articles 26 to 33 inclusive of the said Convention?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, Instructions for carrying out the provisions of the North Sea Fisheries Convention have been drawn up by the Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves in communication with the Board of Trade, and the necessary cruisers have been ordered to be ready.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT— FLOGGING IN NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. S. MORLEYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If his attention has been drawn to the treatment received by two boys named Haffenden, scholars in the National School at Speldhurst, near Tunbridge Wells, who were flogged, in the presence of the entire school, by the master for having, on the previous Sunday, the 2nd of March, attended a service in a dissenting chapel in the village; and, whether, as this is a school receiving Government aid, he will take such steps as he may deem necessary to prevent a repetition of such proceedings?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the matter involved is so serious, that I have directed a local inquiry to be made into the facts of this case by an experienced officer of the Department, and I shall be prepared in a few days to communicate the result to the House.

  POST OFFICE—INTERNATIONAL PARCEL POST.
  MR. BLAKEasked the Postmaster General, If he can state when he will have the arrangements completed for connecting the English Parcels Post with that of the Continental?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, I regret that I am not yet in a position to fix the date when the International Parcel Post will be introduced. The arrangement of such a post involves many complicated details, which have been for some time

  1485
  engaging the careful consideration of the Department.
  MR. WARTON: Is it not the case that the post referred to in the hon. Member's Question is the Parcel Post, and not the Parcels Post, just as we say letter carrier, and not letters carrier?
  [No reply.]

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1878—CLAUSES 27 AND 32— UNIFORMITY OF ACTION.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, under Clauses 27 and 32 of the "Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878," the Privy Council have power to make regulations with regard to animals "while in transit or in course of being moved by land or by water," which will secure uniformity, and prevent the prohibition of the sale in public markets of fat animals from healthy areas, by local authorities, for the purpose of enhancing the price of meat in their districts?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, the Privy Council had made Orders for regulating the treatment of animals in transit under certain sections of the Contagious Diseases Act. These Orders secured uniform action. Local Authorities had no power to prohibit the sale of fat or store animals, except within five miles of an infected place.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) — RE-ARKANGEMENT OF CIRCUITS.
  VISCOUNT NEWPORTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, before any action is taken respecting the re-arrangement of Circuits, an opportunity will be given to the localities affected to state their views?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that no action with respect to the re-arrangement of Circuits could be made except by Statute or Order in Council, which would be laid on the Table of the House. In either case Parliament would have cognizance of the matter. He was authorized to say that the Lord Chancellor would be glad to receive any representation from localities which might suppose that they would be affected by any change made.

  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) ACT, 1883—GUARANTEES.
  MR. MAYNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  1486
  If his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Grand Jury of the County Tipperary have refused a guarantee for the construction of n Railway from Gooldscross to Cashel; whether the guarantee was refused, on the plea that there was not unanimity on the part of the ratepayers, although both the proposals on the subject submitted to the grand jury were supported by an overwhelming majority of the ratepayers proposed to be taxed; whether the need for the line of Railway was admitted by the grand jury in granting the concession to make it; whether, in order to protect the public interests in a case of this kind, the Government will consider the advisability of establishing a right of appeal from the grand jury to the going judge of assize, or to the Board of Works; and, whether the doubt expressed by one Irish grand jury, as to the sufficiency of the protection afforded to the ratepayers by section ten of the Tramways Act of last year, is held to be valid by the Law Officers of the Grown in Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have not yet received any Report of the proceedings before the Grand Jury; but, from such information as has been supplied to me, it appears that the Grand Jury considered and decided the case upon what they regarded as its merits. It would be premature as yet for Government to review the working of the Act, and propose amendments, should such be required. I do not quite understand the last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question. The Attorney General informs me that he is not aware what is the "doubt" to which the hon. Member refers, and therefore cannot express any opinion as to the validity of the point raised. If the hon. Member will confer with me, I will have inquiries made.
  MR. GRAYinquired if the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to grant a Return setting forth the applications made under the Tramways Act, and how they had been treated by the Grand Juries?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will put a Question to me on the subject at the beginning of next week.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882 —LIEUTENANT-COLONEL DIGBY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  1487
  If his attention has been drawn to a case heard on Friday last, at Ballymore, county Westmeath, in which Lieut.-Col. W. B. Digby, J.P. appeared in answer to a charge of having made a false affidavit, with intent to substantiate a false claim, in order to obtain a sum of money, under the provisions of the Arrears Act, from the Irish Land Commission; whether, upon the evidence produced by the Crown for the prosecution, the resident magistrate, Mr. John T. Dillon, held that the case should be sent on for trial, but was overruled by the other two justices present, who refused the informations and dismissed the case, though it was not alleged on behalf of the accused that his affidavit was true; whether the Irish Law Officers agree with the resident magistrate that the question of the intention to defraud, is a question, not for the justices, but for a jury; whether any further steps will be taken towards bringing the case to trial; and, whether Lieut.-Col. Digby will continue to act in the Commission of the Peace?
  MR. GIBSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I would like to ask him, if he is aware that Colonel Digby, immediately after discovering the mistake, himself countermanded the application for money, and waited on the Controller of the Arrears Department of the Land Commission, and fully explained the entire circumstances?
  MR. SEXTON: Upon that Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman I would ask, further, if Colonel Digby allowed five months to elapse before he took any steps to retire from the fraudulent position?
  MR. HEALY: When he was found out.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed, Sir, that it is the case that Colonel Digby appeared to answer such a charge, and that the Resident Magistrate differed from the ruling of the other magistrates, by whom the case was dismissed. The Crown Solicitor is furnishing a Report to the Law Officers, who will consider the case.
  MR. GIBSON: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to answer my Question.
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is perfectly impossible for mo to answer Questions put, that way without Notice.
  MR. GIBSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Question which di-
  1488
  rected attention to the facts without making himself acquainted with the circumstances to which I refer?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may ask that Question, and think that it establishes a point against me; but he must know that a reference by the Chief Secretary to the Law Officers at their own requisition would preclude the Chief Secretary from asking any more questions until he had got that Report.
  MR. SEXTON: Immediately on the re-assembling of the House after Easter I shall ask the effect of the Report of the Crown Solicitor, and what steps the Government intend to take to punish the fraud?

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND)— RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Her Majesty's Government will take stops this Session to give effect to the recommendations relating to Ireland of the Royal Commission on Industrial Schools?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I stated a few days ago, in replying to a Question asked by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that I could not pledge the Government to legislate on the subject this year; but that as the inquiry was not confined to Ireland, but was for the United Kingdom, I thought that the Irish Government could not act independently of the English Government.

  REGISTRY OF DEEDS (IRELAND).
  MR. HEALYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can state approximately the value of property annually dealt with by the Registry of Deeds, Ireland; whether, as it would appear from the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Registration of Deeds, dated 30th October 1880, the landed property of Ireland is dependent on the Department for the security of its title, and that the nature of the duties necessitates the office being filled with a superior class of clerks; whether, by the Act 2 and 3 William 4, c. 87, sec. 28, every official in the Registry is made individually responsible at law for damages arising through negligence or default; if he will state the

  1489
  grounds on which the salaries of the Registry of Deeds Office are fixed on a lower scale than those of every other Irish Department of similar importance; and, if he will give any assurance that the Registry of Deeds shall, in point of salaries and annual increment, be placed on an equality with such Departments as the Constabulary Office, Education Office, Board of Works, Local Government Board, and Paymaster General's Office?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, I am afraid the amount of the property annually dealt with by the Deeds Registry cannot be given, as the amount of "consideration" is not necessarily stated when an instrument is registered. The Report of the Royal Commission contains a paragraph to the effect stated in the Question. The officers of the Registry are, by statute, liable for damages in respect of loss caused by their own negligence or misconduct; but it is a question whether this statutory obligation should not be removed. The salaries are fixed with reference to the nature of the work to be done, and the scale of this Office compares favourably with that of other Departments of Registration in Ireland and Scotland.

  CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)—CASE OF LACHLAN M'LEOD.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Lord Advocate, with regard to the Skye prevarication case. If he could state whether Sheriff Substitute Speirs based his sentence on Lachlan M'Leod upon Statute Law or upon a fiction of Law; and, if upon the latter, whether he will at once introduce a measure defining the powers of the sheriffs and minor judges in dealing with and punishing those guilty of prevarication on oath or of contempt of court; and, is it a fact that Mr. Spiers does not know Gaelic, and Lachlan M'Leod does not know English?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he had not had time since the Question appeared on the Paper to ascertain fully all the particulars. He had no doubt that Sheriff Spiers must have given his judgment knowing well that that judgment was liable to revision by the Superior Courts. He did not see any cause to propose separate legislation on this matter defining the powers of the Sheriffs and minor Judges. He was not aware that
  1490
  Sheriff Spiers had acquired a knowledge of Gaelic.

  CUSTOMS—EXTRA MESSENGERS.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the case that a number of extra messengers permanently employed in the Customs, some having between twenty and forty years' service, have no annual or sick leave, and do not receive pay for the usual official holidays, although they are precluded from being employed on those days, and whether they are paid fortnightly instead of weekly; whether the messengers at the Admiralty, similarly placed, do have annual and sick leave, and are also paid for the usual official holidays, and are paid weekly; whether the Treasury has received, through the Board of Customs, a Petition from the Customs' extra messengers, dated 26th April 1883, asking to be paid weekly instead of fortnightly; and, what is the reason why the extra messengers in the Customs are treated so differently from similar servants in the Admiralty?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the Treasury have received no Petition from any men of the character described. I am informed, however, that they belong to the class of Customs extra men, who are employed by the Board only when required, and are paid for every day so employed. Some of them have been fortunate enough to continue on the list of extra men for many years, but are in no sense established. I do not know anything about the Admiralty employés referred to; but the system of extra men in the Customs' Service appears a good one, and there is no intention of altering it.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE RIOTS AT LONDONDERRY—TRIAL OF DOHERTY —EVIDENCE OF SUB - CONSTABLE DALY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the evidence of Sub-Constable Daly was withheld at the trial of Doherty, in Sligo; and, if it is the intention of the Crown to proceed against those who were identified by Sub-Constable Daly as taking part in the Derry Town Hall disturbances?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am advised that Constable Daly was not examined

  1491
  because he could give no evidence against Doherty. With regard to the second inquiry, the Attorney General does not consider he has sufficient evidence to support a prosecution.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—MEETINGS OF NATIONAL TEACHERS.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have issued a circular prohibiting in future
  "Meetings of National teachers, or the attendance of National teachers at meetings, unless for purely educational purposes,"
  and declaring that the Commissioners have resolved further that—
  "At any and every such meeting each teacher present shall be responsible for all things said or done by any of those present, unless he at once publicly disavows anything which may be said or done of an objectionable character, i.e. anything bordering upon political controversy or criticism of the administration of the Board, or the conduct of its officers, or the action or policy of the Government,"
  and that—
  "This public disavowal must be followed by an open withdrawal of the teacher from the meeting:"
  whether it is intended to interfere with the customary congress and meetings of National teachers, or with the organization of the teachers' association now existing for many years under successive administrations, and which have been instrumental in obtaining some amelioration of the admitted grievances of the Irish National teachers; whether open public agitation for the improvement of their pay and position by the teachers will now be prohibited or permitted as heretofore; and, what proof will be required that "things of an objectionable character were said or done" at a meeting at which a teacher may have been present before he will be held to come within the penal terms of the circular?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is quite true, Sir, that the National Education Commissioners have issued a Circular in which they state that they have resolved—
  "Not to sanction in future meetings of National teachers, or the attendance of National teachers at meetings, unless for purely educational purposes"—
  but then they go on to explain what they mean—
  1492
  "For freely, but temperately, discussing their own position, rights, privileges, and claims; the provisions which affect the school programme of instruction, the organization of schools, the methods of teaching, the selection of subjects of instruction suitable to the wants and tastes of their pupils; the employment and training of monitors; literary, moral, or scientific subjects; in short, all branches of the educational question which can be considered without political discussion."
  If the hon. Member had dwelt upon this passage, in which the Commissioners extend their sanction to meetings of teachers "for freely, but temperately, discussing their own position, rights, privileges, and claims," he would have seen that the holding of a congress, or the establishment of a teachers' association, or any proper effort to improve their pay, would not be inconsistent with either the spirit or letter of the Circular. As to the proof that will be required that "things of an objectionable character were said or done" at a meeting, the Commissioners must be the judges of it, and must, of course, decide every case on its merits.
  MR. GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Circular does not go on to prohibit any discussion or criticism of the administration of the Board and the conduct of its officers? I would direct his attention more particularly to these words, "or the action or policy of the Government." Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how they may discuss "their whole position and claims," while they must avoid discussing the action of the Government, which may refuse to recognize their claims?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is not for me to speak for the Commissioners of National Education, or to explain their policy. We have no doubt that they can be perfectly trusted to distinguish between what is legitimate educational controversy and what is political action.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— KINSALE PIER AND QUAY.
  MR. DEASYasked the Secretary to the Treasury. If he will order a Copy of the Report of Messieurs Brady and Johnston, Pier and Harbour Commissioners, on the Kinsale pier and quay, to be laid upon the Table of the House forthwith?
  MR. COURTNEY: This Report is not in the knowledge of any Department with which I am connected; but I

  1493
  presume it rests with the Pier and Harbour Commission, over which the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) presides. As the whole question is under consideration, I do not think it is at all expedient to take any action at the present stage.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—SALE OF CLEMENTS INN.
  MR. FIRTHasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that the right of the Principal, Ancients, and Commoners of Clement's Inn to dispose of the property of the Inn, has been submitted to the opinion of an eminent Counsel; whether he is aware that in the opinion of such Counsel the sale of such property and the division of the proceeds constitute a breach of trust for which an information may be brought; and, whether he proposes to bring such information?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, he had received from the Council of the Incorporated Law Society counsel's opinion on the proposed sale of Clement's Inn. He believed that opinion was to the effect that, on the whole, there were good grounds for an inquiry into the right of the Principal, Ancients, and Commoners to dispose of the property. The Incorporated Law Society thought the proper course was to communicate with the Charity Commissioners; and if they reported to him (the Attorney General) with respect to the endowment the matter would receive due consideration.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)— THE POSTMASTER OF DUNGANNON.
  MR. DEASYasked the Postmaster General, Whether, on 1st January last, Mr. Jacob Orr, the Postmaster of Dun-Cannon, county Tyrone, allowed Thomas Hodgett, one of his subordinates in the office, to be absent from his duty all that day in order to take part in an Orange demonstration; whether Hodgett on that morning carried an Orange flag in front of a procession through the streets of Dungannon, and accompanied the Orange expedition to Dromore; whether Mr. Orr obliged the telegraph messenger, whoso duty it was to remain constantly in the telegraph office, to discharge Hodgett's duty by carrying con-
  1494
  signments by parcel post to and from the railway station; and, what notice will be taken by the Department of the conduct of the Postmaster in this matter?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to the hon. Member. I have to state that Hodgett the man employed by the Postmaster of Dungannon to deliver parcels, sought and obtained leave of absence for the 1st January. The Postmaster, however, was not only not aware for what purpose the leave was required, but afterwards, finding that Hodgett had been to Dromore. rebuked him for his indiscretion. Hodgett, I am assured, carried no flag and was not in the procession. He has since left the Service. On the 1st January the parcels were delivered by the Telegraph messenger.

  HARBOURS OF REFUGE—CONVICT LABOUR.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the many influential Petitions which have been presented to the House praying that the whole of our able-bodied convicts, or any other National resource which may be necessary, shall be applied without delay to constructing or improving harbours of refuge or ports of shelter round the coasts of these islands to save the lives of our sailors and fishermen; whether they are aware that the French Nation is expending the sum of five and a half million pounds sterling for a similar purpose over a district of only 250 miles; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have it in contemplation to expend any considerable sum of money in providing similarly improved harbour accommodation on dangerous coasts in Great Britain and Ireland?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, the House had already authorized the employment of convict labour on the harbour at Dover, and that absorbed all the labour of that kind that was at present available. There appeared to be a general impression that such labour could be employed in many parts of the country at the same time upon works of this kind; but this was not the case, for convict labour could only be employed when the size of the works and the length of time they would take to carry out justified the

  1495
  building of a large prison in the vicinity for the accommodation of the convicts.

  PATENT MEDICINES—LEGISLATION.
  MR. WARTONasked the Vice President of the Council, When the Government intends to introduce, in the House of Peers, their Bill relating to Patent Medicines?
  MR. MUNDELLA, in reply, said, that the Government would introduce the Bill as soon as possible after Easter.

  CUSTOMS CLERKS-OUT-DOOR DEPARTMENT.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury has received a Memorial from certain ex-redundant clerks in the Customs pointing out that they were induced to accept appointments in the out-door department, involving an average additional daily attendance of over twenty-five per cent with only a trifling and temporary increase of salary, by the issue of a classification holding out improved prospects of promotion immediately before the appointments were offered to them; whether it is the fact that the Board of Customs have now decided to reduce the number of surveyors by compelling the First Class examining officers to do the work hitherto clone by clerical surveyors, thereby withdrawing from the Memorialists their chief inducement to accept the obligation of increased daily attendance; and, whether, under these circumstances, reasonable compensation will be granted to them for the withdrawal of those prospects; and, if not, whether the Board of Customs will continue to exact the additional labour while withdrawing the inducement which led the Memorialists to accept it?
  MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, the matter was still under the consideration of the Treasury.

  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRLEAND— ARTS STUDENTS.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the Return of last Session relative to the Royal University of Ireland (180 H. 7. 6. 83), Whether there were in each of the three Queen's Colleges, at the date of the Return, two classes of Arts Students, ranking as
  1496
  "Matriculated Students" of the Royal University, some who had become so by passing the Matriculation Examination of the University, others who had become so merely by the provisions of the University Act (42 and 43 Vic. c. 65), which conferred this status on those who were Matriculated Students of a Queen's College at the date of the dissolution of the Queen's University; whether the Return moved for explicitly set forth that what was to be stated was the number of Students of the former class, those who had "passed the Matriculation Examination of the Royal University;" whether the number of Students returned by the responsible official of Galway College, in answer to this query, was 3, the number who really had passed the University Examination; whether the number returned by the responsible official of the Belfast College was 77; whether this Return, in the case of Belfast, was accompanied by a footnote stating that the Return made did not really give the number of the class of Students ordered to be returned, but to a totally different class, those, namely, who had become University Students, not by passing the University Examination, but merely by the operation of the Act of Parliament; whether the Return in the case of Cork, supposing the same footnote to refer to it, was equally defective; whether the Government obtained at all, from those Colleges, the number of the class of Students to which the Order of the House of Commons applied; who was responsible for the failure to produce to the House the Returns really moved for; and, whether he can state the correct numbers which should have been given in the Return in the cases of Belfast and Cork?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the hon. Member is correct as to there having been two classes of Art students ranking as matriculated students of the Royal University. The accidental omission has been already stated at length to the House. From the information now before me, it appears that the number of Arts students who actually passed the matriculation examination of the Royal University in 1881 from the several Colleges were, from Belfast, six; from Cork, none; and from Galway, three. In reference to these very low numbers it is well to observe that the Royal University examination was deferred to

  1497
  December, and that the usual matriculation examinations had been held in the Colleges in the previous October.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS)— EXCLUSION OF IRISH FAT CATTLE FROM MARKETS IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If it is a fact that Irish fat cattle have been excluded from the Newcastle on Tyne market since February 1883, by the local authority of that city; if Irish cattle sold in the Salford cattle market are prevented by the local authorities of the county of Chester from being removed after slaughter to any part of said county, while animals from all other countries may be brought freely; if the local authorities in Glasgow and Greenock have excluded Irish animals from landing at their respective ports from 20th August to 3rd October 1883, and, in case of shipments from the port of Dublin, from 20th August to 17th December 1883; if in such instances the local authorities acted under instructions from the Privy Council; and, whether he will consider how far such instructions, if given, would be in accordance with the spirit of the assurances given by his Grace the Duke of Richmond during the hearing of evidence in the 1878 Commission?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, I believe cattle from Ireland have been excluded from the Newcastle-on-Tyne market, though I cannot say since when. With reference to the alleged action of the local authorities at Chester, Glasgow, and Greenock, I cannot give the dates between which certain local regulations were in force. The local authorities do not in those matters act under instructions from the Privy Council. They have full power to prohibit or regulate the movement of animals into their district from the district of any other local authority in England, in Wales, in Scotland, or in Ireland,
  MR. KENNYintimated that on Monday he would put a further Question on this subject to the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GRAY: Have these local authorities power to exclude cattle from a different country? Ireland is treated not as a country, but a district, although it is sub-divided into several districts.
  MR. DODSON: Each local authority has power, if it pleases, to exclude animals from all the rest of the United Kingdom.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—DRAINAGE OF THE LOWER BANN.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, When he expects to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Board of Works in connection with the Drainage of the Lower Bann?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, this Report, which is of a very elaborate character, only reached the Treasury yesterday. It will receive the immediate and careful consideration of the Government; but I cannot at present say what Papers on the subject it may be necessary or desirable to lay before the House.

  DISTRIBUTION OF PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS—FREE PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can arrange for the distribution, free of cost, to the Birkenhead Free Public Library, as well as to other similar institutions who may wish to have them, of a complete set, as issued, of Parliamentary Papers and Documents and other works which are printed at the expense of the public?
  MR. COURTNEY: The Parliamentary Papers can be purchased through any bookseller at a price which represents only the cost of printing and paper. Having regard to this fact, and also to the very large public expenditure for printing, I see no reason for subsidizing free libraries in the manner proposed.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— ALLEGED CASE OF FIRING AT THE PERSON—MR. JAMES WHITE.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. James White, of Sligo, lately swore an information before Mr. Mayne, R.M. against Mr. Griffith Henry Perrott, charging the latter with being one of a party who assaulted him when driving on a car near Ballaghadereen, and with being the man who on that occasion presented a gun across his chest, and fired,

  1499
  and threatened to put the contents through him; whether Mr. White further swore that, when he went to the Police barracks, the policeman "said he would arrest him if he did not go away;" whether a summons was granted, and Mr. White bound over to prosecute; whether, on the adjourned hearing on 10th March, the Prosecutor did not appear, and Mr. Mayne discharged the informations; whether, on that occasion, the Magistrate produced a Document and telegram which he showed to the representative of Mr. Perrott, but did not produce in Court; whether Mr. Perrott did not assert his perfect innocence of the grave charge made against him; whether Mr. White's recognizance has been estreated; and, whether he can give any explanation of the affair, and will state what steps, if any, the Government will take in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. White swore an information, as stated, and the summons against Mr. Perrott was granted, and Mr. White was bound over to prosecute on the next Court day. On that day Mr. Perrott appeared, and on behalf of Mr. White an application was made for adjournment. The Resident Magistrate granted the adjournment on the distinct understanding that the case should be proceeded with on the next Court day, the 10th of March. On that day, however, a further application was made on behalf of Mr. White for adjournment by letter from himself and a telegram from his solicitor. These documents the Resident Magistrate showed in open Court to the only person who had a right to see them—namely, the representative of Mr. Perrott. This gentleman opposed a further adjournment. The Resident Magistrate thought his opposition reasonable, and refused the adjournment. Mr. White's recognizances would not be estreated.
  MR. GRAY: Will the Government take any steps in the matter? I want to see whether perjury has been committed on one side, or an outrage of a very grave character on the other.
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, he understood from private information that a person who was with Mr. Perrott on the occasion of the alleged assault fired at a widgeon on the public road somewhere near where Mr. White was walking.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND)—THE CENTRE SUPERINTENDENTS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many Centre Superintendents were appointed by the Board of Irish Intermediate Education for the years 1881, 1882, and 1883; what was the proportion of Catholics to those of other denominations; and, how many teachers of Irish Intermediate Schools were appointed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Reports of the Intermediate Education Commissioners for 1881 and 1882 are already before the House; and the hon. Member will find stated there the number of Centre Superintendents employed in each year—181 in 1881, and 175 in 1882. The number for 1883 has not yet been published; but the Assistant Commissioners inform me that it is 169. Of these about a fourth, one year with another, are ladies. The Commissioners have not afforded me any information as to the proportions of the religions, and I am not prepared to press them. I have not received any reply to the third paragraph of the Question; but I hope to hear further on the subject.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—(SUBCOMMISSIONERS)— MR. EVANS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether one of the Sub-Commissioners in the Land Court now sitting in Longford was formerly employed to value property in the county of Longford by a landlord in respect of whoso rents several claims for reduction are listed for hearing in this Court; and, whether it is true that in all these cases the tenants have refused in consequence to proceed with their claims?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Land Commissioners inform me that Mr. Evans, a member of the Longford Sub-Commission, was formerly employed to value property in Longford by Lord Granard from whose estate there are cases listed for the present sitting of the Sub-Commission. Mr. Evans has been directed to take no part, and will take no part, in the trial of these cases, either by hearing evidence in Court or by inspecting the farms, or by fixing rents. There can, therefore, be no reason of this kind

  1501
  why the tenants should not proceed with their claims.

  INDIA—THE MADRAS CIVIL SERVICE —MR. MAC IVER.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he can account for the publication last month, throughout the Indian press, of the confidential letter addressed, on the 4th November 1882, by Mr. MacIver, Madras Civil Service, to Mr. Master, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Madras; whether, as this letter charged the Madras High Court with "playing to the gallery," and taking the part of the Natives against the Government of Madras, Mr. MacIver was reprimanded, on receipt of the letter, by Government; and, if not, whether he will ask the Governor of Madras to give an explanation of the case?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: No, Sir; I cannot account for the publication of the letter in question, nor do I know anything more about it than is contained in The Madras Times. Nor do I see any reason to ask the Government of Madras to give any explanation.

  THE RAILWAY COMMISSION— LEGISLATION.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the President of the Board of Trade, When he proposes to introduce the measure dealing with the Railway Commission?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, the measure was not yet finally drafted; but he hoped to introduce it very early after Easter.
  MR. STUART - WORTLEYasked whether it was proposed to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee after it had been read a second time: and, if so, to which?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he should ask the House to refer the Bill to the Grand Committee on Trade.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—DEATH IN WATERFORD GAOL.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that a man named James Commins was sentenced to fine or imprisonment, at Tramore Petty Sessions, on the 10th March, for allowing sheep to trespass on the public road; whether he asked for time to pay the fine and was refused, was imprisoned on
  1502
  the 11th, on the 12th was found attempting to climb the cell walls and talking to himself about his sheep which, in consequence of his imprisonment, were left on the road without any person to care for them; whether he was thereupon treated as a lunatic, and put into a strait jacket; whether having burst same on following day he was strapped and tied down, and was subjected to this treatment until the 24th instant; whether he was so bad on this day that warders were ordered to visit him every two hours; whether, on being visited at six o'clock on the following morning, he was found lying uncovered; whether, on being visited again at half-past seven, he was dead; whether, at the inquest, the prison doctor said deceased died of heart disease; whether two other doctors swore he died of congestion of the lungs; and, if, under these circumstances, the Government will order an independent inquiry on oath?
  MR. TREVELYAN: James Commins was convicted on the 25th February for allowing cattle to wander on the public road. There were nine cases against him, and he was ordered to pay a fine of 5s., or in default to be imprisoned for 48 hours. It is not true that his application for time to pay the fine was refused. It was granted. Subsequently he refused to pay, and warrants were executed on the 7th March. Farmers of the locality had frequently complained to the police of the injuries to their crops, by this man's cattle being persistently allowed to wander on the public road. With regard to the more serious part of the hon. Member's Question. I cannot at present say anything, as an Inspector of the Local Government Board has been sent to hold a sworn inquiry into the whole circumstances.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether the Government would order the body of this unfortunate man to be exhumed, in order that they might have an opinion as to whether he died from heart disease or from congestion of the lungs, brought on by exposure?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that if hon. Members would communicate to him all these particulars, he would send them to the Local Government Board.
  MR. GRAYasked whether the inquiry would be public?
  [No reply.]
  MR. GRAYsaid, he would put the Question on another day.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES) — THE ANTRIM ARTILLERY—MAJOR JOHN STON.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence that passed between the Military authorities in Dublin and Belfast in March 1883, relative to an alleged misstatement, alleged to have been made by Major Johnston, Antrim Artillery, in bis communication to the Adjutant General, Dublin, in March 1883?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I can only refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 5th March last year, and repeat that I see no possible good in reviving discussion on an incident which was of small moment 10 years ago, and has now almost passed from the memory of those concerned.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that on the Vote for the Irish Militia he would call attention to the matter.

  SCOTLAND — THE HIGHLAND CROFTERS — REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, If he can explain the delay in issuing the Report of the Royal Commission upon the conduct of the Crofters, which was promised before the end of last month?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that the completion and printing of the Report and Appendix was a work of great labour; but he understood it would be signed to-day in Edinburgh and issued tomorrow.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether there is any truth in the reported "arrangement" between the Board of Trade and certain shipowners with respect to the Merchant Shipping Bill; if so, whether its terms have been correctly stated in the newspapers, and what course he proposes to take with regard to the Bill?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, he had already answered the first part of this Question in the reply he gave the
  1504
  other day to the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst); but he might repeat that no "arrangement" had been made between the Board of Trade and the shipowners. Certain suggestions for the amendment of the Bill, which had been correctly reported in the newspapers, had been made to the Board of Trade, and communicated through the Solicitor General to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Palmer), with an intimation that the Board of Trade had no objection to these proposed Amendments in principle, as they were not inconsistent with the objects of the Bill. At the same time the Amendment appeared likely to remove some of the chief objections taken to the Bill in its present shape. In answer to the second part of the Question, he could say he should endeavour to obtain the earliest possible day after Easter for the second reading of the Bill.

  AFGHANISTAN — CENTRAL ASIAN PAPERS.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Under Secretary of State for India, How soon Papers on Afghan Affairs, promised some weeks ago, will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Papers in Question are included in the "Central Asia" Correspondence which my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs laid on the Table on Tuesday last.

  INDIA—SIBI AND QUETTA RAILWAY.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government have yet definitely decided to construct the Railway from Sibi to Quetta; and, if so, how soon operations will be commenced?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: No, Sir. It is a matter which, as I informed the hon. Gentleman on the 3rd March, requires communication with the Government of India; and I am not yet in a position to make any further announcement on the subject till we hear fully from that Government.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—CHEAP TELEGRAMS.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Postmaster General, When the new arrange-

  1505
  ment for cheap Telegrams is to come into operation?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, I have already answered a similar Question earlier in the Session, when I stated that the decision as to the time when the reduced charge for inland telegrams would he brought into operation would be announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when introducing the Budget.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the Mahdi has sent three dervishes with a defiant message to General Gordon, returning the robes of honour which had been sent, declining the position of Sultan of Kordofan, and offering General Gordon the choice between the sword and the Koran; whether the Government have asked General Gordon if he needs British Troops; and, whether they will communicate to the House General Gordon's statements as to his position and power of defending Khartoum?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the account telegraphed by Sir Evelyn Baring is that General Gordon received a letter on the 22nd ultimo, brought by messengers who behaved in an insolent manner. The letter proposed that General Gordon should become a Mussulman and asserted the writer's claim to be Mahdi. General Gordon replied, styling him Sheikh, thereby cancelling the Sultanship of Kordofan, and said that there was an end of the matter.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the increasing share of the time of this House which is occupied in putting and answering Questions, Her Majesty's Government would support the Resolution for arranging Questions, of which Notice has been given, and which stands on to-day's Paper?
  MR. HEALY: I rise to Order. Is there not a Rule of the House that controversial subjects should not be allowed to be put in the form of a Question? This Question refers to the increasing delay of Public Business which
  1506
  arises from the time occupied in putting Questions to Ministers. I have heard it alleged that the delay arises from Tory Obstruction.
  MR. SPEAKER: There is nothing irregular in the Question.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the increasing delay in the transaction of Public Business, which arises from the time occupied in putting and answering Questions, Her Majesty's Government would support the Amendment to the Resolution for arranging Questions, of which Notice has been given, and which stands on to-day's Paper; and, whether Ministers have at present the power, practically, to arrange for all Questions of an ordinary character being put on Tuesdays and Fridays by replying to a Question put on Monday or Thursday that the answer will be given on the Tuesday or Friday following?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) has a Question on the same subject, and I will reply to all three.
  MR. WARTON: I rise to Order, and I will ask your opinion, Sir, whether the Question of the hon. Member for Chelsea can be answered when it had not yet been put? I wish to take an objection to that Question.
  MR. FIRTHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will consider the feasibility of proposing a Rule of Procedure similar to that suggested in November 1882 by the honourable Member for Devonport, whereby Government business may be taken at four of the clock on Mondays and Thursdays, without any preliminary business except such Questions as may, in the opinion of Mr. Speaker, be of immediate and urgent importance; and, whether he will further consider the propriety of so far modifying the rule as to the blocking of Bills as to prevent the abuse of such rule which now takes place?
  MR. WARTON: As Question No. 61 has now been asked, my point of Order is this, whether the word "blocking" mentioned in this Question is a recognized Parliamentary term; whether it appears in any Paper or Standing Order of the House; and whether it is not a piece of vulgar slang?
  MR. SPEAKER: In regard to the point of Order, the term "blocking" is a colloquial expression recognized in

  1507
  this House. It has been used from the Chair with the approval of the House, and the import of it is fully known to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport and to the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: With respect to the three Questions put to me, I have one and the same answer to make. I conceive that they are really intended to indicate a feeling that is widely spread, and, I am sorry to say, is only too well-founded. That feeling relates to a matter which is of very considerable importance, affecting the efficiency of the House in the conduct of its Business; but it is not in my power properly to bring the matter under consideration, as it does not rest with me unless at the time when the Government called attention to the subject of Procedure.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government would have any objection to the preparation of a Return in reference to the putting of Questions to Ministers? I venture to throw out this challenge, that these Questions are the direct outcome, and may be directly referred to the Rule of Procedure called the "gagging" Rule, which places it in the power of the majority to silence the minority.
  MR. GLADSTONE: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that any useful information on the subject of Questions can be given in the form of a Return, probably he will be kind enough to put his suggestion in such a shape as to show its scope and purport.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I beg to give Notice that I will, on the earliest opportunity I can obtain, move the Resolution of which I have given Notice today.

  PORTUGAL—THE CONGO RIVER TREATY.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the fact that, on the 3rd of April last year, the honourable Member for Manchester was permitted by the House to withdraw his Motion relative to the Congo Treaty, on the distinct understanding that facilities would be given by the Government for its discussion, Whether he can now renew the assurance then given by him, in these words—
  "The pledge he had given was well understood, and if they (the Government) availed themselves of the crowded state of business, for
  1508
  the purpose of escaping discussion, they would be guilty of violating that pledge?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am at a loss to know why this Question is put after the answer given the other day, which appears to me to completely cover it. I believe the words quoted in the Question are accurately quoted, and I have no doubt they were words used by me. On referring to a previous debate I see that what we engaged for was the allowing of adequate opportunity for discussion, and I said nothing with reference to giving facilities.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—LOCAL TAXATION.
  MR. PELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will afford facilities for the consideration of the Motion relating to the Resolution of this House of the 28th March on the subject of Local Taxation, of which Notice has been given?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I regret that it will not be in my power to afford the hon. Gentleman facilities by an appropriation of the Government's time for the discussion of the Motion he has put on the Paper.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—A FRIDAY'S SITTING.
  MR. M'LARENasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the large number of Members on this side of the House desiring to speak on the Second Reading of the Franchise Bill, there will be a Morning Sitting on Friday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have already said that Her Majesty's Government have no plan upon the subject. What I understand to be the full intention of the House is that before the Recess—that means practically on Monday night—they will take the Division on the second reading of the Franchise Bill. It is supposed that to-night and Monday will afford sufficient time for closing the debate; but should anything occur to interfere with that, it would be for this House to consider whether a Morning Sitting should be proposed tomorrow, which we hope will not be necessary. In the case of a Morning Sitting the pledge I gave would hold good, that the Government would be bound to use their best efforts to procure a House at the Evening Sitting.

  EGYPT—POLICY OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have decided on the line of policy which they propose to pursue in Egypt, with reference more especially to the following points:—The government of the Eastern Soudan; the relations which are to be maintained with the Western Soudan; the Government of Khartoum; the relations between the Soudan generally and the Egyptian Government; and, the general relations, political, military, and financial, between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Egypt; whether he can give any information as to General Gordon's present position and views; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to afford him any material support?
  MR. FRANCIS BUXTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether General Gordon has yet reported, either to Her Majesty's Government or to the Khedive of Egypt—
  "On the best means of giving effect to the resolution of the Khedive to withdraw from the interior of the Soudan,"
  for which purpose, according to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, he was allowed to proceed to Khartoum; and, whether such Report can be laid upon the Table, or whether, in the absence of any such Report, the time has not now come to recall him from Khartoum, and thereby prevent any further risk of his own life, and put an end to all doubts of the intentions of the Egyptian Government with regard to the Soudan?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the Government regarded General Gordon as representing at Khartoum the authority of Her Majesty's Government or that of the Khedive?
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONcomplained that his Question as it appeared on the Paper of Business upon this matter had been so altered as to make it mere nonsense, and he would therefore ask, Whether, with the view of avoiding anarchy, as resulting from the immediate retirement from the Eastern Soudan, the Government would modify their instructions to General Gordon so far as to empower him to administer the affairs of that province, with regard to which the revenues of the country were quite
  1510
  sufficient, until some authority had been established there competent to take over the reins of government.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) is one which, I think, has been answered by the information authentically communicated to the House— namely, that General Gordon was sent from this country by Her Majesty's Government, and under the authority of Her Majesty's Government, to ascertain the best means of executing the evacuation of the Soudan. The House was also informed that, upon his arrival in Egypt, he likewise received from the Egyptian Government executive powers, and these powers he exercises in the name and by the right of the Egyptian Government, although they are powers with regard to which Her Majesty's Government feel both great interest and responsibility. Then I come to answer the Question of my hon. Friend behind me (Sir Alexander Gordon) by saying I do not believe there is any modification at all requisite in General Gordon's instructions. I apprehend his instructions would cover whatever powers of administration he might find it expedient to assume in the Soudan, as they do cover, in fact, at the moment his administration and his proceedings at Khartoum. Now, with respect to Question 63 of my hon. Friend (Mr. Francis Buxton), I would assure him that I entirely enter into the spirit of that Question. Her Majesty's Government are very sensible of their obligations with respect to General Gordon, and they have no disposition unreasonably to stint them. But it is not the case that we have yet received from General Gordon any full Report, nor do we believe that the Khedive of Egypt can have received any full Report from General Gordon as to the best means of giving effect to the resolution of the Khedive to withdraw from the interior of the Soudan. And, although I cannot be surprised at the anxiety of my hon. Friend for such a Report, yet I think, when it is considered what the Soudan is, how it is inhabited, what a range of country it covers, and what diversities of population not organically united together it contains, and that General Gordon has been but a bare two months in the Soudan, we cannot feel very great surprise that no couclu-

  1511
  sive Report has come from him up to the present time on that subject. Of course, therefore, no such Report can be laid on the Table. So much for the first part of the Question of my hon. Friend. With regard to the second part—
  "Whether, in the absence of such Report, the time has not come to recall General Gordon from Khartoum, and thereby prevent any further risk of his own life, and put an end to all doubts of the intentions of the Egyptian Government with regard to the Soudan?"
  I hope that it is not necessary to take any step for the purpose of putting an end to doubts as to the intentions of the Egyptian Government. I believe there is no question whatever in regard to their intentions; and undoubtedly there is not the smallest change, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, with respect to the execution of our intentions. But I am bound to say that we do not think that the time has come for sending a peremptory order to General Gordon for the purpose of recalling him from the Soudan. The principle upon which we should act in all matters relating to him is never to interfere except in a case of clear necessity. Now, I believe the matter stands thus with regard to General Gordon, and, perhaps, this may be important intelligence to my hon. Friend —at any rate, it is a very material part of the case—General Gordon is under no constraint and under no orders to remain in the Soudan. As far as his instructions or orders are concerned. General Gordon is authorized to use his own discretion, and to withdraw from the Soudan if he thinks proper. I stated that General Gordon was under no orders requiring him to remain in the Soudan; neither, as far as we are aware, is he under any inability to leave the Soudan at this moment if he chooses. As far as our information goes, he may exercise a free judgment upon that matter. Further, we gather quite distinctly from such reports as have reached us that General Gordon believes himself to be safe in Khartoum, where he is at the present time; and he has held out to us no anticipation of danger. Therefore, what we presume is this—that General Gordon does not conceive that the time has come either when he considers that the purpose of his mission is accomplished, or when he ought to despair of carrying that purpose forward; and we should be very reluctant indeed to in-
  1512
  terfere with his judgment on that subject. I think I may say it might be warrantable, or it might even be a duty incumbent upon us, to order General Gordon to withdraw if his work were at an end, or if he was seen to be in probable danger. But, according to all the information before us, that case has not arisen, and consequently there is no occasion for our intervention; nor is General Gordon in any way hampered as to the prosecution of his work or as to desisting from it if he thought the time for desisting from it had arrived. With regard to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I have asked my noble Friend—in the first instance, at any rate —to answer it, because some part of what the Government has to state to the House will come best from him, as it relates to military particulars, and likewise because the threads of former transactions for the last two or three weeks have been in the hands of my noble Friend.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I hope, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman and the House will not think that I or the Government are guilty of the slightest disrespect to himself or to the House for the course which has been suggested by my right hon. Friend. I am conscious that, even under the circumstances of the temporary absence of my right hon. Friend from the House, the statement which I have to make would come far better from him. But as it has been my duty on more than one occasion to make a promise that on the first opportunity we should make to the House any statement it might be in our power to make, my right hon. Friend has thought it would be the most convenient course that I should endeavour to reply to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman. In doing so I am afraid I shall have to trespass on the attention of the House for a much longer time than is usual in answering a Question; but I shall try to condense what I have to say as much as possible. In the first place, I must observe that, although I have been asked to reply to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, there is a great deal in that Question which appears to me and to the Government it would be utterly impossible for us to answer at the present time, and, further, a great deal which, in the opinion of the Government, ought not to be answered. There are, how-

  1513
  ever, certain points upon which I have undertaken that we should, at as early. a date as possible, endeavour to give the House some information; and although our information, even upon these points, is not as complete as could be desired, and although I am free to confess that, even as regards some subjects upon which I shall have to touch, it may possibly be premature to say anything as yet, still I will endeavour, as fully and completely as I can, to redeem the pledge which has been given. The first point upon which I wish to say a word is as to communications that took place between the Government and Sir Evelyn Baring and General Gordon on the subject of the appointment of Zebehr Pasha. On the 10th of March I informed the House that General Gordon had recommended the appointment of Zebehr Pasha as Governor of the Eastern Soudan. His recommendation was that Zebehr should be sent to Khartoum with the moral support of the British Government, but with nothing more; that certain engagements should be taken from him as to the extent of the country over which he was to exercise authority, and as to his proceedings at Khartoum and certain other matters. As I informed the House upon that occasion, the Government felt the strongest objections to the proposal which was first made—objections in the main founded upon reports received both formerly and recently from General Gordon himself with regard to the character and antecedents of Zebehr. I said on that occasion that we thought it due, both to General Gordon and Sir Evelyn Baring, to ascertain fully, before we came to a final decision on the subject, on what grounds that recommendation was made. Further information that we received tended to show that General Gordon's advice was founded mainly on the conviction that in order to secure quiet in Egypt and the pacification of the Soudan it was necessary that the Mahdi and the rebellion of which the Mahdi was the head should be completely subdued and crushed; and that Zebehr Pasha was, in his opinion, the only man possessed of sufficient authority and military talent to accomplish that object. It appeared to the Government that General Gordon had somewhat overrated the danger to be apprehended in Egypt from the Mahdi, and the insurrection of which he was the
  1514
  head. The Mahdi had not, in our opinion and so far as we had information, exhibited any pre-eminent military capacity, and although, of course, it could not be disputed that he had exercised considerable authority over the tribes in certain districts of the country, and had obtained several successes over the troops sent against, him, he had not shown any great capacity in utilizing the fruits of his victories. We also thought that, while General Gordon appeared somewhat to overrate the danger to Egypt from the insurrection of the Mahdi, he had somewhat underrated the dangers which would be involved in installing Zebehr at Khartoum, altogether irrespective of the slavery and slave-hunting antecedents of Zebehr. I am referring to the danger which we thought existed in, installing at Khartoum, in a position of authority, a man who, according to General Gordon's own account, was a man of great military character and boundless ambition, who had a grievance against the Egyptian Government, and who appeared, from I all the information we could obtain, to be the one man under whom it was not improbable a great and aggressive slave-holding trade might be formed on the borders of Egypt. We thought also, from the tenour of General Gordon's communications, that he appeared to give undue weight to the assumed necessity for the immediate evacuation of Khartoum; and in informing him that we could not be parties to his recommendation as to the institution of Zebehr as his successor in Khartoum as Governor General, we asked him to remain there as long as he might think necessary, and as long as he should think it possible to carry out the original objects of his expedition, those objects being, as has been stated, to effect, peaceably if possible, the withdrawal of the Egyptian troops, and the reform of Egyptain affairs in the Soudan, and, in fulfilment of his original policy, to hand the country over to the representatives of those Rulers who existed at the time of the conquest of the country by Mehemet Ali. Since the sending of this despatch to General Gordon, through Sir Evelyn Baring, the communication with Khartoum, as the House is aware, has been greatly interrupted. As yet we do not know what General Gordon proposes under these circumstances to do, and we

  1515
  have no intimation as to how far his plan of proceeding is modified by the refusal of the Government to comply with the suggestion that Zebehr should be nominated as his successor.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What was the date of this communication?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have not the Papers before me, and I cannot tell the actual date on which the final decision of the Government was sent to General Gordon. We are not aware as yet whether the communication of Sir Evelyn Baring, containing the final decision of the Government, has reached General Gordon; at all events, we have not got his views on the subject, nor a statement of his policy as affected by the refusal of the Government with regard to Zebehr. Reference has been made to the suggestion which emanated from General Gordon that a small British force should be despatched to Berber, and a British, or Indian, or Egyptian force to Wady Haifa, on the Nile, for the purpose of effecting a diversion against the Mahdi. As far as we can ascertain, these suggestions have been made by General Gordon in connection with his proposal that Zebehr Pasha should be sent to Khartoum as his successor in the Government, and also in relation to the policy, which he appeared to consider at that time necessary, of subduing and crushing the revolt of the Mahdi. If he said that Zebehr should be sent at once on his suggestion, in our opinion that would not then have been in itself sufficient. It was the delay which, in General Gordon's opinion, caused the necessity for a military diversion. But General Gordon has never suggested, to my knowledge, the employment of troops for the relief of Khartoum. He left this country with a most distinct and clear understanding, repeated over and over again by himself, that the mission which he was going to undertake was one which he was prepared to undertake with such resources as he might find on the spot; and he distinctly understood that it was not a part of the policy of the Government in despatching that expedition to risk having to send a fresh expedition for the relief of Khartoum or any similar garrisons. I have said that General Gordon has never, to my knowledge, suggested the employment of British
  1516
  troops for the relief of Khartoum. We have no knowledge that he considers the employment of troops there necessary. We have no knowledge that he even desires that troops should be sent. Nevertheless, the possibility of taking advantage of General Graham's Force and sending it to Berber, and thus effecting a diversion that might be of advantage to General Gordon, has been carefully considered by the Government. After the victories of General Graham, it is probable that a small force, a force of Cavalry at all events, might be sent from Suakin to Berber without any great risk from a military point of view. But the information which we have received is that, although the military risk of such an operation might not be very great, the physical difficulty—the difficulty caused by want of water, the difficulty caused by the intense heat, the risk of the health of the troops, and other physical difficulties of that kind to be encountered—would be enormous. On the other hand, the advantage of sending a small force to Berber, even supposing that it should arrive there, appears to be extremely doubtful at this season, when the river communication between Berber and Khartoum is very difficult, if not impossible, and when there are surrounding Berber, and between that place and Khartoum, tribes in numbers which are entirely unknown to us, apparently in a more or less disturbed state. As to the position of General Gordon at Khartoum, I have already given the latest information which we have received from him. That information was to the effect that the tribes under his command at Khartoum had gained one success of some importance against the rebels threatening him, but that on a later occasion those tribes had suffered a considerable reverse, which appeared to be duo to some extent to the conduct of certain officers in command of the force. General Gordon's latest report is that he thinks that Khartoum is now safe, and he states, though I do not know exactly what meaning is to be attached to the expression, that "as the Nile rises he will be able to account for the rebels." That is the news of the 23rd of March. He also reports that provisions are coming in freely from the White Nile. In fact, the tenour of the latest reports from him is satisfactory. Further, although,

  1517
  as I have said, the country between Berber and Khartoum is more or less disturbed, communications, although they are slow, are not altogether interrupted, and it is possible to send and receive messages from General Gordon at Khartoum or Berber. Under these circumstances, because the Government, after fully considering all the bearings of the case, have declined to send to Berber at the present season a small force at very great risk, and with no evident advantage either to General Gordon or to anyone else—because we have refused to do this at a time of year when it would be utterly impossible, in any circumstances, to send a large or adequate force, we are charged in some quarters with abandoning General Gordon. The Government have accepted—my right hon. Friend, both to-day and on previous occasions, accepted—the responsibility for General Gordon's actions so far as they have sanctioned them, and they feel also that they are greatly responsible for General Gordon's safety. But, at the present time, with the imperfect knowledge which we possess of General Gordon's policy in view of the decision not to send Zebehr Pasha as his successor to Khartoum, in. ignorance as we are of his own wishes and desires, it is impossible for the Government to state what measures may ultimately have to be taken for discharging that responsibility which they feel for the safety of General Gordon. The Question which the right hon. Gentleman has placed upon the Paper assumes that the Government undertook to establish a system of government in the Eastern Soudan, and to regulate its relations with the Western Soudan on the one side and with Egypt on the other. Sir, the Government have never undertaken any such obligation. They adhere to their opinion, which has been stated over and over again in this House, that the re-establishment of Egyptian authority over the Soudan is neither possible nor desirable; but they have never undertaken to establish the authority of this country over the Soudan. General Gordon himself believed, when he undertook his mission, that with time and patience it would be possible for him, without any material assistance, either from the Egyptian Government or the British Government, to effect an arrangement for the withdrawal of the garrisons, and that it would be
  1518
  possible for him to establish some form of Native Government. He may fail or he may succeed in his undertaking; but certainly, in our judgment, the time has not yet come when it can be said that General Gordon has definitely failed in, his mission; and certainly nothing, in our judgment, has occurred to induce the Government to think that it is necessary, either in the interests of Egypt or of this country, to engage in military operations for the establishment of any Government whatsoever in the Soudan. My right hon. Friend has already said, in reply to the hon. Member for Andover (Mr. F. Buxton), and to other hon. Members, that General Gordon has the fullest possible discretion, either to remain at Khartoum should he think that a more permanent government by himself would result in greater success, or to withdraw should he consider his mission to be incapable of success. But, as I have said, we are at present without any recent information as to General Gordon's own views, and as to the policy which he thinks ought to be followed after the refusal of the Government to support him in the measure which he thought would be the best measure for the ultimate settlement of the Soudan and for the protection of the Frontier of Egypt. With regard to General Gordon and his position in Khartoum, I have said all that I think is necessary; but I may be allowed to refer to one or two points, to which allusion has been made on one or two previous occasions, with reference to the retirement or to the return to Egypt of General Graham's Forces without securing the road from Suakin to Berber. I have never said, and my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has never said, as was suggested the other day, that General Graham's operations were in any degree directed to the securing of that road by an advance of British troops, or holding possession of the road by British forces. What we said was that when Osman Digna's force was dispersed an attempt would be made to open up communication between Suakin and Berber by means of negotiations with the tribes. Attempts in that direction are being made. As long as Osman Digna's forces were unbroken there was no possibility of that road being opened for peaceful purposes, or trade purposes, or for the

  1519
  passage of troops. But now that the destruction of the power of Osman Digna has been completed, the position is altogether changed. Major Chermside, who was sent specially to assist General Graham with this object, has been directed to enter into negotiations with the friendly tribes, and by arrangements which are perfectly understood in that country, and which are perfectly easy of accomplishment, to secure, as far as possible, their services for opening, protecting, and maintaining the security of the road for peaceful purposes. As a further step in the same direction, Major Kitchener, an officer in Sir Evelyn Wood's force, was sent some time ago, at the suggestion of General Gordon, to inquire into the state of the country and the condition of the troops at a point lower down the Nile than that at which Major Chermside was engaged. Major Kitchener's Report has been received, and it is to the effect that emissaries from the Mahdi have been at work among a powerful tribe which inhabits that part of the Nile Valley; but, as far as he was able to ascertain, they have not had any success, and the Chiefs of that tribe are perfectly ready to be employed for the purpose of assisting in operations such as I have described, with the eventual object of opening and securing the Berber road. We are in communication with Sir Evelyn Baring in order to ascertain whether the services of these tribes can or cannot be utilized; but it is an example of the inconvenience of making a full statement on a subject of the kind at the present time, that only since I have been in the House this evening I have received a telegram from Sir Evelyn Baring pointing out the extreme caution with which any negotiation of the kind with one tribe, and the risk of alienating other equally powerful tribes, should be conducted, and the danger of making too abrupt an announcement of the negotiations which are going forward. A Question has been asked by the noble Lord the Member for Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil) with regard to the future garrisoning of Suakin. Some time ago Sir Evelyn Baring reported that arrangements would shortly have to be made for such garrisoning; and he recommended that an Egyptian force from General Wood's troops should be sent to Suakin after the departure
  1520
  of the British Forces. He said at the time, in his opinion, the period had come when the idea ought to be abandoned that the Egyptian Government should have two forces—one for service in Egypt and the other for service in the Soudan; his view being that in the future the only positions which would require to be held in the Soudan would be the Red Sea ports, and he thought that General Wood's force might be properly and usefully employed in garrisoning the necessary positions.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: What is the date of the Report to which the noble Lord refers?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is impossible for me to state the date precisely; but our reply was that if Sir Evelyn Wood saw no objection to his troops being so employed, and the troops themselves were willing to engage in the service, the Government saw no reason to disapprove the suggestion. Preparations are, therefore, now being made to send a portion of Sir Evelyn Wood's Army to garrison Suakin on the departure of the British troops. Some questions have arisen as to the civil and military command at Suakin after the change of the garrison takes place; there are also questions as to some other matters which are still under consideration, and with regard to which final orders have not as yet been given. Until the arrangement to which I refer has been completed, a small British force will remain at Suakin; and the Admiralty have also made arrangements that for a time—perhaps for some considerable time—a force of Marines shall be detained at Suakin, partly on shore and partly in what I may describe as barracks afloat. They will be detained there for the purpose of giving support, if necessary, to the troops who will constitute the main force in garrison at Suakin. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman has asked further for a statement from the Government in regard to the relations which they hold—political, financial, and military—with Egypt. In the presence of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I need hardly say that it is not my intention to undertake a reply to that part of the Question. If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to specify in somewhat more of detail, and in a more precise form than

  1521
  he has done, the nature of the information which he wishes to obtain, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will, as far as lie can, reply to the Question. I will say, however, that in my view it is neither possible nor desirable to make any further statement of a general character such as is asked by the right hon. Gentleman. No such statement ought, in my view, to be made until, in the first place, the Government and the House have more definite knowledge of the course of events in the Soudan, and the result which those events will have upon the government and the administration of Egypt. Furthermore, I think that such a statement ought not to be made until additional progress has been made in the examination which is now being conducted by the Government as to the financial position of Egypt, and of the changes which may become necessary in view of that position. It has been already my duty, in the course of this statement, to repeat the disclaimer which has been made by the Government on former occasions of responsibility for establishing a Government in the Soudan. We have never made any such disclaimer with regard to Egypt, and we make no such disclaimer now. we have acknowledged our responsibility in this respect both to Europe and to the people of Egypt itself; but it would not, in our view, render the fulfilment of those pledges more easy—on the contrary, it would render that fulfilment more difficult—if we were to make declarations of policy from day to day whenever we were asked to do so. The affairs of Egypt are constantly changing and are constantly liable to change, and contingencies are almost always arising, the full effects and bearing of which it is impossible, in our opinion, at the present moment to foresee.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the following statement, made in a Letter signed by his secretary, and addressed on his behalf to the Workmen's Peace Association, in reply to a Resolution condemning "the wholesale slaughter of thousands of brave men in the Soudan," "the covenants under which this Country has been acting in Egypt were not made by the present Government," Whether he will state what are the covenants under which Her Majesty's Government have sanc-
  1522
  tioned the Military expedition to the Eastern Soudan; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are precluded by such covenants from relieving General Gordon at Khartoum?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The covenant to which the Question of the hon. Member refers was one made by the late Government earnestly to support the Government of the Khedive. There are no other covenants. If the hon. Member does not think that covers our operations in the Soudan, the hon. Member is at liberty to retain his own opinion.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked in what diplomatic document that covenant was contained?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have stated over and over again in the hearing of Members of Her Majesty's late Government what I have now said in answer to the hon. Member, and I can go no further.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether the covenant to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded was not undertaken by Her Majesty's Government in conjunction with the French Government, and how far Her Majesty's Government thought it necessary to adhere to that covenant after the French Government had withdrawn from it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I apprehend, Sir, that the title of the French Government, of the French Chambers, and of the French people to interpret for themselves their own obligations is absolute and indefeasible, and it would be an impertinence and a piece of presumption on our part if we gave an opinion as to the course which they have taken. Whatever they may have done has not absolved us from our duty to interpret our engagements according to the best of our lights, which is what we have endeavoured to do.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the right hon. Gentleman how he connected this matter of the covenant with that part of his Question which referred to the "wholesale slaughter of thousands of brave men in the Soudan," and whether he would state to the House what the covenant really was?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have already stated in distinct and express terms what the covenant was. The hon. Gentleman must see, and the whole House must see, that the Question which is now put is a matter of argument, and

  1523
  if he is of opinion that the covenant does not cover our proceedings in the Soudan, it is open to him to call the attention of the House to the matter.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: What covenant?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The covenant earnestly to support the Government of the Khedive. If, as I have said, the hon. Member does not think that covenant covers our proceedings in the Soudan, he is perfectly at liberty to call the attention of the House to it.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I wish, Sir, to ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government have not themselves carried out the covenant to support the Government of the Khedive; and, if so, how it is that they throw the responsibility for the massacres in the Soudan upon some other Government? [Cries of "Notice !"]
  [No reply.]

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS IN THE SOUDAN)— VOTE OF THANKS TO GENERAL GRAHAM AND ADMIRAL HEWETT.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he proposes to ask the House to agree to a Vote of Thanks to General Graham and Admiral Hewett for the recent operations in the Soudan; and, whether, according to the recent precedent of Lord Wolseley and Lord Alcester, he intends to advise the Crown to grant peerages on these two distinguished Officers, or to propose a grant to either of them in the shape of pension or "lump" sum?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is no part of my duty, and I have no authority, to limit the discretion of the hon. Member or of any other hon. Member in the House as to the Questions which they shall put to Ministers. But I really must appeal to the House whether in regard to Questions which are peculiarly matters of grace and favour on the part of the Crown the initiative is to be taken by Members of this House by putting Questions to the Executive Government. I do not suppose that it is the intention of the hon. Gentleman, but, in effect, his Question is a direct attempt to transfer the functions of grace and favour from the Crown to Members of this House. Upon all occasions of great military operations there are matters which the Executive Government has to consider when the proper time comes. I
  1524
  do not speak now of the particular services to which the hon. Member has referred in his Question, but I may say with regard to them that when the proper time comes Her Majesty's Government will take the course winch seems to them fitting in the circumstances without waiting for Questions to be put to them in this House. We are deeply sensible of the obligations of this House and of the country to General Graham and Admiral Hewett, and also to their gallant companions in arms.
  MR. ONSLOWwished, in justification of his Question, to remind the Prime Minister that a similar Question was put with regard to the services which General Roberts and General Stewart rendered to their country in the Afghan War. He should repeat the Question on Monday nest.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—SUPPLIES TO GENERAL GORDON.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What supplies of money have been furnished to General Gordon; whether further measures are being adopted to meet his requirements; and, what sums he has demanded?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to supplies of money, that is a matter between the Egyptian Government and General Gordon himself, and I have no information on the subject.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether General Gordon has requested that Troops may be sent to his assistance; and, whether such request, if made, has been complied with or refused?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think this Question has been fully answered by my noble Friend near me. He has referred; to what took place in respect of Berber, and subject to that explanation General Gordon has made no request for troops to be sent to his assistance.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the right hon. Gentleman to give a more specific reply to the Question whether the Government had asked General Gordon if he needed British troops?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that General Gordon had been asked as to his views generally with regard to the business in which he was engaged, but he did not think it necessary to answer more fully than he had already done any further Questions on the subject.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE — SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAYS BILL.
  MR. CARBUTTasked, considering the great interest felt in the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays Bill, which was talked out yesterday, when the Government would give facilities for a Saturday Sitting for the consideration of the Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that after the answer which he had been reluctantly obliged to give to the hon. Member for South Leicestersire (Mr. Pell) in regard to his Motion on the subject of local taxation, he was afraid that, to say the least of it, a considerable amount of jealousy would be created if he, on behalf of the Government, gave any sort of a promise that a Saturday Sitting would be devoted to making further progress with the Sunday Closing Bill.

  DEATH OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF ALBANY.

    HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
    THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord KENSINGTON)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address [31st March], as followeth: —
    I have received your Loyal and Dutiful Address.
    I thank you sincerely for the expression of your deep concern and condolence with Me in the loss of My beloved Son, and for the assurance of your abiding interest in everything that affects the happiness of Myself and My Family.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL—DEBATE ON SECOND READING.

    PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: I ask the permission of the House to say one word with reference to a statement made by me on Monday last; and, as the matter is of some importance to me personally, I am sure the House will kindly allow me to do so. I have been asked to represent a constituency of many thousands of working men, and, therefore, the matter is one of personal importance to myself. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board stated yesterday that I said in the House with regard to this Reform Bill that it dealt with 2,000,000 of the most ignorant and, therefore, inexpe-
    1526
    rienced people in this country, and he infers that I included the pick of the London artizans in that ignorant class. Now, it will be in the recollection of the House that I said that I had not only voted for the Bill of 1867—that not only was I ready to support any measure of legislation—but that I also said that I was prepared to give the electoral power to all those who by their industry, by their intelligence, and their character had a stake in the country. I am sure my right hon. Friend, who made some ungenerous remarks about me, cannot have meant to convey that I included the pick of the London artizans in the class to which I referred.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As the right hon. Baronet has used the word "ungenerous" in reference to my remarks upon his speech, perhaps the House will permit me to explain that I had quoted the words of that speech from the best report of it I could find. The right hon. Baronet had certainly said that the Prime Minister proposed to enfranchise 2,000,000 of the most ignorant people in the country; and as the Prime Minister had stated that the 2,000,000 which the Bill proposed to enfranchise would include the pick of the artizans of London, I had drawn the natural inference from the right hon. baronet's words that he included the pick of the artizans of London in the 2,000,000 of the most ignorant people in the country whom it was proposed to enfranchise.

  EGYPT—POLICY OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT.

    NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—AD JOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE (RULE 2).
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Member for North Devon, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the present policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the affairs of Egypt and the Soudan, and the position of General Gordon at Khartoum.
    The pleasure of the House not having been signified—
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman asks for leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the pur-

    1527
    pose of discussing a definite matter of Urgent public importance—namely, the present policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the affairs of Egypt and the Soudan, and the position of General Gordon at Khartoum. Is it your pleasure that leave be given to the right hon. Gentleman to make the Motion? ["No, no!"] Is the right hon. Gentle-man supported by 40 Members?
    And not less than 40 Members having risen in their places—
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I shall make no apology for raising this question; and if I had had any doubt as to the propriety of my doing so, I must confess that that doubt would have been removed by the statements that we have just heard from the Prime Minister and from the Secretary of State for War. I need not say that the subject is one which receives and deserves the attention and that it commands the interest of this House and of the country. I do not question the right of the Government to exercise reticence upon any points in reference to which they think that it ought to be observed; but I beg to say that the statements which we have just heard from the Government are not only unsatisfactory with regard to what they do not fuel themselves at liberty to do, but what I fear very much from them is that the present policy of Her Majesty's Government is tainted with exactly the same faults which has tainted their policy throughout, and which has been the cause of great trouble to us as a nation. It appears to me, from those statements, that there is the same desire to avoid responsibility, and to cast that responsibility upon others, and the same disposition to close their eyes to important matters which are passing and which must affect our position and our future relations in Egypt, which we have noticed in their previous policy with regard to that country. The Questions which have been put with regard to the general relations that exist between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government, and with regard to the political, military, and financial affairs of that country, are undoubtedly Questions of great interest and importance; but the question that most immediately presses itself upon our attention is that which relates to the
    1528
    position of General Gordon at Khartoum, and that is a question which connects itself very closely with other questions; but, at the same time, it is the one upon which the attention of the country is and ought to be fixed. The noble Lord has taunted us, or rather has made some observations upon the cry which he says he has heard in some quarters in this country, as to the abandonment of General Gordon. I do not make the statement as to the abandonment of General Gordon from anything I have heard in this country; but I make it from what is reported to have been said in Khartoum itself, and reported upon authority which it is very difficult indeed to dispute. The statement rests upon the authority of Mr. Power, our Consular Agent at Khartoum, one of the three Englishmen who alone are in that city, and who tells us that he is in constant communication with General Gordon; and if I may venture to refer to private matters, I may say that I learn that General Gordon has assured his friends in this country that anything that Mr. Power states concerning him may be taken as authentic. Mr. Power says—
    "We are daily expecting British troops, and we cannot bring ourselves to believe that we are to be abandoned by England."
    Whether that statement comes from General Gordon or from one of his few compatriots there, it is equally important. That which presented itself to the mind of Mr. Power is no doubt that which presents itself to the minds of every other Englishman at Khartoum. This distinguished man, General Gordon, has gone with the authority of Her Majesty's Government, and has placed himself in a position of great danger. Hon. Members are aware, from what has been stated in this House, that the expedition was undertaken by General Gordon, not on his own account, but at the request, and by the authority, of Her Majesty's Government. They are also perfectly aware that Her Majesty's Government, when their action in Egypt has been questioned, have, from time to time, sheltered themselves behind the authority of General Gordon; and we have been taught to rely upon him as the agent who was to get us out of all the terrible difficulties in which we were placed. We were told, with considerable confidence and with some little air of

    1529
    mystery, that General Gordon had plans which could not properly be disclosed, which always appeared to me to be rattier vague and extravagant, but which the Government thought were plans that ought to have a trial, and plans that, in their opinion, promised success. As far as we are able to see, however, the attempts which General Gordon has made have not met with success. His attempts to conciliate the tribes in his neighbourhood, and to come to an arrangement with the Mahdi, seem to have led to results different from those which we had a right to expect. In the meantime, we see General Gordon with the honour of England engaged in his safety. ["No, no !"] Some hon. Gentlemen opposite, when I say that the honour of England is engaged in the safety of General Gordon, answer "No !" I cannot attempt to argue with Gentlemen who take that view; but I want to know whether that is the view of Her Majesty's Government? We have had ambiguous language used by the Prime Minister. We have had language used by the noble Lord which I think was not altogether clear nor altogether consistent with the language of the Prime Minister with regard to General Gordon's position. According to the Prime Minister, General Gordon is free to leave Khartoum to-morrow if he pleases, as I am free to leave London to-morrow; but, according to the noble Lord, he has been asked by Her Majesty's Government to remain there until he has accomplished some scheme. When I speak of General Gordon as being bound to Khartoum, I do not say that he is bound to it in such a manner that he would be subjected to any punishment if he left it; but. knowing what General Gordon is, and knowing also the nature of his relations with the Government, we cannot say that he is there entirely of his own free will, and that his being there has nothing to do with that which is expected and asked of him by Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, I maintain that he is there as our Agent; that he is the Representative of England; and that he occupies a position in regard to which the honour of England is pledged. I do not say that General Gordon—Heaven forbid! —is in actual danger there. I trust that he is not; but if language is used which seems to indicate that England is careless of his safety, you do put him in a
    1530
    position of considerable danger. What I want to know, however, is what is exactly the position of General Gordon? Whose officer is he? We are told by the Prime Minister that, to a certain extent, General Gordon is an officer of Her Majesty's Government, and that, to a certain extent, he is an officer of the Egyptian Government. In so far as he is an officer of Her Majesty's Government, he appears to have gone out simply for the purpose of drawing up a Report; but in so far as he is an officer of the Egyptian Government, he has much larger functions, and very important functions. He has the command of the administration of a very large province and a very important town. These are two positions which. I think, are not very easily reconcilable with each other There is the old saying, that "No man can serve two masters;" and we want to know which master it is whom General Gordon is bound to serve? We know perfectly well that whichever it is nominally it must really be the English Government. we know perfectly well that by the action which the British Government have taken in regard to the affairs of the Soudan, they have overruled the Government of Egypt in most important matters, and we know that they are supreme, and, in the last resort, responsible. Therefore, it is a most dangerous thing, considering how deeply the honour of England is concerned, to leave matters on such a footing that by some action of the Egyptian Government which you do not choose to control you make it possible that events may take place which, if you had interfered earlier, you might have prevented. It is the old story of Hicks Pasha and declining responsibility. In that case you chose to say that you would not be responsible in the matter: you left things to take their course; they took a very wrong and a very unfortunate course; and then, at the last moment, you proceed to action far beyond what you need have taken in the first instance—action which has been of a strong, a violent, and an overruling character. You will come to the same thing now, and will bring upon yourselves the very responsibility which you are endeavouring to avoid and to escape. I do not desire to to go into details as to the course you are pursuing. It may, or it may not be, the right thing to send troops to Wady

    1531
    Halfa, or to Berber, or to open up the road between Berber and Suakin. All these are matters of great importance, in regard to which, under ordinary circumstances, one would say— "Trust the Government, and let them carry on their operations." But I wish to know what is the line on which they are proceeding, and what is the general scope of their policy with regard to Egypt? The noble Lord seems to think that by putting the Questions which I addressed to him I was asking the Government to undertake the settlement of the Government of the Eastern Soudan, or the relations of the Western Soudan with Khartoum. I do not ask him to do these things; but I ask him what is the policy of the Government in regard to these matters? Is it their policy to lot things drift entirely, or are they going to stir? If they are not going to interfere at all, what are they doing at Suakin or anywhere else? Either they are responsible, or they are not responsible, for laying down some line of policy which is to be pursued by the Egyptian Government under their authority with regard to these important matters. You cannot, in dealing with the affairs of Egypt, cut off the consideration of the state of the Soudan. You have tried to do that already, but you found it was impossible. You may try to do it again; but if you leave the Egyptian Government to deal with all these matters entirely by themselves, who is to say that, you will not have fresh invasions and risings, and will not be obliged to take very strong measures? I venture to say that if that should take place you would have your responsibility very quickly indeed called forth, not only in connection with the honour of England, but with regard to the financial relations in which you stand towards Egypt. In regard to those relations I wished to have had some explanation. The only explanation we have had is that an important financial examination is going on. If so, we might have been told a little more about the circumstances which led to the examination, by whom it was conducted, and to what particular objects the examination is directed. From all we know at present the financial position of Egypt is extremely unsatisfactory, and it is possible that an examination, and even something more than an examination, into the financial affairs of Egypt has
    1532
    become necessary. "We ought to have information on that subject as early as possible; but we believe that, with reference both to its foreign and its domestic affairs, the financial condition of Egypt depends largely on the administration of Egypt, and we want to know whether this sort of double Government is to be carried on; and, if so, on what terms it is to be carried on, and whether you can insure that it can be so carried on as to avert the danger we must apprehend of a double Government leading to large expenditure and great responsibility? That is the case in all that may be called Egypt in reference to the defence of the frontier, and all that may happen in regard to administration in Egypt Proper. We feel that we are left in an unsatisfactory position in regard to the information which the Government has given to us on this matter. What I wish particularly to obtain from the Government is some clearer explanation than we have yet received of the relations which this country now recognizes as existing between herself and the Government of Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman made reference to the policy of the Predecessors of the present Government, the inheritance and legacy which was left to them, and the rest of it. I have more than once answered the right hon. Gentleman on that point, and I should be ready to do so again if I did not think it would be a waste of time. I do not now ask what brought us here, but what are you going to do in the position in which we stand? Are we to go on doing nothing at all, or are we to go on keeping up a sort of double Government? I do not wish to detain the House any further. I have pointed out what appears to me to be the particularly unsatisfactory condition of our relations with Egypt, the uncertainty of General Gordon's position, the uncertainty of how far we are responsible for his actions; and we ask for some further information as to the gallant General's plans. The Government must have such information. They must be aware whether General Gordon is or is not of opinion that the plans he has been pursuing are such as he can hope to carry into effect with success. He must have informed them how far those plans have hitherto succeeded; and I think we have a right to ask for more information on that subject from the Government.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Sir Stafford Northcote.)
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman in his statement to the House has not raised many points on which it is my duty to make a reply. I am afraid that the substance of what I say will be a complaint of the course which has been taken by the right hon. Gentleman, and a pretty strong complaint too; and I propose to make clear the grounds upon which I found it. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman says that he thinks that General Gordon must necessarily have informed us what are his views and plans, and the right hon. Gentleman makes that a main pillar of his statement, just after he has been informed by my noble Friend in his clear and masterly statement, from which I do not intend to deviate by the breadth of a hair, and to which, in substance, I have nothing to add—after he has been informed by my noble Friend that the Government have found it their duty to decline to accede to an important recommendation proposed by General Gordon for giving effect to his plans, and that we had not yet received the acknowledgment by General Gordon that he was aware of that decision of the Government and the effect that it had produced on his mind — it is in these circumstances, when there has not been what I may call a return of post from General Gordon acquainting the Government with his views about. Zebehr Pasha, the right hon. Gentleman comes down to the House and says— "You must be perfectly aware of all the plans of General Gordon." The right hon. Gentleman says—"This is the old story of Hicks Pasha and declining responsibility." I thought the right hon. Gentleman had had enough of Hicks Pasha after the five nights we had on that subject. But this case, Sir, is exactly the reverse of Hicks Pasha and declining responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman is only able to draw upon his imagination by saying that our doctrine as to Egyptian government is that in the Soudan we have no responsibility. Sir, we have said no such thing. We have said, with regard to the proceedings of General Gordon, that, although in his executive capacity he is the officer of the Egyptian Government, yet we have not only a
    1534
    great interest with regard to his proceedings, but a great responsibility also. Then the right hon. Gentleman gets up, coolly overlooking and setting aside the clearest and plainest words we could use, and, forsooth, he complains of the ambiguity of our statements and of the lamentable want of information. Sir, I go further. This is the 17th night on which the House has been introduced to an Egyptian debate. I want to know whether that is a course which is beneficial to the country? As the Head of Her Majesty's Government, I enter my protest against that course. I say there is no precedent for it. There is not in all the annals of Parliament anything in the slightest degree resembling the conduct that has been pursued by the Opposition, and by the Leader of the Opposition, with respect to those Egyptian transactions. Now, Sir, I say plainly this — with regard to the bulk of the House on this side, or the bulk of the House on that side, I think they are perfectly entitled to exercise the most jealous scrutiny over all we do. I have never claimed indulgence at their hands. They know well the difficulties—though only part of the difficulties—under which we have to labour in this Egyptian Question. I admit that we have never claimed indulgence at their hands; but there is one set of men from whom we had a right to expect indulgence and co-operation, and that is the Members of the late Government. But these are the men who have not only exercised their faculty of criticism—as though they, forsooth, had nothing to do with this matter — but have set an example of which they may hereafter have to pay the price. They will have made a precedent of pushing a question of this kind in a manner and to a degree to which I declare, Sir, so far as my knowledge goes, there is nothing approaching a resemblance in the whole history of the House of Commons. You have had your discussion for 17 nights out of the two months which the House has, as yet, been able to give to the affairs of the Empire. Has it been for a beneficial purpose? Has the Government attempted to meet the reasonable wishes entertained by the nation? [Cheers and "No !"] Well, Sir, I believe the opinion of the majority of the House is the direct reverse of that negative, which proceeds from a few. Ire-

    1535
    gard the speech of my noble Friend tonight as having indicated the most anxious desire to convey, as far as public duty would permit, to the minds of the House the clearest ideas of the position. He has told all we know ourselves with respect to the Soudan and with respect to Egypt. He has told you that it is impossible to enter upon any new statement of policy. The policy and position of the Government in Egypt are perfectly understood. ["Oh, oh !"] They have been explained—but I am not saying that they are perfectly understood by every Gentleman in this House. There are some Gentlemen in this House who never will understand it. I say this—they have been explained over and over again in the most solemn documents known to us — namely, the Speeches from the Throne; and the relations established in virtue of our military occupation, which were undoubtedly, I will not say modified, but, at any rate, interpreted in a more clear and developed sense, by the proceedings which took place about four months ago when the Egyptian Administration was changed, that position of the Government and that high responsibility which my noble Friend himself was the first to state to-night, had been laid before the House in language as clear as we could use. If we have any change to announce in that policy, we shall not wait for the Question of the right hon. Gentleman and for the repetition of the Motion for Adjournment, which, I confess, appears to be a clear and sheer abuse of the Privileges of Parliament. we shall ourselves make known to the House any change that our convictions of public duty may induce us to think it right that we should adopt. But, Sir, my noble Friend went further. He said we were busy with the questions of Egyptian finance. He said that an examination had been proceeding into the subject of Egyptian finance; and, so far as we are concerned, we hardly overstate the case if we say that that examination is virtually complete. But the right hon. Gentleman says— "We want to know what it is? You completed your examination yesterday, and to-day you should come down here and tell us all the particulars."
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I only asked to what point the examination was directed.
    MR. GLADSTONE: To the balance of account between Receipt and Expenditure, which the right hon. Gentleman did not think very much of when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country. ["Oh!"] I am quite ready to give my reason for what I say. Be so good as to look to" Fifteen Years' Statistical Abstract," and to the little minus mark against the years of deficiency in this country, and Gentlemen will find that what I say is no vague political rhetoric, but is a sorrowful reference to unquestionable facts. But the right hon. Gentleman knows better than we do, in this particular case, that Egyptian finance is not a matter to be settled between this country and Egypt alone. And then the right hon. Gentleman says—" Having made your examination, why do not you come down here and tell us all about it?" [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: No.] Well, I may have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman; but he said he wanted to know to what point the examination was directed. Well, I will only say that if there is reason and equity on all sides, there need be no fear as to the future of Egyptian finance; but the matter is one of great difficulty. Egyptian finance was in great difficulty eight or ten years ago, when the late Government afforded relief by the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares; it was in a state of difficulty two years ago before the Dual Control had come to an end; and it is in difficulty now, which renders it necessary for us to endeavour to consider what measures should be taken with a view to its thorough rectification. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there have been special causes which have operated unfavourably on Egyptian finance —the destruction of property in Alexandria and the enormous awards with respect to that destruction. But another main cause, I am sorry to say, has been the now sufficiently revealed costliness of that singular and extraordinary attempt which will hereafter be regarded as a political paradox—the attempt of Egypt to exercise political supremacy over the Soudan. I see no reason why, with fair intentions on all sides, this problem should not be solved. It is a problem in which other countries are concerned as well as ourselves. There are the rights of the Sultan and the rights of the Powers. You can hardly stir a step

    1537
    with regard to Egyptian finance without finding that you are absolutely blocked by the engagements which have been made in former times for the purpose, as was then supposed, of securing Egyptian credit. It is in these circumstances that we say it is absolutely impossible for us, with this question of finance in hand,: with the immediate duty incumbent on us of considering what measures may be required, and the relation which Egyptian finance has to other Powers as well as ourselves—it is impossible for us, I say, to satisfy the demand of the right hon. Gentleman, that we should enter into a discussion of our policy in Egypt, which is quite inseparable from the, question of Egyptian finance. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman is the last man who would knowingly use a power of the kind he has used tonight for purposes of public mischief; but I say distinctly that, whatever his intentions may be, he docs exercise it for public mischief. In these two months, this is the 17th discussion we have had on Egypt. Is it to be supposed that these incessant discussions and the excitement by which, on most occasions, they are characterized, do not greatly hamper the progress of the Government, surrounded as they are by difficulties, by rival interests, aye, and some of the most important interests working underground in regard to this question of Egyptian policy? I say they do distinctly; and I will give from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman an example of the mischief arising out of these debates. What has he said to night? He, the Leader of the Opposition, has announced to the world the failure of the plan of General Gordon; is that beneficial? Is that the way in which those who claim to themselves a: monopoly of the terms "loyal," "Constitutional," and "patriotic" justify their claims? Is that the way in which they sustain the honour and interests of England in Egypt, or in which they offer to show their estimate of the debt we owe to the gallant General Gordon? When General Gordon himself says he has failed, or when that fact is beyond doubt, we may not be able, and it may not be our duty, to disguise it; but the right hon. Gentleman, in his zeal to make out a case to justify the Motion for Adjournment, anticipates the fact, and feeling how slender are the materials at
    1538
    his command, he is obliged to feign a failure in order to bolster up the case he laid before the House. I will take my stand upon that single assertion; and I affirm that these discussions are mischievous as well as unprecedented. That they are unprecedented I believe to be beyond the possibility of denial; that they are mischievous I affirm; and in proof of what I say I refer to the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman to-night in regard to the failure of General Gordon. Sir, I deny it. It may come. In the face of difficulties almost hopeless and insurmountable, that gallant man offered to place himself in the breach, went to the post of danger, and he faced the difficulties before him; and I say that General Gordon's mission, even at this moment, has not been barren. After the defeat of Hicks Pasha, what were the apprehensions that were prevalent? They were, that the Mahdi, flushed with victory, and the tribes enchanted, and practically bewitched by his success, would become the invaders of Egypt, and would disturb the country along the whole course of the Nile. These expectations and apprehensions have not been realized; on the contrary, the charm of the Mahdi's success has been broken, and the counter attraction of General Gordon's great name did much to prevent anything like a dangerous combination. I should not, perhaps, say too much, though I venture to give it as an opinion at this moment that there is infinitely less to fear from the Mahdi and his friends than we had reason, and not without grounds, to apprehend during the mouths that followed the defeat of Hicks Pasha. I say this great advantage is already realized; but until we know something of General Gordon's plans, and what substitute he may have found for his proposal about Zebehr, or what measures he intends to pursue, I shall entirely decline to share the irresponsible declarations of the right hon. Gentleman. I almost venture to appeal to some of the Gentlemen who sit behind him when I say that this premature assertion by the Leader of the Opposition that the plans of General Gordon have failed is mischievous to the best interests of Egypt. I have said that one of the greatest difficulties in this case is the number of cross and conflicting interests you have to deal with. I think it

    1539
    was the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) who said that, after all, our actions simply meant promoting the interests of the bondholders. Ah, Sir, if our action were intended simply to have that result, we should stand better with a considerable portion of the Press of Europe than we do. You read extracts from some foreign, newspapers that are astonished at our deadness, and that speak of the demand that public duty makes upon us. Sir, when I read these extracts I hail them as testimonies that we have not been taken in, and that we are not milling to be made the instruments of those who, for the sake of the millions sterling that have been invested in Egypt, are endeavouring, by every means they can employ, to bring the people of England blindfold into the assumption of immense responsibilities, which no man can measure, and with regard to which I will say this—we will not undertake to say whether the people of England are to assume them or not —this great nation will determine that question for itself; but this we will say —they shall not assume them without knowing what they are about—they shall not assume them blindfold. You may quote your foreign Press, with every wire that governs the action of that portion of it to which I refer, pulled by those who are connected with this great pecuniary interest; it is not wonderful that they should act in this sense, because what could be more comfortable or satisfactory to them than that, having already profited largely by the intervention of England, they should secure by it £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 more? What could be more satisfactory to them, there being no other consequence to be apprehended except the imposition of a terrific burden upon the people of England and the undertaking of responsibilities of which I am certainly inclined to take a very serious measure? I have very little more to say. I have contended that this course is wholly unprecedented, and that it is extremely mischievous to the public interests. I believe the 17 nights of debate—with whatever nights may be added to them—will be looked upon by the future student of Parliamentary history as a perfect curiosity in politics. Why in the world is this pressure exercised? Why, two or three times a week,
    1540
    have we these debates? One might suppose that Egypt lay in Yorkshire, and that the Soudan was in Caithness or Sutherland shire. We are sometimes told that, having regard to Egyptian affairs, the Franchise Bill ought not to go forward. Why, Sir, when the great Reform Bill of 1831–2 was carried through Parliament there were other and much more serious questions nearer home, according to the political traditions of this country. There were questions raised by the Revolution of 1830, particularly by the Belgian Revolution and its relations to the new Monarchy in France — there were these questions, ten times more formidable for the people of England than the questions now raised in Egypt and the Soudan—embarrassing, I grant, to the last degree; but dangerous, critical, burning questions. ["No!"] I make a concession to the hon. Member for Carlisle. Were there a necessity or likelihood of further bloodshed under the flag of Her Majesty, that might be said to constitute a pressing and burning question in itself. Happily, we believe, so far as we know or can judge, risks of that kind have passed away. There is no violent crisis pending, then, in this country. When much more serious questions were open, and we were passing the Reform Act of 1831–2, the Opposition of that day—a powerful, active, and able Opposition— they never had—what shall I call it?— the boldness or daring—I might use a stronger word—to contend that these foreign questions ought to be used for the purpose of consuming the time of Parliament to the extent of 17 days out of two months of the Session. They never had the boldness to assume it; they never had that other quality, very different from boldness, which might have led them, without asserting and stating it, yet to make use of these foreign questions for that very purpose in order to weaken, by every means in their power, the resources of this great popular Legislative Assembly for the purpose of carrying on the great work of beneficial legislation. I cannot read the hearts of hon. Gentlemen opposite —no one can—but I can construe their acts. One word more. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Report of Mr. Power, our Consular Agent. I have not a word to say against Mr. Power; I believe we are indebted to him for the

    1541
    services he has rendered; but what is; Mr. Power in relation to us? he is resident in Khartoum; he is an independent merchant; he is the Correspondent of The Times. It became necessary to have someone, not to act as our representative, but to discharge certain duties at this particular time, and Mr. Power was appointed as temporary Consular Agent. A Consular Agent is not an officer responsible to this Government, even if permanently appointed; he only performs certain particular services, and his responsibility is within the limits of those services; as to anything else, he is perfectly free, and in the expression of his opinions he is as unchecked and unrestrained as are the hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite—and I cannot say more. And yet the right hon. Gentleman takes an opinion of Mr. Power transmitted to The Times as virtually equivalent to an official declaration probably conveying the mature conviction of General Gordon. Really, Sir, it is a farce to treat it in such a spirit. That is the kind of interpretation which, in the legitimate exercise of function as a Member of Parliament, I apply to the acts of these who are before me. I have pointed out that this mode of proceeding is totally without precedent, and that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman himself is mischievous to the public interests, and calculated distinctly and undeniably to weaken the hands of the British Government, and likewise of every man acting for it in Egypt; and I cannot withhold the expression of this opinion —that the proceedings thus taken, and the debates thus constantly renewed, are out of all proportion to the pressure and urgency of the question, and have the effect of offering immense obstruction to important Public Business. These things, I say, are done, and they are done for some purpose which it is not necessary for me to define, and which has not, up to this time, been avowed.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, the Prime Minister had appealed to hon. Members who sat behind the Leader of the Opposition to accept his assertion that in the action the right hon. Gentleman thought it right to take he had adopted a course mischievous to the interests of the country. He accepted the challenge of the Prime Minister, and utterly denied the
    1542
    truth of the statement. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had made no disclosure with regard to the position of General Gordon which was not already patent to the whole world and to every human being in this country, except the Members of the Government, who, like ostriches, buried their heads in the sand and imagined that nobody could see them, or the result of any of their actions. The whole tenour of the speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War showed there was great doubt even in the minds of the Government as to General Gordon's position, although the noble Lord could not say "what measures it may be necessary for the Government ultimately to take for the-safety of General Gordon." The noble Lord's declaration was an ample justification of the policy of the Leader of the Opposition, and fully warranted him in saying that General Gordon had probably failed altogether. The Prime Minister complained that they had been engaged 17 nights discussing the Egyptian Question. He sincerely trusted that they should continue to discuss it twice 17 nights if it were necessary, until they had succeeded in wringing from the Government, who never ceased when they were out of Office to complain of the policy of concealment pursued by their Predecessors, some definite statement of their policy and their views as to affairs in the Soudan. The Prime Minister said the policy of the Government was completely understood. By whom? Was it understood by the Government of Egypt, by the nations of Europe, by Parliament, or by the people of this country? He denied it altogether. He doubted very much whether it was understood even by Her Majesty's Government themselves, or if they had made up their minds with regard to what it was their duty to do. If, as the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War had distinctly said, the Government had no responsibility for affairs in the Soudan, in God's name why did they send General Gordon to Khartoum? They had placed that great General in a position which the whole country believed to be of the greatest danger to himself personally, and yet they had the assurance to come down to the House of Commons and say that, although they had taken this extreme

    1543
    course, they had no responsibility whatever with regard to affairs in the Soudan. Their policy was incomprehensible to the whole world, and yet they had the assurance to charge the Leaders of the Opposition with a gross broach of the privileges and advantages of their position. He denied the charges altogether, and contended that never in the whole history of Parliament, had any Minister more grossly abused the power given to him by his majority—he hoped only for a short time longer—to conceal both from Parliament and from the country that which it was his duty at the present distinctly to unfold with regard to affairs in that part of the world than the Prime Minister. It was only too evident that the Government had not the slightest intention to help General Gordon in the great difficulties in which he was placed; but they might rest assured that, sooner or later, they would be called to account by the people of this country. The Prime Minister informed the House that General Gordon had no orders to remain in Khartoum, and that the time had not yet come when it could be decided whether he had accomplished his mission or not. That statement indicated that the Prime Minister had great doubts upon the point which he had censured his right hon. Friend for putting in plain language. If General Gordon returned before he had accomplished his object, what was to happen? What became of the great object the Government had in sending General Gordon to Khartoum? The noble Marquess said the object of sending General Gordon was to effect, if possible, the withdrawal of the garrison and insure the safety of the people there. Were the Government going to stand aside and see General Gordon and his followers massacred, as they stood aside and allowed those unfortunate wretches to be massacred at Sinkat? Were the Government making preparations to assist him in the event of the receipt of news of a serious description, which was not at all unlikely? It was quite clear that they believed that, under some circumstances, he might shortly retire from Khartoum without having in any way accomplished his mission. If he did so retire, and the Government took no other action, they would stand before the world as a Government who had deliberately sacri-
    1544
    ficed the lives of 30,000 miserable human beings for no purpose whatever. He hoped the Leaders of the Opposition would persevere in their course even at the risk of having all the charges and innuendoes they had heard from the Prime Minister made against them, until they had succeeded in extracting from the Government a definite statement of their policy.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTcontended that the Prime Minister had made no practical reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The charge that the whole Press of Europe was influenced in criticizing the policy of the Government by mean and financial considerations was preposterous, and as incapable of being substantiated as his charges of Obstruction against the Opposition. What was the position of this country with regard to General Gordon? At the very moment when most pathetic appeals were coming from Khartoum, they heard that the only available force which might be sent to relieve General Gordon was being shipped in hot haste home from Sinkat. Yet the Conservative Party was charged with Obstruction because its responsible Leaders, in fair and moderate language, demanded to know of the Government what they were going to do for the relief of the brave officer whom they had sent on a most grave and difficult mission. Her Majesty's Government protested that they were ignorant of General Gordon's position. He submitted that they had sufficient information in their possession, upon which to act. On March 7 General Gordon used these remarkable expressions to the Correspondent of The Times, who was our Acting Consul at Khartoum. They appeared in The Times of March 10—
    "There is a certainty that the emissaries of the Mahdi will succeed in raising the the tribes between tins (Khartoum) and Berber. This is not owing to disaffection, but to fear caused by the pronounced policy of the abandonment of the Soudan. Be sure of one thing. If Her Majesty's Government do not act promptly, General Graham's victory will go for nought, and with the useless expenditure of blood the effect will evaporate. It is no longer a question of days, but of hours."
    And a fortnight later, on March 23, Mr. Power telegraphed these pathetic and heartrending appeals from Khartoum—

    1545
    "We are daily expecting British troops. We cannot bring ourselves to believe that we are to be abandoned by the Government. Our existence depends upon England."
    General Gordon asked that British troops should he sent to Berber, and a force to Wadi Halfa; yet absolutely nothing was done. General Gordon had said that it was no longer a question of days, but of hours; and in the face of such a message, received three weeks ago, the Government stated they had no information. They knew that General Gordon's Forces had sustained a severe reverse, and yet they refrained from doing anything. They not only refused to do anything, but they had the shabbiness to abstain from doing what any self-respecting body of men in the same position would do—namely, to ask General Gordon whether he was in need of assistance. It might be true that General Gordon had not asked for assistance; but it must be remembered that when General Gordon went away he thought he should be able to accomplish his mission without the aid of troops, and having said that he probably felt himself under a chivalrous obligation not to press the Government directly. But they knew, from the one or two Englishmen about him, that he did expect English troops. If General Gordon perished the Government would be condemned. According to their own statement that night, he had been abandoned, and the only force that could go to his relief was being recalled. The object of the Opposition in raising this question was to save General Gordon from the fate of General Hicks, of Baker Pasha's Army, and of the unhappy garrison of Sinkat, and its unfortunate and heroic Commander, Tewfik Bey. For weeks help had been refused. Let them take care that if at last they sent assistance it would not be too late. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for War had not been treated handsomely that night by the Prime Minister when he was put up to answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions. In fact, he had fallen into a trap. The Government had negatived the recommendation of General Gordon and Sir Evelyn Baring, and refused to allow Zebehr to be made Governor at Khartoum. And why had they refused? Because, according to them, General Gordon had overrated the power of the Mahdi. Would it be
    1546
    denied that many fresh tribes were in a state of ferment; that the insurrection was spreading northwards towards Berber and Egypt Proper; and that if the Mahdi advanced he would obtain their assistance? It was said by the noble Marquess that General Gordon was in no sort of peril; but if that chivalrous agent of the Government should fall a victim to their neglect they would be held responsible by the country. The Government were neither sending him any support, nor taking steps to ascertain whether he wished for any. Whenever the Government were in despair, and when they could not defend their policy by any other expedient, they raised the old cry of Obstruction against the Opposition; and the Prime Minister had that night found his case so weak that he had been obliged to resort to that cry. The country, however, would note that the Government had deliberately decided to abandon General Gordon, for whoso safety and policy they were strictly and absolutely responsible, had deliberately decided to leave him to his fate, and to do nothing for his protection. They had also refused to send him that material support without which, in his own language, he was powerless to do anything; and, in knowing that, the country would admit that the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Loader of the Opposition was fully justified.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he had listened, as he always did, with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), into which he had thrown himself with such energy; but he thought the hon. Member had on this occasion undertaken rather more than he could manage. A constituency, including Europe, Asia, and Africa, was, perhaps, rather more than one Member could conveniently deal with. Though he appreciated the efforts of the hon. Member, he considered the policy of Her Majesty's Government a sound policy. If the Government were now going from bad to worse, it would be the policy of the Opposition to let them arrive at the worst before they attacked them. He, however, believed that a possible solution of the Egyptian Question was appearing, and that the present was a crisis, when, unless the Opposition attacked the Government, they would not be able to do so at all. General Gordon

    1547
    had been in no sense abandoned, and, even if he had, it was because relief was impossible; and therefore, in his opinion, these cries were all bunkum. There were Motions for Adjournment and special Resolutions, and every turn of the Egyptian kaleidoscope was made the occasion for a fresh demonstration. There had been a whole series of Motions, from the Vote of Censure downwards, although the circumstances in Egypt and the Soudan had not changed materially since that time. These Motions were, as a rule, made at the instigation of a certain number of excited articles in the public Press; and he thought himself that the country would never be properly governed until a Cabinet was formed of the principal editors of the London Press. To them there might, perhaps, be added a number of old gentlemen to be found in the smoking-rooms of the principal Clubs, and then good government might be looked for. He did not wish to prolong the present proceedings. He only rose to protest against the charges of bloodshed and massacre made against the Government. If the Government were justified in defending Suakin, they were absolutely justified in dispersing, and were compelled to disperse, the force that threatened it.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down told the House that the circumstances in Egypt and the Soudan had not changed since the moving of the Vote of Censure; but when the Vote of Censure was being discussed, General Gordon's mission was pronounced by the Government to be essentially and exclusively a pacific mission. Since then, however, General Gordon has himself engaged in military operations, and we have been told tonight that General Gordon's object in requesting that Zebehr Pasha might be sent to co-operate with him was that he might by force crush the Mahdi. Although my right hon. Friend made his Motion to-night in one of his calmest, most moderate, most equitable, and even briefest of speeches, the Prime Minister responded to it in a state of animated fury such as I have never seen equalled, even by the right hon. Gentleman himself. Why did that speech, in which my right hon. Friend was reproved for wasting the time of the House, extend to such length, and why did it deal with topics
    1548
    which were never introduced by my right hon. Friend, if the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious to proceed with what he would term the great legislative Business of the country and Parliament? Did my right hon. Friend say a word, either in praise or dispraise, of the editors or writers of the newspapers of Europe? What, then, had that attack of the Prime Minister's upon them to do with the question ray right hon. Friend submitted to his consideration? Again, the Prime Minister turned round upon hon. Gentlemen behind him—who they might be I do not know —who he said were anxious to induce him to take up the cause of the Egyptian bondholders, and to plunge this country into some unknown and immeasurable obligation. But did my right hon. Friend introduce that question? It was reserved for the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, to introduce that fresh topic of discussion; and yet he accuses my right hon. Friend with wasting the time of the House, and attempting to stifle the great legislative objects now before it. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] I am convinced the speech of the Prime Minister and the corroborative cheer of the Home Secretary will have no effect on the country at large. The Prime Minister declared that he could construe our acts. I thought the speech of the right hon. Gentleman showed that he was only capable of misconstruing the acts of those from whom he differed. He spoke as though my right hon. Friend had some dreadful object in view in putting on the Paper these simple Questions, and enforcing them in a speech of singular moderation. Has the Prime Minister, in hisspeech, full of fiery irritation, disposed of them? Take the question of finance. The Prime Minister, having made a mistake, which he handsomely withdrew, proceeded to answer my right hon. Friend's appeal. If it had not been for the Question, we should not have had that clear statement in the Prime Minister's speech to the effect that an inquiry is now proceeding into the question of Egyptian finance; and, therefore, if I wanted a justification for my right hon. Friend's Motion, I should have it in that part of the speech of the Prime Minister which dealt with Egyptian finance. If the Prime Minister chose to go off afterwards at a tangent about the

    1549
    bondholders, that was no fault of the right hon. Member for North Devon. With respect to the allegation that the position of General Gordon was damaged by what fell from the Leader of the Opposition, I can only say that really and truly he did not say more—certainly not much more — than the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War said. He told us that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it was still premature to announce that the object of General Gordon's mission had definitely failed. When a Minister, clothed with all the responsibility of his position, says a tiling of that sort, anyone of understanding must be pardoned if he reads between the lines, and assumes that such a declaration really admits a statement which it does not contradict. I greatly doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman used the words attributed to him by the Prime Minister. I have no doubt he would be perfectly content to argue his case on the very words of the noble Lord himself. Whether General Gordon's mission, in the view of the Government, has definitely failed or not, as a purely pacific mission it has unquestionably failed. The Prime Minister, enlarging on General Gordon's mission, seemed to assume that it was one of perfect ease and safety; and he was quite annoyed that any question should be raised on that subject. The right hon. Gentleman has gone back to 1831 and 1832, and, I suppose by way of contrast, has asked us to compare the remarkably satisfactory condition of affairs in Egypt at the present time with the complications which then existed between Belgium and France. The state of affairs in those countries was no doubt harassing and perplexing enough; but they are not for a moment to be compared in interest or intensity of danger with the questions now engaging our attention in Egypt and the Soudan. By the action of Her Majesty's Government the affairs of Egypt are the affairs of England; and to talk about the affairs of Belgium or France 50 years ago is to perform an evolution of confusion, and, I was going to say, of deceit and imposture upon the confidence of the country, which really could not be undertaken by anyone except that wonderful master of words and phrases, the Prime Minister. I have said that if my right hon. Friend wanted any defence—and I am
    1550
    sure he does not—for the course which, in the discharge of his public duty, he has taken, he would have found it in the circumstances I have detailed. The Prime Minister, in the course of that angry and almost infuriated harangue, proceeded to wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman and those who act with him considered the consequences which would ensue from the course he had taken to-night. He wondered whether the example he had set would be followed in the future. To-night we have neither set nor followed any example. If we had wanted an example of harassing a Government, we should have found it in the perpetual debates raised in the time of Lord Beaconsfield on the foreign policy during that period by the right hon. Gentleman and some of his more illustrious Colleagues. We have not raised perpetual debates on the subject of the Egyptian, or on the subject of the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government generally. We have interposed with Questions when we have thought it necessary to do so, in consequence of the persistent reticence, or the still more persistent inconsistency, of the Government. When the right hon. Gentleman went on to mention the actual number of nights consumed in these debates, I wonder it did not occur to him to perform one of those arithmetical processes which have become so familiar to us, and proceed to divide those 17 nights into the proper divisions between the Benches on cither side. I wonder he did not go a little into details, and tell us exactly how many of those debates had been originated by us and how many by his Friends sitting below the Gangway. With a coolness I could not sufficiently admire, the right hon. Gentleman assumed that the whole of those 17 nights of debate were the fault of the right hon. Gentleman and those who sit near us. The Prime Minister, having gone into the history of this Session, must pardon me if I say a word or two on the subject. How was it we had a series of debates upon the Address? Because first one and then another of Her Majesty's Ministers chose to run away at the wrong moment; and the consequence was we had only a broken debate, which necessarily resulted in a second. There are two nights accounted for out of the 17. He takes no note of the debate raised by the

    1551
    hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), or any other Member; but he coolly assumes that the whole are due to the right hon. Gentleman. I protest against the unfairness of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. Whenever we think it necessary to ask Questions, or to move the adjournment of the House, or to raise debates on these most important affairs, we shall continue to do so perfectly undisturbed by the sarcasms of the Home Secretary or the fury of the Prime Minister, and perfectly confident that our motives as well as our acts will be thoroughly understood and appreciated by the country, which is possessed, I am convinced, of far more common sense and shrewdness than it appears to be given credit for by Members of Her Majesty's Government.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILI,.— [BILL. 119.]
  (Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Trevelyan, The Lord Advocate.)
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILI,.— [BILL. 119.]

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [FIFTH NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [24th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    And which Amendment was,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House declines to proceed further with a measure, having for its object the addition of two million voters to the electoral body of the United Kingdom, until it has before it the entire scheme contemplated by the Government for the amendment of the Representation of the People,''—(Lord John Manner,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he exceedingly regretted that the time of the House should have been wasted so long that night over matters of interest in the jungles of Africa, instead of being devoted to matters of interest nearer
    1552
    home. The speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott) on Tuesday night did not deal with the question of the extension of the franchise, but mainly consisted of criticism, if not abuse, of the President of the Board of Trade. It had been frequently alleged in that House that there was no feeling among the mass of people in favour of the extension of the franchise. To that assertion he begged to give a flat contradiction. If the workmen who felt strongly on that question would only address their letters to hon. Members who were opposed to that change instead of to those who supported it, he ventured to say that opinion on the opposite side of the House on that subject would be materially modified. Speaking, as he thought he had a right to do, for the organized trades of the "United Kingdom, he could assure the House that a Motion in favour of the extension of the franchise had been one of the chief Resolutions brought before their annual Congresses ever since the present Government had been in power, and each successive year the Resolution had been stronger. At the Congress of September last, a fear being expressed that the Government might betray the country and not deal with the question in the present Parliament, the Parliamentary Committee of the Congress were instructed to urge the Government by all means in their power to make this the principal subject for the present Session. But that was not all. On the 31st of January a deputation of trades representing the organizations of the United Kingdom waited on the Prime Minister to declare to him their anxiety for a speedy dealing with that subject. That deputation was not an ordinary one. It included about 240 or 250 delegates coming from all parts of the country, whose whole expenses and time were paid for by their union funds and voted by their respective lodges. He reckoned that its cost to the whole of the trades was not less than £700 or £800—a sum, he need hardly say, which the trade unions of this country would not spend on any matter which they had not deeply at heart. He would now like to say a few words with regard to the Bill itself. In doing so he could not congratulate the Government on the production of a measure which was satisfactory to his mind. It was far too com-

    1553
    plicated; it had too many qualifications; it was shaped too much to suit the prejudices and the privileges of the rich and the upper classes, rather than shaped to meet the question of the franchise fairly and honestly, as it should be. He saw no reason why any man should be entitled to two votes because he was a freeholder of landed property in the country. That was a mere concession to ancient monopolies, and the privilege should be abolished. His view in regard to this question was that there should be one vote to one man; and the only qualification he should possess was that of being of sufficient age and of capacity to exercise it. By the jugglery of the lodger franchise and by the long residence which was necessary for qualification they effectually deprived thousands of their best citizens of the franchise. Although he did not include himself in this list, he should like permission to mention that under the lodger franchise, and owing to the difficulties of registration and otherwise, he was a Member of the House of Commons before he had an opportunity of recording a vote for a Member of Parliament. He had been elected Member for Stoke two days before he gave a vote in the East Surrey Election for the Liberal candidates who were then contesting that division of the county. There was a too great tendency to discuss this subject from the standpoint of the agricultural labourer, as if he were the only person to be enfranchised by this Bill. If it were realty the case that the agricultural labourer was the only person to be enfranchised, he would labour as cordially and as enthusiastically as he did now on behalf of others, because he would consider him equally fitted with others for the exercise of his undoubted right as a citizen. But he should like the House to remember that at present there were still outside the franchise thousands of persons who had been described as the most ignorant of the community. When, however, it had been found that a mistake had been made, and that the term "most ignorant" embraced within its scope hundreds of thousands of intelligent artizans, then it was attempted to withdraw the declaration, to minimize it, and to apologize for it, because it was found that those persons so described might shortly be appealed to for their support. He had received a letter from
    1554
    the secretary of the Shipwrights' Association in the Clyde district, in which some interesting facts were revealed. In the districts of Govan and Partick there were 94.000 inhabitants, the majority of whom were skilled mechanics. Of this population, 19,442 persons exercised the municipal franchise; but only 3,426 persons had a voice in the political affairs of the country. That was through no fault of their own, but was duo to the shifting character of their employment, occasioned by the removal of large firms to cheaper land. He had also received a telegram that day from Glasgow, in which it was stated that Singer's Sowing Machine Company and Thomson's Engineering and Shipbuilding Company were removing to Clydebank and Dalmuir; 4,000 or 5,000 workmen were following the works, and in consequence would not have a vote in the county election. He had also received a letter from the Secretary of the Shipwrights on the Tyne in which it was said that Walker-on-Tyne had a population of 21,500, who had neither the municipal nor the Parliamentary representation, although they were only a quarter of a mile from the Newcastle boundary. Returning to the question of the agricultural labourers, he much regretted that there was no one of their order there to plead their cause, and give a direct denial to the charge of incapacity and ignorance so constantly brought against them. He contended that the agricultural labourers were as capable of exercising the franchise as many of the farmers themselves. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: More so.] His hon. Friend near him (Mr. H. H. Fowler) said they were more so. He quite conceded the point; but in all things he liked to be moderate, and within the mark. He ventured to say that when this class were enfranchised they would not be found backers of that broken-kneed old hack that was so often trotted out on rural courses—the 5s. duty on corn—that extraordinary animal that was only kept for provincial shows, but which never dared be started in the House of Commons. Those new voters would not be misled by such cries as these. But supposing it were true— which he utterly denied—that the agricultural labourers were ignorant and unfit to exercise the franchise, did the charge of ignorance come with a good grace from that side of the House

    1555
    mainly associated with the county representation? The parson and the squire had had charge of the intellectual progress of the agricultural labourer for centuries; and were hon. Gentlemen opposite not ashamed of their wet-nursing, and of their half-starved labourers, whom they now denounced as ignorant and unlit for the exercise of citizenship? In his opinion, the Conservative Party had a much greater fear of the labourers knowledge and intelligence than they had of their ignorance or incapacity. It was undoubtedly the case that where the ignorance of the agricultural labourer was most dense, there Tory opportunities were greatest, and their political power and representation strongest. If it were a question of intrusting the agricultural labourer with the administration of a marriage settlement, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), or if it were a question of understanding the technicalities of their hideous laws, passed by a class Parliament, he would not think of putting him in competition with the right hon. Gentleman, or his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler); but on a question of common sense, sound judgment, and honesty of purpose, he would not hesitate to place him in competition with them. The agricultural labourer had mastered a problem which the right hon. Gentleman had never mastered. He had solved the problem of maintaining a house, a wife, and family on a weekly income less than the right hon. Gentleman probably spent for his afternoon meal. These men, who had solved this question of how to maintain a family on an income of 8s. or 9s. a-week, should stand at the very head of the science of domestic economy, if of no other economy. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) appeared to be greatly alarmed at the references that had been made by the President of the Board of Trade to manhood suffrage and the payment of Members, and he said they would be nearer if this Bill was passed. It would be all the better if both these reforms were not only nearer, but already law. The noble Lord himself belonged to a ring that was paid for its services when in Office. Why should not hon. Members, who worked
    1556
    as hard, but who had not the same opportunities of distinction as Ministers, be paid, since Ministers were? Let them not suppose for a moment that the old order of things—of monopolies and privileges to a few families in the country—would always continue. The time would come, if not during his life, or that of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), yet during the day of the generation now being educated at the board schools, when the people would insist upon having a share, not only of Representatives in that House, but in the administrative and executive work of the nation of which they were the most important part. On this Bill the Conservative Party, while professing, some of them, not to oppose it, were anywhere but in the right direction in regard to it. He had listened to some parts of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), in which he stated his reasons for his conversion on this subject, with pain and surprise. It was lamentable to hear the right hon. Gentleman, who had been twice a Cabinet Minister, confessing that he never understood the people. The agricultural labourers could have no sordid or selfish motives in claiming the franchise. They had no places to seek, no pensions to secure, no Court honours to look for. Their leading object in life was to secure those home comforts so long denied to them, and the honour of the country which they loved no less than any other class in the Kingdom. Had the House forgotten how, when the great and powerful were weak and hesitating on the question of freedom or slavery in America, our poorer countrymen and women faced the prospect of starvation and ruin rather than sacrifice one atom of their principle and love of freedom all the world over to black and white? A good deal had been said on the question, of redistribution, and as to the difficulty of finding Members in England to supply the additions to be made to the representation of Scotland. There were four Members, at the least, whom he could place at the disposal of the Government for this object. Let them take the Members for Oxford and Cambridge Universities. He was at a loss to know on what ground of reason, logic, or justice these Masters of Arts, who were mostly clergymen of the Church of England,

    1557
    should have the privilege of returning Members to that House more than the same number of Nonconformist clergymen. The country, he ventured to say, would not long tolerate these nests of bigotry. Having regard to the nature of their tenure, it might be expected that the University Members would behave with peculiar circumspection. But only yesterday they found one of the Representatives of these seats of learning and culture coming forth as the champion of the beer-sellers. That action was in itself an additional reason why these constituencies should be disfranchised, and that the seats thus monopolized should be given to some other part of the United Kingdom. He scarcely liked to say the same of the University of Dublin. He regretted that it should send two Gentlemen so learned and unobjectionable in every other respect but that of politics. But when they arrived at a further stage of reform, they would have to think seriously whether the many good qualities of these right hon. Gentlemen would be sufficient to entitle them to immunity from Disestablishment. [Cries of "London!"] The University of London had recently done itself great honour. No University had done so much to preserve the ancient monuments and landmarks of this country by returning their distinguished Member (Sir John Lubbock). He had no hesitation in saying that those who feared the results of the proposed extension of the franchise were needlessly alarmed. Every additional million of voters was as concrete to foundations and as buttresses to ancient towers. Every increase of influence and power of the working people had proved to be Conservative in the highest and best sense; he did not mean Conservatism as demonstrated by Oxford University; but Conservatism of the most useful and lasting description. He was not prepared to deny the people of Ireland their fair share of this beneficial legislation. He knew many Irish working men, and, in his opinion, no workmen in England were better qualified to exercise political rights than the mechanics of the great towns of Ireland. He held that it would be unwise and wicked to curtail the political privileges of Irishmen, and that the Government by their proposals had given expression to the unanimous wish of the Liberal Party.
    1558
    If the Irishmen who would be enfranchised by this Bill lived in mud huts, who were to blame? Was it their fault that they occupied mud huts instead of comfortable cottages when they had been kept in a state almost bordering on slavery century after century? This was an additional reason forgiving them political power, that they might give effect to their own views on political and social questions; and he would do all he could to secure to Ireland every right and privilege that Parliament was bestowing on his own countrymen.
    MR. BIDDELL: Sir. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), in citing the case of the 20,000 artizans living just outside of Newcastle, proves the desirability of discussing the Enfranchisement and Redistribution Bills together, for it cannot be disputed that these men should be attached to Newcastle. So blended are the two subjects that in nearly all the leading speeches they have both been discussed. That of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is no exception. He evidently felt the necessity of alluding to the new redistribution scheme, though he did it somewhat vaguely, creating the impression that with his fear of the Irish, his known love for the Scotch, and his natural sympathy for his neighbours the Welsh, the English must look out for themselves. By his intimation of a slight increase of Members, I assume he will deal feebly with this redistributing; far from increasing, it would be better to decrease the numbers of this House by 50 or 60, for it is already too unwieldy. This great measure is simply one of household suffrage, regardless of size or quality of the house. I wish distinctly to affirm this, as I have the best evidence that many persons even of standing think there will be some limitation preventing its application descending to mere hovels. No doubt, there is not sufficient time this year to discuss the details of both parts of the subject; but the Government could explain on what general principles they intend to proceed. Do they, in such cases as Newcastle, intend to join such outside people to the borough? Do they approve of grouping towns, or do they prefer to add a slice of the county to any of our small boroughs to improve their titles for returning Members? To be sure, the Premier gave us only his

    1559
    private opinions; but we know that such is his imperial sway that both the Cabinet and hon. Gentlemen opposite have to act upon his opinions. The street argument I do not place so much weight in as is generally attached to it. Persons on the non-voting sides enjoy considerable advantages in having all the conveniences of the town without its taxation. At any rate, any person feeling aggrieved can easily change from one side to the other. An argument used in favour of the measure is the principle of uniformity; but do the Government act on this principle? Decidedly not, for in answer to ray question they have stated that though the borough residents shall continue to have a vote for their county freeholds, the county resident shall not have a vote in the borough for his freehold there. Hence, if so, we shall have a House on one side of the street giving its owner a vote, where an exactly similar one on the other side shall confer no such privilege. This is no small matter, for in the division of the county which I in part represent nearly 600 of the voters out of 5,000 or 6,000 voters live in Parliamentary boroughs. I agree in the opinion expressed by the Premier that the more capable men voting the better; can he, then, contend that the county resident owning a freehold in the town is not a capable voter? If so, why withhold a vote from him? It has been, I think, rightly contended that farmers in the agricultural counties have had supreme political power, hence a monopoly in the representation. This I admit is bad; but what are we invited to do? Why, to merely change this monopoly from one classtoan ot her—that is, to the labouring class. It has been contended that we on this side of the House are against any extension of the suffrage. This I deny, as for years I have thought the rural labouring class should have some more direct representation. I say more direct, as every Member represents, I contend, all classes in his constituency, though I must confess we are apt to have a more lively interest in those who have a vote than in those who have not. What is objected to is—as by the present Bill—the so arranging that the labouring classes could completely swamp all others in the counties. On this point I contend that the Government should have placed some statistics before us by which we could better judge of the
    1560
    effects of the measure. For my guidance I have collected some; and, to convince the House I have done so impartially, I have taken three Suffolk parishes, in all of which I have resided, and consequently know about. The first is —I give only round numbers—that wherein I was born—namely, Playford; there are now six voters rated at £1,400, or £230 each; there will be 37 new voters rated at £140, or £3 10s. each. Hawstead I take next—a well-known parish, as its history is published—has now only 11 voters who are rated about £2,000, or nearly £200 each; while under the new measure there will be 42 new voters rated only at £84, or, say, £2 each. My present abode is at Lavenham, which now has 51 voters rated at £4,200, or about £80 each, and the 328 new voters to be added are rated at only about £1,350, or about £4 each. These figures prove conclusively that this representation will have no proportion to taxation. Accepting household suffrage as unalterable—or rather inevitable—-how can be modify its effect? It is impossible to arrange representation in strict proportion to taxation. Some of my friends think it can be rectified in the Redistribution of Seats Bill. I think not, for if not right on the basis we cannot erect sound work upon it; but we can in some rough way take a step in that direction, when we shall in. sonic measure modify the proposed swamping of the present electors. In cases where two Members are to be elected, let those rated under £8— namely, those who are or can be rated on a reduced scale—vote for one Member, while higher rated electors are allowed to vote for both. I contend this great Empire is but a mighty Company wherein it is not expedient that the holder of a single share should have equal weight in its direction with the holder of many shares. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. G. Russell) said that the parish clergyman, the squire, and the farmer have prevented the labourers from expressing their political views. I deny this. The Dissenting minister I believe has now, and certainly will have, far more political influence than the clergyman, who rarely takes an active part in politics; while the squire has had his wings so cut by the policy adopted by this House that he no longer can continue that generosity

    1561
    which secured him, in great part, the allowance of his poorer neighbours. As to the farmer, the good labourer is, from the decrease of the rural population, independent of him. Jack is now as good as his master, and happily no longer has to depend upon one or two farmers for the sale of his labour. This is the greatest measure proposed in our time, and as such I ask hon. Members to drop all Party views and seriously consider whether or not it is good for the country, and even good for the working classes themselves, that our county representation should so entirely rest with them. Full well I know that the course I am pursuing is one which may imperil what I shall seek—namely, my re-election. So be it, for I would rather be cast off, and, so to speak, fall into nought, than to have it said I preferred my personal interest to that of my country. The order of the day to "worship the rising sun," to pamper and flatter the coming power. Though yielding to none in good will to the labouring class, I decline to do it, for, in the words of one of our poets, I ask the Gods "to grant me an honest fame or grant me none."
    MR. W. REDMONDsaid, that, as he represented a borough in Ireland which suffered to no inconsiderable extent under the present Franchise Law, he trusted that he might be allowed to contribute a few observations to the discussion upon this Bill, which Her Majesty's Government had rather tardily introduced. There could be no two opinions as to the important effect which this measure, if carried, would have upon the composition of that House; and, therefore, legislation on such a subject should be conducted with the utmost care. The question of the franchise had been for a long time calling for settlement, more particularly in Ireland; and it was a subject for congratulation to hon. Members on both sides of the House that it was now about to be settled. Her Majesty's Government might congratulate themselves on having at length introduced a Liberal measure, while Her Majesty's Opposition had now a fair opportunity of proving that it was for the welfare of the country that a large and respectable class should be excluded from the franchise. He intended to approach this question, not from the English or the Scotch point of
    1562
    view, but from the Irish point of view. He might, however, incidentally observe that he was in favour of the liberties of the people in England and Scotland being extended to the utmost possible limits. He should ever remain in opposition to the Conservative Members of the House, who appeared to think that the majority of the Parliamentary voters were mere unintelligent machines to be used for the purpose of keeping far more intelligent men in opposition. He believed that the unfortunate and oppressed people of his country had much more to expect at the hands of the great mass of the people of England and Scotland than they had from the landocracy of those countries, who were disposed to legislate in favour of their brother members of the landocracy of Ireland. He had heard with surprise the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War express a fear lest the effect of the Bill would be to increase the Irish National Party in that House. That fear was only worthy of the extinct spirit of servile Whiggery which had received such a practical and decent burial in the borough which he had the honour to represent. The Opposition had relied greatly upon the mud cabin argument. It was a poor argument to adduce that because people dwelt in mud cabins they should not be entitled to have a voice in the government of their country. Another reason given for not extending the measure to Ireland was that a large percentage of the people could neither read nor write. Admitting that fact, he said it was not surprising that many of the Irish people should be illiterate when it was remembered that for generation after generation obstacles had been placed in the way of Catholic education by successive Governments in this country. But there were many illiterate Irishmen who were as well able to form a sound opinion on political subjects and to give a vote as gentlemen who had matriculated in English Universities. If the present or any other Government was coerced by Jingoism to try and lower the number of Irish Representatives, he could assure them that they would have to face the bitterest and fiercest opposition which the Representatives of Ireland in that House and the people of Ireland could give. According to the atrociously corrupt Act of Union of Lord Castlereagh, of infamous memory, Ireland had 100 Members given

    1563
    to her. If the Government wanted to cut down that number, they must violate that infamous Act. If the Government wished to repeal that infamous Act, they could rely on the hearty support and co-operation of himself and his Colleagues. It would have been well for the Empire if, in days gone by, Governments had proceeded to redress grievances as promptly as Her Majesty's Government were now proceeding to redress what was undoubtedly a grievance in shutting out large numbers of intelligent and. capable men in Ireland from the privileges of the franchise. He would take the opportunity of appealing to the Government, now that they were in the reforming humour, fairly and impartially to view the demand of the Irish people for local self-government.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, that the. hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell) had made a very honest and straightforward speech; for he courageously said that whatever change the Bill might make in the franchise, he would still hope to retain his seat in that House. The speech was honest in another sense, for it let out the secret of the attitude taken up by hon. Members opposite. They only did not object to the extension of the franchise, on condition that in redistribution they could take back with, one hand what they had given with the other. The hon. Member, for instance, did not attempt to deny that the man who lived on one side of a street had as good a right to vote as the man who lived on the other. But the hon. Member went on to advocate a double qualification for people of property, an idea which had long ago been abandoned even by the Party opposite. The hon. Gentleman, all through his speech, divided the nation into classes and interests; educated people as distinguished from ignorant people—farmers as against labourers—employers against workmen. The hon. Member used an ignoble image, and said that we were all members of a Joint Stock Company. But men who were bound together by the common ties of citizenship were much more than members of a Joint Stock Company. The interests which divided them were as dust in the balance compared with the associations by which they were united. He regretted to find in the speech of the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. Sidney Herbert) the same tendency to divide the country into
    1564
    classes. The hon. Member used a singularly infelicitous and inaccurate illustration in connection with that theory. He said that in France it was the lower classes who drove the Empire into war. Now, nothing was better known in all Europe than that the French peasantry were devoted friends of peace. He would appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) whether there was an audience in England that would respond so earnestly to an appeal for peace as an audience of workmen. This would be as true of the labourers in the country as of the artizans in the towns. The right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) had quoted an old saying, that the towns represented population and the counties property. But it was said by Conservative speakers that the effect of the Bill of 1867 had been to make the boroughs so Conservative that the Liberals had to attack the counties. If so, then the boroughs must represent property no less than population. So that the argument lost all its force in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not understand why it was that the Party which called itself the patriotic Party were not better patriots. A patriot ought to take pride in his countrymen as well as in his country. A dozen years ago he presided at a meeting of agricultural labourers, who had come to London at their own charge to protest against their exclusion from the franchise. Everybody was impressed by their orderly and temperate attitude. A few strong remarks were made about the parson and the squire; but they were soon overborne by the good sense of the meeting. Then all who had been fortunate enough to attend trades union congresses must have come to the conclusion that their proceedings might well furnish a model to more august assemblies. But it ought not to be forgotten that agricultural labourers were not the only class who would be enfranchised by the Bill. It would add 500,000 miners, who had in that House so excellent a Representative as his hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt). to the electorate. He had often attended meetings of miners, and could testify that in no assembly would revolutionary doctrines find less acceptance than among the miners of the North of England. Among no class was there a keener thirst for knowledge. There was

    1565
    a little district not fur from his own constituency, of 17,000 inhabitants. where no fewer than 1,300 men, almost the whole of the adult male population, regularly attended the lectures in connection with the scheme of University extension, which had been inaugurated by Professor Stuart, of Cambridge. There was more honour due to these men for their thirst for knowledge in their hard lives and humble homes than to all the learned leisure of Colleges and the luxurious state of ancient Universities. Yet of the nine Representatives of Universities in that House, no fewer than seven would go into the Lobby with those who wished to refuse to such men the Parliamentary franchise. When the scheme of redistribution came before them, rather than see the numbers in that House increased, he would prefer that those nine seats should be taken away, and transferred to worthier claimants. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel) had said that the only meetings in favour of the Bill had been held by a few scientific Radicals. He did not know what a "scientific Radical" meant; but if it meant the opposite of a harum-scarum Tory, he would not, himself, be disposed to disown the name. The right hon. Baronet, just returned for Huntingdon, with its population of 6,400, might have found for Leeds, with its 300,000, a bettor name than that of a county town. Nothing showed how strong was the feeling of the working classes on this subject than the fact that the boroughs cared so much for the extension of the franchise in the counties. There were Conservative boroughs in which the feeling was nearly as strong as the Liberal feeling on this point, and which would not return a Conservative Member unless he pledged himself on the question of the county franchise. If there were any indifference in the country it would be due to growing scepticism as to the value of Parliament itself. The true danger to the stability of our Constitution was not in the admission of 2,000,000 more voters; but in the fact that the time of the House was so wasted that it was impossible to pass, not only disputed measures, but even non-contentious measures, as to which both sides of the House were agreed. This was striking the working classes as something that needed explanation, and of which the
    1566
    solution might, in time, become formidable; that it was not so now was because the respect for law was so deeply ingrained in the English and the Scotch character. Yet the Opposition refused to extend the franchise unless they were assured that there would be some manipulation or re-arrangement of seats, which, would, in fact, be taking away with one hand what was given with the other. He regretted that proportional representation should have been introduced into the debate from that side of the House, for all these schemes were but new disguises for the old Tory distrust of the people. It would be easier than it was now to answer its advocates, when they said what it was they meant by proportional representation. The House had the right to ask them which scheme it was they were going to stand upon; at present they only maintained the principle, while they threw over oven application of it. They admitted that the cumulative vote involved a waste of voting power, and often gave a majority to a minority. They admitted that the three-cornered constituency involved a waste of voting power, and stimulated the activity of those electoral associations, which Gentlemen on both sides professed to hold in so much dislike. The single district system had been tried fairly in the United States; it was found to lead to gerrymandering; it stimulated the activity of caucuses; it did not secure men of exceptional ability, as had been set forth in a Report made to the Senate in 1869. As to preferential voting, the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) said lie had not yet seen a scheme that would work. But if there were more to be said for schemes of proportional representation, the question did not arise under this Bill. As the right hon. Member for Bradford said in the Recess, if we were going to keep on the old lines we might safely leave minorities to take care of themselves. This Bill did go very much upon the old lines. If it were proposed to give to Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds eight or ten Members each, a question might arise as to whether they should all be given to majorities; but there was no such proposal. The time for the schemes of proportional representation would come when it was proposed to adjust representation on a numerical basis.

    1567
    The question of Irish representation he would not discuss, either upon the basis of numbers, or that of the Act of Union —cither by reference to what had been called a musty parchment, or by working a sum in rule of three. It ought to be settled upon the same principle as that which settled all political questions —naraely, the broad ground of policy and expediency. He would argue it when the time came upon those grounds. We should lose far more by irritating the population of Ireland than we should gain by taking seats from her for our own use. Ireland was entitled to exceptional representation, not so much on the score of geographical distance, as on that of moral distance, and the disadvantage under which her Members laboured from the ignorance and prejudice of Englishmen about them, arising out of the difference in race and religion. Another reason for special treatment of Ireland was that a great obstacle to improvement in Irish legislation was to be found in the other House; and, as Ireland was under a disadvantage in the hereditary branch of the Legislature, there was less reason to object to her having an excess of representation in the elective branch, Hon. Gentlemen opposite had stated that they were in favour of an appeal to the people. The supporters of the Bill wanted to enable them to appeal to the real people, and not to a privileged section with a narrow franchise, and jockeyed by an artificial arrangement of seats. If they were not to have this Bill, the Opposition would have to bring in another. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member cheered, but he would warn him that there was no case of a second Reform Bill being more moderate and more narrow than the first. The present Bill was well worth having. But if they did not get the Bill now before the House, all he could say was that they would have from the Opposition a measure better worth having still.
    MR. STRUTTsaid, he could not look upon this great revolutionary measure as a wise one, coming, as it did, within so short a time of the last Reform Bill. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. T. Morley) had told the Opposition that they ought to have confidence in the people. For his part, he should have perfect confidence in the people if there were; no agitators to go and lead them astray, They had heard a great deal about right
    1568
    in this matter. If hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House believed that the individual right was of paramount importance as compared with the welfare of the State, they ought to make a bonfire of nearly all their Bills. Most of the measures introduced by Ministerialists went against the right of the individual. Upon this question of right they could not refuse the franchise to the greatest criminal in the dock, or to the smallest child who could toddle up to the polling booth. If a man had a right to a vote because others had it who were in no way different from himself except in geographical position, he had equal right that his vote should he of the same value; and this argument would, therefore, lead them directly to electoral districts. But he ventured to say that even under a system of electoral districts they would find exactly the same inequality of which they complained now. What political power had a Conservative in the wilds of Scotland or Wales? What political power had a Liberal in the highly civilized districts of Westminster or Essex? It was true the Conservative and the Liberal had a vote; but what was a vote if it brought no political power? It was absolutely worthless. He submitted that to advocate proportional voting was not to distrust the people. A system of proportional voting would give political power to all the people as far as it was possible. He believed that if the Bill passed in its present shape the agricultural labourers would have it in their power to prevent a single man entering that House to represent the feelings of the farmers. He should like to know whether the Government intended to turn a deaf ear to the bitter cry of the Loyalists in Ireland. The First Commissioner of Works had told the House that if they gave a vote to the Loyalists in Ireland they must also give a vote to Irishmen in England. He did not see why they should not give a vote to Irishmen in England, because those Irishmen might not always share the opinions of Irish Members in that House. That House ought to be the reflex of every phase of public opinion, and particularly of the more intelligent part of it. He did not think that the agricultural labourers bad that amount of political power which their numbers and importance entitled them to; but if

    1569
    the Government had introduced a Redistribution Bill, so as to enlarge the small boroughs, they would have struck a blow at the anomalies which those small boroughs presented, and would have rectified the position of the agricultural labourer. The artizans had quite enough of power already, especially when they took into consideration what a short time it was since compulsory education had been in force. He confessed he had some jealousy of that class, because he thought it dangerous that one class should have so much more power over the destinies, not only of this country, but of the 250,000,000 of the people of India who depended on the vote of that House. All the statesmen of the past and all political writers had looked with suspicion on one class having all the political power. It was easier, no doubt, for hon. Gentlemen to say that they had confidence in the people than want of confidence, when those in whom that confidence was expressed might be their future electors. For his part, he did not think that this Bill would conduce to the happiness or contentment of the people, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment.
    MR. PLUNKET: I am sure that Members on both sides of the House who have heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Strutt) will agree with me that his presence among us is a distinct accession to the debating power of the House, and gives much promise for the future. I hope the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) will not think, if I do not follow him through his philosophic, disquisition, that I refrain from doing so from want of personal respect, or from any feeling of resentment towards him for having explained his own opinion as to the way in which the nine Members who represent the Universities in this House ought to be dealt with. If I were to do so, I should evidently be speaking, as it were, with a rope round my neck. For I feel that the unfortunate heads of the Representatives of the Universities—English, Irish, and Scotch—will be the first to fall into the Republican basket of the hon. Member when he gets his way in regard to this Franchise Bill and also the Redistribution Bill of which he has given the House a forecast. I gladly turn
    1570
    away from the speech of the hon. Member, hoping that his Friends near him —my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Play fair) and the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) —will find some means of persuading their political allies generally that they would be a greater loss to the House, if taken away from it, than their companion-in-arms the hon. Member for Newcastle seems to think. For my own part, I have a strong belief in luck, and nine is a lucky number; and therefore, despite all the distrust the hon. Member feels as to the extreme illiberality of the University Members, I hope we may yet be spared to break a lance with him in some future Parliament. I pass now from the hon. Member for Newcastle to the very remarkable speech which preceded it, and which, I am sorry to think, was not hoard by many hon. Members of the House—I mean that of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Redmond), which was also a maiden speech. The hon. Member described his borough as "suffering, to no inconsiderable extent, from the want of some such Bill as the present." Certainly, the borough of Wexford does not suffer from the want of a vigilant, able, and fearless Representative, and a very frank one I must say also. The hon. Member, of course, denounced the Whig Members of the House, and naturally honoured, from his point of view, the President of the Board of Trade; but, from another point of view, his speech was really interesting — namely, for the clearness and distinctness with which he brought before the House the peculiar tenets of those he is sent hero to represent, affording abundant proof that, after all, the constituencies of Ireland do not suffer seriously from that "moral distance" of which the hon. Member for Newcastle has just now so loudly complained. The hon. Member has put before the House as plainly as can be desired the views entertained by himself, and, I presume, by those who sit around him, in regard to this Bill. Now, there has been a certain amount of rumour in the Press and whispering in the Lobbies for some days past that this Bill, after all, makes no formidable contribution to the power of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell),

    1571
    as some benighted Conservative Members have supposed, but that it will rather undermine his influence; and on that ground hopes have been kindly held out to us by the Radical newspapers that it may not be impossible to secure, in opposition to the Bill, even the support of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends! But the hon. Member for Wexford has told us plainly what his view of the case is. He said he would support the Bill, not because it is a good Bill, or because he thinks it satisfactory or sufficient, for he requires a Bill which would go much further, but because it will, as far as it goes, give greater effect to what he calls the will of the Irish people in this House — he did not say the whole of the Irish people—and, he added, as I understood him—
    "I accept the Bill as far as it goes; but you need not think that it will have the effect of staving the agitation of a Separatist character which exists in Ireland, for if you give us this Bill, or 20 more Bills of the same description, we will never cease from that agitation until we fully obtain our object."
    He said, further, that until the Separatist object of his Party was achieved, that agitation would have the effect of disorganizing and disgracing this Assembly. At all events, that is perfectly plain speaking. I shall not comment upon it, neither shall I make any apology to the House if, during the brief time for which I shall claim its attention at this stage of the debate, I confine myself entirely to the Bill and to the Amendment as they may affect the future of my own country. That, I think, is the aspect of the case which has weighed most heavily upon the minds of English and Scotch Members, even of Members who are favourable to the proposals of the Government. For me, as an Irishman, it totally eclipses all the others; because, if the view I take of this measure be the true one, the thing yon are now asked to do in passing this Franchise Bill as it stands, without further qualifications or safeguards against its immediate effects than have been shadowed forth in the vague and contradictory utterances which as yet have been heard from the Treasury Bench, is an act fraught with grave and urgent peril to the State. It is so, in my opinion, not only because it will at once commit practically the whole Parliamentary representation of Ireland to one social
    1572
    class of its population, which must overwhelm in numbers all the others—and that a class, unfortunately though I fully admit its many virtues and good qualities, who are ignorant, excitable, prejudiced, and absolutely unused to the duties and responsibilities of public affairs—because this great augmentation of voters will practically extinguish for political purposes those of my countrymen, best able to form an intelligent and useful opinion. Because the result would be a total misrepresentation of the Irish people, including all its interests and all its classes. But, above all because, in that great question which is now at issue between the Imperial Government and the Friends of the hon. Member for the City of Cork— that great question of the maintenance or the destruction of the Union between the Three Kingdoms—it will throw into the hands of the latter an increase of power wholly out of proportion to their just claims as Representatives of the Irish people. It will throw it into their hands, without the possibility of recall. The struggle we have to maintain in this great controversy is, even in the present Parliament, extremely difficult; and, in all events, in the next, it must be much more arduous. But I foresee that if this Bill passes in its present shape and without qualification, and a General Election is taken upon it, the struggle will become almost desperate, if not absolutely hopeless. I know this is a strong statement, and that I may be accused of being an alarmist for uttering it; but if the House will grant me its patience, I think I shall be able to make good my words by arguments the most simple and practical. Before, however, dealing with the Bill as it may affect the fortunes of the Separatist movement in Ireland, let me say something about its other effects in Ireland itself. The present electors of Ireland number about 224,000; the Bill would add 480,000, as nearly as I can calculate; so that the new electors would more than double the existing electors, and form over two-thirds of the future constituencies of all Ireland. And remember that these new electors would not be, as those are whom you propose to add to the English constituencies, electors of the same class, but persons totally unused to taking part in public affairs, who have had no experience whatever in the matter, and

    1573
    that it is nearly impossible, in the unfortunate state of their social existence, for them to form an independent political opinion, and still more hopeless for them to take any independent political action. A great deal has been said about what is called the "hovel" electors in Ireland. It is no pleasure to me to have to dwell upon that subject, and I am very glad to think that this reproach to our land is gradually passing away; still, it does exist to a considerable extent. And when it is said that in England also there are people almost as badly housed as any in Ireland, who will have votes under this Bill, I answer that that is true; but there is this difference between the two cases—those who dwell in hovels in England contribute only a small quota of the electors; but in Ireland, in the country districts, these hovels will contain about one-half of all the householders, and in the boroughs a very large proportion of the electors. And now, one word also as to the state of education in Ireland. There, too, I admit freely—and I am glad to admit it—that considerable progress has recently been made, and is still being made. But, nevertheless, the condition of the Irish people in this respect is still very bad. As far as I can calculate, the facts of the case would be these —if we assume that the present electors are able to read and write, it may be said, speaking generally, that the new electors to be added to the franchise by this Bill will be taken from a class of which 40 per cent of those above 20 years of age cannot read or write. I will not push my argument to the extent to which it was carried by Mr. John Stuart Mill, who held that no man should be enfranchised who could not read and write; I do not push it to that extent at present; but I do push it to the extent of another proposition which Mr. Mill laid down when he said—
    "No one can deny that it is not a good, but a hurtful thing, that the Constitution of a country should declare ignorance to be entitled to as much political power as knowledge."
    Now, I put it to the House, if this Bill were intended to apply to Ireland alone, what responsible statesman would have brought forward a measure with such results as I have described? Would you, in England or Scotland, trust the fortunes of your country to such a
    1574
    wild, untrained, disqualified democracy is this? I do not wish to pursue this branch of the subject further; but I should like to say this much. It is argued that there are anomalies in the present representation of the Irish people. I grant it fully, and I am quite sure that if the time were propitious for introducing reforms, remedies might be found, well-considered, cautious, and safe, which would, to a great extent, remove these anomalies. But this Bill will not only continue many of these anomalies, but it will aggravate them, and especially those anomalies which tell against the constituencies which are most enlightened and progressive. Let me give one or two instances. The town of Belfast is one of the most improving places in Ireland. It contains 35,000 inhabited houses, which exceed in number the inhabited houses in all the boroughs in Minister, including the City of Cork; yet it only returns two Members, while the boroughs of Minister return 14. Again, in Leinster, the City of Dublin has nearly 28,000 inhabited houses, which is a larger number than all the other boroughs in the Province of Leinster; but still that City has only two Members, while the rest of the boroughs have eight. I say again that anomalies in the Irish representation undoubtedly exist; but in many important cases the present Bill will not only continue, but will aggravate them. I think I have already satisfied the House that this is a Bill, as it affects Ireland, which would not have been introduced if it had been proposed for that country alone. There is no political philosopher so flighty as to maintain that, under the existing circumstances of Ireland, the wholesale extension of household suffrage to the counties and boroughs is the best way of representing all classes of the Irish people. In point of fact, the effect of this Bill would be, that the representation of the less capable citizens would be inordinately increased, while the representation of the most capable citizens would be practically extinguished. I say that such considerations as these would have been amply sufficient to have justified the Government in adhering to the precedent of all former Reform Bills, and dealing on somewhat different principles with the English and Irish constituencies. And now let me turn to the view

    1575
    of the case which weighs most heavily on the minds of all serious thinkers on Reform; and that is the influence which, if the Bill is carried as it stands at present, it will give in the future to the Party led by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. I am willing to accept the estimate—I wish to deal with the question in the most practical way— I am willing to accept the estimate which has been made by Members of that Party, as to the number of Representatives they will be able to return if this Franchise Bill should pass. That calculation goes up to 90 or 95, and I am sorry to say that I am not in a position to show that it is a very exaggerated estimate. If this Bill is carried, and a General Election is taken upon it without any Redistribution Bill, the result would probably be that the hon. Member for the City of Cork, or whoever may be at the moment the Leader of that movement, will have in this House from 90 to 95 followers. It has also boon said that if this Bill does not pass, the hon. Member will return after the next General Election with 70 or 80 followers. I think that that is an exaggeration. I believe we should be very well able to hold our own. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) who said the other day that the Conservatives and the Whigs, by acting together, ought to be able to return 35 or 40 Members to the next Parliament against the Parnellites. Therefore, the difference which the Bill makes is not merely 10 or 15 Members, but 25 or 30. I know that the arguments I am putting forward now are arguments which will be treated by advanced Reformers as perfectly unworthy of consideration in this House. These gentlemen go altogether on other and general principles, and yet it is not very long since we had high authority for relying on these very apprehensions. I am speaking of the maxim deliberately laid down by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, and to which I beg now particularly to recall the attention of the House and the country; I allude to a speech which was made by the noble Marquess about a year and a-half ago to his constituents. In that speech the noble Marquess stated that the present Parliament was perfectly capable of dealing with the questions
    1576
    of local government and with the franchise for Britain; but he went on to say, speaking of the proposal to include Ireland in such measures, that in his opinion it would be madness to volunteer to give to Ireland a more extended local self-government until they received from the Representatives of the Irish people some assurance that it would not be used for the purpose of agitation and for the purpose of weakening the authority of the Crown. That was the proposition then deliberately laid down by the noble Marquess; so it remained, apparently, in the mind of the noble Marquess for more than a year, and I do not know by what process the noble Marquess has been led to change that opinion. But he went on to say that, while there was no franchise or power possessed by, or afterwards to be conferred upon, the English people, that he would withhold from Ireland as soon as he was persuaded that she was contented to remain an integral portion of the United Kingdom, he would plead for Ireland that she should have an interval of repose from such exciting legislation. This opinion, which the noble Marquess expressed at that time, I am sure, recommended itself to nine-tenths of the common-sense politicians of the country as a sound, reasonable, and just view to take of the question. But, before I proceed further on this point, I should like to add a word as to what has been said and to what has not been said by Ministers on the subject of a Redistribution Bill. I do not intend to trouble the House with any observations as to the propriety of making a reduction in the number of Members returned by Ireland. I only mention the topic as throwing some light upon the way the Irish Party are likely to be approached when the question arises of the redistribution of the constituencies of Ireland inter se. It is perfectly plain that when the Prime Minister made his overture to Irish Members below the Gangway, he did so with the hope of conciliating, or, at all events, of averting the opposition of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his followers. Now, let me ask this question—If the Prime Minister felt himself compelled to make that rash and sudden pledge to the hon. Member for the City of Cork, while he stands in this House with 40 Irish Representatives as his followers, what

    1577
    would he or any other English politician feel himself called upon to do, if, instead of 40 Members, he had to deal with 90 or 95? Let me follow this up a little further, for really it is the kernel of the present controversy. Is the redistribution which hon. Members talk about to be brought about in the present House of Commons? If the Franchise Bill were carried alone, it would secure to the hon. Member for the City of Cork 90 or 95 followers. How, then, would any Minister be received who approached the hon. Member and proposed, in the last days of this doomed and dying Parliament, that he should give up 20 or 30 of those seats? When is it to be done? In the next Parliament, after a General Election shall have given 90 or 95 followers to the hon. Member? Is it to be done as part of a Redistribution Bill for the Three Kingdoms? At such a time of keen contest, of contending interests, of the hot rivalries between different English Parties and places, one single independent vote would fetch a famine price. But what will be the market value of a cohort of nearly 100 free lances perfectly disciplined to act together under the Leadership of their cool-headed and experienced Commander? Where, let me ask, will be found the Government so strong, and where the Parliament so patriotic, which would have the courage and patience to attempt to carry such a proposal against such an opposition? No; you must make up your minds to this. If this Franchise Bill be carried without such safeguards as are demanded by the Amendment—if Parliament parts with it without having secured the redress of these evils—you will have saddled this House permanently with 90 or 95 Members returned by Irish constituencies, pledged, every one of them, to vote solidly together for the purpose of breaking up the Union of the Three Kingdoms, and, as they have plainly told you, until they have achieved that end, resolved to make the conduct of Public Business in this House impossible. How long do you suppose that the frail machinery of Party Government, with all its incidents of intense rivalry, of strong temptation, of momentary exigency—a machinery which was never intended to meet such a peril—how long would it be able to resist the steady pressure of these 90 or 95 Members who are prepared to sub-
    1578
    ordinate every other consideration of foreign and domestic policy until they have wrested from you the concession of the independence of Ireland? But, then, we are promised by hon. Gentlemen opposite that we may rely upon it that the English people will see right done in the matter. We were especially assured of that by a right hon. Gentleman who is certainly entitled to speak with considerable authority on the subject. I refer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. He told the House that his decision to support the application of the Bill to Ireland was one which he had arrived at only after great and long doubting as to whether he was justified in doing so or not The grounds on which he seems to have got over the difficulty are very strange and suggestive. The right hon. Gentleman said that some people fear that, by constant changes in the relative power of English. political Parties, the hon. Member for the City of Cork will become the arbiter of the destinies of the United Kingdom, because he could make his support "useful." Now, I think that was a, very curious and interesting statement, coming from the right hon. Gentleman, who had himself dragged to light and exposed an expression, which was not at all dissimilar, in a famous letter sent on a historic occasion by the hon. Member for the City of Cork to the hon. and gallant Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford said it might be feared that the hon. Member for the City of Cork would make his support "useful," and added that the hon. Member would get almost all he wanted by controlling the action of the different Parties; "but," said the right hon. Gentleman—
    "I am not afraid of that, because Party men in this House are too patriotic, and because the householders of Great Britain would make short work of any Government which could give way to the dictates of a small minority."
    It may not, however, be quite so small a minority; but suppose it were to be a small minority, I must say no one is more capable of gauging the patriotism, of politicians on such a subject than the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he is, as was wittily said the other day by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel), "a refugee in the corner;" I

    1579
    would say that he is rather an honourable exile from Office, having left the Government because he would not consent to an Act of the kind which he deseribed, when he spoke of the destruction which would follow any Government which dared to attempt such a step. There sits the right hon. Gentleman on the Bench behind the Treasury, a danger signal—like a bell buoy on the ocean, to mark the spot where the Kilmainham Treaty sank. But the Government ship sails gaily over the wreck, and they are now engaged in further —I suppose I must not call it a Treaty, but in further "arrangements," which the right hon. Gentleman himself described as clearly another "concession to the Irish Members." As to the householders holding any Government accountable for such a transaction, I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman is justified in his confident expectation; for I am afraid that before very long the householders of England, Scotland, and Wales will have an opportunity of putting their patriotism and firmness on this subject to a very serious trial. I want now to say a word on behalf of the loyal minority in Ireland, whose voice has not yet been heard from these Benches; and when I speak of them, I wish the House distinctly to understand that this is not a landlords' question. Some hon. Members said in the debate the other day, in a general way— "Oh, it is only the landlords of Ireland who are the loyal minority." Nothing can be further from the truth than that. In speaking of the Loyal Party, I am thinking of more than 1,000,000 Protestants living in Ulster and outside Ulster, embracing all classes of the people, but mainly composed of farmers in the counties, and artizans in the towns—aye, and thousands and hundreds of thousands of Catholics in Ulster and out of Ulster, who are just as much devoted to the maintenance of the Union between the two countries as any hon. Member of this House. These are the men who, through all the difficulties, through all the dangers, through all the temptations, and through all the terrors of the last few years, never threw in their lot with the hon. Member for the City of Cork, but stood firm and true to the maintenance of the Union. These are the men referred to, not long ago, by the right hon. Gen-
    1580
    tleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in a speech to his constituents, as that Party in Ireland which was not confined by any means to Conservatives, but included the Whig Party of Ulster as well, and which he hoped lie might describe as "the greater Ireland." In that description, I am afraid, the right hon. Gentleman took too sanguine a view; but there can be no doubt whatever that considerably more than one-third of the whole population of Ireland are loyal. Then I would ask the House—Are not these men entitled to be fairly represented in the Imperial Parliament? Are not their rights to be safeguarded? I do not care to appeal for the sake of old attachment between England and the Loyalists of Ireland; but I put it upon the ground of your own interests at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), speaking the other night, seemed to think that the Members for two or three counties were quite enough for the loyal minority in Ireland, and that they would be fairly represented by such a number in this House. Let it be remembered that this minority is not a minority composed wholly of Protestants. Neither is the principle which binds them together, and on which they are perfectly identified, a crotchet—it is one that is vital to their political existence, and which goes to the very root of their liberties as free citizens. It is a principle for which they have shown themselves prepared to risk and, if necessary, to sacrifice their lives. If ever, then, there was a case in which a minority was entitled to the support and protection of this House, it is the Loyalist minority in Ireland. Certainly, this exigency of Her Majesty's Government is a great windfall for the hon. Member for the City of Cork. It bids fair not only to increase his power, but to practically extinguish his opponents absolutely and for ever. Let me urge my cause on yet another ground. After the next General Election, the hon. Member for the City of Cork will certainly return to this House with a very considerably increased following. He will as certainly renew his demand for a separate Irish nationality. You say you are resolved to resist that demand. But will it make no difference to you if you are then able to appeal in the presence

    1581
    of the public opinion of this country, of foreign countries, and of our own Colonies, to the existence in Ireland, as proved by the presence of their Representatives in this House, of a considerable proportion of people who are resolutely opposed to any scheme for the dismemberment of the Empire? Will it make no difference, especially to you who are pledged to governing Ireland according to Irish ideas? Imagine the joy with which, in such a crisis, the winning even of a single bye-election by a Loyalist would be hailed. Yet this Bill proposes to hand over, wholesale, 20 or 30 more votes to the Separatist Party than they are entitled to claim, even on the ground of mere numbers, to say nothing of education, wealth, or the payment of taxes. I cannot stay to argue upon the folly of the time selected for the introduction of this Bill. You cherish hopes that the power of the hon. Member for the City of Cork is breaking up. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, catching at any straw, dwelt upon that possibility. For myself, I am sorry to say that I can see no symptoms of the breaking up of the power and authority of the hon. Member for the City of Cork; but, even supposing that there really was such a chance, why did you not wait until the thing happened, instead of now, when the hon. Member is at the zenith of his power, stereotyping his influence and authority by sending to the assistance of the phalanx which he commands such a large additional number of supporters to secure for him without delay his ultimate triumph? Then I have heard another and a very strange argument. It is said— "What matters it whether 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, or 90 Members from Ireland are led by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. The case is already as bad as it can be? "I will not call it an argument at all; it is only a lazy, listless, and reckless excuse on the part of those who wish to shirk trouble and shrink from responsibility. I say that in the mere physical difficulty of opposing the Separatist Party in this House it must make the greatest difference, but it is to the moral value of every Irish vote that you can fairly save on I this question whether you are going to maintain or to sacrifice the Union between the two countries—the question which predominates over and overwhelms in
    1582
    importance all others—that I attach such critical importance. Let me back my reasoning on this subject by one quotation from an unexpected ally. There have been great doubts expressed as to whether, if this Bill passes, it will really have the effect of strengthening the power of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Party, and it has even been urged by some that it would have an opposite effect. Hon. Members from England and Scotland, who are sincerely anxious to support this Bill, surely have been driven to strange devices in order to find arguments in justification of the course they are prepared to take. They say it is a mistake to think that the hon. Member for the City of Cork will be strengthened; that, on the contrary, his power will be broken up. Now I must admit that the hon. Member, in the only appearance he has entered on this subject, when he spoke on the first reading of the Bill—he was not here, I believe, when his Lieutenant, the hon. Member for Wexford, enlightened the House this evening—the hon. Member for the City of Cork helped the Government as much as he could. His speech, on that occasion, was a very remarkable one. He deprecated all passion or heat, and treated the effect which the measure would have upon his own position in Ireland as very trifling. He said he hardly thought he could get as many as 90 Members; and, if he did, it would make no difference at all. In point of fact, the hon. Member said everything that he possibly could in order to assuage the fears of English Members and reconcile them to the Bill. With the permission of the House. I will read an extract from a speech made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, at another time and to a different audience—at a meeting held for the purpose of founding the present National League of Ireland. On that occasion, when the hon. Member was organizing that agitation and laying down the lines upon which it was to proceed, and holding out the hopes which were to encourage his supporters, this is what he told them, and I beg the attention of the House to it. Speaking on the 18th of October, 1882, the hon. Member said—
    "We comprise about 40 out of the 103 Members Ireland is entitled to send to the House of Commons. It is true that, even under the pre-

    1583
    sent franchise, we can hope largely to increase our present numbers at the next General Election without altering at all the franchise. We trust to increase our numbers to at least 65 or 70, and we then should, at least, constitute the majority of the Irish Representatives, and not be under the imputation, as at present, that we are only a fraction or minority of that representation. But to get such a representation as would secure, for instance, the creation of National Self-Government for Ireland, we require to return 80 or 90. Members to the House of Commons, and we cannot hope for this until the franchise has been lowered, at least as far as the basis of household suffrage."
    This is, then, exactly the original object and the main purpose with which the hon. Member founded the National League, which is now in full swing in Ireland; and it is in face of that object, and in face of that warning and protest, that the English Government are preparing to give this overwhelming and preponderating power to the hon. Member, so that, with the conveniences which he has described, he will be able to fulfil has prophecy, by stamping out those in Ireland who are still friendly to the Union! I bog the House to weigh this serious state of things, and this well considered and deliberate statement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, who must understand this subject at all events, against all these vague and general propositions about the good time coming for Ireland, when, after you have made this last concession, she is to settle down in peace and contentment. Admirable moralizing! But I should like to ask the Government how they expect to impress these excellent precepts upon the minds of men whose ideas are but too faithfully represented by such, speeches, as we sometimes hear from the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) and the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy)? Through what channels do you expect to pour these gentle antidotes? They never read a word of publications that contain such respectable platitudes. They are accustomed to diet of a different kind. They believe what is said by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and they read the newspapers which support his cause even in stronger language than hon. Members are accustomed to hear in this House—stronger even than we heard from the lips of the hon. Member for Wexford this very evening. The hon. Member for Cork has long ago assured them that the real reason why Ireland
    1584
    was included in the Bill was that otherwise he and his Party would not have permitted any measure to be carried at all. Realizing all these things, I stand in amazement at the folly which is hurrying forward this fatal measure; and, often as I listen to the wise saws and abstract reasons by which its supporters try to keep up their confidence in this last reckless experiment, I am reminded of that remarkable saying of Lord Dufferin, when dealing with a not very different school of critics, in his famous despatch upon the Egyptian Question. He said—
    "The situation of the country is too critical, the problems immediately pressing for solution are too vital to be tampered with, even in the interests of political philosophy."
    I am quite sure there are a great many hon. Members in this House—I do not know how many—who have hailed the decided improvement in the condition of Ireland, as shown in the subsidence of agrarian crime and the more general tranquillity of the country, as the harbinger of the existence of those conditions which the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War laid down in his speech at Bacup, and that they really believe that the Irish people have become reconciled to obedience to the law and to the maintenance of the Union. I am not going to repeat again what I said on that subject— against laying too much stress upon those signs of improvement—when I had the opportunity of speaking in the debate on the Address. I think, however, I am content to recall the attention of the House to the very remarkable statement made here, a few days ago, by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, when he encouraged the Irish farmers to unite in a strike against the payment of the police tax; and when I add that that teaching has been carefully improved and disseminated as far as possible in Ireland by the Press which supports that Separatist Party, I think these considerations are enough to show how far we are still from the state of affairs which was required by the noble Marquess as the condition of granting the same measures to Ireland which he is prepared to grant to England, and also to show how near we are still to the time when the law of the League was the law of the land. I implore hon. Mem-

    1585
    bers not to be too much influenced by the subsidence of agrarian crime. I rejoice at it as much as any man in this House can do; but I pray you not to lay your heads too calmly on the opium-pillow of security and repose, lost, while you sleep and slumber, the door of this House may be pushed gently open, and you may awaken to find that your threshold has been crossed and your House thronged in over whelming numbers by those men, who frankly tell you they come here for no other purpose than to break up the Union of the Three Kingdoms. I will not enlarge upon the certain consequence of that movement if it succeeds. It has been laid down as an axiom by all the great thinkers and statesmen of England in former times that the repeal of the Union would mean nothing less than the breaking up of the Empire; and if such ends were sought by open force you all say you would resist it to the bitter end. But to-day the danger is of a more subtle, and therefore more formidable kind; and it is, in my opinion, nearer to you than it has been within this century. And yet I am very glad to be able to assure the House that, quite independently of the policy of the present Government, or of any Government—I should say, despite the policy of the present Government—there are forces at work in Ireland which, under more favourable circumstances, might lead that country on to a happier future. Education and material prosperity are spreading over the land their civilizing influences. The rapidly-increasing interchanges of commerce, and the interweaving of financial interests, the frequent passing to and fro of men across the inhospitable sea—oceanus dissociabilis—or, as it was once translated by an Irish schoolboy— "The Channel which repudiates the Union." These influences are spanning and bridging the Channel, and ought to bring the peoples of the two countries more closely together; and I am perfectly certain in this House there is no feeling more strong, in spite of the bitter invectives and furious slanders to the contrary sometimes heard from Irish Members below the Gangway. There is no fooling stronger in this House than the desire for a lasting reconciliation—a desire felt not more on one side of the House than on the other. But realize,
    1586
    I pray you, what are the conditions which you are preparing for the last act of this solemn drama. Separation will be demanded after the next General Election by those who demand it now; but their numbers will be seriously increased. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford said he would rather meet the hon. Member for Cork in this House than confront his associates in Ireland. I cannot see the force of the remark. What really will happen? The conspirator in Ireland, the assassin, will not be more loth to take his place behind the hedge, and the dynamiter to deposit his carefully-constructed clockwork, whenever it is thought that another tug at the chapel bell will be useful. The amount of external pressure will be carefully regulated so as to increase the power, but not to spoil the game, of the Parliamentary Representatives of the movement. But you will meet them in the House of Commons redoubled in numbers, and more than ever willing, confident, and able to protect their confederates operating in the country. Let me put the case to Ministers and Members opposite from one other point of view. What is your answer when you are confronted with the fact that after all your boasted policy of concession the Irish people seem to be more estranged from you and from England than ever? You say— "Wait a bit; the operation of our healing measures is necessarily slow; but time is on our side," and so on. I suppose your hope is that you may win away at last the minds even of the passionate people of my country from their false guides, and that common sense, and a sense of common interests, may again draw them into a friendly fellow-citizen-ship? You expect that the effect of your acts of conciliation, according to the natural course of such a policy, must soon influence the more reasonable and educated of those classes in Ireland who have lately been in revolt against your rule, and that it may gradually work down through the various strata, even to the lowest, the most ignorant, the most bitterly prejudiced? That, at the best, must take time, and a long time. Yet, without giving a moment's respite for such a change to be accomplished, at one bound you outstrip the operation of those influences, and place practically the whole of the electorate power in the hands of those who are absolutely un-

    1587
    fitted for it; and to the Representatives of those classes of Irishmen certain not to be converted for years to come you give such an over whelming influence that they will inevitably control and guide the fortunes of Party warfare, and the i future action of Parliament, not only for Ireland, but for the Empire! I have to thank the House for its attention. I have endeavoured, as far as possible, to avoid saying anything which could introduce into the debate the heats of Party conflict; and I have sought to plead—to plead patiently—the cause of the Irish Loyalist. I solemnly warn the House that in this controversy, which, believe me, is not now at an end, and of which, I fear, you have not yet heard the worst, the act which the Government are now asking you to do will absolutely efface the influence of the men who might be your friends in Ireland, and will give an overwhelming preponderance in that country and in this House to those who are resolved to destroy the Union and break up the Empire.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he felt; that his hon. Friend the Member for: Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) would see that a very serious obstacle had already been raised in the way of the suggestion made in the course of his speech. He thought that the eloquent, graceful, statesmanlike, and powerful speech to which they had just listened, would very; much indispose the House and the country to deprive itself of such ornaments of debate as the Representatives; for the Universities of Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. He was not going to touch the Irish Question, which had been so exhaustively dealt with that evening, nor was he going into any side issues with reference to minority representation, or kindred subjects of which they had heard so much. He wished to say a word or two upon the Amendment actually before the House, which suggested that this measure should be postponed until the whole redistribution scheme of Her Majesty's Government was before them. That Amendment was very skilfully drawn; it secured the support of three classes of the opponents of the Bill. It secured the support of those who did not object on principle to the extension of the franchise to householders in rural and urban districts, but who contended that the
    1588
    grouping of those was so essential an element that they declined to support the scheme without redistribution; it secured the support of those who altogether objected to the measure, and whose opposition no possible scheme of redistribution would remove; and it also secured the support of those who, not venturing to oppose the measure openly, disguised their hostility under the cover of an Amendment which enabled them to vote against the Bill without saying what they really meant. The noble Lord's argument rested, to a great extent, upon the precedents of 1832 and 1867. With the permission of the House, he would point out the essential difference between this measure and those to which the noble Lord referred —it was that the latter were disfranchising as well as enfranchising measures. They deprived persons who already had the vote, and gave it to others possessing the same qualification living in different localities. But the present measure did not deprive a man of his vote at all; it simply altered the locality in which the vote was to be exercised; and although it did not remove the anomalies in the present system of electoral distribution, it would bring home to hon. Gentlemen opposite the injustice under which the boroughs had been suffering in consequence of the unfair redistribution which had been settled upon them in 1867. The number of borough Members in the Kingdom at the present time was 360, and the number of county Members 283; the former representing only 15,000,000, and the latter 20,000,000 of the population. Now, that disproportion already existed; and although the extension of the franchise would aggravate the difference, it would not really make the condition of things worse than at present. But no possible contrast of this anomaly could parallel the electoral absurdities of the present system, because it depended upon the contingency that this Parliament would be dissolved before it had dealt with the whole scheme. Now, only in three events could that contingency arise. The first was, that the Bill became law this year, and that Parliament was dissolved this year; the second was, that if the present Bill became law this year, and the Dissolution occurred next year; and the third was, that the Government would postpone bringing in a Redistri-

    1589
    bution Bill until after the Dissolution of Parliament. The date on which a man's qualification was ascertained was the 31st July. That qualification was maintained for 12 months. Any election that took place this year must be based upon the existing register, which was made up to January last. The present measure, unless a clause which it did not now contain were inserted in it, could not confer electoral power until the 1st of January, 1886. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL. (Sir Henry James): No, no !] The hon. and learned Gentleman said "No, no!" He would make that point clearer. He admitted that if the Bill received the Royal Assent before the 31st of July this year, it might possibly come into force on the 1st of January, 1885; but as no one would consider that it could receive the Royal Assent before the 31st of July this year, any election which took place in 1884 or 1885 must be decided by the existing constituencies. The real opposition to this Bill was the opposition of the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite—namely, the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) and the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), who believed that the Bill would effect a transfer of political power dangerous to the public welfare. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge said that there was a sort of compact entered into in 1832, by virtue of which the middle classes were contented that the county constituency should be left to property holders; and he contended that the same sort of arrangement took place in 1867, and that a counterpoise to the artizan franchise was to be found in the restricted occupation franchise in the counties. If that extraordinary theory did exist, then his reply would be that those who were not parties to those bargains could not be bound by them; and, inasmuch as the borough householders who were left out in 1832 were not debarred from obtaining their rights in 1867, so the county householders of 1867 were not debarred from obtaining their rights in 1884. But that was a repetition of the old argument about interests and classes, which had been dealt with by his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) that evening. He would like to ask whether those who entertained this view had
    1590
    taken into consideration and calculated the proportion of the wage-earning classes, and the amount of political power to which they were on that ground entitled? The wage-earning class comprised the bulk of the population; they produced the largest amount of national wealth, and gave the largest amount to the national income. Their production was valued at £500,000,000, while they paid 40 per cent of the National Revenue. On, what principle was this gigantic and preponderating interest to be represented? Formerly numerous interests were represented in Parliament. There was the East India interest, the West India interest, the Colonial interest. and the Shipping interest; but the experiment had been tried, and had failed, inasmuch as the political ignorance and subserviency of the Parliaments which represented those interests had only been surpassed by the venality and the corruption of the constituencies by which they were elected. There was one interest into which all others merged, which all other classes were bound to support, in which they all shared the interest of the people as a whole, and it was upon that standpoint that lie claimed the privileges of citizenship for all those who discharged its duties. The possession of political power and its use constituted the best education of the people; and he believed that the artizans of 1884 were superior in political information to the £10 householders of 1832. There were, of course, capable and incapable men in all grades of society—there was a residuum in all classes; but that was no argument against the extension of the franchise to those classes—because some people were drowned it was no reason for keeping everybody out of the water until they could swim. Gentlemen on those Benches supported it as a measure of popular government; and although he admitted that the power which it gave might not always be exercised wisely, or always exercised with justice, for blunders and mistakes were inherent in all human institutions, yet he and his hon. Friends had no fear of the result. The truth was that there were two policies with regard to the people of this country which the House could adopt — that of trust, tempered by prudence, or that of distrust, tempered by fear. He anticipated the success of

    1591
    the former policy, which to his mind was one of wisdom and justice, one that would strengthen the Constitution by widening the base upon which it rested, while at the same time it strengthened that system of Party government which controlled and checked the administration of the national affairs. It was the boast of Lord Beaconsfield in 1867 that he had created the Conservative working man. So long as they excluded the mass of the people from the pale of the Constitution they compelled them to assume a hostile attitude; but the moment they admitted them they gave full play to those political instincts, which were as natural to the cottage as to the mansion. The artizans and peasants did not belong to one political Party only; they had ranked themselves some with one Party and some with another; and he believed that their accession to political life would not only strengthen the working of our institutions, but would add great political force to the two great Parties of the State, whoso healthy rivalry and whose common patriotism had been the story of our political freedom, lie commended the Bill to those hon. Members, Liberal as well as Conservative, who foresaw that in the near future there were social and political problems to be solved, whose solution would tax the energies of our best and wisest statesmen; and he commended it also to the support of all who were desirous of erecting another bulwark around that system of law and liberty, order and progress, which was the proud and peerless inheritance of the English people.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Stuart- Worthy,)—put, and agreed to.
    Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.— [BILL 144.]
  (The Marquess of Hartington, The Judge Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.— [BILL 144.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he hoped the Bill would not be proceeded with at that hour—12.40. He had supposed, from
    1592
    the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, that the Motion for going into Committee would not be made at a time when it was perfectly impossible for the House to do justice to the throe important Amendments which stood on the Paper in the names of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) and himself. Of course, if the Government only desired to move the Bill into Committee, and would give an assurance that the clauses would not be considered except at a time when it would be competent for Irish Members to direct attention to these important matters to which the Amendments referred, he should not persevere in the course which otherwise he intended to pursue. He wanted an assurance that the Bill would not be taken at an hour when the House had been wearied out by an exhausting discussion, and when it would be impossible to obtain for the proposed Amendments that attention to which their importance justly entitled them. He also directed attention to the fact that although the Bill had been ruled to be beyond the half-past 12 o'clock Rule, yet such was not the case with former Army (Annual) Bills, and it was owing to that fact that they had succeeded in carrying certain Amendments after full discussion. He, therefore, trusted that the Government would give them the opportunity of bringing these matters fairly before the House. He felt every confidence that if they did so—if they gave the opportunity he asked for of taking the debate at a reasonable hour, and of enabling the House to devote attention to the matter —hon. Members would be able to impress the House with the justice of their view, and obtain some alteration of the very onerous conditions which the Act now imposed on the soldiers of the Army. He begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Parnell.)
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I should be very glad, if it were possible, to give a better and more convenient opportunity for the discussion of the important Amendments in the Bill than is afforded on the present occasion. I fear, however, from the necessities of the Public Service, that the Bill must be

    1593
    passed through this House before the Easter Recess; and that, therefore, no more convenient opportunity than the present will arise for taking this stage of the Bill. I would suggest to the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) that the question I whether the discussion on the Bill can be taken to-morrow night will depend, to a considerable extent, on the hon. Member himself and his Friends. The principal Amendment on going into Committee of Supply to-morrow is one to be moved by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy); and if that Motion brings about a prolonged debate, I am afraid we should have no chance of taking this discussion at an earlier hour than now. If, however, it is likely that the debate on the Motion will be concluded at an early hour, we shall have no objection, if the Speaker be allowed to leave the Chair now, to the postponement of the discussion in Committee until to-morrow. If that course is taken, it must be on the understanding that we must ask the Committee to proceed with the discussion of the Bill at any hour at which it may be readied. I am afraid that on Monday the Sitting will probably be a still later one than this; and that Tuesday, when the House, it is hoped, will adjourn for the Easter Recess, will not be a convenient opportunity for discussing the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman thinks there is any probability that the Motion of the hon. Member for Longford will be disposed of to-morrow at an earlier hour than we have now reached, I should have no objection to an adjournment immediately we got into Committee.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he thought that, on the whole, there would be a better chance of the hon. Member's Amendment to the Army Bill being discussed to-morrow than to-night. The Irish Members expected a full debate on his (Mr. Justin M'Carthy's) Motion to-morrow; but, at the same time, they would endeavour to keep within reasonable limits, and he should think there would be a good chance of reaching the Bill at an earlier period than they had arrived at it now. He would, therefore, suggest that the course pointed out by the noble Lord should be agreed to.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he considered that, on the whole, the course proposed would be a convenient one. The noble Marquess said just now that the necessities of the
    1594
    Public Service required that the Bill should pass before the Easter Recess; but he (Mr. Sexton) had always, hitherto, understood that if the Army (Annual) Bill passed before the 30th April—27 days distant—it would be in time. He was, therefore, curious to know how the noble Lord could say that the Bill should pass anything like before Easter? There was no reason to apprehend that they would not be able to reach the discussion of the clauses of the Bill at an earlier hour than the present —a quarter before 1.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he would point out to the noble Marquess that, although the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork agreed to the arrangement suggested, he could have no control whatever over the Motions of hon. Gentlemen on the Paper subsequent to that of the hon. Member for Longford. There was a Motion down in the name of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) on the subject of the fees levied upon the suitor in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Then, one of the Members for Westminster (Lord Algernon Percy) had a Motion to call attention to the Carriage Tax, and move a Resolution. There were several other Motions down, and, of course, one in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) with regard to the time of the Session at which the Estimates should be proceeded with. It appeared to him that if the Irish Members agreed to the suggestion of the noble Lord they would be obliging themselves to curtail the discussion on the Motion of the hon. Member for Longford only to make way for those Gentlemen who had Motions down subsequent to that of his hon. Friend. It should depend on the engagements given to-night whether or not Irish Members curtailed their speeches to-morrow.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought it would be best for him to withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress; but, at the same time, he must express a hope that the Government would use their influence with hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House who had Motions on the Paper subsequent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Longford to induce them not to proceed with those Motions, in order to allow the Army Bill to come on at a reasonable time.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that, as far as lie was concerned, his Motion to-morrow depended very much upon what was done with the Royal Courts of Justice Bill, which was down on the Paper for to-night. If reasonable time was given for the discussion of that Bill he had no intention of pressing his Motion; in fact, he would much rather take the discussion on the Bill, seeing that the measure involved the question contained in his Motion.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that, with reference to the Bill in question, he should he quite ready to meet the convenience of the hon. Member as far as possible. It was impossible, he feared, to bring it on any night at an earlier hour; but, as it was a Money Bill, they would not he precluded from proceeding with it at whatever hour it was reached.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) was not the only person who took an interest in this question. Strong representations with regard to it had been made to him (Mr. Tomlinson).
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  TRUSTEE CHURCHES (IRELAND) BILL . [Lords.]— [BILL 157]
  (Mr. Gibson.)
  TRUSTEE CHURCHES (IRELAND) BILL . [Lords.]— [BILL 157]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House."
    MR. HEALYsaid, that on this question he wished to express a hope that the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) would remember the courtesy which had been shown him in respect of this Bill by the Irish Members below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House. They bad refrained from putting a block against the measure, and in return for that consideration it was to he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would remember the circumstance when he (Mr. Healy) and his Friends had little Bills down, and would refrain from putting blocking Notices against them him-
    1596
    self, or from inciting others to do it when he did not like openly to adopt that course himself.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he would reciprocate the courtesy of hon. Members below the Gangway whenever they had Bills analogous to the present measure down on the Paper.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (REPEAL,&c.) BILL.— [BILL.55.]
  (Mr. Hibbert, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (REPEAL,&c.) BILL.— [BILL.55.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."— (Mr. Hibbert.)
    MR. GREGORYappealed to the hon. Member to take some convenient day for this Bill, and then let it be brought on at an earlier hour. It was a Bill of considerable importance, and it might be brought on some day—and he did not care how soon—after Easter.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would support that appeal.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, this was a matter which interested suitors very much. He had had many representations made to him upon it, and he intended to discuss the subject when he could get an opportunity. The Bill had come before the House in a most mysterious manner. The hon. Member in charge of it moved the second reading by touching his hat, and not saying a single word upon it.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, this was a Money Bill.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDreplied that, therefore, it could not be blocked. A serious charge was about to be put upon suitors; and, therefore, the subject was one which should be seriously discussed, and not when there was scarcely anyone present. To fix it for to-day was only fixing it formally for the day, and he hoped there would be no difficulty in fixing it for discussion soon after Easter.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not propose to fix the Bill for to-day, and he would see what could be arranged.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION OVER CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 75.]
  (Mr. Gibson, Sir Richard Wallace, Mr. Blake, Mr. Corry.)
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION OVER CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 75.]

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed) "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he had been looking through Section 4 of this Bill since the discussion the other night which led the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) to make an important alteration. Instead of providing that a child might be both flogged and sent to prison, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made flogging an alternative punishment; but on looking over the Bill he (Mr. Sexton) found that Sub-section 4 of Section 4 provided that—
    "This section shall not prejudice the right of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to send a child to a reformatory or industrial school."
    He wished to know whether this subsection would over-ride the alternative provision; whether a child, having been flogged, could be sent to a reformatory or industrial school, or whether the punishment should be simply alternative; and whether, in case of flogging, there would be no other punishment inflicted? Unless he was satisfied by the right lion, and learned Gentleman that Sub-section 4 did not cancel the apparent concession given in the previous section he should move the adjournment of the debate, in order to give time for the further consideration of the section.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, the section as to industrial schools was a section which must be retained, because jurisdiction in reference to reformatories and industrial schools was obviously most important in the interest of children as well as of the general community; and he should be very sorry to see any change in the reformatory law. The Government, he knew, could not consent to any such change.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the power of flogging would then be given in addition to the power of sending to a reformatory or industrial school. He thought the House would agree with him that there would be no gain in giving this additional power to the police in the case of
    1598
    children whom the magistrates intended to send to a reformatory or industrial school for a long period. If the child's mind was to be reformed by a course of treatment and discipline in a reformatory, that treatment should take place under the management of the directors of the reformatory, and within the walls of the reformatory. It was not necessary, and, indeed, it was highly objectionable, to inflict additional penalties to those already given to magistrates in regard to the power of sending children to a reformatory. Nothing could be more objectionable, in reference to the punishment of children, than punishment inflicted by the authority of magistrates in ordinary prisons previous to the children being sent to reformatories. As the law now stood, children were often sent to gaol for a fortnight before being sent to a reformatory; they were put in cells and frightened out of their wits. In his judgment, the course to adopt would be to send a child at once to a reformatory, so that the reformatory course could be at once entered upon, without the child being first sent to gaol or subjected to the barbarous punishment of flogging, which this Bill provided. He therefore hoped that, in order that this point might be cleared up, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he would, of course, agree to the adjournment of the debate till to-morrow; but he believed there must be a short imprisonment first. He would make inquiry, and very likely he would be able to-morrow to give a satisfactory answer.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, that in some cases these children were dealt with without anyone being present to defend them. Parents, by this Bill, were not to be summoned, and there might be nobody present to defend the children. A child of 10 years of age could not answer for himself; and, therefore, he thought care should be taken not to punish him unless someone appeared for him.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  MOTIONS.
    LAND IMPROVEMENT AND ARTKRIAL DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL.

      LEAVE. FIRST READING.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts for facilitating the improvement of Landed Property, and for the drainage and improvements of lands in Ireland."—(Mr. Courtney.)
      COLONEL NOLANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether this was the same Bill as was carried last year, who had advised the Bill, and who had brought it in? The Secretary to the Treasury was, of course, quite capable of bringing in such a Bill as this, but he had not time to do so; and, therefore, someone else must have brought it in.
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, this was substantially the same Bill as was brought in last year. He did not think it necessary to say by whose advice it was brought in.
      MR. O'SHEAasked whether the hon. Gentleman was intending to propose that the whole system of arterial drainage in Ireland should be referred to a Select Committee?
      MR. HEALYexpressed a hope that this Bill would not be compromised by insidious arterial charges in consequence of judicial rents; because if there was anything of that kind it would probably have to be dropped.
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, there was no sort of foundation for that suggestion.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Mr. TREVELYAN.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 166.]

    TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE ACT, 1883.

      APPOINTMENT AND NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Schedules of The Annual Turnpike Acts Continuance Act, 1883 —Committee to consist of Lord Edward CAVENDISH, Mr. WENTWORTH BEAUMONT, Mr. BEACH, Mr. CLARE READ, Mr. LAMBTON, Viscount FOLKESTONE, and Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL:—Three to be the quorum."— (Mr. George Russell.)
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, it was supposed that this was a purely English Committee, to deal only with English questions. He should not have raised any question on the constitution of the Committee, if that was so; but he believed that the Committee, amongst other things, would consider the question of the amount of compensation to be paid to Turnpike Trusts on the valuation of turnpikes. That was not merely an English question, because some of the money would have to come from Irish sources, and there were many people in Ireland who took great interest in local affairs, and particularly in the question of rating. A certain sum of money was now being given to England, and no privilege was to be given to Ireland in regard to Irish rates. He had put this question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer direct; and the right hon. Gentleman had answered generally that there were a great many other things paid for in Ireland. This was a case in which an Irish Member might very well be put on the Committee, to see that these Trusts were abolished in a proper manner, and to see how Ireland was treated. He should move the omission of the name of Lord Edward Cavendish.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the name of Lord Edward Cavendish be omitted from the said Committee."—(Colonel Nolan.)
      MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, he had expected this point to be raised. The fact of the matter was that he had taken the constitution of the Committee over from his Predecessor, almost exactly as it stood before, except that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) was unwilling to serve; and he was very glad to avail himself of the services of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Glare Read). There was no disposition to exclude Irish Members from the Committee; but the number of the Committee had always been the same, and a wish had been expressed by the hon. Member who had always been Chairman that the number should not exceed that of former years. It was only on that account that he proposed the Committee as it now stood; and he believed the hon. and gallant Member was in error in supposing that Ireland was involved in the matter. It was a purely

      1601
      English subject, and the Members of the Committee were purely English.
      MR. HEALYsaid, this was now the last year of the sitting of the Committee, and, though that was so, it was really the most important year of all, because, as he understood it, it was the year in which the question of compensating those gentlemen whose rights were to be extinguished would come up for consideration. It was not an unreasonable thing to ask, seeing that the House had recognized that it was only fair that Irish Members should serve on English Committees, that an opportunity of enabling them to serve on such Committees should be given them. Irish Members were naturally anxious to servo on these Committees, in order that they might learn all about the Sister Island. Here was a Committee in connection with which a great deal of valuable information could be obtained. Some years ago a question was raised as to the personnel of these Committees and the question of nationality, and the Prime Minister admitted that the Third Party—who, they were told, were to have their numbers increased to such ail alarming extent in the future-— should be put on Committees. He thought, therefore, that they should have a Member on this Committee. He trusted that the Government, seeing that there was little contentious matter to be gone into on the Committee, would accede to the request now made, and put, an Irish Member on the Committee.
      MR. HIBBERTsaid, that, having sat on a similar Committee four years back, he might explain what it was called upon to do—although he did not wish to be understood as objecting to Irish Members being put upon such Committees. The subject to be considered by this Committee was entirely an English subject, and in no way whatever could any general question be raised. The question to be considered and reported upon was whether certain classes of roads should be disturnpiked or not, and the matter was, therefore, one only affecting certain local interests in England. Whether an Irish Member who was appointed on the Committee would not fool himself rather out of place was not for him but for the Committee to say. If he were asked whether he thought an Irish Member would to of any use on the Committee, he
      1602
      should certainly have to reply that he did not see how he could possibly be able to render much assistance; but, at the same time, he would not like to say that the appointment of an Irish Member would in any way interfere with the deliberations of the Committee. So far as he was personally concerned, he should not have the least objection to having an Irish Member placed on it. Hitherto these Committees had never had either Irish or Scotch Members on them. This was not the last year in which they would have to sit; in fact, he expected they would have to sit for several years to come. He had merely risen to given an explanation of the work the Committee had to do, and to say that he saw no objection to Irishmen being put on the Committee, although no advantage could possibly arise from it.
      MR. W. REDMONDsaid, it had been urged by Gentlemen on the Government Benches that it was unnecessary to have Irish Members on this Committee, on the ground that the Committee had to deal with affairs exclusively English. But had it not been often urged by Members of the Government, in justification of England interfering with Irish affairs, that Ireland and England were united in one Kingdom? Why were right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite so very reluctant to allow Irish Members to be appointed on this Committee, or to allow them to have anything at all to say in a matter which they declared to be thoroughly English? If this principle were followed out, and no English Members were appointed on Committees which referred to exclusively Irish matters, the Irish Members would be perfectly satisfied with the arrangement; but so long as English Members were appointed to take part in inquiries of an exclusively Irish character, the Irish Members were perfectly within their right in demanding to be represented on a Committee such as this. It appeared to him that the question of the appointment of this Committee had changed somewhat since last year, and that Ireland would certainly, to some extent, be interested in the result of the inquiry. He therefore thought the Irish Members were perfectly within their right, as his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) had pointed out, in demanding that an Irish Member should

      1603
      be put on the Committee. The demand was a very reasonable one, and he could not see why hon. Members opposite could not accede to it.
      MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the Scotch Members who had the other day demanded so loudly to be put upon an English Committee should support the Irish Members to-day. If the House did not accede to the present demand, they would be giving the Irish Members a strong argument in favour of Home Rule. It would be a dangerous principle to lay down that Scotch and Irish Members were not to take part in English Committees; but, at the same time, he should advise any Irish Friend of his not to seek to get placed upon this particular Committee in question, for the reason that it had been sitting for some years, and he would go amongst Gentlemen who were thoroughly conversant with the subject, possessing himself no knowledge whatever about it. In order to make himself even tolerably familiar with the subject, he would have to study 70 or 80 Acts of Parliament.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he hoped that what had fallen from the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Redmond) would fructify in the minds of the Government. To his mind, the arguments of his hon. Friends were as reasonable as it was possible to conceive any arguments could be. The work of the Committee for the present year would be to consider whether certain roads should be disturnpiked or not, and, if they were, whether the cost of the operation should come out of the rates instead of the County Fund; and, that being so, the interest of the Irish Members in the question was minimized. He should, under the circumstances, be disposed to ask his Friends not to persevere in their demand to have an Irish Member placed on the Committee. In the last year of the sitting of the Committee, however, why should not an Irish Member be appointed on it?
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, he would not press his Motion.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question put, and agreed to.
      Ordered, Thai it be an Instruction to the Committee that they hare power to inquire and report to the House under what conditions, with reference to the rate of interest, expenses of management, maintenance of road, payment of debt, and term of years, or other special arrange-
      1604
      ments, the Acts of the Trusts mentioned should be continued.
      Ordered, That all Petitions relating to the continuance or discontinuance of Turnpike Trusts be referred to the Committee.
      Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—(Mr. George Russell.)

      BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND) (NO. 2) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, Bill to consolidate and amend certain Acts and enactments relating to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Mr. Tre-VELYAN.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 165.]

      BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
      On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill for regulating the Police and Sanitary administration of towns and populous places, and for facilitating the union of Police and Municipal administration in Burghs in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
      Bill presented, and read the first time.[Bill 167.]
      House adjourned at half after One o'clock.