Commons Sitting of 6 February 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Ordered—First Heading—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors (Scotland)* [12]; Cemeteries* [21]; Inhabited House Duty* [36]; Companies' Acts Consolidation* [38].
Ordered—First Reading—Merchant Snipping * [1]; Elections (Hours of Polling) * [2]; Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) * [3]; Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases * [4]; Leaseholders (Facilities of Purchase of Fee Simple) * [5]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Further Powers) * [6]; Copyhold Enfranchisement * [7]; Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, Amendment * [8]; Patent Medicines * [9]; Disposal of the Dead (Regulations) * [10]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays* [11]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Cornwall) * [13]; Infants * [14]; Income Tax Administration Amendment* [15]; Labourers' (Ireland) Act Amendment * [16]; Church Patronage * [17]; Sites for Churches, &c. (Ireland) * [18]; Ecclesiastical Assessments (Scotland) * [19]; Elective Councils and County Government (Ireland) * [20]; Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) * [22]; Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 (Purchase Clauses) * [23]; Yorkshire Land Registries * [24]; Registration of Voters (Ireland) * [25]; Cruelty to Animals Acts Amendment * [26]; Fisheries (Ireland) * [27]; Vaccination Acts (Compulsory Clauses Repeal)* [28]; Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 (Extension to Leaseholders) * [29]; Land Perpetual Grant (Ireland)* [30]; National School Teachers (Ireland)* [31]; Trees Planting (Ireland) * [32]; Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Disabilities) * [33]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Yorkshire) * [34]; Employers' Liability Act (1880) Amendment* [35]; Salmon (Weekly Close Time)

95
(Ireland) * [37]; Lunatics (Ireland) * [39]; Waste Lands Afforestation (Ireland) * [40]; Mortmain Law Amendment * [41]; Dwelling Houses Inspection * [42]; Oyster Cultivation (Ireland)* [43]; Ground Game Act (1880) Amendment * [44]; School, &c. Buildings (Ireland)* [45]; Disused Burial Grounds* [46]; Orange Organisation (Ireland) * [47]; Supreme Court of Judicature (District Courts)* [48]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Fire Brigade Expenses) * [49]; Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister * [50]; Private Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) * [51]; Partnerships' Acts Consolidation * [52]; Bills of Exchange Registration * [53]; Registration of Firms * [54].

QUESTIONS, &c.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) -FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the Government intended to take any steps to protect home animals from foot-and-mouth disease?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, that his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council would introduce, in the other House, a Bill by which the powers of the Privy Council, under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878, would be extended in regard to the prohibition and regulation of the importation of diseased animals from foreign countries.
  MR. CHAPLINasked whether that measure would be pressed with all speed, both in this and in the other House of Parliament?
  MR. DODSONsaid, that the Government would, of course, exercise due diligence, having regard to the importance of this question and of other Business.
  MR. CHAPLINasked whether that meant this measure would take precedence of other Business in the House of Commons?
  No answer being given,
  MR. CHAPLINrepeated his Question at a subsequent stage, and desired to know whether, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke of "due diligence" being used, that meant that it would take precedence of other Government Business in this House, or would it be left to take its chance after the passing of the Reform and other Bills?
  MR. GLADSTONE: This Question relates to the conduct of Business, for
  96
  which I am responsible, and therefore I shall, and ought to, answer it. The Bill with respect to which my right hon. Friend has given information to the House will be introduced to the House of Lords, I hope, in the course of a very few days. It is not for me to state what the House of Lords may do with regard to the Bill. The Government certainly will lose no time in obtaining their judgment upon it. We shall likewise do the best in our power, if the Bill should reach this House, to push it forward; but when the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin) asks whether we intend to set aside the great measures mentioned in the Queen's Speech for the purpose of giving this particular Bill precedence over all other Business whatsoever, I answer distinctly to him we have no such intention.

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

  NOTICE OF AMENDMENT.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to give Notice that, on the Report of the Address, I shall move that these words be inserted after Paragraph 5—
  "And respectfully to express a hope that the entire evacuation of the country (Egypt) by Her Majesty's military forces will be as speedy as is consistent with the establishment of order and tranquillity."
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask whether it is in Order to give Notice now in regard to a Motion on the Report of the Address?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Address to Her Majesty not having bean agreed to, it is premature to give Notice of any Amendment on the Report.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN).
  MR. ASNMEAD - BARTLETT: I wish to ask whether any Member of the Government present is in a position to afford the House any authentic intelligence of the fate of General Baker and of the British officers and doctors who were with his unfortunate expedition?
  After a pause,
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: We are naturally anxious to know whether the Government have received any information from Egypt as to this disaster?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it was the intention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir -Charles W. Dilke), if the debate had not been interrupted last night, to have read to the House a telegram that we have received as to the failure of Baker Pasha's attempt to relieve Tokar. The words of the telegram are these—
  "Egyptian forces defeated at Tokar. Loss 2,000. Baker Pasha and remainder of troops returned to-day to Trinkitat. News by Her Majesty's ship Ranger just arrived."
  This telegram is from Pear Admiral Sir William Hewett, at Souakim, and it is the only information we possess on the subject.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: I should like to ask whether the Government have any further information as to General Gordon's movements; and, whether, considering the serious news we had yesterday, any further instructions have been sent to General Gordon?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have no further intelligence with regard to General Gordon's movements, and I do not think that it is within the range of possibility that we should have had any. Neither is there, in these unfortunate circumstances, anything that appears to us to call for, or to warrant, any change in our instructions to General Gordon. ["Oh, oh!"] He has discretionary powers of very considerable extent. That matter will be found to be sufficiently explained in Papers that were laid on the Table last night, and will, I believe, be distributed this morning.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Will Her Majesty's Government tell us whether any steps have been taken for landing Blue Jackets and Marines at Suakim?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir. In consequence of the reduced number, and, of course, the not very high quality of the force remaining in the Soudan, Admiral Hewett has landed a certain number of his men in order to restore confidence.
  A little later,
  MR. GLADSTONEadded: My noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) has just informed me of the arrival of a telegram which came only last night, and could not be included in the Blue Book. I have not seen it in its
  98
  telegraphic form; but it contains the further intelligence that General Gordon's appointment has been announced as that of Governor General of the Soudan for the purposes described in the Queen's Speech, with full power to take all measures, civil and military, which he may think necessary.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Sir, I wish to give Notice of a Motion which I intend to propose as an Amendment to the Address, and to ask your ruling on a point of Order, as on that ruling will depend whether or not I place it before the House. That Amendment will be in these terms—
  "And humbly to pray your Majesty that, in view of the great and increasing peril into which your Majesty's vast foreign and Imperial interests have been drawn by the counsels of your Majesty's present Advisers, and for the purpose of arresting further useless and wanton bloodshed, and of averting, as far as possible, further disasters from falling either upon your Majesty's arms, or on those of your allies, your Majesty will be most graciously pleased to dismiss from your service your present Ministers, and to call to your counsels such other persons as may possess the confidence of your Majesty's subjects."
  That Amendment is founded on the precedent of 1841, when Lord Melbourne's Government were turned out of Office. I wish to ask whether, in moving that Amendment, anything which has already passed will preclude a general reference to the affairs of Egypt, Ireland, or the Transvaal? Of course, if, by your ruling, it would be out of Order to go into Egyptian matters on this Amendment, then it, or some other Amendment of this nature, must be moved on another occasion. On that point, Sir, I wish respectfully to ask for your ruling.
  MR. SPEAKER: Before answering the Question of the noble Lord, I wish to call the attention of the House to the structure of the Address proposed to be presented to Her Majesty. There are several paragraphs relating to the affairs of Egypt, and those paragraphs have been practically passed by the House. An Amendment relating to some of these paragraphs was negatived last night by the House, and I consider that, at this stage of the Address, it would be irregular to re-open any debate with regard to the affairs of Egypt. It will be quite open to the noble Lord to move his Amendment, if he thinks proper, on the Report stage; but I should be bound to

  99
  rule that, at this stage, it would be irregular to raise a debate respecting Egyptian affairs.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I should like to ask whether the noble Lord might move such an Amendment, provided he discussed the other subjects in the Address except that of Egypt?
  MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to say that it appears to me, from the terms, as I caught them, of the noble Lord's Amendment, that it would be almost impossible for him to do that, and I should have to rule an Amendment of that kind out of Order.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: With regard to the reply of the Prime Minister, in which he was understood to say that the events which have recently taken place in Egypt have not caused Her Majesty's Government to make any change in their instructions to General Gordon, I should like to ask whether the House is to understand that the Government do not think it necessary to send any material aid to that officer, other than the single aide-de-camp by whom he is accompanied?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have already stated that, in view of the information brought yesterday, Her Majesty's Government do not find themselves justified in adopting at present any measures of any kind; but they will be guided by the information in their possession, and will endeavour to form the best judgment they can upon it, subject to the control of the House.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: When it is too late.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFinquired whether General Gordon was proclaimed Governor General, under the commission of the Khedive, or of the British Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: He carries a Firman appointing him Governor General, with both civil and military powers.
  SIR H. DEUMMOND WOLFF: From whom?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: From the Khedive.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—NOTICES OF MOTION.
  In reply to Mr. ANDERSON,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must repeat the answer he had given yesterday
  100
  respecting the order of priority to be observed in dealing with Notices of Motion which no opportunity could be found of introducing at that Sitting. It would be entirely without precedent to move the Adjournment of the Debate on the Address at 4 o'clock that day, in order to make way for private Members' Bills.

  EGYPT-THE SUEZ CANAL.
  MR. BOURKE: I wish to ask whether the letter from Lord Granville with respect to the Suez Canal, which has appeared in the newspapers, will be laid on the Table forthwith? If it is—or, possibly, if it is not—I beg to give Notice that on the Report I will call the attention of the House to that letter.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Papers relating to the Suez Canal will be presented almost immediately, and will contain all the communications that have passed, and which are referred to in the Question of my right hon. Friend.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES OF DEBATE—AN IRREGULAR AMENDMENT.
  MR. SPEAKER: Before I call upon the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day, it is right that I should state to the House that the Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) would be irregular. It clearly involves the re-opening of the debate on the affairs of Madagascar, and would be out of Order at this stage. The second paragraph of the Address, which contains a reference to Madagascar, has already been passed by the House.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he must venture to think that the Speaker's ruling was rather a novel one. ["Oh, oh!"] He meant no disrespect by that expression; but he would like to ask whether the ruling was intended to imply that those portions of the Address, prior in point of verbal order to a subject that had been discussed, were not open to any debate, although they had not been even referred to in such discussion? There had been no reference made to the affairs of Madagascar in the debate last night.
  MR. SPEAKER: I would invite the hon. Member to read the first paragraph of the Address.

THE DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I rise with the intention of asking the permission of the House to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to grave matters of urgent public importance.
MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock is bound to produce a written Notice, setting forth the matter of urgent public importance to which he alludes.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Before that, Mr. Speaker—["Order, order!"] Mr. Speaker, I rise to call your attention—["Order, order!"] I wish for a clear ruling on the point of Order I just asked you—["Name, name!"] On the point of Order, Mr. Speaker—["Name, name!" and "Order, order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: I have to point out to the hon. Member for Eye that the course which he proposes to take is altogether irregular. The noble Lord rose to move the Adjournment of the House, and the House is now considering the point raised by the noble Lord.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, having written the Notice of Motion at the Table, read from it as follows:—I ask the permission of the House to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to continue the Debate on the Amendment moved to the Address by the Eight honourable Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn.
MR. SPEAKER: The Standing Order referring to this matter lays it down that when the Motion for the Adjournment of the House be made, the Member so making the Motion must state, in writing, that it is for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. It will be for the House to say whether the matter proposed to be brought forward by the noble Lord is a matter of urgent public importance. Having stated that to the House, I will ask whether the noble Lord is supported by 40 Members of this House in the proposal which he now makes?
And not less than 40 Members having risen in their places,
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Sir, the matter which I wish to bring under the notice of this House in this somewhat unusual manner is an urgent matter, but need not necessarily occupy the House to a very large extent, and, if the matter is satisfactorily elucidated, it will conduce most assuredly to the proper progress of Business. By the incidents which took place last night, the debate on the Address, to which the whole country had been looking forward with the greatest possible anxiety and interest, was turned into a perfect farce. The parties who are solely responsible for that degradation of the most important proceedings of the House of Commons are Her Majesty's Government, and, ingenious as the Prime Minister usually is in explaining inexplicable matters, I defy him to give a satisfactory explanation of the conduct of the Government last night. What took place? My right hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke), in a speech of considerable length, marked with all his usual knowledge and ability, moved a Vote of Censure on Her Majesty's Government. That Vote of Censure was moved by the authority and at the request of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. When my right hon. Friend concluded his speech, not a single Member of Her Majesty's Government thought it worth while to answer him. By the almost invariable practice of the House, whenever an hon. Gentleman who has held the high and important Office which my right hon. Friend has held moves a Vote of Censure on the Government, his speech has always been replied to by a Member of Her Majesty's Government; and no empty, ridiculous consideration of whether it was consistent with the dignity of a Cabinet Minister to speak in the dinner hour, or as to what is the number of Members a Liberal Minister requires in the House before he will make a speech, have ever before been allowed to interrupt the established practice. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] I hope the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to disagree with that remark, will bring instances of a Vote of Censure moved by a Gentleman of the position of my right hon. Friend being left unreplied to at the moment by some Minister of the Crown. The Opposition had been informed last night that the President of

103
the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who is supposed to be acquainted with, foreign affairs, would reply to my right hon. Friend when he concluded; but perhaps it may have been from some accident that he did not happen to be in his place. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: He was.] Of course, it is impossible for me to decide as to the exact locality in which the President of the Local Government Board found himself at that particular hour. No doubt, he was in the neighbourhood. But whether he was there or not, if he did not consider it consistent with his dignity to address the House at that particular hour, there was the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Is the House to be told that because the Under Secretary of State does not consider it consistent with his dignity to speak to a limited number of Members, a debate of the utmost public importance raised by the Opposition is not to be continued? These are altogether novel practices in the House of Commons. We owe them to Her Majesty's Government. I do not know whether they are to be included in the New Rules of the House; but, if they are, the sooner we know it the better. All I can say is, that they are innovations—and disastrous innovations. The entire country was looking forward to an elucidation of the Egyptian Question. The whole question has been raised in the most pointed form, and Her Majesty's Government have refused to take part in the debate. What, I want to know, has Parliament been summoned for? It is perfectly impossible that the Opposition can continue to discharge their duty to the country unless Her Majesty's Government are prepared to recognize some responsibilities on their part. And what has been the result of this calculated evasion of the Government? The result has been that we cannot now satisfy an anxious country by a discussion of the affairs of Egypt, and especially of the terrible disaster which has taken place within the last 48 hours, until Heaven knows when—possibly not for a fortnight, because who can tell how long the affairs of Ireland may occupy us? The Opposition has been fettered, and I decline altogether to consider that that action has been accidental. I consider that the Opposition has been fettered by the pusillani- 104
mous conduct of the Government, who were knocked head over heels by the information which reached them when the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Arthur Elliot) was moving the Address, and purposely arranged to allow the debate to collapse. If this kind of proceeding is to be continued, let us have it from the right hon. Gentleman at the Table, and we shall know what course to take; otherwise Parliamentary discussion will become an absurdity and a farce. I think I am justified, therefore, in calling the attention of the House to this most extraordinary and unprecedented circumstance; because, unless a satisfactory explanation is offered, the Opposition will have to consider what steps it will be necessary for them to take to discharge their duty to the country. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Adjournment of the House.
MR. CHAPLIN: I wish to second the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and I think that the House is much indebted to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) for bringing it forward. Some observations were made last night with reference to the conduct of the Government in this matter, and I myself entirely endorse the language used by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope). The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) took the opportunity of saying that he thought it was unjust and injurious in the extreme. It was just possible that the right hon. Gentleman might have been justified in those assertions if this had been the first occasion of similar conduct on the part of the Government. But it was by no moans so. I remember that on the second reading of the Irish Land Bill my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) moved the rejection of the Bill in a powerful speech. What was the action of the Government? Why, they sat absolutely silent on the Front Bench. The debate was about to collapse; indeed, it had collapsed, because the Speaker put the Question to the House, and still no Member of the Government rose; and not only so, but a distinguished Member of the House, who was at the time a Member of the Government,

105
cried "Divide, divide!" and did everything that he could to precipitate a Division on that occasion. Having this past experience of the Government, we look upon these proceedings naturally with more suspicion than we otherwise should do. And what is the excuse? I do not know yet whether the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board was in his place or not. All I can say is that his position appears to be one of a most unfortunate character. If he was in his place, he is more to be blamed than I thought for not getting up to reply; if he was not in his place, it was probably for some very good reason of his own. The Government stated distinctly that they had no intention of taking a snatch Division on this question. Probably that was true. I do not suppose that anybody, even in this Government, deliberately came down to the House with the intention of taking a snatch Division on the Motion for a Vote of Censure; but what we complain of is this—that when the Government saw the opportunity before them of taking a snatch Division, they did not scruple for a single instant to avail themselves of it. I do not believe that the Government is likely to gain much by these proceedings, and I am satisfied that as soon as they are understood and appreciated by the country and by the public out-of-doors they will leave their impression on the public mind. Such conduct is most unbecoming in the Government of this country, and it is all the more important when we look at the extreme gravity of the circumstances attending it. When the Government of Lord Beaconsfield was in power, it was accused, on all occasions, of trying to conceal everything from Parliament and the country. I ask whether such a charge does not more fairly lie against the present Ministry? I believe that the country will think that, however such conduct may, perhaps, be expected from pettifogging attorneys, it is the last thing to be looked for from Gentlemen occupying the high position of Ministers of the Crown.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the language that has been used by the hon.
106
Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Chaplin), in his closing and gross imputations against the honour, the motives, and the conduct of the Government, is language which, considering the slightness of the evidence by which it was supported, I think it entirely beyond my province to notice. The graver a charge may be—when it is, at any rate, plausibly or colourably sustained by evidence—the clearer is the duty of the Government to deal with that charge, however offensive may be its character; but when there is no evidence to warrant such a charge, in my opinion they best consult their own dignity and their duty to the House by passing it by in absolute silence. That observation applies, though in a less degree, to some parts of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill); but I will confine myself to what appears to me strictly relevant to the question which has been raised by the noble Lord. I am under the impression that, as regards what is termed the refusal of the Government to continue the debate upon Egypt, that matter was discussed upon a Motion raised for the purpose last night by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), when most of those who sit upon the Front Opposition Bench gave their views in regard to it. At the close of that discussion, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Assheton Cross) referred to the points that had been raised, and treated it as a matter which had been disposed of by the statements which had been made, and by the view which he and his Friends took of the practical course that they were to pursue. Neither the noble Lord who has made this Motion, nor the hon. Gentleman who has seconded it, was in his place during the discussion, and in consequence of their absence the House of Commons is now called upon to traverse the ground again. That being the cause of the present Motion, I will just notice what the noble Lord said with regard to the great misfortune that had happened to the Opposition in consequence of the occurrence of last night, which I shall not call any more an accidental occurrence, though it was accidental, because I should again subject myself to offensive imputations such as we have just heard. But the amount of the misfortune is this

107
—I think it a very great misfortune so far as I am concerned myself, to the Government. I was extremely anxious to have an opportunity of discussing more broadly than it was discussed by the right hon. Gentleman last night the subject of the policy of the Government in Egypt, and to show the true spring, the true origin, the true character, of the embarrassments to which we are at present exposed. I conceive, therefore, that if there be a misfortune in the delay which has occurred, the misfortune is one which considerably affects the Government. But, Sir, as it affects the House, the amount of the misfortune is this—that this debate must be taken by the ruling which you, Sir, have delivered from the Chair, in conformity, as I believe, with the well-understood principles that govern our debates—this debate cannot be taken upon the Address, and must be taken upon the Report of the Address, as was done with the Vote of Want of Confidence referred to last night during the time of the late Government in relation to Afghanistan. Well, Sir, is that a great misfortune? That is exactly the proposition which I desire to question; for the right hon. Gentleman himself last night stated that he made his Motion in the absence of authentic documents and of official information. In consequence, the right hon. Gentleman was compelled—quoting from the best sources that he could—to make statements with regard to the bases of which he had to confess very naturally his uncertainty. Well, Sir, the Government have done the best in their power to supply that lack, and to-day Papers rather voluminous have been circulated—they were laid on the Table last night—which will necessarily take a day or two for hon. Members to make themselves masters of. The consequence is, that if we had gone on last night, and carried on the adjourned debate to-day, we should still have been upon the basis of uncertain information. The facts of the case would not have been before the House in a shape in which it could deal with them. I do not say that would have constituted any difficulty to the Government. We could have spoken from the information which we possessed; but it would have constituted a great difficulty for the Opposition. The noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) says it may be a fortnight hence before
108
we shall be able to approach the subject again, and he speaks of innovation. In what I am going to say, I do not intend to refer to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He had a perfect right to make such a Motion if he pleased; but undoubtedly a most pernicious innovation, in my judgment, has appeared in this House within the last two or three years—namely, that of discussing all manner of subjects on the Address, without the possibility, in many instances, of any practical issue. I can only say that the Government will, as far as they are concerned, and as far as their duty will permit, refuse to be a party to the encouragement of such proceedings. I hope that the noble Lord's estimate is entirely exaggerated. I cannot conceive that there should be any such delay. But even if there were, it would be better to have an authentic debate on the basis of unquestionable facts than a debate founded on information of an irresponsible character. The noble Lord has come forward on this occasion, founding himself upon his long Parliamentary experience, to explain to us what is the uniform course taken in a debate of Want of Confidence. He says the course is that, whatever be the hour of the evening, it is the duty of the Minister who is to reply to rise immediately after the speech of the person who has made the Motion.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said when the person occupies a position like that of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bourke).
MR. GLADSTONE: That is quite an unnecessary addition. I did not speak of every random Motion of every random Member which may be made. I spoke of a Vote of Want of Confidence. On that question I join issue with the noble Lord. The noble Lord has the happiness of being one or two generations later than myself on the roll of the human family; that being so, and as my Parliamentary life commenced almost immediately after my nonage had disappeared and I attained my legal majority, I am in a condition to speak to the noble Lord, I think, with some experience; and what I am disposed to affirm is, that so far as my knowledge goes, strange as it may seem, when it has happened that the Motion made has occupied the House till the hour of half-past 7 or 8 o'clock, it has never been

109
the custom for the Minister who is to reply on the part of the Government to rise at that hour. Of course I am speaking from recollection. Hon. Gentlemen are here who have sat long in the House, and cases may perhaps be quoted. The only case that arises to my memory is one that I admit may be partial in its application. But I remember this perfectly well—that in, I think, 1863, Mr. Disraeli, then the Leader of the Opposition, moved a Vote of Want of Confidence against Her Majesty's Government, and that it was my duty to reply to that speech, and that when the clock reached the hour of 7, Lord Palmerston began to remonstrate with me upon the question whether I was to follow him at an hour so near the dinner hour. Mr. Disraeli spoke, I think, till a quarter past 7, or something between that and half-past 7, and I being, perhaps, very desirous to get rid of the subject, and it being not the hour of 8 o'clock, I rose and followed him, and I was very much remonstrated with by Members of the House, and particularly by Gentlemen on our own side of the House, for having delivered the defence of the Government to an empty House; and that, Sir, was not a case of 8 o'clock. It was a question which we reserved, according to the moment, when Mr. Disraeli should sit down, and it was perfectly understood between us, on the authority of Lord Palmerston, whose experience went 40 years farther back, that if Mr. Disraeli had spoken a quarter of an hour later, I was to postpone my reply to a later hour of the evening. And that, Sir, I venture to affirm, is the Parliamentary usage. It has been said by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board was considering his own dignity. I venture to say that the noble Lord does not himself believe that accusation. He surely does not believe that my right hon. Friend could be so poor and so comtemptible a creature as to be governed by such a motive on such an occasion. My right hon. Friend was considering the duty he owed to the House, and the known usage of Parliament. It is not a usage of Parliament for a Minister, on a grave occasion of that kind, to rise at that hour to address perhaps 20 Members on one side of the House, and perhaps less than 20 Members on the other. What
110
was the position last night? The noble Lord says it was the absolute duty of ray right hon. Friend to have risen and delivered the defence of the Government. I presume, Sir, the noble Lord thinks the debates of this House mean something, and that when the Government rises to deliver its defence, it is to deliver it in the face of its accusers; that the accusers are to hear it; that they are to pay to it something of attention, refraining, perhaps, from interruption as much as they can; and that the accusers are to be present in reasonable numbers to hear the defence. Now, Sir, what was the number of accusers present last night, not the number present on the Benches—and I am not now appealing to the noble Lord to give us the advantage of his personal experience, for he took good care not to be here, but the number in the House and the purlieus and the Dining Room—what was it? [Crics of "Twenty!"] The whole number that could be brought together when the bell was rung and the Division called was 20, and the charge against my right hon. Friend and the Government is, that in conformity with the usages of Parliament, they did not cause a Minister to rise and deliver the responsible defence of the Government against the accusation raised against the existence of the Government in the presence of 20 Members if you like—although I do not believe there were 10. At the same time, I fully admit that that is only upon the assumption that other Members are willing to continue the debate. What I now speak to is the accusation that, at the time when the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) rose in the debate, my right hon. Friend was extremely reluctant to rise. I think he was perfectly right. That being so, through some cause of which I am not aware, my right hon. Friend was out of the way when the hon. Member for Greenwich sat down. He reckoned upon a succession of Members to continue the debate. [Baron HENRY DE WORMS: On which side?] He stated last night that he expected a succession of Members on both sides. Well, I have made inquiry, and find we had made some efforts to induce Members on this side of the House to speak and continue the debate. I was not here; I left the House at 25 minutes past 8, and returned at 25 minutes to 9, and was not personally a

111
party to the proceedings. But I own I have found very great reluctance on the part of Members on this side of the House to enter into the debate. ["Hear, hear!"] That is rather a provocation to me to state the reasons why. In my opinion they were the strongest reasons possible, and only a proof of the good sense and discrimination of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, who, I think, considered that they would do well to have something in the nature of certain information before they proceeded to discuss a question involving the existence of the Government. But it must also be admitted that there was not very great inclination to continue the debate on the other side of the House. It is not an unprecedented event at all that several Members taking the same view have continued the debate without the intervention of anyone taking an opposite view. Why, Sir, in the case of hon. Gentlemen sitting in that (the Parnellite) quarter of the House, again and again they have been compelled to continue debates by long successions of Members of their own opinion. Well, I say that they are entitled to the same respectful treatment as any other Members of the House. The laws of debate recognize no distinction between one body of Members and another, and I certainly admit that when I went away I had confidence in the hon. Member for Greenwich. I thought the hon. Member was going to make a speech of considerable length, and that I was safe to find him on his legs after a moderate interval. For the future, Sir, I withdraw that confidence from the hon. Member for Greenwich. On other occasions when he rises, I shall deem it within the limits of possibility that he may make short speeches. I have no doubt that if the little interval between half-past 8 and half-past 9 had been bridged over, the debate would have been continued. I have only spoken as to the reason why my right hon. Friend did not rise. His course at that time was absolutely in conformity with all that I know of the usages of this House. When the hon. Member for Greenwich sat down, my right hon. Friend was not in his place. But I am authorized by him to say—and the reason of the case I think demands it—that, great as would have been the disadvantage of rising at half-past 8 o'clock, yet it
112
would have been right that he should have risen for the purpose of giving the defence of the Government in reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, rather than allow the House to divide, and the debate to fall through. He was out of his place accidentally, and had he been in his place I am authorized to say he would have risen, rather than allowed the Division to be taken. But, he not being in his place, the storm has descended to-day on the head of my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice). But last night my noble Friend was expressly acquitted, because it was felt that it was not possible to make a substitution at that moment under the circumstances. But I would not rest his defence upon that, because such is the knowledge that my noble Friend possesses of the affairs of his Department, that he would have been perfectly competent to go over every point of the speech of the hon. Member. I must, therefore, take upon myself the responsibility distinctly of my noble Friend's not having spoken. We had been told from the other side that the debate was to last for three days, and I must say I have never found that Gentlemen on the other side, when they make an announcement of that kind, fail in fulfilling it. In that description of promise I find them entirely trustworthy. That being so, it was my duty to have some regard to the course of the debate, and to make arrangements for the proper defence of the Government; and I said to my noble Friend—"It is quite obvious that, in the course of a debate of this kind, a multitude of unauthenticated and detailed statements must be brought forward. You are the person who, from your acquaintance with the daily course of the Correspondence in the Foreign Office, can deal most satisfactorily with statements of detail of that character. For that reason it is arranged that you shall reserve yourself until the debate is far advanced." That was the arrangement made, I think, in conformity with common sense, and with the view of enabling the House to have the whole case dealt with in the most satisfactory manner. In these circumstances, my noble Friend, I believe, judging quite rightly, deemed that it was not his duty to put himself in the place which had been reserved for

113
my right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke). I make this statement because I wish it to be clearly understood that, while I contend there is no duty on the part of the Government to put up their defender, their champion, at the moment when the accuser sits down, if that moment be one when he cannot expect to have any reasonable proportion of the House in attendance, yet I must admit, on the other hand, that it is a very important duty of the Government to prevent, if they can, the collapse of the debate; and, therefore, if my right hon. Friend had been in his place, it would have been his duty to rise, and he would have risen, notwithstanding all the disadvantages, for the purpose of avoiding the great evil of a collapse. I have, I think, made every fair admission, and I have given, I believe, an account of the facts which is absolutely accurate. This is the principle on which the Government have acted, and I doubt whether the noble Lord will find it practicable to guide the House in any other way. For myself, I am most anxious for the time to come when we shall have an opportunity of making something like a thorough statement, which I do not conceive to have been yet heard, of the true merits of this Egyptian Question, and I regret exceedingly that a short delay has interposed, though I feel it is greatly compensated by the fact that Gentlemen opposite will have an opportunity of making their attack upon the Government, when they do make it, upon the basis of authenticated information.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I am bound to say, Sir, it seems to me that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, far from elucidating, are calculated to confuse the issue before us. It is not really the question whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was or was not in his place at a particular time, or whether he or the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), or any other person in particular, should have been put up under particular circumstances. The question is as to the course pursued by the Government as a whole. I think that, under any circumstances, it will be admitted without going into all the precedents that might be found of cases in which debates had been pursued in a particular course at the dinner hour. It seems a
114
principle that commends itself to common-sense that when a serious accusation is made by a responsible Member of the House, with due Notice, and of a character impugning the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government, as speedily as possible, to give their answer to that charge. And in this case, from the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and from the arguments we heard last night, it is quite clear that it was more than ordinarily their duty to do so last night. And why do I say that? Because they tell us that they have a great deal of information that we have not. Therefore it was extremely important that they should as early as possible meet the statements of my right hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke), and supply to the House for its discussion the subject-matter which we did not possess. Now, Sir, with regard to the particular arrangements, they were made in the manner which is usual in this House. We knew perfectly how the Business must begin. I myself calculated with some accuracy, and was rather proud of the calculation, when the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address would be concluded. I calculated that it would be between half-past 6 and a quarter to 7. The speeches ended, and the opportunity for moving the Amendment came on, at a quarter to 7. My right hon. Friend did not lose a moment in bringing forward his Motion, but got up then and there to make the statement that he had to make. Everybody must have foreseen that it would be one of considerable length, and my right hon. Friend caused no delay in the course of his speech by introducing irrelevant matter. His speech was concise, though naturally extending over some time. Therefore no one could have expected a shorter speech on such an occasion. It was therefore obvious that the speech would be over before 8 o'clock. It was perfectly within the power of the Government to have intimated to Gentlemen on this side of the House that, if the speech ended about that hour, it would be inconvenient for the Government Representative to rise, and some arrangement must be come to. It would have been quite easy for the Government to have continued the debate; and, indeed, the

115
information we received was this—that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would make the answer. And not only was it made in these general terms; the information that was given to mo was that the right hon. Gentleman would follow, and I was asked who would follow him. I knew that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) was to take part in the debate, and it occurred to me that he might be a Gentleman to be asked for that purpose. I asked him, and he said he was quite ready to follow the right hon. Gentleman. Well, the speech of my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Bourke) came to a conclusion, and no one showed the slightest sign of rising. No provision had been made by the Government to provide a substitute. We were therefore left in a position of considerable difficulty and embarrassment. You, Sir, rose and put the Question. You had put the Question, when it appeared to us absolutely necessary that something should be done, and we appealed to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich to rise at a moment's notice. He did so, and was naturally thrown out in so doing, because he had looked to hear and reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. But my hon. Friend came forward without the slightest hesitation and made his speech, and while he was going on the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) left the Front Bench. While that speech was going on, the Government might have made some provision to secure a succession of speakers, and we naturally looked for someone on the other side of a responsible character to follow. But they do not, and the same thing happens again, and when it is asked, why did not the Opposition continue the debate, seeing that one Member had been called upon suddenly and had responded, it seems to me quite unreasonable to expect that any hon. Member on this side should begin again without notice, but that, if the matter was left altogether to the last moment, someone else, if not the noble Lord, would have risen to answer the important speech which was made by my right hon. Friend. I think the course which the Government have pursued—I do not wish to impute motives, of course—was one that was not worthy of a Government placed in such
116
a position, Let it be remembered how the matter stood. The Government were placed in this position. They were impugned after solemn notice—impugned in the most important part of their policy—impugned in a speech of very great length and importance. They were themselves thoroughly in possession of a large amount of information of which the House was deprived. Yet they allowed the House to proceed to the debate in the state of ignorance in which they left us, and they sat still, none of their supporters rising to speak. What inference we are to draw from the fact that no supporter of the Government was ready to accord their policy his support, although, as we hear, efforts were made to induce them to speak, I leave the House to consider. But I do say that my noble Friend is perfectly justified in doing that which, in similar circumstances, always has been done in any Parliament in which I have sat—namely, to inquire, on behalf of those who were not present, the next day what was done, what the circumstances were, and ask for some explanation. It is perfectly true that last night, about 10 o'clock, an explanation was made to those who happened to be present, but a large number of those now in attendance were not then in the House, and my noble Friend, as I think, has been thoroughly justified in calling attention to what passed last night; and I think his action will result in advantage to the public and the House.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he thought the House would accept the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister's statement, without more ado, that the collapse last night was accidental. He thought, too, that although it might have inconvenienced hon. Members, the delay would ultimately be advantageous, for they would have more detailed information when the debate was resumed. He did not, however, wish to press that part of the subject further; but he would like to draw a practical conclusion from what had taken place. He had often heard the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister condemn the increasing loquacity of hon. Members, and he thoroughly sympathized with him; but he could not help feeling that the speech they had just heard was an indirect incentive to talkativeness—if not to Obstruction. What did the right

117
hon. Gentleman's remarks amount to but this—that the Opposition should have kept the debate going during the dinner hour, simply for the purpose of allowing the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to have a better audience afterwards. This was the practice that Ministers so often condemned hon. Gentlemen on the other side for resorting to—speaking one after another on the same subject and in the same sense, so that the debate might be carried over a given hour or a given night. If that was not talking to no purpose and wasting the time of Parliament for obstructive ends, he (Mr. Cowen) did not know the meaning of language. It arose out of the arrangement—the foolish arrangement—by which the House was deserted for two or three hours in the middle of the night. During any great discussion everyone knew that the Whips went about begging for hon. Members to carry on the debate at dinner time; and these unfortunate Members were condemned, by those who did not know the Forms of the House, for their garrulity, or their vanity. It was said they talked when nobody wanted to hear them, and that, rather than not speak at all, they spoke to empty Benches; the truth being that they talked simply to suit the convenience of their Party, and at the instance of the Whips. He thought it was a great waste of time. It was to the interest of all to abolish this plan of Party padding. It could be done in only two ways. The first was, by Ministers making a practice of speaking during the dinner hour, and thereby keeping hon. Members in their places. This was a practice that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department advocated last Parliament. With the chivalry that so much distinguished the right hon. Gentleman, he then said he thought it was the duty of men of position and authority in the House to make a practice of speaking on important subjects during those dreary hours, and he put his theory in practice, because he did on several occasions deliver important speeches at that time. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman could influence his Colleagues to follow his example, it would be of service. That was one way of curing the evil. Another way—and
118
probably the more satisfactory one—would be for the House to meet a couple of hours sooner, and adjourn for a couple of hours for dinner. It would relieve the officers of the House; it would be a great convenience to Members; and the Business would advance more orderly and rapidly. Members were constantly talking about amending the mode of Business, and they could not do better than try to initiate a reform in this direction. His hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had said that the ease of last night was not a solitary one. He (Mr. Cowen) would go further, and say it was not only not a solitary one, but that it was common. Reference had been made to the way in which the debate on the second reading of the Irish Land Bill had been abruptly shut up; but there was another and more recent case that the House seemed to have overlooked. Last year his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) made a powerful and eloquent indictment of the Government policy in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was in his place, but refused to answer, because it was the dinner hour. The result was that a night was lost. During the whole of the year the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister never ceased to express his mortification at the waste of time that took place over the Address; and yet that incident contributed more to it than any other circumstance. They might look forward to a repetition of such occurrences unless they adopted one or other of the courses he had suggested—that Ministers should speak during the dinner hour as well as other hon. Members, or that they should meet earlier and adjourn for dinner. If the break-down last night led to either of these reforms, it would not be without its advantages.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had taken a contrary line to that followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) last night. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that it was expected independent Members would take part in the debate. They would remember that the same excuse was made by the Government with regard to the evasion of

119
discussion on the "Kilmainham Compact." The elaborate nature of the excuses made by the right hon. Gentleman led them to believe that there was some hidden intention on the part of the Government that the debate should collapse. ["No, no!"] Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman denied it, he would accept the denial. The right hon. Gentleman told them that in a certain debate, some years ago, Lord Palmerston begged him not to speak early in it. This was brought forward as a precedent; but it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman disobeyed Lord Palmerston on that occasion, as he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) believed the right hon. Gentleman often did. They had not now subordinates amongst the supporters of the Government so patriotic as to disobey the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said he made a speech last night to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and forbade him to speak, even though a collapse of the debate was the result.
MR. GLADSTONE: No.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Did the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had laid no such injunction on his noble Friend. He told him it was his (Mr. Gladstone's) duty to make arrangements, and he discussed those arrangements with him.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the right hon. Gentleman told them distinctly that he told the noble Lord not to speak. Therefore, what happened? They knew that it was not from any mental incapacity or unreadiness of the noble Lord; they were told that he was quite ready to speak, that he knew the whole question, and could have given a most formidable answer to the charge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke); but, notwithstanding all this, he was not allowed to speak. Surely, when the right hon. Gentleman saw the debate was going to collapse from the absence of any speech on behalf of the Government, he might have withdrawn his veto from the noble Lord.
MR. GLADSTONE: I was not there.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Then, in that case, there was a certain amount of tyranny on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He would not
120
allow his subordinates to act in any kind of way during his absence. The right hon. Gentleman told them they had not lost very much by the adjournment of the debate, and that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), ought to have been present at the time. Why were they not? Because they were foolish enough to rely, he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) might say, upon the assurances of the Government, that the debate was not to collapse in the manner it did. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say, with a frivolity totally unworthy of the occasion, and unheard of when such terrible disasters were occurring, that they had lost nothing by the collapse of the debate. If the House had been sitting when Hicks Pasha and his Army were destroyed in November last, did the right hon. Gentleman think that it would not have given some impulse to the proceedings of the Government? Last night they heard of another terrible disaster in the Soudan. Did the right hon. Gentleman look with equanimity and indifference on matters of that kind? He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was told that news had been received to-day of the destruction of Tewfik's Army, and the capture of Sinkat. He asked the Government to tell them if that was true. In the midst of these disasters, while blood was being poured out in the Soudan, owing entirely to the action of Her Majesty's Government, the right hon. Gentleman smiled—["No, no!"] He did smile—he who wrote the Lessons in Massacre—who moved the House and agitated the country about what took place in Bulgaria. ["Oh, oh!"] Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) would permit him to finish. The Prime Minister agitated the country about the massacres in Bulgaria; but was there no blood-guiltiness in Egypt for what had happened in the Soudan? Would these disasters have happened in the Soudan but for the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in Egypt?
MR. SPEAKER: I must call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the matter of urgent public importance before the House. The hon. Member is travelling beyond that matter altogether.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he merely wished to explain that these urgent matters of public importance could not be discussed in consequence of the action of the Government, and he was answering the remark of the Prime Minister that no damage to the Public Service resulted from the collapse of the debate. If, however, the Speaker forbade him from going into these questions, which were started by the right hon. Gentleman, he would bow to the decision; but he must say the conduct of the Government in adjourning, or allowing the collapse of the debate on the Egyptian Question, showed an amount of indifference to human suffering, and of callousness of bloodshed, which had marked the whole course of Her Majesty's Government in every country whore they had any policy to carry out, and that they had showed that callousness in a manner which he thought was degrading to an Administration.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that, without for one moment presuming to cast the slightest doubt on the accuracy of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he must be permitted to observe that the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman replied to the thoroughly justifiable remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and of his noble Friend who moved the Adjournment (Lord Randolph Churchill), was absolutely unwarrantable. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he was not himself a party to any scheme for abruptly closing the debate. No one for a moment brought any such accusation against him. The right hon. Gentleman was not charged with the management of details of that kind; he had the assistance of Colleagues who were admirably suited to discharge that duty. The right hon. Gentleman had assumed a tone of virtuous indignation at the charges brought against him; but what went before the occurrences of last night? Hon. Members could scarcely have forgotten that, during the last few weeks, the House had been steadily lectured by persons supposed to enjoy the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not wish, of course, to make the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the extremely indecorous menaces addressed to Her Majesty's Op-
122
position by organs of the Press which were generally supposed to be inspired by him, or his Colleagues. He would not insult the right hon. Gentleman by assuming that he was in sympathy with such proceedings. But he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that they were not dependent entirely on the inspired Press for their knowledge of the views of Her Majesty's Government with regard to proceedings in Parliament. They had an opportunity afforded them the other day, for which they were indebted to the industry of those creators of public opinion whose vocation appeared to be to teach the public what they ought to think. ["Question!"] They had been informed that the Prime Minister himself was desirous, as far as in his power lay, to deter the House from obtaining explanations, which it had a right to obtain, as to the course pursued in various Departments of the State—in other words, the Government were endeavouring to deter the House of Commons from discharging its obvious duties, and compelling it to join in the pursuit of the red herring which the Government had announced it to be their intention to draw across the scent. ["Question!"] He ventured to think that the hon. Member who cried "Question!" was very imperfectly acquainted with the Rules regulating debate, and he further must remind him that if he (Mr. Lowther) was in any way transgressing those Rules, Mr. Speaker would doubtless himself draw his attention to the fact, and not leave it to what the Prime Minister would call any "random" Member to assume to himself the functions of the Chair. He must again repeat that Her Majesty's Government were not in a position to assume that tone of virtuous indignation which they had arrogated to themselves on this occasion. Government, through its myrmidons in the Press, had distinctly laid itself open to the charge of wishing to prevent discussion in Parliament of affairs which it was the duty of Parliament to discuss. The "pernicious practice," as it was called" by the Prime Minister, of introducing into the debate upon the Address various subjects, was owing to the fact that the Government had placed the House of Commons in such a position that unless they introduced these various subjects

123
on the Address to the Throne they were—as was said in one portion of the Marriage Service—ever after to hold their peace. Under those circumstances, it was not to be wondered at that the House of Commons availed itself of the only opportunity they had to discuss matters of national interest.
Question put, and negatived.

EGYPT—THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN—RUMOURED FALL OF SINKAT.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Before we go any further, I wish to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has been received as to the annihilation of Tewfik's Forces?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; no information has been received at the Foreign Office.
MR. J. LOWTHER: Has any information of any kind been received?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: A copy of the telegram which hon. Members have seen has been sent to the Foreign Office; but we have received no information from Sir Evelyn Baring.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [SECOND NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Motion for an Address [5th February].—[See page 52.]
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.

    AFRICA (SOUTH)—NATIVE AFFAIRS.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, that there were a few points touched upon in the Speech from the Throne upon which he should like some explanation. As to Basutoland, which had not been alluded to in the Speech, he was very glad to hear that the Earl of Derby had taken the course of placing the Basutos under the Imperial Government, an arrangement which was most likely to promote peace. He should be glad, however, to have any further information which Her Majesty's Government might place before the House. He had the misfortune to differ on the subject of Zulu- 124
    land from several Gentlemen with whom he usually acted. It would be said by many sitting on that, and by some sitting on the other side, that the course which those who agreed with him urged upon the Government, and to which the Government had to a great extent acceded, was unwise. He was rather disposed to believe that the authorities of Natal had interfered with the policy adopted by the Earl of Kimberley when he was at the Colonial Office, and that it was on that account the failure in Zululand was brought about. He should be glad to hear whether the Under Secretary was in a position to give the House to-day any information with regard to things in that country. He was anxious to-day to say a few words about the paragraph in the Queen's Speech which referred to the Transvaal. In former days such questions were generally debated on Tuesdays and Fridays, and Her Majesty's Government generally gave private Members some assistance to keep a House; but during the present Parliament the Government had repudiated all responsibility for doing so, and the consequence was that questions of that kind in which some Members took an interest were usually disposed of by counts-out. The question of the Transvaal, however, was debated at some length last Session, when it was brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), who was not now in his place, and some very able speeches were made, especially one by his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Forster), which were answered by speeches from Members of the Government. As the House was aware, there had been now for three months in this country some Delegates from the Transvaal urging certain claims upon Her Majesty's Government. These were claims which he ventured humbly to hope Her Majesty's Government would not accede to. They demanded the abolition of the Sand River Convention, the abolition of the Suzerainty, the giving up by England of the debt due to her from the Transvaal, and a great enlargement of territory. With regard to the debt, he did not suppose that the Transvaal Government were likely to pay, whether they could pay or not. They were not honest enough to pay if they could. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government had only one course to pursue, and that

    125
    was to forgive them the debt and to write it off. But if Her Majesty's Government made that substantial concession, they ought on all other questions to stand firm. There was the question of the Suzerainty. If his memory served him rightly, when the Convention of Pretoria was made it was represented to the House by the Prime Minister that this Suzerainty was of real practical importance; that it gave us certain rights over the Transvaal; and that in gaining the Suzerainty Her Majesty's Government had gained a great diplomatic victory. But now Delegates had come over asking that the Suzerainty might be given up. If it was given up it would show that the Suzerainty was a worthless thing. The Government, he asserted, committed a great mistake when they entered into the Convention of Pretoria. They were told under that Convention they would have certain rights and exercise great influence over the Natives and the general affairs of their Commonwealth. Those predictions had, however, been completely falsified. On many former occasions charges of the gravest nature had been brought in that House against the Boers, especially with regard to the manner in which they treated the village in which the illustrious Dr. Livingstone had resided, and that celebrated man had in his schools children whom he subsequently found in slavery under the Boers. Complaints of the most serious kind had been made against these men; and he therefore hoped that in any transactions with them the Government would provide for the safety and protection of the Natives. Then there was the question which his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Forster) had called attention to—namely, the concessions which the Boer Delegates were asking for in regard to the Bechuanas. As far as he could gather from the statements made in the newspapers, Her Majesty's Government had consented to give up to the Transvaal those Chiefs who, according to the representations of the Delegates, were friendly to the Boers. He should be glad to know, however, what proof the Government had that Moshette and Massouw wished to come under the rule of the Transvaal? The Boers, of course, had a very strong interest in pressing this matter; but the Government, before taking action, should be convinced
    126
    that these Chiefs desired of their own free will to come within the Transvaal administration. For himself, he had no hesitation in declaring that he did not believe a word the Transvaal Delegates said. The men they represented were charged with the blackest crimes, and the Delegates, if not murderers themselves, were the apologists of murder. He was very glad that Her Majesty's Government had stood firm with regard to the measures to be taken for the protection of the Native Chiefs, whose cause was so ably advocated in that House last Session by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. Mankoroane and Montsioa were two Chiefs who had stood by this country in its difficulties, and the Government were bound by every feeling of honour to protect them. In the matter of taking up arms they were discouraged by the British Government; and because they were known to be faithful to Her Majesty they had been attacked by the Transvaal. It certainly seemed to him that it was the duty of the Government and the country to afford proper protection to those loyal Chiefs. He was glad to know that Lord Derby had taken measures to safeguard their territory; but he wished to remind the Government that the Boers believed in nothing but force. He could not accept the statement that they respected the moral influence of England. When he was in the Free State, some time ago, the language he heard was to the effect that it was all very well for the English to talk, but the real fact of the matter was that they gave up the Transvaal because they could not help themselves—they were defeated, and they knew it. No doubt the Government desired to put an end to the shedding of blood, and were strongly influenced by feelings of humanity. He gave them full credit for that; but he remembered saying to his hon. Friend the Member for Whitby (Mr. A. Pease) that he believed the action of the Government was a mistake, and that whatever course they intended to take they were not likely to promote peace in South Africa until they had put down the Boers. It was a great mistake to make any terms with the Boers until they had them in their power. He greatly regretted the course which Her Majesty's Government pursued three years ago; but the question

    127
    they had now to consider wag what they should do under present circumstances. He was glad to learn that Lord Derby had stood firm as regarded the territory of these two Chiefs, and also on the question of the trade route into the interior. Everyone who had studied the history of the country must see that if they handed over this route to the Transvaal, or allowed them to encroach on it, they would inflict a dreadful evil on the missionaries and the traders into the interior of Africa. The Boers, he believed, were hostile to this country, because this country had always protested against slavery; whereas the cornerstone of the South African Republic, as they used to call themselves, was the institution of slavery. In these circumstances it was of the most vital importance that they should maintain that route open, and therefore he was glad to hear that Her Majesty's Government stood firm in that respect. With regard to the transactions of the Boers on the Eastern Frontier, he was also glad to hear that Her Majesty's Government were endeavouring to take steps for the protection of the Bechuanas. But there was also the question of the Swazis and the Zulus. The latter had been, by our own act, left to the mercy of the Transvaal, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would take stringent measures for the protection of the Swazis and the Zulus. He had been taken to task by a section of the Liberal Press for certain language he had used with respect to the Boers. All he could say in reply was that the same language had been once used by a very eminent statesman, Mr. Canning; and if he knew of language of a stronger nature, and which the custom of the House would permit him to use, he would use it with regard to the Boers of the Transvaal. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government, in dealing with them, would recollect that they were dealing with a slave-holding Power, and with a Power whose representations ought to be confirmed by independent testimony; and that they would not take as Gospel what was told them by these Delegates. The Boers were a set of men who deserved no consideration from any civilized people, and he heartily pitied the hard necessity which had brought so excellent a man as the Earl of Derby into contact with these people.
    128
    He had always been proud to have been a supporter of the policy under which the Transvaal had been annexed; and he thought his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks - Beach) deserved very great credit, when Colonial Secretary in the late Administration, for the part he had taken in that great step.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY, after expressing regret that he had not been present at the commencement of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, said, the Papers relating to Cetewayo and Zulu-land were laid on the Table yesterday, and those relating to the Transvaal would be presented in the course of a few days. He understood that his right hon. Friend had first made remarks connected with Zululand and Cetewayo, and he would therefore summarize the sequence of the circumstances which had occurred in Zululand since the House rose. Cetewayo had been put back on the Throne of Zululand, with certain conditions imposed upon him. One of the principal of these was, that he should respect the territory reserved by the British Power on the one side and the territory allotted to the Chief Usibepu on the North. Cetewayo seemed, however, from the very first to have disregarded the condition as to the territory on the North. He began the game of fighting, and retaliation ensued. Fortune attended first on one side and then on the other, but principally on the side of Usibepu, until it culminated in the crushing defeat of Cetewayo at Ulundi about the month of July. It was quite clear that, whatever might have been the feeling of many of the people towards Cetewayo, he was not in the position he previously occupied, and when he attacked Usibepu he found an opponent more powerful in tactics and courage than himself. The result had been that Cetewayo was driven over the Border, and became a refugee in British territory. For a considerable time he remained in the bush in a state of isolation, except that he was surrounded by his own Chiefs and adherents; and he refused to place himself submissively under the authority of the British Resident. It was only when absolute force was threatened to him that at last he gave way and came into Ekowe, where he was immediately under the view of the Resident and of the small body of British troops there.

    129
    Cetewayo was now in this position—he was a refugee within our territory. The Government had no intention, at present at any rate, of restoring Cetewayo to the place he formerly occupied, and he did not think they would have such an intention at any future time. That was not the business of the British Government, nor was it an undertaking which, in his opinion, would meet with much success. The object of Her Majesty's Government was to allow, as far as they could with regard to the safety of the British Possessions, the Zulus to settle their own matters for themselves, and decide who they would have to rule over them. But Cetewayo's presence in the Reserve was, no doubt, a matter of danger, for as long as he was there he was, however careful our attempts might be to prevent it, acting as an inciter of disorder. It was undoubtedly true that the presence of Cetewayo did keep the elements of discord on the surface and prevented matters from settling down as they otherwise would. But it was a difficult thing to know what to do with Cetewayo. They must proceed carefully and slowly in the matter. If they were to say to Cetewayo he must go back to his own country, because his presence was a source of danger, and refused him the rights of a refugee on British soil, he apprehended Cetewayo would probably be killed when he returned to Zululand, unless he might be disposed to retire into the Transvaal, instead of remaining within the borders of his own territory. To remove him to Natal would be distasteful to the Government and the Colonists of Natal. While on this point, he might mention that he had been told that the right hon. Gentleman said in the course of his remarks that a great deal of the difficulty had arisen owing to differences between the Imperial Government and the Government of Natal. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that was news to him. If they were to propose to locate Cetewayo within Natal territory that difficulty might arise.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, he did not refer to the present, but to some time back.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he did not suppose the House wished him to go back for two or three years; but with respect to recent events there had been no differences between the Imperial Go-
    130
    vernment and the Government of Natal. Another thing might be the removal of Cetewayo to the Cape; but that, again, was a question which presented considerable difficulty, and Her Majesty's Government had not thought it a matter urgent enough to decide among conflicting difficulties of procedure. Cetewayo, as he said before, was now a refugee in the Reserved territory, and it might very likely become necessary to increase the stringency with which he was guarded, so as to prevent him having communication with people outside, and thus stirring up strife. A very few words uttered by a man with the history and the antecedents of Cetewayo might be productive of great disturbance and agitation in the minds of the Natives. But he was neither under the patronage of Her Majesty's Government as an aspirant to the Throne, nor had he any authority in the Reserve. Her Majesty's Government were convinced of the necessity of maintaining intact British authority in the Reserve, and he was merely there as a refugee, claiming and receiving the protection of Her Majesty's Government from any of his enemies who might seek to pursue and destroy him. Then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to deal with the question of the Transvaal. He could not go into great details about the Transvaal question, because the matter was still under discussion. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to what he had seen in the public Press. He might inform the right hon. Gentleman that what had been stated in the public prints was fairly accurate; but, at the same time, he should say that the publication of that information was not due to the action of the Colonial Office, but he presumed was due to the initiative of the gentlemen who had come here from the Transvaal. He believed they would come to what even the right hon. Gentleman would consider a satisfactory settlement. They had firmly insisted on, and had received, the acquiescence of the Delegates to the necessity of maintaining the trade route intact from the Transvaal. It might, perhaps, be a subject of astonishment that this particular trade route should be of such great importance; but the reason was that this route alone provided travellers with a sufficient supply of water. The right hon. Gentleman asked why Her

    131
    Majesty's Government believed that the Chiefs Massouw and Moshette were willing to come under the Transvaal dominion? and he warned them against taking for Gospel everything the Delegates stated. Now, whatever Gospel he (Mr. Ashley) might have an admiration for, it was not the Gospel of the Transvaal Delegates. They came here to plead their own cause; they were parties in the suit; and his noble Friend the Secretary of State had sources of information entirely distinct and apart from the assertions of gentlemen who naturally took one view of the question. He was not at the present moment able to put his finger upon any positive passago whore Massouw and Moshette or their agents had expressed any willingness to come under the Transvaal; but they had certainly not expressed the contrary, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, and asked him whether it was not self-evident that the whole of the interest of Massouw and Moshette naturally lay on the side of the Transvaal? The real origin of all these disputes on the borders of the Transvaal which the freebooters had taken advantage of had been a claim for pre-eminence by one set of Chiefs over the other. The consequence was, that the side that took up the supremacy of Massouw and Moshette was naturally the side to which, in the apportionment of territory, they should wish to be annexed. The alternative would be that they would have to come again under the dominion of the rival Chiefs. Montsioa and Mankoroane might, perhaps have some claim upon them; but Massouw and Moshette had no claim whatever, because in all their actions they had been hostile to British interests. He was quite convinced, although these two Chiefs would prefer to be left entirely to themselves, and to carry on their operations untrammelled by any White intervention, that they would prefer to be put under the protection of the Transvaal, than be again restored to the position where Mankoroane and Montsioa would hold the right of authority over them. As the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, this settlement would be of no avail unless steps were ultimately taken to ensure its fulfilment. When the Papers were laid before the House in a few days, the right hon.
    132
    Gentleman would see that the Delegates had assured Her Majesty's Government that they would scrupulously preserve the frontier; and his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies had proposed—and was determined to carry out—that there should be appointed a Resident Commissioner of some character on that frontier, and that he should have under his command some sort of police force, with which he could keep the frontier from the incursions of the freebooters.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Will the pay of the force be borne jointly?
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes; jointly by the Cape Government and the Imperial Government, as far as any deficit was concerned, after the receipt of some sort of but tax from the Natives. Her Majesty's Government believed they had now secured a settlement to a very difficult question, with the consent of the Transvaal Government as a Government. It was a matter merely of police. There was no race animosity, and no collision of Governments or policies, as there would have been had any violent action been taken last year; and as the great majority of these freebooters went in to these territories, not to settle themselves, but to take up land which they turned into money afterwards by selling it, his belief was that if, by a small but efficient police force, they took away the security which these freebooters were able to offer to those to whom they wished to sell, the market for their operations would be destroyed; and when they found nobody would come in to buy from them, he believed they would abstain from depredations on the Border. The right hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that, to a certain modified extent, there had been a threatening of an inroad of Boers into parts of Swaziland and Zululand. At present he was only able to say that the matter was meeting with the attention of the Colonial Office, representations had been made on the matter to the Delegates, who professed the same anxiety to preserve their frontier on the East as well as on the West; and he dared say that they would not present any obstacle to anything which Her Majesty's Government might think fit to propose. At the same time, he believed

    133
    the Swazis and the Zulus were far more able to defend themselves than the right hon. Gentleman gave them credit for from any inroads of this sort; and he thought that all that was required there was a Resident of some sort with responsibility and position, who could draw the attention of the Transvaal Government to any inroads which were made, and to a certain extent form a rallying-point for the Native tribes in that country. He could only say, however, at present, that the subject had not escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Government. He hoped that the House, when the Papers were before it, would be able to do justice to Her Majesty's Government in their conduct of a very complicted matter. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman could speak in foro conscientiœ; but the Government had to take into consideration many things which were not mere matters of conscience The House would see that, while recognizing to a certain extent existing facts and avoiding pitfalls, Her Majesty's Government had satisfied the legitimate claims of the Natives; and that, as far as they were able, Hoi-Majesty's Government had placed on a good footing the relations between the Boer Government and the Natives on the Bechuana Frontier. With respect to the debt and Suzerainty, the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him entering into that question. They had carefully abstained from going into it with the Delegates until the preliminary question of the Border was settled, that being the turning point of the whole matter.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, there was much that was satisfactory in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and he thought they were indebted to his right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. R. N. Fowler) for having brought this important subject before the House. It was well remembered how last year from day to day the debate on the state of affairs in the Transvaal was postponed, and how those who had wished to bring the question to an issue had failed to obtain any opportunity of doing so; he, therefore, thought that they were fairly within their rights if they availed themselves of the debate upon the Address for calling the attention of the House to the matter, even in the absence of the necessary
    134
    Papers. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had referred first to the question of Zululand. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had taken the trouble to look back to a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne just a year ago. It was then stated that the condition of Zulu-land, and the possibility of renewed disturbances there, had engaged Her Majesty's most serious attention, and that it was earnestly hoped that the restoration of Cetewayo, which had just been effected, would lead to the establishment of a more stable Government in that country. He was afraid they must all confess—and he thought no one had confessed it more completely than the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary—that these hopes had been completely disappointed. They were told that Cetewayo had disregarded his under taking, at any rate, so far as his relations with his northern neighbour Usibepu were concerned; but the stipulation under which alone Her Majesty's Government had consented to his restoration was that he should not make war upon his neighbours, and yet from that day there had been nothing but bloodshed, disorder, and anarchy in Zululand, and this state of matters had resulted from the policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government—a policy for which he never could find any reason at all except the pressure of some hon. Members who were mainly influenced by sentiment in their consideration of the subject. Next they had received the news of Cetewayo's absolute rout by Usibepu and his reputed death; and then in the Speech from the Throne, at the end of last Session, they were told that the hopes of Her Majesty's Government for peace and order in Zululand had not yet been realized. Now, in Her Majesty's present Speech, all that was told them was that the condition of Zululand continued to be unsettled. That was a fact about which there was no doubt whatever. The question which he hoped would be carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government was the cause to which this unsettlement was due. Why was it that Her Majesty's Government still allowed Cetewayo to remain so near to Zululand as the Reserve territory? The Under Secretary stated that in the Reserve, although under the Resident,

    135
    Cetewayo was a danger to the peace of the Reserve and of Zululand. He fancied there could be no doubt whatever—he himself had received, and no doubt other Members of the House had received, information upon the subject—that for the whole time that Cetewayo had been under our protection he had been secretly intriguing against the peace of the Reserved territory and of Zululand; and it was only the other day that news had been received of a fresh battle in Zululand, in which, as usual, there had been great slaughter and bloodshed. Would it not be better for Her Majesty's Government to make up their minds that the whole of their policy as to the restoration of Cetewayo had absolutely failed; that it would have been better if they had left him where he was; and that now, for the peace of the Reserve, and for the peace of the rest of the country, they ought to send him back to the Cape Colony? His belief was that so long as Cetewayo was allowed by Her Majesty's Government to use their protection for the purpose of intrigues, so long would these troubles continue; and, therefore, he hoped they might have some further consideration than had yet been given by the Government to this subject. He hoped the Government would see the urgency of some measures being taken, on as early a day as possible, to put an end to the troubles which had existed during the last year, and which still continued to disturb that unhappy country. With regard to the Transvaal Convention, of course it was very difficult for them to discuss that matter in the absence of any information as to the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Transvaal Delegates, or to the various requests made by these Delegates and the replies of Her Majesty's Government. He might say, however, that he was very glad to learn from the statement of the Under Secretary that the account which had appeared in the public Press was true upon two points—first, that the trade route through Bechuanaland would be absolutely kept outside the territory of the Transvaal; and, secondly, that something was at last to be done towards the fulfilment of our obligations towards those unfortunate Chiefs Mankoroane and Montsioa. He should have preferred, however, that the Under Secretary should have been
    136
    able to announce to the House that the Cape Government, recognizing the importance to them of the control of the trade route, and also the peace of their frontier, had undertaken the sole charge of the Resident and the police force, which were to be maintained for the protection of those tribes. The trade route was of more importance to the Cape Government than to us. So long as it was in the power of the Cape Government to impose what tariff they liked at their ports, so long was it in their power practically to render useless to this country any trade route to the interior of Africa from any port within their dominion. It was, however, something gained that the Cape Government should have undertaken a joint liability with ourselves; but many of them would be disposed to regret that Her Majesty's Government did not undertake a precisely similar liability 18 months ago. He believed if that liability had been undertaken before the disturbances in the territories of these unfortunate Chiefs had reached the point they attained this time last year, and before feelings of race antipathy were excited-, that it would have been possible to do with perfect success precisely what Her Majesty's Government proposed to do now, and they should have been saved all the humiliation which they had incurred by deserting their allies for so long, while much misery and bloodshed would have been spared to these unfortunate people themselves. With reference to the statement that the Government were coming to a satisfactory settlement on the question of the Transvaal, the Under Secretary had given, as one reason for it, the assurance of the Delegates that the Transvaal Government would respect the new frontier. A similar assurance was given when the Transvaal Convention was signed, but it was broken, if not by the Transvaal Government themselves, at least, by those whom they ought to have controlled. He, therefore, attached as little value to the present assurance as he did to that more formal pledge. But he did attach importance to the active policy which at last Her Majesty's Government had determined to adopt. There had been several statements in the public journals of late with regard to this matter; and he confessed he road with a little apprehension

    137
    a statement which had appeared of certain conditions which the Transvaal Delegates had sought to impose, and on which alone they had agreed to the proposal of the Earl of Derby on this question. The first was, that the Government of the South African Republic would not be bound to take part in any demarcation to be carried out by force of arms. It was difficult to understand the precise meaning of that condition. At any rate, he hoped it did not imply that if any subject of the Transvaal Government took steps to resist the demarcation, that Government would not take such measures against him as the circumstances might demand. The second was, that the republic should not be responsible for the action of freebooters. It was the contention of the Transvaal Government that all the troubles which had arisen in Bechuanaland had arisen because the Convention defined a boundary which it was impossible to maintain; and it appeared to him that in making that condition the Delegates were leaving open a door to precisely similar difficulties in the future. He had no hope whatever for a satisfactory solution of this question, except through the action of the Resident and the police, who were to be maintained jointly by the Imperial and the Cape Governments. It must be remembered, however, that this policy entailed upon us a very serious responsibility. It could not be avoided on account of our pledges to these Chiefs and their people; but it was a policy which must be maintained whatever might happen, whatever might be the conduct of the Transvaal Government in supporting, either directly or indirectly, the conduct of the freebooters whose proceedings, they declined to control. He thought the Government were almost as much bound to prevent incursions by Boer freebooters into Zululand and Swaziland as they were to prevent similar incursions into the territories of Montsioa and of Mankoroane. He feared that these incursions had in time past been made with the connivance of the Transvaal Government; and as he was also afraid that they might be continued he thought Her Majesty's Government would have to face the question of the establishment of a Resident on the East of the Transvaal with powers precisely similar to those with which the Resident on the West would be in-
    138
    vested. While he should like to have had some further explanation than had yet been given as to the concessions which it was proposed to make in regard to the foreign relations of the Transvaal, he did not blame the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ashley) for the reticence which he had displayed in regard to negotiations which were still pending. But, at the same time, he must say that in his view few things could be more dangerous to the future of South Africa than an alteration by Her Majesty's Government of the terms of the Transvaal Convention so as to leave the whole of the foreign relations of the Transvaal Government absolutely free. It might be well to leave the Transvaal Government to themselves in their dealings with tribes with which this country had no concern—those, for instance, on the North-East or North of the Transvaal. But it ought to be very gravely considered whether this country would be justified, in view of the possible future of South Africa, in allowing the foreign relations of the Transvaal with European Rowers to be as absolutely free as if it was an independent State. He did not believe it was a point on which the Transvaal Government themselves were particularly anxious for change; but, at any rate, he trusted Her Majesty's Government would stand firm in the matter. As far as the question of Suzerainty was concerned, he did not think there were many Members in the House who would have supported the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Transvaal if they had known at the time that the Convention was made that the Suzerainty meant as little as it was now found, or seemed, to mean. At the time the Convention was agreed to, Suzerainty was interpreted by the Prime Minister as meaning very much more power to this country than it possessed over self-governing Colonies; but, as a matter of fact, the Suzerainty had since been insulted and practically ignored by the Transvaal Government, and it might well be questioned whether such a nominal authority was worth maintaining except on the point to which he had made allusion, for it could not be said that the retention of Suzerainty had in any sufficient way vindicated the authority of the Queen in the Transvaal. There was, however, the question of what was to be done in re-

    139
    gard to the relations between the Transvaal Government and the 700,000 or 800,000 Native inhabitants of the Transvaal State? A Resident had been appointed at Pretoria, whose duty was to watch over their interests. The Natives protested against being handed over to the Transvaal Government, even under those conditions. He did not at the time see how a Resident, without any power at his back, could be of much use in assisting the Natives against their Rulers. Therefore, he did not think that the question of the maintenance of the Resident was so vital as some of his hon. Friends seemed to imagine; but, at the same time, he could suggest no other means by which anything could really be done towards protecting the interests of these nations. He thought that Parliament was entitled to further information with regard to the case of the Chief Mampoer, who was hanged as a common murderer for the death of the Chief Secocoeni, which occurred in an attempt made by the last-named Chief to recover possession of a territory from which he had been deposed and to which Mampoer had been appointed. It was but natural that Mampoer should defend the territory to the government of which he had been appointed, and he could not be deemed a murderer for so doing, though the violent death of Secocoeni resulted. Then, again, Parliament had a right to inquire as to the case of another Native Chief, Mapoch, who, refusing to submit to the Transvaal Government, was subjected to very severe penalties, and many of his tribe were indentured to White inhabitants of the Transvaal. When this question was before the House last year he reminded the Prime Minister that when he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was Secretary of State for the Colonies he wrote a despatch to the Cape Government pointing out that an indenture for five years was too long, and that it ought not to be for more than a year. He was, therefore, entitled to ask whether anything had been done in this matter so as to prevent the system of indenture becoming practically one of slavery? Finally, with reference to the debt of the Transvaal State to this country, his opinion was that the Transvaal Government should not be excused from paying the debt simply because they would not; but if it could be proved that they were
    140
    unable to pay, he should be one of the first to say they should be exempted. He hoped the Government would be able to make some reasonable arrangement; and he trusted that the taxpayers of this country would not be charged with the compensation which had been paid out of our funds to those loyal subjects of the Transvaal who had been proved to have suffered through unjustifiable acts at the hands of the present Transvaal Government, or their representatives, during the war. He had taken part in this discussion for no Party purpose, but with the most cordial wish that the negotiations now in progress might have a successful issue. The affairs of South Africa ought not to be approached in a Party spirit, for they were sufficiently complicated to tax the energies, not only of any Government, but of a Government and an Opposition combined. From the firmness with which, as he understood it, the Earl of Derby had already adhered to two of the vital points at issue, and from the way in which the noble Earl had assumed the responsibility of securing that the Convention now made should really be carried out, and should not be waste paper like the old Convention, he hoped that there would be not only a nominal success in these negotiations, but that they would really, tend to the benefit of the people of South Africa.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought that the paragraph in the Queen's Speech dealing with the Transvaal could not have been passed by in silence, as great interest was felt in the subject of our relations with that territory. He was glad to believe that the speech delivered by the Under Secretary for the Colonies would remove a great deal of anxiety that many Members felt upon the subject. He understood from that speech that the official Papers would be laid on the Table in a couple of days; but he also gathered that the information that had been published in the newspapers was substantially correct, although it had been furnished by the Transvaal Delegates, and not by the Government. He trusted that the Government would, at any rate, supply the official Correspondence up to the date reached in the information supplied by the Delegates, so that the House might form a judgment on authentic documents, and not upon irresponsible statements

    141
    appearing in the newspapers. It was the more necessary that the Government should adopt that course, because it appeared that some of the statements that had been made were not quite consistent with one another. The Under Secretary for the Colonies had stated that it would he difficult to discuss the question of the Suzerainty because it was still the subject of negotiation. He did not expect the Government to explain the exact position of the negotiations, or to state what they had been asked to do or were going to do. Nevertheless, he thought that Members interested in the question of Suzerainty were justified in referring to it. It would, in his opinion, be a most serious matter to leave to the Transvaal State absolute freedom in its dealings with foreign civilized Powers. He could imagine very great evils arising from such a course were it followed, evils which might affect the whole of our South African Colonies for many generations to come. The Suzerainty had afforded very little protection—perhaps no protection—to the Natives within the Transvaal, but that fact did not diminish our duty towards the Natives. He did not think, when they looked back to the late history of events in Basutoland, to the fact that the inhabitants were grieved to lose the sovereignty of this country over them and that they protested against it, and also to the fact that they were in some danger of ill-treatment, and above all to the fact that at the time the Convention was made assurances were given in the strongest possible terms by the Government of the clay that steps should be taken for their protection—he could not imagine that they could forget that duty. Especially they must not forget that in the Sand River Convention there was an Article declaring against slavery, and he should be glad that the Government would still maintain a provision that any establishment of slavery would render the Convention null and void. But as regarded the Sand River Convention, he hoped and trusted—and he saw no reason to fear—that the most unjust provision preventing our supplying ammunition to the Natives and our entering into alliances with them would not be repeated. To whatever extent we ceased to interfere on behalf of the Natives, we were undoubtedly bound not to interfere against thorn. He was very glad to find
    142
    that Lord Derby and the Government had acknowledged our obligations to the Bechuana Chiefs, and that they resisted to the utmost all attempts on the part of the Delegates to get the sanction of this country to the freebooting robbery which had been carried out against those Chiefs, and be must thank the Government for their resistance in the matter. The trade route was also a matter of the greatest importance, not only for trade purposes, but for the progress of civilization and Christianity. That part, however, of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary which gave him the greatest satisfaction was with regard to future action and immediate future action. Judging from the past, they would be perfectly blind and perfectly foolish if they were satisfied that the Convention would maintain itself. There would not then be a chance of such a Convention lasting for months, or even for weeks. There were many persons in the Transvaal continually looking out to see how they could enter upon free-booting and marauding expeditions, and they would treat with the utmost contempt a Convention which they knew there was no power of enforcing. He had always thought that the difficulty of enforcing a Convention was far less than was generally supposed. He thought that now there was a good hope of order being maintained on our side of the boundary through the steps which the Government now stated would be taken. He was very glad to find the Cape Government joining with the Imperial Government in the establishment of Border police. He did not very much regret the refusal of the Transvaal Government to join. They had undertaken to keep order within their own boundary, which was all that he cared to ask of them. To his mind it was better that this country and the Cape Government should alone make themselves responsible for the Border line. He had seen a rumour mentioned in the Press—it might be without foundation—that an effort was to be made by the freebooters to anticipate the result of the Convention by an attack upon Mankoroane in Stellaland. He did not entirely join in all the remarks of his right hon. Friend (Mr. R. N. Fowler) in regard to the Boers, though he thought they required very careful watching. But there was nothing inconsistent

    143
    with their past conduct in such an instigation coming from the Transvaal Leaders, or even from their Delegates here. He only hoped the Government would adopt measures against any steps of the sort being taken. It was said that men of very high authority, the President or Vice President, were themselves deeply interested in the matter, by being the real owners of several farms in Stellaland. The Government should let the Delegates know that so long as there was a doubt about what would happen out there, the other provisions would not be finally settled. By holding back their final arrangements as to the Suzerainty and as to the debt, they would be able to prevent the occurrence of such a state of things. Otherwise all our negotiations would be useless. The Government should demand full proof that there was not by this mode a means of making all the negotiations as futile as previous ones had proved to be. With regard to the Eastern Frontier, he observed the Government had it under their attention, and he believed there was considerable danger of free booting happening on the Eastern Frontier on even a larger scale than on the Western. There were two or three reasons why that was so. There was such a greed of land. It seemed extraordinary that, with such an enormous territory to so few people, the Whites of the Transvaal should be so greedy of land. But it appeared to be an idiosyncrasy of the Boer farmer, that he was perfectly wretched if he could see beyond his boundary from the top of his highest tree, if he had one, or his highest hill. He called to the memory of the Government the fact that the free-booting in Bechuanaland might—and he made the statement on the authority of the Governor—have been prevented with small trouble and little cost at the very beginning. He hoped the Government would not rest entirely upon the power of the Swazis and Zulus to defend themselves, but that they would take some steps towards their protection themselves. They must recollect two things with regard to these Chiefs. As to the Swazis, they had been undoubtedly our allies; and as regarded the Zulus, the Zulu War, for which it was true the present Government were not responsible, had very much destroyed their power. If it ha not been for that war,
    144
    they would have been very well able to take care of themselves. That gave them a degree of claim upon this country, and he was of opinion that they could not allow, with any degree of regard for right or prudence, the supposition to be entertained that the Zulus were to be allowed, almost encouraged, to go on killing one another. In conclusion, there was one passage in the paragraph in the Queen's Speech which he had read with the greatest satisfaction, and that was that the Government had not shrunk from taking authority in Basutoland. He believed that their having done this would do more towards keeping peace in that territory, preventing future wars, and making the relations between the Whites and the Natives and between the English and the Dutch pacific, and guiding the future prosperity of the Colony, than any course that could have been adopted; and he, moreover, believed that that success would afford an example for our future relations with the Natives of South Africa.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he hoped that, as he was one who had taken keen interest in the questions relating to the policy of our Government in South Africa, the House would bear with him for a very few minutes. He desired, with those who had spoken before him, to express his sense of the obligation they were under to his right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor for having brought these questions at so early a period under the consideration of the House. It was true that the negotiations of the Government with the Transvaal Delegates were not concluded; but he thought that was an additional reason for being glad that the question of South Africa had been raised, because it could not but be of great advantage to Lord Derby to be made aware of the opinions of such men as his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), and his right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), than whom none were more conversant with the affairs of the Transvaal and Zululand. It must be an advantage to Lord Derby to know in what direction the hopes and fears of such men tended. Now, Her Gracious Majesty had informed the House, with respect to the communications with the Transvaal Delegates, "that nothing has

    145
    occurred to discourage the expectation that these communications may be brought to a favourable issue." This was satisfactory, if they were all agreed upon what would be a "favourable issue." He (Sir Henry Holland) ventured to think that no issue would be favourable—no issue would be satisfactory to the country—which did not clearly and distinctly provide for the protection of the Natives, who had a right to rely upon those engagements to them, which had been in truth recognized by Her Majesty's Government and this country. Last Session the Prime Minister had found fault with him (Sir Henry Holland) for not sufficiently appreciating the difficulties in South Africa, and for too lightly proposing remedies without sufficient consideration of those difficulties. But he (Sir Henry Holland) had more than once expressed his sense of the difficulties of government in South Africa, and had pointed out that they would be increased a hundredfold if we once lost our touch of the Natives—if they once lost their trust in our good faith and in our honourable observance of our engagements. In passing, he hoped the House would forgive him for pointing to the case of Zululand as bearing upon and confirming this view. For some time after Cetewayo's defeat, and after the partitioning up of Zulu-land amongst Native Chiefs, those Chiefs who had disputes with each other—disputes leading, unless checked, to disturbance and bloodshed—were ready to submit their differences to the arbitration of the Resident or of the Lieutenant Governor of Natal, and to abide by his awards; but later on, when rumours arose of the intended restoration of Cetewayo, distrust of the British good faith seemed to have arisen, and to have unfortunately checked the willingness of the Chiefs to refer to the British Government, and serious outbreaks consequently occurred which probably might have been prevented had the Chiefs continued to trust the British Government. We were bound, therefore, as a matter of policy as well as honour, to see that by the terms of the new arrangements our protection of the Natives was not diminished. One of the most important questions would be, whether Her Majesty's Suzerainty should be given up? He ventured to hope that it would not. Its retention was put forward by the
    146
    Government, at the time of the Pretoria Convention, as affording a substantial guarantee of protection to the Natives against Boer aggression and ill-treatment. This was secured, as it was urged, by the veto on all legislation affecting the Natives; and he thought it most important, in the interest of the Natives, that this veto should be retained, as we should then be in a position to exercise a wholesome check upon any measures which might savour of slavery—measures which, under the specious name of apprenticeship, really continued slavery itself, though in a modified form. He thought, further, that the retention of Her Majesty's Suzerainty might prove useful in regulating the dealings of the Transvaal Government with foreign nations. He passed by the question of the debt due to us from the Transvaal. There was no reason why it should be given up if the Boers could pay it; but if they really could not do so within a limited time, he thought it might be just as well to wipe it out as a bad debt, but in doing so the Government should bear in mind the point made by the right hon. Member the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) as to the special amount paid for compensation to those who remained loyal to the British Government. He came then to the question of the alteration of the frontier line which was fixed by the Pretoria Convention. In the first place, he should be glad to be informed whether the Government were aware of the strong belief, amounting almost to a certainty, entertained by persons conversant with what had passed outside the frontier of the Transvaal, that two, at least, of the Transvaal Leaders, Messrs. Kruger and Joubert, had largely profited by the freebooting and filibustering which had taken place outside those frontiers, and that they were, directly or indirectly, large holders in that very territory which they now were negotiating to have annexed to the Transvaal; and, secondly, whether the Government would make inquiries as to the truth of these rumours. It was certainly desirable to know whether these leading men were acting in their own interests, while professing to be acting in the interest of the Boers generally; and if the fact were proved, it ought to make Lord Derby very cautious in admitting their

    147
    statements as to what had taken place, and as to the present state of affairs, and still more cautious in trusting their promises for the future maintenance of peace and order. As to the alteration of frontier, which was stated in the newspapers to have been agreed upon, he (Sir Henry Holland) desired to make this observation—that although it was true that the actual territories of Mankoroane and Montsioa had not been included within the new frontier line, yet the position and safety of these Chiefs against attack had been materially affected. Instead of having two independent and weak Chiefs between them, they now would have a strong and rapacious, and, he might add, aggressive Republican power between them. What return could be made to Mankoroane and Montsioa for this weakening of their position caused by our arrangements with the Transvaal Government and alteration of the frontier line? He thought that the Government were bound to see that they were safely secured against any future encroachment, whether affected directly or indirectly, by the Government of the Transvaal; and that that Government should be held responsible for the acts of its subjects, and should not be allowed to plead that they could not restrain those subjects. And this led him, in conclusion, to ask the Government a very plain question to which, he felt sure, the House and the country would look for a plain answer. He wanted to ask the Government if they would now assure the House and the country that if the Convention, as altered, was broken by the Transvaal Government, they would insist upon and require its observance? The Pretoria Convention had been broken, as had been the Sand River Convention in the past; and there was, to say the least of it, a strong possibility of the altered Convention being broken. It must be remembered that the Transvaal Delegates were not satisfied with the new frontier line, though they had for the time yielded. Unless, then, the Government took a decided line and made it known that they would insist upon the observance of this Frontier line, and thus secure our Native allies, we might well fear lest the Boers should pursue the same tactics that they had pursued with such success in setting aside the Pre-
    148
    toria Convention frontier line with which they were then dissatisfied. They were certain to begin again within a few years agitating for a re-arrangement of the new frontier line with the professed view of putting an end to further tribal disturbances which they would have, as heretofore, indirectly fostered. But by giving some distinct assurance of the kind he asked for, by showing at once their determination to enforce observance of the Convention, Her Majesty's Government would best ensure that observance; best protect the Natives against encroachment and attack; and probably prevent a renewal of the troubles which had landed us in our present position. He was glad to hear that the Government had decided to have a Resident outside the Transvaal Frontier, and also to keep up a body of Border police. He had advocated both these measures, and especially the latter. It was satisfactory to learn that the Cape Government would join with us in supporting this police force, as it would tend materially to increase its efficiency and power; but even should the Cape Government change their views upon this point, he was satisfied that we must employ a Border police, and he did not believe that this policy would tend to war or trouble with the Transvaal Government, as was last Session anticipated by some, but the very reverse.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House at any length after the speech of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies, which had been received with general satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had entered into a justification of the Lord Mayor (Mr. R. N. Fowler) for raising this debate. He did not think any justification was necessary. No complaint had been made by the Government either of the raising of the debate or of the manner in which it had been conducted. The time had been well spent, if only for this—that the debate had elicited from the right hon. Gentleman a statement that he would come to the consideration of these important negotiations in which the Government were now engaged with a cordial desire for their successful issue, and that he felt that our position in South Africa was so difficult and complicated that it ought to be treated

    149
    by the Opposition and Government alike without any Party spirit. The right hon. Gentleman stated that anarchy in Zululand had resulted from Cetewayo's restoration. He (Mr. Chamberlain) did not think that accurately represented the state of things. There was anarchy, or something very nearly approaching to anarchy, before Cetewayo was restored. There were disturbances and disputes as to precedence, who should be the chief Ruler of the country, which would have led to anarchy. No doubt the restoration of Cetewayo had failed to bring about a satisfactory settlement. But what alternative would the right hon. Gentleman have proposed as likely to produce a more effective settlement? There was only one—namely, the annexation of the country, and that was scarcely suggested by him, since that was a course against which the late Government always consistently set their face. Although they had to regret the failure of the settlement attempted to be secured by the restoration of Cetewayo, still he did not think it was fair to say that any other settlement ought to have been attempted, for there was no other open but to undertake the annexation of the country. The right hon. Gentleman went on to point out the danger of Cetewayo's presence in the Reserve. That matter would receive the careful consideration of the Government. There was no doubt that his presence there was a difficulty and a danger, and it called for immediate attention. Coming to the negotiations at present proceeding with the Transvaal, he noticed, in the first place, an observation of the right hon. Gentleman that the arrangements with regard to the Cape route and the Chiefs of Bechuanal and appeared to him to be on the whole satisfactory, and he regretted that the Government had not made those arrangements 18 months ago. He (Mr. Chamberlain) desired to repeat and enforce what had been said by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies, that the condition of things with which they were now dealing did not exist 18 months ago. They had now the assent of the Cape authorities and of the Transvaal. Eighteen months ago they could not have obtained the assent of the Transvaal to the arrangements now being made, and without this assent the Cape
    150
    absolutely refused to enter into negotiations on this subject. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Holland) called on the Government to say that they were prepared to go to war with the Transvaal if they did not keep to their engagements. This was a most unusual request. It would hardly be becoming to anticipate a breach of faith on the part of the other negotiators, and to say what the Government would do in that event. If they were to assume that the Transvaal Government would not keep its engagements, they ought absolutely to refuse to negotiate with it at all. It was alleged that, the Transvaal authorities having broken the previous Convention, they were most likely also to break the next. A great deal was to be said as to what constituted a technical breach of the Convention, and how far it had been broken. As a matter of fact, he supposed they had broken it in assuming a title for their State which was not authorized; but that would not be made a serious cause of complaint against them. When, however, it was alleged they broke the Convention by attacking the Natives outside the Border, he must point out that this was absolutely denied on behalf of the Transvaal. As a State they asserted—and he thought they had some ground for their assertion—that they had not broken the Convention by attacking the Natives outside the Border, although they acknowledged that freebooters—some from the Transvaal, some from the Orange Free State, and some from our own Possessions—had attacked the Natives, and that they were unable to restrain them. Bearing in mind that distinction, he had to point out that if hereafter there should happen again what had happened in the past, and if freebooters from the Transvaal State should again attack Mankoroane and Montsioa, who would be outside the Border, they would, under this arrangement, come in conflict with the police established and maintained at the cost of the Imperial Government and the Cape Colony, who would, he had no doubt, be able to give a very good account of them. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) referred in some detail to the question of the Suzerainty. The Suzerainty over the Transvaal was a matter as to which there was a good deal of difference in the House; but its value was to be regarded in con-

    151
    nection with two matters—first, as to the foreign relations of the Transvaal State, and next, as to its internal government, and especially as to its dealing with Native questions. As far as the negotiations had proceeded at present, that subject was absolutely a blank page, because the Transvaal Agents had made no demand, and Her Majesty's Government had to hear what they had to propose, and give it careful consideration. But, with reference to the control of the Natives in the territory of the Transvaal, he thought he ought to say that, although they had heard of the rumours which had been referred to in that debate, yet they had no evidence on which they could rely that in recent years the conduct of the Transvaal authorities had been such as to cause serious complaint; and it was certainly in their favour that the Natives in the Transvaal had multiplied many fold under a Government which was said to be very harsh and oppressive. It was clear, therefore, that the Natives found it much better than the government of the Chiefs from whom they had sought to escape. It had been urged that it was very important that slavery should not be imposed on the Transvaal Border under cover of a system of indentures or the like. He (Mr. Chamberlain) was sorry that, as people who lived in glass houses in reference to this matter of indentures, they were not in the position to throw the first stone at the Transvaal authorities. He was afraid the system of indentures was invented by British authorities, or, at all events, carried out to a large extent under British control. He was speaking from recollection, but he thought he would be borne out in stating that indentures much longer than those they complained of in the case of the Boers were permitted in connection with Cape Colony, and also in connection with the administration of Natal, and that within the last 10 years indentures of five years had been permitted under British rule; and, unless he was mistaken, the indentures which the Transvaal authorities proposed to sanction were of three years' duration. Even those Her Majesty's Government thought unnecessarily long, and they had made friendly representations to the Boers in the hope that they might consent to shorten them. But he thought it was right that the House should know that
    152
    in this matter we were not entitled to speak as we should have been if our own hands were perfectly clean. He thought he had gone over all the new points left untouched by his hon. Friend (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), and he could only say, in sitting down, that it was satisfactory to the Government to find that their policy in regard to those negotiations, as far as they were now able to explain them, met with the general concurrence of the House.
    MR. ANDERSON: I beg to move the adjournment of the debate. I think, after the reply that was given to me by the Prime Minister this forenoon—a reply which I feel bound to say was singularly wanting in the courtesy which usually characterizes the right hon. Gentleman's replies—I see no other course but to vindicate the rights of private Members by moving the adjournment of the debate, and taking a Division upon it. Wednesday is essentially a private Members' day, and we have a right to have our Bills taken on Wednesday. Government, by calling the House together on a Tuesday, have put us in a great difficulty. They have taken upwards of four hours of our private Members' day, and I think it is not too much to ask that private Members be allowed to have the remaining two hours of the Sitting for bringing in their Bills. According to the invariable custom of the House, the order for bringing in Bills is settled by ballot. That ballot was arranged yesterday. A number of Members, who asked the Clerks at the Table what the order of procedure would be, received various replies. Some were told they had better try Thursday; others that in all probability the arrangement would be made for an early adjournment of this debate to-day, in order that they might get their Bills introduced. Those who followed the latter statement chose Wednesday; those who did not chose Thursday; and by the arrangement which has now been made by the Prime Minister, it is clear that those Members who got good places in the ballot for Wednesday would be entirely cut out if the debate be prolonged till a quarter to 6 o'clock. It is because an unusual course has been followed that we are put in this difficulty. The House usually meets on a Thursday, and Friday becomes the day for Members to introduce their Bills. I do not say it is unprecedented to summon the

    153
    House on Tuesday, but it is convenient, because, Wednesday being the following day, it makes it impossible for private Members to introduce their Bills if the debate is continued until a quarter to 6 o'clock. If the Prime Minister does not consent to the reasonable request that private Members should have the remaining two hours of this Sitting on their own day, the Government will not gain any time, because it will become necessary at some subsequent time to move a change in the Rules under which this procedure takes place, and that must be debated at some length. I would strongly urge on the Government now to allow the debate to be adjourned, in order that private Members may be able to get their Bills introduced in the order in which they believed their precedence secured by the ballot.
    MR. STEVENSONseconded the Motion, which was a necessary consequence of the House having met on a Tuesday, and gave expression to a hope that the Government would not make a stand against the opinions and the convenience of the general body of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Anderson.)
    MR. PARNELL: I trust that the Prime Minister will give a favourable ear to the request which has been made by the hon. Member for Glasgow. Members of this House have always been accustomed to look to the chances of the ballot as their one chance for the purpose of enabling them to bring Bills before the attention of the House, and the ballot that was duly taken on the first day that this House assembled gave certain days to certain Members for that purpose; but what was our astonishment when we found that the whole of that arrangement was likely to be upset, owing to the fact that the day following the assembly of the House was to be Wednesday. Now, Sir, I cannot help thinking that if the usual custom is not pursued on the present occasion by the adjournment of the debate somewhat earlier than usual, in order to enable private Members to bring in Bills for first reading at the usual time, that the ordinary custom of the House will be departed from in a marked degree, and a very serious injury will have been
    154
    done to the rights of private Members. The rights of private Members have been very seriously limited of late years. The Government has been in the habit during the past few years—I will not say without cause—of absorbing more of the time of private Members than any ever did before. And it would be very unfortunate if private Members of this House were to commence their Session with the knowledge that the chances that the ballot guaranteed to them by the Rules of this House have been completely thrust aside owing to this precedent, which, practically speaking, enables any Members who display sufficient activity of body and mind to appropriate Wednesdays, which are usually open to private Members during the Session. Speaking for myself and those who sit about me, I wish to say that we were fortunate enough to secure very good days for two important Bills—one relating to the amendment of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, and the other relating to the Labourers' Act. I fully believe that important results will arise out of both these measures, and we should extremely regret if we were by this mistake deprived of the results which we were fortunate enough to obtain by the operation of the ballot. I do, therefore, trust that the Prime Minister, seeing—for he must see—that it would be impossible to make much more progress with this debate, will consent to the Motion for Adjournment which has been made by the hon. Member for Glasgow. I do not speak from the point of view of obstruction—nothing of the sort is intended—certainly not by any of my Friends who sit about me—but from the general point of view of the unpleasant occurrence which upset the calculations of some hon. Members who intended to move Amendments from these Benches. I do, therefore, trust that under the unusual circumstances attending the rights of private Members, the Prime Minister will be able to give us some chance of rescuing those Wednesdays which were obtained in the ballot for the purpose of bringing the measures I have indicated before the House.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had thought it necessary, in the discharge of his duty, to complain of his (Mr. Gladstone's) discourtesy in

    155
    the answer he gave to him in reference to this matter. It appeared to him, however, that he need not take up the time of the House by defending the answer he gave. This was a question which was fairly in the power of the House to decide. He thought it his duty not to take away from hon. Members who might wish to do so the opportunity of discussing the Address; and, therefore, he declined to take the responsibility of shortening the debate. The debate on the Transvaal and South Africa, however, had come to a close, and he did not perceive that any other hon. Gentleman was prepared to go on with any other subject. He admitted that there was force in what had been urged by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that plans had been divided by the occurrence of last night and hon. Gentlemen dislocated from their position. It was his duty to secure opportunity for prosecuting the debate; and he had, therefore, no objection to the debate being adjourned.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate further adjourned till Tomorrow.

    EGYPT—THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, before the House adjourns I wish to give it the latest information in our possession from Egypt. At the commencement of the Sitting I was asked whether we had any information from Egypt which had led to the adoption of any measures, and I said "No." Since then a communication has been received from Admiral Hewett, who thinks it wise, with reference to the security of Suakim, to anticipate the possibility that, under the excitement of victory, the Arabs might make an attack upon that place. He is, therefore, desirous of having his forces strengthened, and we have accordingly taken measures for supplying him with increased forces in order to secure the safety of that place.
  MOTIONS.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Bill to provide for the greater Security of Life and Property at Sea, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, and Mr. Holms.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 1.]

    ELECTIONS (HOURS OF POLLING) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir CHARLES DILKE, Bill to extend the Hours of Polling at Parliamentary and Municipal Elections in certain Boroughs, ordered to be brought in by Sir CHARLES DILKE, Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 2.]

    MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill for the better prevention of Corrupt and illegal Practices at Municipal and other Elections, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Secretary Sir WILLIAM HAKCOURT, Sir CHARLES DILKE, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
    Bill presented, and road the first time. [Bill 3.]

    LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill to amend the Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases by rendering accused persons competent to give evidence, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 4.]

    LEASEHOLDERS (FACILITIES OF PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. BROADHURST, Bill to enable Leaseholders of Houses and cottages to purchase the Fee Simple of their property, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BROADHURST, MR. REID, Mr. BURT, Mr. PASSMORE EL-WARDS, and Mr. PULESTON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 5.]

    METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (FURTHER POWERS) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG, Bill to confer further powers upon the Metropolitan Board of Works with respect to applications to Parliament and legal proceedings relating to the supply of water in the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Sir JAMES M'GARELHOGG, Sir JOHN DALRYMPLE HAY, and Mr. BRYCE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 6.]

    COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. WAUGH, Bill to amend the Copyhold Acts, and to promote the Enfranchisement of Lands of Copyhold and Customary Tenure, and of Lands subject to customary and other incidents and rights, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WAUGH, Mr. GEORGE HOWARD, Mr. STAFFORD HOWARD, Mr. AINSWOHTH, and Mr. FERGUSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 7.]

    LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881, AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. BARRY, Bill to amend "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," and for

    157
    other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BARRY, Mr. PARNELL. Mr. JUSTIN M'CARTHY, Mr. HEALY, Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR, and Mr. SEXTON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 8.]

    PATENT MEDICINES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. WARTON, Bill to restrict the sale of Patent Medicines, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WARTON and Dr. FARQUHARSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 9.]

    DISPOSAL OF THE DEAD (REGULATIONS) BILL.
    On Motion of Dr. CAMERON, Bill to provide for the Regulation of Cremation and other modes of Disposal of the Dead, ordered to be brought in by Dr. CAMERON, Sir LYON PLAYFAIR, and Dr. FARQUHARSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 10.]

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAYS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. STEVENSON, Bill to prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STEVENSON, Mr. HOULDSWORTH, Sir WILLIAM M 'ARTHUR, Mr. WALTER JAMES, Mr. CHARLES Ross, Mr. CHARLES WILSON, and Mr. CAINE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 11.]

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave he given to bring in a Bill to enable owners and occupiers of property in burghs, parishes, and districts in Scotland to prevent the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors within such areas.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to he brought in by Mr. M'LAGAN, Dr. CAMERON, Mr. WADDY, Mr. DICK PEDDIE, Mr. NOEL, and Mr. MACKINTOSH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 12.]

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (CORNWALL) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR VIVIAN, Bill to prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday in Cornwall, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR VIVIAN, Sir JOHN ST. AUBYN, Mr. BORLASE, and Mr. ACLAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 13.]

    INFANTS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. BRYCE, Bill to amend the Law relating to the custody and guardianship of Infants, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRYCE, Mr. DAVEY, and Mr. HENDERSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time, [Bill 14.]

    INCOME TAX ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HUBBARD, Bill to amen the Administration of the Law of Income Tax ordered to be brought in by Mr. HUBBARD, Sir CHARLES FORSTER, Mr. EDWARD LEATHAM, and Mr. WHITLEY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 15.]

    LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MOLLOY, Bill to amend the Labourers' (Ireland) Act, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MOLLOY, Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR, Mr. PARNELL, and Mr. SEXTON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 16.]

    CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. LEATHAM, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Sale of Church Patronage, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LEATHAM, Mr. RYLANDS, Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, and Mr. SHIELD.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 17.]

    SITES FOR CHURCHES, &C. (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Colonel NOLAN, Bill to facilitate the acquirement by purchase of Sites for Churches, for Schools, and for the residences of Teachers and Clergymen, ordered to be brought in by Colonel NOLAN, Mr. EDMOND GRAY, Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR, Mr. O'SHEA, Mr. BIGGAR, and Mr. O'SULLIVAN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 18.]

    ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL, Bill to amend the Law in regard to Ecclesiastical Assessments in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL, Admiral Sir JOHN HAY, and Mr. DALRYMPLE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 19.]

    ELECTIVE COUNCILS AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. LYNCH, Bill dealing with Elective Councils and the Government of Counties in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LYNCH, Mr. JUSTIN M'CARTHY, Mr. HEALY, Mr. DAWSON, and Mr. SEXTON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 20.]

    CEMETERIES BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to Cemeteries.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. RICHARD, Mr. HENRY H.

    159
    FOWLER, Mr. ILLINGWORTH, Mr. CATNE, and Mr. WOODALL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 21.]

    POOR LAW GUARDIAN'S (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. O'BRIEN, Bill to amend the Laws relating to the election and constitution of Boards of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland, ordered to he brought in by Mr. O'BRIEN, Mr. GRAY, Mr. MAYNE, Mr. O'SULLIVAN, and Mr. MARUM.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 22.]

    LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 (PURCHASE CLAUSES) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. THOMAS DICKSON, Bill to amend and extend the Purchase Clauses of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," ordered to he brought in by Mr. THOMAS DICKSON, Mr. WILLIAM SHAW, Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL, Mr. LEA, and Mr. FINDLATER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time [Bill 23.]

    YORKSHIRE LAND REGISTRIES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. DODDS, Bill to consolidate and amend the several Acts for regulating the Registration of Assurances affecting Land in Yorkshire, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODDS, Mr. CHARLES PALMER, Mr. BARRAN, and Mr. ISAAC WILSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 24.]

    REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. SEXTON, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Registration of Parliamentary and other Voters in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SEXTON, Mr. CORBET, Mr. DAWSON, Mr. O'BRIEN, and Mr. GRAY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 25.]

    CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. STEVENSON, Bill to amend the Cruelty to Animals Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ANDERSON, Sir FREDERICK MILRANK, Mr. SAMUEL MORLEY, Mr. COCHRANE-PATRICK, Mr. JACOB BRIGHT, Mr. PASSMORE EDWARDS, and Mr. BUCHANAN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 26.]

    FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. KENNY, Bill to provide for the better administration of the fund under the control of the Trustees to Aid the Sea and Coast Fisheries of Ireland; and for other purposes in relation thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KENNY, Mr. LEAMY, Mr. DAWSON, Mr. BARRY, and Mr. CORBET.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 27.]

    VACCINATION ACTS (COMPULSORY CLAUSES REPEAL) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. P. A. TAYLOR, Bill to repeal the Compulsory Clauses of the Vaccination Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. P.-
    160
    A. TAYLOR, Mr. BLENNERHASSETT, Mr. BURT, Mr. HOPWOOD, and Sir WILFRID LAWSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 28.]

    LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 (EXTENSION TO LEASEHOLDERS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. FINDLATER, Bill to extend the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, to leaseholders, ordered to be brought in by Mr. FINDLATER, Mr. THOMAS DICKSON, Mr. WILLIAM SHAW, Mr. LEA, and Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 29.]

    LAND PERPETUAL GRANT (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. BLENNERHASSETT, Bill to amend the Acts authorising the making of Grants of Lands in Perpetuity at variable rents in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BLENNERHASSETT, Mr. BERESFORD, Mr. CHARLES PUSSELL, and Mr. CLOSE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 30.]

    NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM CORBET, Bill to make better provision for National School Teachers in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM CORBET, Mr. SEXTON, Colonel NOLAN, Mr. HEALY, and Mr. T. D. SULLIVAN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 34.]

    TREES PLANTING (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HARRINGTON, Bill to promote the Planting of Trees in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HARRINGTON, Mr MARUM, Mr. O'SULLIVAN, and Mr. SHEIL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 32.]

    LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (DISABILITIES) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MAURICE BROOKS, Bill to remove certain religious disabilities affecting the Office of Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MAURICE BROOKS, Mr. WILLIAM SHAW, Dr. LYONS, Mr. FINDLATER, and Colonel COLTHURST.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 33.]

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (YORKSHIRE) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. CHARLES WILSON, Bill to prohibit the sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday in the county of York, the city of York, and the county of the town of Kingston upon Hull, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHARLES WILSON, Mr. BARRAN, Mr. CAINE, Mr. ISAAC WILSON, Sir MATTHEW WILSON, and Mr. PEASE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 34.]

    EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT (1880) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. BURT, Bill to amend "The Employers' Liability Act, 1880," ordered to be

    161
    brought in by Mr. BURT, Mr. BROADHURST, Mr. DICK PEDDIE, Mr. O'CONNOR POWER, Mr. PASSMORE EDWARDS, and Mr. MACLTVER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 35.]

    INHABITED HOUSE DUTY BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman he directed to move the House, that leave he given to bring-in a Bill to amend the Law regulating the Duty on Inhabited Houses.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY WOIFF, Lord ALGERNON PERCY, Sir HENRY HOLLAND, and Mr. PEMBERTON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 36.]

    SALMON (WEEKLY CLOSE TIME) (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. M 'HAH ON, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Weekly Close Season for Salmon in the Tidal Waters of Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'MAHON, Mr. BLAKE, Mr. LEAMY, Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA, Mr. O'SHEA, and Mr. BARRY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 37.]

    COMPANIES' ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to the Incorporation, Regulation, and Winding-up of Trading Companies and other Associations.
    Resolution reported;—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MONK, Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, and Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 38.]

    LUNATICS (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir THOMAS M'CLURE, Bill to amend the Law relating to the care of Lunatics in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Sir THOMAS M'CLURE, Lord ARTHUR HILL, Mr. THOMAS LEA, Mr. GREER, Mr. FINDLATER, and Dr. LYONS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 39.]

    WASTE LANDS AFFORESTATION (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Dr. LYONS, Bill for the Re-afforesting of the Waste Lands of Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Dr. LYONS, Sir THOMAS M'CLURE, and Mr. MAURICE BROOKS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 40.]

    MORTMAIN LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, Bill to amend the Mortmain Act, and to facilitate and compel the sale of all lands held in Mortmain, ordered to be brought in by Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, Sir HENRY WOLFF, and Mr. RYLANDS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 41.]

    DWELLING HOUSES INSPECTION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MONCKTON, Bill for the Sanitary Inspection of Dwelling Houses, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MONCKTON, Marquess of STAFFORD, Mr. H. T. DAVENPORT, and Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER.
    Bill presented, and road the first time. [Bill 42.]

    OYSTER CULTIVATION (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. BLAKE, Bill to promote the Cultivation of Oysters in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BLAKE, Mr. O'SHEA, and Colonel NOLAN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 43.]

    GROUND GAME ACT (1880) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Bill to amend "The Ground Game Act, 1880," ordered to be brought in by Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Mr. BORLASE, and Mr. DAVEY".
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 44.]

    SCHOOL, &C. BUILDINGS (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Colonel COLTHURST, Bill to amend the Law relating to the building of National Schools, Industrial Schools, and Training Colleges, in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Colonel COLTHURST, Mr. WILLIAM SHAW, Mr. THOMAS DICKSON, Mr. BLENNERHASSETT, and Mr. PATRICK MARTIN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 45.]

    DISUSED BURIAL GROUNDS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HOLLOND, Bill for preventing the erection of buildings on Disused Burial Grounds, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HOLLOND, Mr. BRYCE, and Mr. PELL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 46.]

    ORANGE ORGANIZATION (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. T. D. SULLIVAN, Bill for the Suppression of the Orange Organization in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. D. SULLIVAN, Mr. MAYNE, and Mr. SEXTON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 47.]

    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (DISTRICT COURTS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. JOSEPH COWEN, Bill to amend and extend the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts 1873 to 1879, and to make provision for the better local administration of justice in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOSEPH COWEN, Mr. EUSTACE SMITH, Mr. ROWLEY HILL, and Mr. THOMAS THOMPSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 148.]

    METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (FIRE BRIGADE EXPENSES) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG, Bill to amend "The Metropolitan Fire Brigade Act, 1865," and "The Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans) Act, 1869," with respect to the

    163
    contributions by the Insurance Companies that insure from fire property in the Metropolis towards the expenses of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade; and to the moneys to he raised by the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purposes of the said Fire Brigade, ordered to be brought in by Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG and Baron HENRY DE WORMS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 49.]

    MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTEE BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. BROADHUUST, Bill to alter and amend the Law as to Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, ordered to he brought in by Mr. BROADHDHST, Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS, Mr. Alderman COTTON, Dr. CAMERON, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. CAUSTON, Mr. PULESTON, Mr. BURT, Mr. HENEAGE, and Mr. SAMUEL MORLEY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 50.]

    PRIVATE LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir. WILLIAM CORBET, Bill to alter and amend the Law relating to Private Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, and to make other and more suitable provision for paying Patients, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM CORBET, Mr. BLAKE, Mr. DILLWYN, Mr. DAWSON, and Mr. RICHARD POWER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 51.]

    PARTNERSHIPS' ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MONK, Bill to consolidate and amend the Law of Partnership, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MONK and Mr. Serjeant SIMON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 52.]

    BILLS OF EXCHANGE REGISTRATION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. NORWOOD, Bill to provide for the Registration of dishonoured Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, and to allow summary judgment thereon, ordered to be brought in by Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. LEWIS FRY, Mr. MONK, and Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 53.]

    REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. NORWOOD, Bill for the Registration of Firms, and of persons carrying on business under names or styles other than their own, ordered to be brought in by Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. MONK, Mr. CHARLES PALMER, and Mr. WILLS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 54.]
    House adjourned at Five o'clock.