Commons Sitting of 22 February 1884

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons); Harbour Accommodation, nominated.
PUBLIC BILL—second Reading—Greek Marriages* [102].

QUESTIONS.

  GROUND GAME ACT, 1880—RABBIT TRAPPING ON SUNDAY,
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the following case, reported in the local Conservative journal, The Wicklow Newsletter of the 26th ul-

  1715
  timo, has been brought under his notice as having occurred at Newtown, Mount Kennedy Petty Sessions, before a full Bench of Magistrates, including Mr. M'Level, R.M.:—
  "Curious Prosecution for Rabbit Trapping on Sunday.
  "Mr. C. R. D. Gun Cuningham, J.P. prosecuted a labouring man, named Thomas Keane, for unlawfully using and setting traps for the purpose of taking rabbits on Sunday 23rd, and Sunday 30th, December, at Ballyronan;"
  whether Mr. Cuningham swore that he was concealed behind a ditch for twenty minutes watching Keane, and that he brought the prosecution, not for taking rabbits off the land, but for trapping on Sunday; whether it was proved by John Byrne, the occupier of the farm, that he had made an agreement with Keane to trap the rabbits; was it under an old statute of the Irish Parliament the proceedings were taken; whether, on hearing the evidence, the following sentence, involving fines to the extent of £3, was passed by the Court:—
  "The Magistrates retired, and, on resuming their seats on the Bench, the Chairman said they had carefully considered the cases. The penalty the defendant was liable to was £4 in each case, but the Bench considering that the present cases were merely technical offences, they were disposed to impose the low penalty of 10 s. and costs in each case; "
  and, whether, under all the circumstances, he will recommend His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant to remit the fine?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This case was brought under my notice by the hon. Member, and I submitted it to the Lord Lieutenant, who inquired into the facts, and has had them under his consideration. The defendant was charged under the old Act referred to with setting traps on Sundays, and he was also charged under 43 & 44 Vict. c. 47, with setting spring traps in the open. The evidence was clear and conclusive; and it was proved that, though warned on the first occasion mentioned, he repeated the offence a week later. The magistrates inflicted mitigated penalties, amounting in all to £3, and the Lord Lieutenant has been pleased further to reduce them to 25 s. in all.

  PROPERTY DEFENCE ASSOCIATION (IRELAND)—MR. J. D. BELL.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  1716
  If it is true that the name of Mr. J. D. Bell, an official court valuer under the Irish Land Commission, appears in a published statement as that of a subscriber of £2 to the funds of the County Louth Branch of the "Property Defence Association;" and, whether, considering the nature and effect of the duties with regard to landlord and tenant litigants which devolve upon the valuers of the Irish Land Commission, Mr. Bell will be retained in the employment of that department?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I referred this Question to the Land Commissioners, and they informed me that they are not aware whether or not it is true, and they decline to inquire.

  CHARITY COMMISSION—SUTTON ST. EDMUND'S CHARTTY LANDS.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether the Charity Commissioners have expressed an opinion to the Trustees of Sutton Saint Edmund's Charity Lands, to the effect that the portions of those lands known as "Watson's Charity," "Blank's Charity," and the "Poor's Land," in all fifty-eight acres, come under "The Allotments Extension Act, 1882;" whether the Trustees, contrary to the provisions of the Act, and in disregard of the applications of the men, have let these lands by auction to farmers and others; whether the Charity Commissioners have offered to give the Trustees a certificate to the effect that these lands are unsuitable for allotments; and, whether, having regard to the fact that this certificate would deprive the men of the benefit of the Allotments Act, the Commissioners will before granting it ascertain and consider the opinion of the labourers themselves as to the suitability of the land?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Charity Commissioners have not expressed an opinion to the Trustees to the effect that any portion of these lands known as "Blank's Charity," or the "Poor's Lands," come under the Allotments Extension Act. They have, on the contrary, expressed an opinion that these lands are not at present within the Act. They have, however, informed the Trustees that the lands, amounting to seven acres in extent, known as "Watson's Charity," do come within the Act. The Charity

  1717
  Commissioners are not aware of any letting of these lands by the Trustees made since January, 1883. It was then proposed to let them, or part of them, for a year, from April, 1883; but in consequence of representations made by the Commissioners to the Trustees, the proposed term was reduced in respect of part of the lands to one ending at Michaelmas, 1883. The Commissioners have not offered to give the Trustees a certificate to the effect that the lands of "Watson's Charity" are unsuitable for allotments; but they have informed them that they are prepared to consider any application made to them under Section 11 of the Act for such a certificate. The Commissioners, in the discharge of the duty imposed upon them by Section 11 of the Act, will take such evidence as may be offered them upon any application made to them in this case.

  EGYPT (EXPEDITIONARY FORCE)—HOSPITAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in the field hospitals detailed for service in the approaching campaign, any increase of the Army Hospital Corps Staff would be made, for the purpose of providing washermen, sanitary police, watermen, and other subsidiary services of the hospital, of which the want was so much felt in the Egyptian campaign?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The arrangements for equipping the Medical Service of the Expedition to Suakim have been made locally, and Reports as to details have not yet been received. The Army Hospital Corps in Egypt has been reinforced by a detachment of 50 non-commissioned officers and men.

  NAVY—THE WORKS AT HAULBOW-LINE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the fact that five hundred men are daily employed on the pier and harbour works at Haulbowline, Queenstown; whether these men are carried to and from the works in open boats during the darkest mornings and evenings regardless of the state of the sea; and, whether he will give instructions to the superintendent of the works in question, with a view of
  1718
  securing a safer means of transit for these men in future?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: About 450 men are employed at Haulbowline. They are conveyed in open boats provided by the Admiralty. The distances traversed vary from three quarters of a mile to a mile and a-half. The navigation is entirely by river, or in the most sheltered part of Queenstown Harbour. The present arrangements have existed over 15 years. No complaint has been made to the Admiralty, and no accident is known to have occurred. The Government do not intend to take any action.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—PROCLAIMED MEETING AT CASTLEWELLAN.
  MR. BERESFORDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a letter in The Times newspaper of the 19th instant, signed by the Rev. Harold Rylett, and headed "The Recent Proclaimed Meeting at Castlewellan, co. Down," in which the writer states that a meeting was held at Burren Bock, about one mile from Castlewellan, at which he addressed between 1,000 and 2,000 persons, in defiance of the Proclamation; and, whether the Government intend to institute proceedings against Mr. Rylett for this violation of the Law?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Arising out of that Question, I wish to ask the Chief Secretary a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is, what steps the Government have taken to prosecute the gentlemen who a short time ago persisted in holding a so-called Nationalist meeting at Loughrea in defiance of the Lord Lieutenant's proclamation suppressing it?
  LORD ARTHUR HILLalso asked whether the Government intended to prosecute the Rev. Harold Rylett?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The attention of the Government has been drawn to the letter in The Times of the 19th instant, but the statements contained in it are by no means borne out by the official Reports received on the subject. The Government are advised that the attempt made to address a few persons, who immediately dispersed on the approach of the Resident Magistrate and

  1719
  police, does not afford sufficient ground for instituting a prosecution, as suggested. Perhaps the noble Lord the M ember for County Down (Lord Arthur Hill) will accept this as an answer to the similar Question which he has on the Paper. As to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel King-Harman), I have to say that the hon. and gallant Member did not mention, in the Notice which he gave me of this Question, the date of the circumstance to which he refers, and I do not know the grounds of his belief that such a meeting as he mentions was held. I am aware statements were published in The Freeman's Journal that a meeting was held and speeches delivered at Loughrea on the 20th of last month, in spite of a Proclamation of prohibition. But these statements were unfounded. Both the Resident Magistrate and the District Inspector of Constabulary, when I inquired into the truth of these statements, informed me that no such thing had occurred.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the speeches delivered at the Loughrea meeting were printed at full length in The Freeman's Journal?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir; but I believe it was all humbug.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—DUTIES AS TO PUBLIC MEETINGS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has observed that certain deputy lieutenants and magistrates of the county Rosscommon have joined in a public declaration condemning the removal of Lord Rossmore from the Commission of the Peace, and that they say—
  "We cannot recognise the justice of the dictum that it is the duty of magistrates to abstain from being present on occasions when breaches of the peace are likely to take place;"
  whether the dictum of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as to the duty of magistrates when parties organise a counter-meeting, and bring their forces into close proximity with a meeting not prohibited, was in the following terms:—
  "A magistrate assigned to preserve the peace ought not to take any part in such a proceeding. His duty is either to be absent altogether, or only to be present as an impartial person to
  1720
  aid the constituted authorities in preserving the peace;"
  and, whether the deputy' lieutenants and magistrates in question will be informed that they have misrepresented the dictum of the Lord Chancellor, and whether they will be obliged, as a matter of duty, to conform to it?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There is some obsecurity about that part of the Resolution which is quoted. It is undoubtedly the duty of a magistrate to aid in suppressing breaches of the peace, and he is there to act impartially; but if the Resolution is to be taken as referring to the dictum laid down in the Lord Chancellor's letter to Sir John Leslie on the duty of magistrates, I am in a position to state, on the authority of the Lord Chancellor, that if any magistrates were to act contrary to the view of the law as therein stated, they would not be considered by the Lord Chancellor as fit persons to hold any longer Her Majessy's Commission of the Peace.

  IRELAND—THE GRAND MASTER OF THE BELFAST ORANGEMEN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Irish Government has been drawn to the speech referred to in the following paragraph, extracted from The Dublin Evening Mail of Monday the 18th instant:—
  "At the annual meeting of the Boers Loyal True Blues Loyal Orange Lodge at Ballymacarrett, Belfast, on Saturday, an address was delivered by Mr. E. S. W. Cobain, Grand Master of the Orangemen of Belfast. In the course of his remarks Mr. Cobain, referring to the attack made on Mr. Wm. Johnston, of Ballykilbeg, on Thursday night, in the House of Commons, by Mr. Sexton, and said that if the Government dared to lay its hand upon William Johnston, he hoped the Orangemen of Ireland would send a brigade of Orangemen to the House of Commons to pronounce their condemnation of the Government;"
  and, whether Mr. Cobain will be prosecuted?
  VISCOUNT CRICHTONasked, whether Mr. Cobain did not disclaim the interpretation placed on his speech; and whether his words were not these—
  "We shall send to Parliament a brigade of Orange Members to represent our loyal principles, and to resist those who aim at the disintegration of the Empire?"
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Government are advised that the words in the

  1721
  newspaper paragraph from which the hon. Member for Sligo quotes afford no grounds for prosecuting Mr. Cobain, even if correctly reported. I am aware, however, that, as mentioned by the noble Lord the Member for Fermanagh, Mr. Cobain denies the accuracy of the newspaper report. He did not recommend any attempt to intimidate the House of Commons; but advised the returning of a brigade of Orange Members to the House. I think that even without this explanation Mr. Cobain's meaning was sufficiently clear.

  POST OFFICE—THE SUBURBAN DISTRICTS.
  MR. COLERIDGE KENNARDasked the Postmaster General, If he can afford postal facilities such as are enjoyed by the districts of Hampstead Heath, Camberwell, and Notting Hill to the inhabitants of the suburbs of Brixton and Stockwell, so as to enable them to post letters after midnight for the first morning delivery, which at present, although only three miles from the General Post Office, they are unable to do?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to the hon. Member, I may say that the existing arrangements for making the last collection of letters in the suburban districts at midnight has been in force for some years, and is believed to be satisfactory to the public generally, the applications for a collection at a later hour of the night having been few in number, and none of recent date. An early morning collection is made in the central or what are called the town districts of London, including a few of the suburban districts, where the special circumstances seemed to call for it. I will cause inquiry to be made whether the circumstances are now such as would justify the extension of the arrangement to Brixton and Stockwell.

  THE MARRIAGE ACT, 1835—MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.
  MR. COURTAULDasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the vicar of the parish to admit Mr. Hobson, of Epping, and his wife to the Holy Communion, upon the ground that they were not properly married, Mr. Hobson having married his deceased wife's sister more than fifty years ago, before the
  1722
  passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act; and, whether the vicar is legally entitled to refuse to administer the Holy Communion upon such a ground?
  MR. BROADHURSTasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Correspondence between Mr. Hobson, of Epping, and the Bishop of St. Alban's, in reference to a refusal of the vicar to administer the Holy Communion to Mr. Hobson, on the ground of his marriage with his deceased wife's sister, contracted prior to the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act in 1885, can be produced as a Parliamentary Paper; and, whether steps will be taken by the Law Officers of the Crown to inform the Right Reverend Prelates, and, through them, Convocation and the clergy, that a denial of the Sacrament to persons so married, or to their offspring, solely on the ground of such marriage, is contrary to law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): My attention has been called to the circumstances referred to in the Question of my hon. Friend by my having been afforded an opportunity of reading the correspondence between Mr. Hobson and the Bishop of St. Alban's. I trust, however, the House will think that in relation to a matter which may form the subject of a legal suit I ought not to express an opinion either upon the rights or conduct of those who may be parties to that suit. But I have no objection to state—and I think I ought to state—that by Lord Lyndhurst's Marriage Act of 1835 any marriage which should have been celebrated before the passing of that Act between persons within the prohibited degrees of affinity should not be declared therefrom and thereafter to be annulled in consequence of the existence of those affinities. Such marriages were, therefore, by the Statute Law rendered valid; and Mr. Hobson's marriage in all respects is binding upon him, so that he bears all obligations and is entitled to all rights under it as if no question of affinity were raised in respect of it. Then I may also state that in a recent case the Privy Council, consisting of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Earl Cairns, Lord Hatherley, Lord Penzance, Lord Chief Baron Kelly, Lord Justice James, Sir Barnes Peacock, and Sir James Hannen, decided that the only cause which, under the Rubric, is sufficient to warrant a minister of his

  1723
  own authority; and without any trial, in repelling a parishioner from the Holy Communion, is that he is "an open and notorious evil-liver," who thereby gives offence to the congregation, and, under the 27th Canon of 1603, that he is "a common and notorious depraver of the Book of Common Prayer." The legal question, therefore, to be determined apparently is whether a man who is living in a state of marriage which the law declares to be valid comes within this description of an open and notorious evil-liver, giving offence to the congregation; but as that question may be raised in a suit which may be instituted in the Court of Arches, with the intention of punishing the clergyman for not administering the Sacrament to Mr. Hobson, I think, as I have said, I ought not to express any opinion on the question; but I cannot refrain from saying that from every point of view, in my opinion, this case is a very sad one. In answer to the hon. Member for Stoke, I have to say that the documents have been published in the newspapers, and are open to everybody. It is impossible to make such a communication as the hon. Member suggests.

  PUBLIC HEALTH-CHOLERA.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether, in consideration of the exceptional importance of accurate knowledge as to the nature and causes of cholera, he will communicate with the Foreign Office as to the possibility of presenting to Parliament translations of the Reports of the Commissions recently sent out by M. Pasteur and Dr. Koch to Egypt and India to investigate the pathology of that disease?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Local Government Board have communicated with the Foreign Office, and the Reports referred to will be printed and laid on the Table.

  EGYPT (AFFAIRS OF THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Has he yet ascertained whether Suakim and the Ports of the Littoral are within the jurisdiction of General Gordon as Governor General of the Soudan; and, when will the terms of General Gordon's
  1724
  Proclamation at Khartoum be communicated to the House?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: General Gordon having been appointed Governor General of the Soudan, Suakim and the Red Sea Ports are no doubt technically within his jurisdiction; but as the House is aware, Admiral Hewett is invested with full civil and military powers in those ports as a special and temporary measure. With regard to General Gordon's Proclamation, Sir Evelyn Baring has again been instructed by telegram to send the text home.
  MR. GIBSON: Can the noble Lord tell us how it is that the Government have not received the text of the Proclamation, which has already been published in all the newspapers of this country?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: We have not yet received the Proclamation, and that is why a further telegram has been sent to Sir Evelyn Baring.

  JAMAICA—NEW CONSTITUTION.
  CAPTION PRICEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he was aware that great dissatisfaction exists in the island of Jamaica, in consequence of the proposed new scheme of Government; that many public meetings have been held, and continue to be held, in all parts of the island, protesting against the scheme, on the ground that it does not, as promised in Lord Derby's Despatch of 1st December 1883—
  "Admit the people, through their representatives, to a material share in the decision of those questions which most directly concern them, and more particularly in the control of finance and public expenditure;"
  and that it is not in accord with the spirit and tenour of his reply to the deputation which he received on 8th November 1883; and, whether the Government will consider the advisability of acceding to the demand of the Colonists for the right of sending fifteen representatives to serve in the Legislative Council?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I am aware that meetings have been held in Jamaica at which the proposed new Constitution has been protested against as insufficient; but Sir Henry Norman's Memorandum—printed in papers just given to Parliament—has explained the reasons for which the apprehension that the

  1725
  "People are not thereby admitted to a material share in the decision of public and especially financial questions,"
  is unfounded. If the scheme, however, should be found after trial to be inadequate in respect of giving a substantial share in the control of public affairs, there will be no reluctance to reconsider it. But it is of the highest importance that all parties should co-operate to give the scheme a due trial, and to ascertain fairly whether it does or does not satisfy all reasonable demands for an extension of popular participation in government.

  ARMY OF OCCUPATION (EGYPT)—ALLOWANCE TO SUBALTERNS.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked, Whether any Army Orders have been issued withdrawing the special allowance from subalterns of the Army for living in Cairo, and substituting the usual field allowance, with the effect of mulcting the junior officers of sixpence a day while on special service?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: No, Sir; no report has reached us to the effect that the special allowance of 3s. to meet the expense of living at Cairo and Alexandria has been withdrawn from subaltern officers, and the field allowance of 2s. 6d. substituted in its place.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will cause a synopsis of the powers to be conferred by every Provisional Order Bill to be circulated with the Votes to Members, before the Bill is set down for a Second Reading?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, that he had made arrangements under which in future every Provisional Order issued by the Board of Trade would be accompanied by a short Memorandum stating generally what was the nature of the proposals contained in the Orders which were included in a certain Bill. He believed that the Home Office and the Irish Office also issued Provisional Orders.

  MR. BRADLAUGH—SUIT FOR PENALTIES.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, in the proceedings about to be taken by
  1726
  the Crown against Mr. Bradlaugh, for the recovery of penalties which he may have incurred for sitting and voting in the House without having taken the Oath of Allegiance, he intends to appear in person; and, whether the Crown will be satisfied with the decision of an inferior Court of Law, or will carry the case up to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman answers that Question, I would ask whether there is any precedent for the Law Officers of the Crown pledging themselves to appeal against the possible decision of the Court in the event of that decision being adverse to them; also, whether there is any precedent for an appeal by the Crown to a higher tribunal in a Crown case, except when the officers of the Crown are of opinion that the decision of the Court is wrong in law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The noble Lord asks me whether I shall appear in person in the suit against' M. Bradlaugh? The word "appear" may have two meanings. A suit for penalties on behalf of the Crown is in the nature of an information by the Attorney General on behalf of the Crown, and therefore the Attorney General appears on behalf of the Queen. If the noble Lord means to ask me whether I intend to conduct the argument of the case in person, I do not think the House will wish me to give any pledge upon the subject. I am aware that I have to bear the responsibility of conducting this suit, and that, whatever course I may take, I shall be subject to considerable criticism—perhaps censure—but I shall not shrink from that responsibility, seeking such professional assistance as I may think desirable; and I must be content to let my conduct be judged when my duty has been fulfilled. The noble Lord also asks me whether I shall be content with the decision of an Inferior Court? I must take exception to the term "Inferior Court." I presume the noble Lord means a Divisional Court; but that is a Superior Court. Whether I shall be satisfied or dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court must depend upon what that judgment is; and therefore I should prefer to delay answering the noble Lord until I am aware whether the Court should decide in favour

  1727
  of or against the views I have to present. But if the Question means, as probably it does, whether I should be disposed to appeal against an adverse judgment, I must appeal to the House whether I ought now to say that, whatever reasons maybe given in support of such judgment, I shall regard them as erroneous and appeal against them, for it seems to me to do so will certainly not be respectful, scarcely decent, towards a Court of Justice. I presume the Questions of the hon. Member for Northampton were intended to be of an argumentative character, and that he scarcely requires an answer.

  EGYPT AND THE SOUDAN (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES).
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, When Parliament will be asked to vote the money which is now being expended in and about the Soudan and in and about Egypt?
  MR. COURTNEY: My hon. Friend has probably not noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already twice answered this Question. But, as he is no doubt aware, the Committee of Supply cannot be set up until the Report of the Address is agreed to. So soon as this shall have been done the necessary Supplementary Estimates will be presented, which shall include the additional charges in the current year on account of the operations in question.

  SHERIFFS' CLERKS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, If he will cause to be prepared and laid upon the Table a Return of all the Sheriffs' Clerks in Scotland, with their Salaries, and the names of those who, in addition to their official duties, are private land agents?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I have no objection to obtain and lay upon the Table of the House a Return specifying the Sheriff-Clerks who, in addition to their official duties, act as land agents; but I must decline to put the public to the expense of printing over again the remaining information asked for, as it already appears in a convenient form on pages 67 and 68 of the Finance Accounts in the hands of hon. Members.

  EGYPT (AFFAIRS OF THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON'S PROCLAMATION.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Sultan of Turkey, who is Sovereign of Egyptian Territory, gave his consent to the Proclamation indorsing the slave traffic, which has just been issued by the British Governor General at Khartoum; and, whether the Sultan has authorised another Proclamation, in which General Gordon says—
  "His Majesty the Sultan, the Exalted, had made up his mind to send Turkish soldiers, the well-known and valiant conquerors. But when His Majesty heard of your wretched condition, and of my compassion for you, he sent me, at great risk, to prevent the Declaration by His Majesty the Sultan, of War between Moslems?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; he did not. I cannot reply to the hon. Member's second Question, as the Proclamation has not yet reached Her Majesty's Government.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: If the Government has not received the Proclamation, how can they tell whether the Sultan has indorsed it or not?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That was not the Question of which the hon. Member gave Notice.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: May I ask whether it is or is not the case that General Gordon holds any commission from the Sultan? It is stated so.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow me to defer any answer to the Question until the Proclamation is in our possession.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Has the Sultan given his assent to any Proclamation?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: What I said was that he had not given his assent to the Proclamation referred to by hon. Members in this House.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—BAKER PASHA'S DEFEAT.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Despatch from Her Majesty's Ministers, in which General Gordon was informed of the defeat of General Baker's army?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: General Gordon was informed by telegraph

  1729
  by Sir Evelyn Baring. The Correspondence relating to the subject will be laid on the Table.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the noble Lord state the date of the telegram?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I answered that Question yesterday.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: No; the noble Lord did not answer that Question yesterday. He asked me to put it again to-day.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: If the hon. Member will only put his Question on the Paper, I shall be glad to answer it.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BAKTLETT: The Question is plainly on the Paper.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Question on the Paper is whether I can lay the despatch on the Table. I have stated that there was no despatch, but there was a telegram, and that the Correspondence will be produced.

  LIGHTHOUSES IN THE RED SEA.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the want of lighthouses in the Red Sea, in the following positions, viz.: The Island of Shadwan, the Island of Abu Eil, and on the mainland of Mocha; if it is the case that the Egyptian Government have a considerable fund at their disposal derived from light dues in that sea; and, if he would use his influence with our representatives in Egypt to have this important work carried out as soon as possible?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been for some time directed to the inadequate lighting of the Red Sea. The difficulties of the various national jurisdictions, and the present aspect of affairs in Egypt, has been, and are, not altogether favourable to progress; but I am not without hopes that some additional lights may before long be established, and among them one on or near Abu Eil; and we are communicating with Sir Evelyn Baring on the subject. With respect to the Question whether there has been or is a surplus from the dues on the existing lights in the Red Sea, and, if so, the mode in which it has been or is to be applied, I have been, and am still, in communication with the Foreign Office.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—SURRENDER OF TOKAR.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to put a Question to the Government of which I have given Notice to the noble Marquess. It is, Whether there is any truth in the report of the surrender of Tokar; and, if so, what effect that event will have on our expedition?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: A telegram has been received at the War Office, and, as far as I am aware, it is the only telegram which the Government has received. It is from General Graham, and is dated Suakim, 12.25 P.M. to-day. It is as follows:—
  "Suakin, 22nd.—Just arrived. Spies report that Civil Governor and Commander of troops Tokar went to rebel camp Wednesday and agreed to surrender on Thursday. Five men. have come in from garrison, making same statement. Report of Tokar being actually surrendered not yet received. All preparations for landing at Trinkitat are, therefore, being pressed forward."
  I think that, supposing the information to be true that Tokar has surrendered, it is rather premature to say what effect that event will have upon the expedition.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I will put the Question on Monday.

  EGYPT (AFFAIRS OF THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON'S PROCLAMATION.
  MR. GLADSTONE: With reference to a Question which was put to my noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), as to the production of the Proclamation of General Gordon, I wish to intimate to the House at once, without binding myself to any particular conclusion, that Her Majesty's Government will consider it their duty to examine carefully the question how far it may be their duty to produce all the language used, all the views, and all the steps taken by General Gordon from day to day; or how far it may be their duty, in the interests of the great mission in which he is engaged, to reserve them. This is a grave and serious question, which we will carefully consider.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question arising out of the statement he has just made. I wish to ask whether that statement refers to the Proclamation

  1731
  already issued by General Gordon, and versions of which have appeared in. the newspapers; or whether he considers himself entitled, under the circumstances of a public Proclamation made by General Gordon, to suppress its immediate communication to this House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman refers to the Proclamation which has been the subject of several Questions in regard to slavery. In regard to that matter, we have already given a virtual engagement that the Proclamation shall be produced. I draw a distinction between that Proclamation and the general proceedings of General Gordon; inasmuch as that Proclamation has touched much more a great philanthropic question than subjects of a political nature. What I said was meant to be prospective, and to refer to proceedings of a political character.

  JAPAN—MR. HARTLEY.
  MR. GRANTHAMasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Sir Harry Parkes has been instructed to insist on the payment by the Japanese Government of the 1874 and 1879 claims of Mr. Hartley against that Government; and, if not, what steps are being taken to recover such claims?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Mr. Hartley's complaint against the Japanese Government has been repeatedly brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government since 1878. In September, 1880, he was informed that his case had been fully considered in communication with Sir Harry Parkes, Her Majesty's Minister in Japan; but that the circumstances were not such as to justify official interference. Lord Granville regrets that he sees no reason to modify the view that has been taken both by the late and present Governments.

  PARLIAMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, What is to be the course of Business after the adjourned debate on the Address; and, whether he is able to give us any information as to what the Business will be next week?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There was a conversation in the House at an early
  1732
  hour this morning, when the desire was expressed that the limited number of hon. Gentlemen who are very anxious to address the House on the Irish part of the question should not be debarred from doing it on the Address, and the intimation was given that if they were debarred it might lead them to re-open the whole matter on Report. Under those circumstances, and after a protest, ineffectual as it generally is on the part of the majority, we settled the matter that the debate on the Address should not be proceeded with further last night, but that it should be closed to-night. It was, however, suggested from the other side of the House that very probably the House would consent to go forward with the Report also to-night, at a convenient hour, giving an opportunity for a discussion with reference to the intelligence as to Merv, such as that which the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) had given Notice to raise. If the debate on the Address should finish at a convenient hour, we think the House would do well to go forward with the Report at once.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: What about the Business of next week?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid that I am precluded from entering on that subject. We are in expectation of an event of deep interest to the House, which, if it arises, will place the disposal of Business for a day or two a good deal beyond the control of the Government.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It will be a great convenience if the right hon. Gentleman will state what the Government mean by a convenient hour?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is a reasonable request, and I should say 9 o'clock. Although we have no title or desire to limit the utterances of independent Members on the Merv news, yet, considering the present state of the question and the recent character of the intelligence, the declaration of the Government must necessarily be limited and reserved.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Is it the intention of the Government to go on with other Business to-night, such as the Bill for the Representation of the People, which I find on the Paper?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly it is not our intention to go on with the Bill

  1733
  for the Representation of the People, nor should we think of proceeding with the debate on Grand Committees, unless the other Business should finish at a comparatively early hour.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEasked whether the Bill for the Extension of the Hours of Polling would be proceeded with to-night?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he believed his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke), if he could, would proceed with the Bill.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: After what hour will the Bill not be taken?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think my right hon. Friend will consider that hour as the one fixed by the Rule of the House (half-past 12 o'clock).

  PARLIAMENT—REPORT OF BILLS FROM GRAND COMMITTEES.
  In reply to Mr. DIXON-HARTLAND,
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he considered that already Reports of Bills from Standing Committees were now within the operation of the half-past 12 Rule; and therefore the Amendment of the hon. Member to make the half-past 12 Rule apply to Grand Committees was quite superfluous.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE HOUSING OF THE POOR.
  MR. RICHARD POWER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, Whether the Royal Commission which has been appointed to inquire into the housing of the poor will extend its inquiries to Ireland?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I wish my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt), who has more direct information on this subject than I have, were here to answer this Question, and probably he would be able to give a more complete answer on a future day. But I should rather think that the course which is believed to be the best is this. There is an ample field for inquiry in England; and I think it is deemed best to traverse that field and exhaust that portion of the inquiry in the first instance, and then in the course of that inquiry probably much information will be gained upon the question how far and when it is desirable that this inquiry should be extended to Scotland and to Ireland.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [EIGHTH NIGHT.]

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—SUPPRESSION OF PUBLIC MEETINGS.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Main Question [5th February].—[See page 52.]
  And which Amendment was,
  In line 62, after the word "us," to insert the words "hut humbly to assure Her Majesty that the recent policy and conduct of the Executive in Ireland have not tended to the interests of tranquillity or contentment among the Irish people, and particularly to deplore the wanton prohibition of legal and constitutional public meeting's throughout Ireland, whereby the exercise of the right of free speech has been practically extinguished in that Country; also, to condemn the Irish Executive for having permitted bodies of magistrates to make with impunity public declarations applauding the conduct of Lord Rossmore (an ex-magistrate superseded for disturbing order, and for provoking ill-will and strife between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland), which public declarations have directly incited Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland to illegal acts, disorder, and violence."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, although he had addressed the House before, he felt bound to trouble it with some further remarks on account of the personal allusions to him that had been made in some quarters of the House, and the references to the part he was compelled to fulfil in connection with his engagement in the North of Ireland. He wished to address the House, if for no other reason, in order to repudiate the insinuation made by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), that either he or any Member of the Party to which he belonged was desirous of entering into an alliance with the Conservative Party. If it were possible, he would far rather follow the Party with which the Mover and Seconder of the Address were identified, provided they practically carried out the beneficial policy of which they were supposed to be the especial advocates. The statement of the hon. Member for London-

  1735
  derry was one tissue of inaccuracy, so far as his description of what took place in Derry was concerned. The hon. Gentleman commenced by saying that he (Mr. Dawson) would not lecture in the Land League rooms in Derry. In that he was perfectly correct, inasmuch as it was impossible to be in a place that had no existence. He followed up that ridiculous assertion by the statement that he was sent to Londonderry by the National League. He wished to state to the House that he had never been sent anywhere by the National League. Whatever adhesion he had given to that League had been a willing, an unbidden, and an unforced adhesion. He had never been asked for any pledge by the Leader of the Party to which he was proud to belong; but he had made a pledge to himself which he hoped to keep so long as he was in that House—to act and to vote with his Party. He hoped also that at the coming General Election, which was not far distant, instead of exacting specific promises from Members, the general cry upon the hustings in Ireland would be, not that they should support this or that measure, but that they should give a general, unqualified, and universal adhesion to the policy and action of the Party which represented the people of Ireland. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton), who was driven out from the City of Derry, which he formerly represented, said that be (Mr. Dawson) used language that was unbecoming his position, and the high office which he filled. The theme did not need language of that kind, and if it did, he was not the person, nor had he ever been the person, to use language of an outrageous or "high falutin'" character. He felt that as the advocate of Constitutional weapons for the removal of the evils of his country, and as the holder of the high office of Lord Mayor of Dublin, it became him to be excessively careful in what he should say; and he challenged the noble Lord, or any other promoter of disunion and disorder, to point to a single utterance of his that savoured of disloyalty, or that in any way compromised the cause or the position with which be was associated. The burden of his remarks was an appeal to the Catholics of Derry to join hands with their Protestant fellow-workmen, and he could tell hon. Members that the
  1736
  day of that union was not so far off as they thought, in proof of which he pointed to the cordial reception given by the Catholic traders of Cork to the ship carpenters of Belfast last year. But the real grievance of the hon. Member for Derry was the franchise, the extension of which would mean his own extinction. The borough of Aylesbury, with a population of 28,000, bad an electorate of 4,436; Derry, with a population of 29,000, an electorate of 1,940. There was a miserable, base, and ignorant residuum of 2,536 according to the hon. Member in Derry, to which be would refuse to extend the franchise, because that would relegate him to the position of obscurity he deserved to occupy. The taunts of disloyalty made by the hon. Member and his friends came with a very ill grace from them, seeing that their speeches to the Protestants of Ulster were strewn with incitements to disorder, tumult, and violence. The debate, however, had served a useful purpose. It bad exposed the fallacy of the argument of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool. He spoke as though his friends comprised five-sixths or seven-eighths of the population of Ulster. All the combined sects barely exceeded by a few thousands the Catholics there; while in all the boroughs of Ulster, except Belfast, Carrickfergus, and Coleraine, the Catholics were in the majority. It was part of the stupidity and inconsistency of that Party to call attention to these questions; for if they only let them alone the world would not trouble to inquire into the facts. Again, they were told that the inhabitants of Ulster were so wealthy, so rich, and overwhelmingly gifted above the other Provinces that they were expected to bow down before them. But what were the facts, and what did the cool statistics of Her Majesty's Government show? He would give them an illustration of the wealth of Ulster as compared with that of the rest of Ireland. The Income Tax per bead of the population in Ulster was £5 4s. 5d.; in Leinster it was £10 6s. 9d.; Belfast, with a population of 271,000, was assessed to Income Tax at £2,842,000, the amount yielded by the tax being£40,736. Dublin, with only 73,000 more people, was assessed to Income Tax at £5,368,000, and paid in Income Tax £102,000. Ulster had not the population, it had not the wealth,

  1737
  but it had the brass. The reason why there were manufacturers in Ulster was that special laws exempted the linen trade, and ruined the woollen industries of the rest of Ireland. The banking system of the North, too, had much to do with its development, for it was more encouraging to struggling commerce than was the banking system of the South. It had been said that the popular Party was making no progress in the North; but how could it when no landlord or manufacturer there would give an inch of ground on which to build schools or public institutions? Take the town of Strabane, which was at the gates of the estate of the father of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton). That noble Duke had given no free library to the town, had endowed no schools, had promoted no public institutions, but spent the revenues he derived from Irish sources in a foreign capital. Then the Orangemen did all in their power to prevent peace and forgetfulness of the past. The followers of the noble Lord had their celebrations in August, on the 12th July, and almost every month in the calendar, in order to make attacks and stir up outrage against their fellow-countrymen. It would be well for the House to know that there had been another siege in Ireland as illustrions as that of Derry. That was the siege of Limerick—which city held out for days against the powerful invading army, and in the end made an honourable capitulation, and obtained a Treaty which was broken almost as soon as made by England, and the stone on which the Treaty was signed still remained as a proof of the lasting stigma upon the honour of England. This siege took place on the 4th of October, 1691; and if the Catholics, who were 40,000 strong in that city, rose against the Protestants, who numbered only 4,000, on every anniversary of that violated Treaty, with the same desire to provoke hatred and animosity, the result would be the complete annihilation of the latter. They had not any desire to engender strife, however, and did not do so, not wishing to perpetuate, as did the small minority in the North in their stronghold, scenes of outrage and bloodshed. The Solicitor General for Ireland had been altogether mistaken in his remarks about Judge O'Brien—that Judge with
  1738
  the "lantern jaws," who threw light upon Irish laws. Upon the occasion of the opening of the Commission, when he (Mr. Dawson) sat as Chief Magistrate of the City of Dublin, that Judge had given utterance to sentiments which he knew must be offensive to him (Mr. Dawson). He could, had he desired, have retaliated by also addressing the Court, as was his full privilege; but he did not wish to create a sensation by departing from the usual custom. But there were no grounds for the statements contained in the Charge of the Judge. Taking the political crimes out of the calendar on that occasion, there was not one crime to be tried in that vast City of Dublin. Then, as to the plaintive complaint of the Judge about the houses of the great being empty, he, as a member of the Corporation, could tell the House, on the other hand, that the City was spreading outside, and that for one of the great houses shut up there were miles of new streets to meet the increasing demands of the middle-class people. It was very different when Judge O'Brien was a candidate for the representation of Ennis in Parliament. He did not then talk only of empty houses and decayed trade, but he said—"Give us Home Rule. Give us an Irish Parliament; that is the only remedy." He could tell the learned Judge that, false as had been the predictor, true should be the prediction, and that a National Parliament should still redress the wrongs of the country. He could say of the city, as a greater man than he once said of the country—
  "Beauty's ensign still is on her check, And Death's pale flag is not advanced there."
  The Solicitor General for Ireland made a very poor defence last night, the only thing he could say in palliation of Judge Morris's extra-judicial remarks being that he was "independent;" but, as a matter of fact, the Irish Judges were not what the English Constitution said Judges ought to be—"Without fear, favour, or affection." A Judge lived in Ireland upon the breath of favour. From the time he set his foot upon the lowest rung of the legal ladder he knew he could be promoted from the humblest position, no matter how small his ability or obscure his merits, to a high position. These things were dangled before the eyes of the Irish Judges, and if they could not all be made Chief Justices there were Commissionerships of £2,000 and

  1739
  £3,000 a-year to add to their salaries of £3,000 a-year. The machinery was most complete, and the Judges had every inducement to favour the side of the Government. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), he would observe that it was very easy in the old time to win popular applause by reference to Home Rule, whilst doing nothing to further that end. But the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who united the enthusiasm of the Celt with the coolness and determination of his American ancestors, had changed all that. His endeavours, and those of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), had achieved more for the Irish people than all the elegant platitudes and rounded periods of Mr. Butt or the hon. Member for Mayo could ever have accomplished. He would, however, return to the Amendment before the House, and would remark that the charges which the Irish Party brought against the Government had not been in any degree answered. With regard to the meeting at Derry which he (Mr. Dawson) addressed, the Chief Secretary had not explained how it was that 500 Orangemen were permitted to break open the Town Hall, and, having obtained possession of it, to fire from the windows on the crowd, or why Nationalist bands were prohibited after sunset, while Orange bands were allowed; and why all this was permitted under the protection of the troops of the Crown. Another point as to which the Government had given no adequate explanation was the working of the Crimes Act, for while the people in the South and West were heavily taxed to pay compensation, all assistance of the kind was denied to the poor mechanic of Derry, who nearly lost his life, and entirely lost his eyesight in the disturbances there. The Government said the reason why they did not give any compensation was because the outrage was not agrarian. Yet the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton) admitted that it was not his (Mr. Dawson's) lecture on the franchise which was objected to, but his views on the Land Question. In conclusion, he would observe that the Government were trying, as England always had tried, to govern the majority by the minority in Ireland. Such a state of things could not last for half-an-hour in England; and how long
  1740
  did the Chief Secretary, a historian and relative of a great historian, think it would endure in Ireland? The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had admitted that the hon. Member for the City of Cork had a following of three-fourths of the Irish people; seven-eighths would be nearer the mark. It was the attempt to force the will of the one-eighth upon the other seven-eighths that was the perennial cause of disorder in Ireland, and so long as the system continued Ireland would never have peace. There had been a good deal of poetry quoted during the course of the present Session, and he thought a few lines found in the Memories of Captain Rock, well known to former British Governments, put the case of Ireland in a nutshell—
  "So long as Ireland doth pretend
  Like sugar-loaf turned upside down,
  To stand upon its narrow end,
  So long shall last old Rock's renown."
  He would only add that the Government gave very small support to measures for the benefit of the country. The hon. Member for Mayo said that the Government was ready to meet them "half-way." Well, they had been doing so for centuries, and he only wished that once for all they would go the whole way.
  COLONEL COLTHUPSTsaid, he should not have interposed but for his anxiety to say a few words on a subject already touched by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket)—namely, the necessity of amending the Land Act in certain particulars, notably the giving of more facilities to occupying tenants to purchase their farms. He was perfectly prepared to endorse what the right hon. and learned Member had said as to the hardships now endured by a certain class of landowners, especially those who had small estates and large charges, and portions of estates which were apportioned among several. He thought this case was one which required the consideration of the Government. But he would rather put it on a broader issue than that. He believed the extension of those purchase clauses was imperatively called for in the interests, not alone of a particular class of landowners, but in the interests of every class in Ireland—owners, occupiers, and traders. He hoped the Government, and especially the Prime Mi-

  1741
  nister, would not approach this subject with the idea that it implied any censure on the Land Act—on the contrary, it was the greatest praise they could give the Land Act that the occupying tenants had received so great advantages as a whole from the Act that they were now not so desirous of becoming owners as they were before the Act was passed. There was such a consensus of opinion in Ireland in favour of extending those clauses that he was confident the Government would not turn a deaf ear. The late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Lowther) was almost the only Member of the House whom he had heard express dissent from the necessity of increasing the owners of property in Ireland. But there was a preliminary step which must be taken—namely, the completing of the operations of the Land Courts, for until that was done and rents were settled they could not expect the Purchase Clauses to work satisfactorily. He believed that in some of the Courts great progress had been made. It would be a great misfortune if the rumour turned out to be true that there was to be a reduction in the Sub-Commissioners' Courts. He was disappointed that no promise had been given to alter the constitution of the Land Courts. He did not think there would be the slightest difficulty in passing a measure empowering two Commissioners to sit as a Court, at any rate for a limited time, so that there might be two Courts sitting in the country to hear appeals, and another Court sitting in Dublin to perform the routine work of the Commission. If that was done, they might expect in 12 or 18 months the whole of the operations of the Land Courts would be finished. There was another class who needed attention—the leaseholders. They were only one-eighth of the occupying tenants of Ireland, but they held much more than that proportion of the land; and although the question might not be an acute one in certain parts of Ireland, it was most acute in Munster, and especially in County Cork, where the leaseholders were one in three of the occupying tenants, and were unjustly excluded from the benefit of the Land Act. He knew there was a provision in the Act of 1881 whereby agreements might be broken if they contained undue or unfair conditions, but the unfortunate provision was added that they must be
  1742
  occupying tenants from year to year; and as many hundreds of tenants had been forced, through the land-hunger, to take out leases at higher rents, they could not now get the benefit of the Act. The fact was that the proportion of leases which had been declared void on the ground that they contained oppressive covenants was infinitesimal; and many leaseholders were now paying rents not merely higher than the judicial rents of their neighbours, but higher than any rents ever paid by their neighbours. The question was one which could only be effectively dealt with by the Government, and he trusted that the Prime Minister or one of his Colleagues would give an assurance on the subject. He was glad that the Government had made up their minds to confer upon Ireland the franchise which they proposed to confer upon the people of this country. He had always advocated an assimilation of the laws for England and Ireland, and he trusted that Ireland would not be deprived of any useful legislation.
  MR. EWARTdid not desire to go into the general question raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and rose only for the purpose of correcting some statements made regarding the loyal portion of the Irish population. It had been remarked that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had appeared in a now capacity. For years past he had been the guiding spirit of the Land League, and the author of an agitation which had been well described by the Prime Minister and others as one of robbery, and which had been accompanied by outrage and murder. He need not enlarge upon that. It was admitted; and yet during all the time that Ireland was being deluged with blood, and the character of Ireland being immensely injured, the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and those who supported him, stood callously by and never uttered a word of sympathy for those who suffered, or a word of condemnation of the atrocities that were committed. And now the hon. Gentleman appeared as the apostle of law and order, and of Constitutional government. He (Mr. Ewart) would have been very glad, indeed, if they could have seen any sign of the real conversion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork; but they could

  1743
  not forget the speech that he made in Dublin not long ago, in which he uttered the very greatest defiance of Great Britain. Indeed, in his speech in moving the Amendment, he wound up by the statement that Ireland would not be content till the laws of Ireland were made on Irish soil. The speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, as well as those of other hon. Members who complained of what took place in Ulster, were very much on the lines of the book they had all received in an Orange cover. That production, and the speeches based upon it, were like the work of a penny-a-liner—they were full of the greatest exaggerations. The movement in Ulster was not correctly described as an Orange movement—it was a loyal movement. The hon. Member for the City of Cork seemed absolutely horrified at what had taken place. But what were the facts? So far as the Loyalists were concerned, there had been no bones broken at the demonstrations. Assuredly there was not as much injury done as there would have been at a faction fight 50 years ago. As an instance of the exaggeration, he might refer to the case of the nun in Belfast, who died during the visit of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North-cote). It had been stated that she was killed by the Orangemen. He gave that statement the most unqualified denial. The nun had been ill for many preceding days. Some stones were thrown, but not by the processionists, and not at the portion of the building in which the nun was ill. He was prepared before any inquiry to show that the nun was not disturbed by the proceedings. He stated that on the authority of the lady who was at the time in charge of the nun. The story had been greatly magnified, and none the less from the association with it of the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon, and he supposed this was one of those atrocities which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. Reference had also been made to a case of roasting alive by some Orangemen. That, also, was a great exaggeration. The fact was, as he (Mr. Ewart) understood it, that Mr. Mathews was animated by excess of zeal. It was only a small case. He and two others had been convicted of setting fire to the
  1744
  outside of a building, and it was the easiest thing in the world for those inside to have escaped. Everybody knew that the accused was a man of the greatest good nature. They had been taken back by the hon. Member for Westmeath as far as 1815, by the reading of a statement by Judge Fletcher, containing a good deal of reflection upon Orangemen. He (Mr. Ewart) was not there to justify all that Orangemen did in those days. The Society at that time was one whose character depended much on the state of things then existing. It was a secret Society, and the habits of those days were such that secret meetings were held not only of Orangemen and Orange Lodges, but of others throughout the country. Even if there were these secret Societies, they must view them, in a great measure, in the light of the days in which they existed. It was a long time since 1815. It was, too, it should be remembered, only about 17 years after the French Revolution, to which the origin of so many evils were to be traced. He was not sure, indeed, whether the Inquisition had been abolished. [Mr. HARRINGTON: Not in Ireland.] The events of 1815 were referred to, but they must judge of those events in the light of contemporary history. It was only 17 years after the Rebellion in Ireland of 1798, and society was very much disorganized. They should bear in mind the state of things in Ireland, and the state of things in other countries where Protestants were in the minority. What privileges did Protestants enjoy in Spain, in Portugal, in Austria, and other countries? The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) talked of meeting half way. Why, the Catholics of Ireland were met more than half way. They were now the favoured religion of the country.
  MR. DAWSON: I spoke of the Government meeting us half way.
  MR. EWARTsaid, that did not alter his argument, for, as a matter of fact, the Roman Catholics were the favoured religion of Ireland. With regard to the Orange Society, he had read over the debates in Parliament in 1836, and there was not a scintilla of evidence to support the statement that they once behaved disloyally, and wanted to change the succession to the Throne. It was perfectly incredible and unintelligible that such a charge should be preferred against them,

  1745
  as loyalty to the Crown was the very basis of their existence. In 1836 great hopes were entertained that we were going to have everything quiet and orderly in Ireland, because the penal laws had been repealed, the Emancipation Act had been passed, reforms had taken place, the tithe question had been virtually settled, and the Millennium was even hoped for in Irish affairs. In compliance with the request of William IV. that Orange Societies in Ireland should be dissolved, the Societies, much to their credit, agreed to dissolve. Before long, however, the country was again embroiled in rebellion and disorder, and the Orange Societies were reconstituted. In the reconstitution they did everything to make it a legal and Constitutional Society. There were no oaths, no signs or passwords. The constitution was drawn and approved by the late Sir Joseph Napier. The Orange Society did not prove rebel in 1848, when the late Smith O'Brien distinguished himself. It was a well-known fact that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Clarendon, called in the aid of Orangemen, and supplied them with money to procure arms. The Society had always been a peaceful organization, and had stood up in defence of the rights and lives of the people; it was not opposed to Roman Catholics so far as their religion was concerned. There was no body of men in the world who more strictly held the doctrine of civil and religious liberty than the Orangemen. Unfortunately, however, there was in existence in Ireland a great deal of what was disloyal and rebellious, and it was the exhibition of this disloyalty and this rebellious spirit that aroused, and was arousing, the feelings of the loyal people of Ireland. It was well known how O'Connell had tried to get into the good graces of the Orangemen when his great object was the Repeal of the Union, and how he had declared that if he could only carry the Orangemen with him his objects would soon be gained. But they knew better; it was found to be of no use and no avail; they stood firm, as they would continue to stand, never consenting to any separation or disintegration of the Empire. He regretted very much the necessity for these counter-demonstrations; but he believed they served a good purpose. They had shown Great Britain, and they had shown
  1746
  hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, that Home Rule would never be obtained in Ireland without a civil war. The Orangemen were a very numerous body; but, in addition to them, there was a large proportion of Roman Catholics who were loyal. It might be taken that one-third of the population of Ireland was loyal, and that one-third represented a vast proportion of the intelligence and wealth of the country. The Loyalists of Ulster were a bond of union between Great Britain and Ireland, and he was sorry to hear any hon. Gentleman speak disparagingly of them. He regretted that the Solicitor General for Ireland went out of his way to describe what had taken place in Ulster as arising out of a Party question. It was nothing of a Party question, for Conservatives and Liberals alike joined in the action that was taken; and the Solicitor General, therefore, in speaking of them as he did, in his opinion, did them a great injustice. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool had described the proceedings which took place in County Donegal, when what he supposed he might call a mock funeral was conducted in honour of the memory of the murderer of Carey. The demeanour of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway caused him great sorrow, for he and his compatriots seemed to thoroughly identify themselves with those people who gloried in murder. Then, too, the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) had given them some curious ideas as to the way in which bankers managed their business in Ireland. That hon. Gentleman had told the House that the bankers took the money of the South and lent it to the North. Well, as to that, he might lay it clown as a general principle that bankers were always glad to lend money for which they could get security; and if the money was lent in the North of Ireland, it was because they could get better security there than in the South. That was a fact as to which there could be no doubt. Money could not be lent with the same security in the South as it was in the North.
  MR. DAWSON: I said they lost it in the North.
  MR. EWARTremarked, that before the bankers lost the money they must lend it in the first place. At any rate, they were afraid to lend money in the South of Ireland. It was, he thought,

  1747
  the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. P. J. Smyth), who some years ago brought forward a Motion having reference to the Repeal of the Union. He (Mr. Ewart) made a speech in the debate that took place on the Motion, and he remembered that in consequence he was very severely taken to task by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who said he knew nothing about the aspirations of the Irish nation, and twitted him with his knowledge on that subject being confined to bales of goods and such like. He, however, thought that, as it had been said that the patriot was he who had made two blades of grow where only one had grown before, so the man who tried to encourage and develop the industries of his country, and to improve the condition of the people, was the true patriot. That apparently was not the view taken by some who claimed to be patriots, and to be influenced by the desire to benefit their country, and it was a fact that patriotism was the most paying business in Ireland.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he was unwilling to give a silent vote on this occasion. It appeared to him that one of the most remarkable circumstances connected with this debate was the almost imperceptible connection between the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Amendment which their collective wisdom had submitted to the judgment of the House. This was, perhaps, the most noteworthy feature in the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The hon. Member for nearly two hours made observations and read documents, the character of which were barely within the Rules of the House. The speech of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was a somewhat condensed narrative of events with which they had all become previously acquainted through the medium of the public Press. The same might be said of the remarks of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), whose coarse jibes and jokes must have been disgusting to the House. When he (the O'Donoghue) looked at the hon. Member with his spectacles and his prayer book, and listened to his peculiar method of intoning, he was reminded of those gentlemen who never failed to be present at Mr. Bradlaugh's park meetings, and who gave a becoming solemnity to those
  1748
  meetings by the recital of mock litanies. He did not pretend to be a physiognomist; but he ventured to hazard the conjecture that, while Art had made the hon. Gentleman a Member of that House, Nature intended him for such an occupation as that to which he had referred. An hon. Member had described him (the O'Donoghue) as a deserter from the Irish Party. [Mr. HARRINGTON: The only deserter.] If the hon. Member meant to insinuate, or to say that he had ever abandoned any political opinion which he had held, he gave that statement the most emphatic denial. He would be able to demonstrate to the House, when the proper time came, that the statement was altogether without foundation. It was not he who had changed his political opinions; but it was that contaminating, debasing, and anti-Irish principle and practice which had been introduced into the political life of Ireland. With regard to this general charge of want of patriotism which was brought by hon. Members opposite against all those who had the honesty and the courage to differ from them, he had not language adequate enough to express the utter contempt with which he regarded the pretensions of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and those who acted with him, to be in any sense truer Irishmen than he was. He would give the reason why he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. It was for this all-sufficient reason—that it consisted in the main of a charge against the Government, for which there was no foundation whatever. No graver accusation could have been made against the Government; but neither the hon. Member for the City of Cork nor any of his Friends had been able to sustain their serious indictment by anything worthy of the name of proof. The actual fact was that many hon. Members opposite had during the Recess addressed meetings in Ireland, when they had been so disposed. He had seen the speeches of the hon. Members for Sligo, the Borough of Mallow, Carlow, Cavan, Longford, County Westmeath, the City of Water-ford, and many others. He had also seen that the hon. Member for the City of Cork, who knew perfectly well that he enjoyed freedom of speech, notwithstanding what be might say in that House, made many engagements to ad-

  1749
  dress his constituents at Cork; but for some profound reason he had not been able to get there. He did not remember to have read anything from Gentlemen in their position equal to the unqualified humbug to which they treated their audiences, or anything to equal the true Barnum ring in the announcements they gave with reference to the prodigies that they were going to perform. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) said that owing to the conduct of himself and his Friends things had come to such a pass that the game was completely in their own hands; and the question was not now that Home Rule would be conceded, but what kind of Home Rule they would condescend to take. Quite recently the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) assured a political gathering that the hon. Member for the City of Cork had become a greater force in politics than the House of Lords, including the Bench of Bishops. Then they had the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) coming forward from time to time, and declaring that nothing could satisfy his patriotic soul but National independence. Then he denounced the landlords as a pack of thieves, and did all he could to propagate and keep alive that vile slander. How, then, in the presence of such an uninterrupted flow of gammon and bunkum and defamation could the House be asked deliberately to stultify itself by committing itself to the statement that the Irish Government had practically extinguished freedom of speech? It was his firm conviction that throughout the most trying times the Irish Government had done nothing but what conscience and imperative duty required. It was almost unavoidable that there should be cases of hardship; but that risk had to be faced, because the alternative was to give murder and violence uninterrupted sway throughout Ireland. He thought it was impossible to imagine anything more difficult and embarrassing than the position in which the Irish Government was placed by the discreditable contrivances of the Orange and Tory Party, whose evident and avowed object was to compel the Government to prohibit the holding of meetings with which they knew perfectly well the Government had no thought of interfering. Beyond all question, they left the Government no alternative between prohibiting them
  1750
  and allowing them to be held with the imminent risk of a bloody collision. If the meetings had been permitted, the Government must have found itself in the position of being responsible for an indiscriminate slaughter of the Queen's subjects, while endeavouring to put an end to an internecine conflict. In any case, blood would have been shed which would have shocked the public mind. The sound judgment, therefore, of Lord Spencer and the Chief Secretary in resolving to prohibit the meetings and to run no risks must command the unqualified approval of the vast majority of the people of the United Kingdom. While he was far from whining with the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends against the Government because it would not supersede a large portion of the Irish magistracy, he could not deny that the magistrates in Ulster and in some other parts of Ireland had made a sorry exhibition of themselves. The Ulster magistrates had proved themselves the merest partizans, and by their defiant attitude they had brought things to such a pass that the Queen's authority was insufficient there to protect peaceful subjects in the exercise of their most cherished political rights. To do that and then to talk of their loyalty was a mere transparent device. As to the so-called "invasion of Ulster," not more than two dozen persons from the other Provinces visited Ulster, and to describe such little trips by a term of such grave import as "invasion" was a straining, if not an actual perversion of things. The visit of the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition to Ulster had been referred to, and it was very unlike him that he should countenance proceedings such as those which had recently taken place in Ulster. It was quite true that the right hon. Baronet was under obligation to his Irish friends. They were always ready to support him in resisting popular measures, whether in England, Scotland, or Ireland; but he could not imagine that the right hon. Baronet could sanction, far less counsel, violence of any kind. There had been an attempt by the Orange Party in their speeches and Press to propagate the delusion that they were a power in Ireland. He did not know what they were not going to do if their views were not acceded to and their temper ruffled. There was even a talk

  1751
  of civil war. Great men! The truth was that even in Ulster the Orange Party were a discredited and impotent faction, and they could no more get up a civil war and impose their will on the Irish people than they could get up a tornado. He was aware that they were still able to get up riots in certain parts of Ulster, and there was a time when they could domineer in Ireland; but that was when they were backed up by the power of England, and those days were now gone, never to return. During the last 80 years the Orange Party had so established its character as the enemy of popular liberty in England, Scotland, and Ireland, that its position must be one of complete isolation. In 1836, Sir William Molesworth, a Liberal statesman, speaking of that Party, said—
  "Let them strike off the Bench every Magistrate who is an Orangeman; let them dismiss from their employment every functionary who belongs to those societies. … in short, let them consider the muster-roll of that society as the list of their bitterest foes; as the catalogue of those implacable enemies of the people's rights, to whom it would be madness for their own sake—to whom it would be disgraceful for the people's sake—to confide any public trust."—(3 Hansard, [31] 319–20.)
  He believed that those words would equally apply to the Orange Party now. Their efforts against the extension of the franchise would be perfectly futile. In opposing it they were only acting in accordance with their well-known traditions. He had no doubt it was the intention of the Government to do all that legislation could do for the happiness of the people of the United Kingdom; and he would not sit down without expressing his thorough conviction that throughout the most trying times the Irish Government had exorcised the great powers with which they were entrusted with perfect moderation, and for the protection of the best interests of the people. He should vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, because he believed it was utterly indefensible in argument, and, in fact, thoroughly ridiculous.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he could not help contrasting the thinness of the audience which listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Tralee to-night with the numbers that rushed to hear him denounce the former Leader of the Irish Party, Mr. Isaac Butt. The fact was, however, that the hon. Gentleman
  1752
  had undergone so many political conversions and taken so many rebounds that now there were few "so low as to do him reverence." That hon. Member's speech was a second edition of the one delivered yesterday by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), but without the talent possessed by the latter hon. Gentleman. The speech of the hon. Member for Tralee showed, however, that the spirit of his ancestor, Biddy Moriarty, still lived. The hon. Member, who had broken his pledges to his constituents, had been faithful to his unfaithfulness in vilifying his countrymen. When did he discover that the hon. Member for the City of Cork did not represent the Irish people? Did he forget the humble way in which he crept into the ranks of the Homo Rule Party and read his recantation?
  THE O'DONOGHUE: Yes; I do perfectly.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Did the hon. Member forget, when he wished to address a meeting at his own door at Killarney, that he would not be received or listened to because of his denunciations of the Land League?
  THE O'DONOGHUE: The hon. Member is thoroughly misrepresenting mo. I never denounced the Land League.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Or the National League?
  THE O'DONOGHUE: Nor the National League either.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Did the hon. Gentleman forget that when he wanted to address his fellow-countrymen he took a car in the middle of the night from his own home, and, having travelled 40 miles, brought back by special train the hon. Member for the City of Cork in order to have his patronage?
  THE O'DONOGHUE: I never did so. You are thoroughly misrepresenting mo.
  MR. HARRINGTON: That is a matter of opinion.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: It is a matter of fact.
  MR. KENNY: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to know whether it is in Order for the hon. Member for Tralee to constantly interrupt my hon. Friend who is in possession of the House?
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he did not require the ruling of the Speaker. He did not care about the hon. Gentleman's denial of his statements and facts. His constituents would decide between the

  1753
  hon. Member and himself. They all knew that he did rise in the middle of the night and took a car to Mallow, 40 miles, in order to secure the presence of the hon. Member for the City of Cork at the meeting.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: I deny it. There is not a word of truth in the statement. [Cries of "Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is in possession of the House, and is entitled, according to the Rules of the House, to continue his speech without interruptions. If at the end of the debate the hon. Member for Tralee desires to make any observations he may be allowed to do so by the indulgence of the House.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, that, however much he was prepared to expect that the hon. Member for Tralee would go back from his engagements and pledges to his constituents, and prepared as he was for any course that the hon. Member might take to support any Ministry—whether Whig or Tory—from whom he could expect anything, he was by no means prepared to find that he would give a positive denial to a matter of fact well known to thousands of his countrymen. The hon. Member said he had not changed his opinions since his election. Possibly he had not; but he (Mr. Harrington) could assure the House that the hon. Member had changed the expression of those opinions, for at one time he was loudest amongst the denouncers of the landlords of Kerry, and repeatedly called them thieves and robbers, the names which he now condemned.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: Never, never.
  MR. HARRINGTON: And to-night, while he chose to throw his vote in support of the Government, he changed his tactics, and denounced those with whom he used to work. The hon. Member engaged to prove, when the proper time came, that there was no change in his opinions, and that he had not broken his pledges to his constituents. He (Mr. Harrington) invited him to bring about that at the proper time. He was one of his constituents, and it was greatly by his influence that when the hon. Member had turned his back upon the Party——
  THE O'DONOGHUE: Never, never.
  MR. HARRINGTON: It was by his influence that the hon. Member was returned again. Could he deny that?
  THE O'DONOGHUE: I do deny it.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Then he invited the hon. Gentleman to apply to Her Majesty's Government for the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds—the only position which any Ministry would think the hon. Member worthy of. He (Mr. Harrington) would also do the same, and leave the issue in the hands of the people of Tralee. He passed from the speech of the hon. Member, which had had very little effect upon the House, and would have still less effect outside it. It struck humiliation into the breast of every Irishman to see his miserable, wretched performance of tonight in his desire to support a Ministry whom he formerly was loudest in denouncing.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: Never, never. All untrue.
  MR. HARRINGTON, continuing, said, the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Ewart), in his extraordinary speech, though he had not added much to the success of his Party in that debate, had at least enabled the House to judge in a proper light the motives which actuated him and those who were with him in the recent agitation which they had carried on in the North of Ireland. Speaking of the burning of a Land League hut, he had called it a small act of over-zeal; and that, apparently, was the view taken of the matter by the Irish Government and the learned Judge who tried the case, and probably that was why so light a sentence was passed. The Solicitor General for Ireland, in the speech which he made in defence of the Government in Ireland, had taken exception to the observations of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) calling attention to the manner in which the trial had been conducted at Dublin; but they should remember that two years' ago a young man who was discovered taking a sword out of a house in Kerry had received a sentence of 15 years' penal servitude, while the man who had burnt the hut got nine months. Lord Spencer himself was responsible for the fire; he had taken every opportunity of demolishing these Land League huts. That man who had, in his "over-zeal," taken the rash step of getting on to the roof of the hut and setting fire to it, had received a sentence of nine months. But Lord Spencer had quite a different way. The Lord Lieu tenant had written a letter about another

  1755
  hut, in which he declared that so long as it remained erected it would not be safe to withdraw the police. Was not that an incentive to people groaning under the burden of the extra police tax to destroy it? The inhabitants of the locality actually did demolish two such huts erected for the shelter of two miserable evicted families. But the persecution of the Lord Lieutenant did not cease there. He went so far as to declare that he would not remove the extra police from the district until the families had left the locality. This was the firm and gentle policy of Lord Spencer. Why, the Orange-men had only to make sufficient bluster to induce him to suppress a Nationalist meeting at once. The Lord Lieutenant took no notice of Mathews's placard headed "Invasion of Tyrone by Members of the Fenian and Murder League." Had that proclamation been issued in the South instead of the North of Ireland the case would have been very different. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said the other night that he did not wish to take any part in the recriminations of hon. Members on the opposite Benches, but to stand rather in the position of a Judge; but when a little boy took a tiny slip of printed paper from the office of The Kerry Sentinel, and afterwards acknowledged that no one but himself was responsible for its printing, did the right hon. Gentleman act as a Judge? No; he acted as a policeman and a bum-bailiff, for he directed the seizure of the type and machinery of the paper and the imprisonment of the editor. The Irish people were still in doubt as to whether the Leader of the Opposition or Lord Spencer had inspired the policy of the Irish Government last autumn. The rule of the present Government in Ireland had been spoken of as firm and gentle, and it had been rightly so described; but all the "firmness" had been applied to the Nationalists, and all the "gentleness" to the Orangemen. The hon. Member proceeded to read lengthy extracts from placards and other documents connected with the Nationalist invasion of Ulster, and he argued that the Orange meetings had simply been arranged to give a pretext for the suppression of the Nationalist meetings. The hon. Member went on to refer to the meetings which had been held in the North of Ireland in order to show that members of the Nationalist Party in Ire-
  1756
  land had been punished—himself among the number—by imprisonment for expressions of opinion much less pronounced than those which had been allowed to pass unchallenged by the authorities when uttered by speakers taking part in Orange meetings. In circulars calling Orange meetings men were invited in one instance to bring "Copies of Sankey's Hymns" with them, thereby meaning revolvers, and in another instance "their sweethearts and plenty of stuff," thereby also meaning revolvers, with plenty of powder and shot. At one Orange demonstration the denunciation of a woman in the immediate neighbourhood, who had let to the National Party a field on which to hold a meeting, was responded to by groans and revolver shots. What would the Executive have said if such things had occurred at Nationalist meetings? The Nationalists were imprisoned, whilst Orangemen guilty of more heinous offences against law and order were allowed to go scot free. The Crimes Act had been called into play to punish the most petty offences with which the Common Law was amply sufficient to deal, and so the Government shut out the accused from the advantage of having his case tried by a jury, and from taking his case before a Court of Appeal. Before the Government attempted to give a Government to the Soudan or to Egypt, let them rule Ireland on something like principles of justice. He made no complaint against the Orangemen, whose counter-agitation had increased rather than diminished the influence of the Nationalists in Ulster. His complaint was against the Government, who had by every means they could use encouraged the opposition to the Nationalist demonstrations. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said there were outrages connected with those meetings. Outrages were always the stock-in-trade of an Irish Chief Secretary, and seemed to go up and down in a most singular manner in conformity with Ministerial exigencies. The Chief Secretary had also stated that he had not sufficient military force at his command to prevent a collision between Nationalists and the Orangemen if all the meetings were allowed; but when a year or two ago an eviction was to be carried out the same right hon. Gentleman found no difficulty in sending down Infantry and Cavalry for the purpose.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he had listened with great sorrow and pain, during the progress of the debate, to Gentlemen of different religions and politics from the Sister Country attacking each other with such bitterness, and indulging in so much recrimination—he might say vituperation. He thought the Orangemen, while holding their own views, ought to have refrained from insulting people of a different faith. He should, on the one hand, like to see the Orangemen sinking some of their religious bigotry, while the Nationalists, on the other, gave up arrogating to themselves alone a desire for the welfare of Ireland. He heartily wished the time might come when in Ireland there might be found a band of men, not all of the same religion, but united in their attachment to the Constitution and the connexion between the two countries. He had little sympathy with either Party, and still less with Her Majesty's Government, whose vacillating conduct had, in a great measure, led to the present state of affairs. It would have been far better if the Government had all through acted with consistency and prohibited all meetings in Ireland until the country was in a state of tranquillity, and until law and order could be maintained without the aid of a stringent Coercion Act. Ten years without any political meetings in Ireland and without any legislation would do more good for Ireland than all the schemes of the Nationalists or of the Government. He warned the Government of the impolicy of offering a premium to agitation by promises of new legislation and the amendment of the Land Act.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 81: Majority 51.

  AYES.

  Barry, J.

  O'Brien, W.

  Biggar, J. G.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Commins, A.

  O'Donnell, F. H.

  Corbet, W. J.

  O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The

  Dawson, C.

  Gray, E. D.

  O'Shea, W. H.

  Harrington, T.

  O'Sullivan, W. H.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Parnell, C S.

  Leahy, J.

  Power, R.

  Macfarlane, D. H

  Sexton, T.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Small, J. F.

  M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

  Smithwick, J. F.

  M'Mahon, E.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  Marum, E. M.

  Synan, E. J.

  Mayne, T.

  TELLERS.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Leamy, E.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P

  Sheil, E.

  1758

  NOES.

  Agnew, W.

  James, Sir H.

  Ashley, hon. E. M.

  James, W. H.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Jenkins, Sir J. J.

  Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

  Johnson, E.

  Bourke, right hon. R.

  Jones-Parry, L.

  Brassey, Sir T.

  Kinnear, J.

  Briggs, W. E.

  Lawrence, W.

  Bright, right hon. J.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Lyons, R. D.

  Buxton, S. C.

  M'Clure, Sir T.

  Caine, W. S.

  M'Intyre, Æneas J.

  Cavendish, Lord E.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Cheetham, J. F.

  Marjoribanks, E.

  Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.

  Mundella, rt. hn. A. J

  Clark, S.

  O'Donoghue, The

  Cohen, A.

  Otway, rt. hn. Sir A.

  Corbett, J.

  Paget, T. T.

  Cotes, C. C.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Courtauld, G.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Cropper, J.

  Price, Sir R. G.

  Cross, J. K.

  Ralli, P.

  Currie, Sir D.

  Roe, T.

  Davies, W.

  Samuelson, H.

  Duckham, T.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Duff, R. W.

  Smith, Lieut.-Col. G.

  Earp, T.

  Smith, S.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Stanhope, hon. E.

  Fairbairn, Sir A.

  Stanton, W. J.

  Fay, C. J.

  Tillett, J. H.

  Ferguson, R.

  Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Waddy, S. D.

  Fitzwilliam, hn. C. W.

  Walker, S.

  Gabbett, D. F.

  Warton, C. N.

  Gladstone, H. J.

  Waugh, E.

  Grant, A.

  Webster, J.

  Grant, D.

  West, H. W.

  Harcourt, rt. hn. Sir W. G. V. V.

  Whitbread, S.

  Whitworth, B.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Herschell, Sir F.

  TELLERS.

  Holden, I.

  Grosvenor, right hon.

  Holland, S.

  Lord R.

  Illingworth, A.

  Kensington, rt. hn. Lord

  Inderwick, F. A.

  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. WARTONbegged to call attention to the fact that no notice was taken in the Queen's Speech or in the Address of what was promised to be one of the leading Government measures of the Session—namely, that with regard to Local Government. He also wished to refer to the absence of any allusion to the traffic in intoxicating liquors. The result of this was that the House was already flooded with a number of drink Bills, containing varying provisions and dealing with different parts of the Kingdom, and in several cases different counties. If these Bills were passed the subject would be thrown into inextricable confusion.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee appointed, to draw up an Address to be presented to Her Majesty upon the said

  1759
  Resolution:—Mr. ELLIOT, Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, Mr. GLADSTONE, The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Secretary Sir William HARCOURT, Mr. DODSON, Sir CHARLES DILKE, Mr. TREVELYAN, Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, THE LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. EVELYN ASHLEY, Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR, and Lord KENSINGTON:—Five to be the quorum:—To withdraw immediately:—Queen's Speech referred.

  THE ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.—REPORT.
  Report of Address brought up, and read.
  Address read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Address."

  CENTRAL ASIA—MERV.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. E. STANHOPE, who had given Notice to move an Amendment after Paragraph 2, after the words, "Foreign Powers," insert—
    "Humbly to entreat Her Majesty to direct that Papers will be laid before us relating to the recent advances of the Russian Government in Central Asia,"
    said, it was not his intention that night to criticize the action of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. The time had not come, nor had the House the materials if they desired it, for in any way challenging that action. His present object was one purely of inquiry, with the intention, if he could, of obtaining information on a good many points as to which the country was now altogether in the dark. They were assured, in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, that Her Majesty held friendly and harmonious relations with all Foreign Powers. There were certain facts which, as it appeared to him, were not altogether calculated to improve our friendly relations with one Foreign Power; and he, therefore, thought it was exceedingly desirable that the matter should, as soon as possible, be cleared up, and explanations given in regard to it. It was not necessary for his purpose to go back into ancient history. He would remind the House, however, that at the time of the Candahar debate, in 1881, one of the great contentions made in favour of the policy of withdrawal from Candahar was this. It was said that our presence at Candahar was one of the main reasons why the Russians thought it was so necessary to advance,
    1760
    and that if we only took the step of withdrawing from that place that stop would be accompanied by a corresponding cessation of movement by Russia. The House would recollect that at the outset of the debate the right hon. Gentleman now the President of the Local Government Board got up following him and told them that the first act of the new Emperor of Russia was to withdraw General Skobeleff from Central Asia, and to direct that all further advance should be stopped. That was an explicit declaration, which was received with great interest by this country, and it had undoubtedly a considerable effect upon public opinion in England. But the fact was that from that time the advance of Russia had gone on with accelerated speed; and although he was ready to give all credit to the Russian Government for not always being a willing agent, he thought that it was difficult to escape the idea that there appeared to be an amount of method in their advances which would, at all events, convey to some minds the idea of a settled purpose. First, there was an uncertain frontier; then came disturbances, for the quelling of which a military expedition was required, or else there was a scientific or an exploring expedition; but the result was always the same; territory was always annexed. The debate upon Candahar had taken place in March, 1881; in June of that year we were informed that an Imperial Ukase had been issued announcing the annexation of the territory of the Tekke Turcomans to the Russian Empire, under the name of the Trans-Caspian territory. So vague a statement, which might very well cover any extent of territory, very naturally excited the curiosity, to say the least of it, of the English Government, and on the 27th of July Mr. Wyndham inquired if the Foreign Minister could give him any idea of the territory termed Trans-Caspian. His Excellency replied that "it was all the territory beyond the Caspian;" and he went on to say that the furthest point now was Askabad; but that General Skobeleff had discovered some very fertile country south, where a complete state of disorder existed; that there was Sarakhs also to be considered; and whether it was Persian or not remained to be verified.—[Central Asia (1881), No. 4.] A few days later Mr. Thompson,

    1761
    our Minister in Persia, had informed the English Government that it would take nine months to complete the maps, and that negotiations for the delimitation of the frontier could not begin until the maps had been "officially sanctioned by the Russian Government." In January, 1882, we had received information that a Treaty had been concluded between Russia and Persia, and that Treaty had established and fixed the boundary of the new Trans-Caspian territory. In that Treaty was one most important provision, for it gave Russia the right to nominate agents to reside in the frontier towns of Persia, and the object of this, as stated in the Treaty, was to settle questions of order and tranquillity. Undoubtedly, that was an interference with the rights of Persia, and that it was of great importance to this country nobody would be prepared to deny. Indeed, the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), then Secretary of State for India, had raised the question of the integrity of Persia, and said that it could not be without interest to us. The next step was that we heard of a survey beyond Sarakhs up into Afghan territory, and we heard from the newspapers that Russia was beginning to claim rights beyond the frontier. In 1882 there had been a very remarkable speech made by General Skobeleff, in which he had said that the influence of Russia had never been greater at Teheran than it then was. He (Mr. Stanhope) could well believe it. That was followed by rumours that there was a further secret Treaty between Russia and Persia, by which Russia obtained the control of all the villages, if not up to Sarakhs, at least very close to it. Now Sarakhs had always been regarded as beyond dispute Persian, and was, indeed, up to the present time, garrisoned by Persian troops. But even short of Sarakhs the territory was also Persian, and therefore this action would be an undoubted infringement of the rights of Persia. He wished, therefore, to ask the Government whether they had reason to believe there was any truth in the statement that a secret Treaty of that nature did exist; whether, in fact, they had addressed any representations to the Government of Russia with regard to this portion of the frontier, and how matters now stood? A few days ago they read in the Press an account of the movements of Ayoub
    1762
    Khan, who, it was stated, was leaving Persia and going to seek the hospitality of Russia; and that in order to go from the one place to the other he was about to pass through Afghan territory. He need hardly mention the difficult questions this would immediately give rise to, and the very serious disturbances his passage might occasion. He hoped they might hear from the Government either that Ayoub Khan was not intending to take such a journey, or that if he had intended to take it the journey would not be permitted by Her Majesty's Government. He came now to the most recent information. Quite lately they had heard that Russia had accepted the submission of the Turkomans at Merv, and that an officer representing Russia was to administer the new territory. The history of the Merv question was, he was afraid, only to be called a history of prevarication—he did not wish to use any stronger word. It was even a more melancholy story than that relating to Khiva, which came before the House a few years ago. The first rumour of Russian interference was in 1874, and representations were made to the Russian Government, whereupon Prince Gortschakoff repeated the assurance that they had always given that the Imperial Government had no intention of occupying Merv. After five years, in July, 1879, M. de Giers had again assured Lord Dufferin, in the most positive manner, that there was no intention on the part of Russia to go to Merv. On August 13, 1879, Lord Dufferin had written—
    "Yesterday, in conversation with His Majesty (the Emperor of Russia) he was pleased to assure me that there was no intention of the Russian troops advancing on Merv."
    Then, there was a despatch written in 1880, at the time of the change of Government in this country, which probably appeared to the Russian Government a very favourable opportunity for withdrawing from its pledges. This despatch the Russian Ambassador had kept in his pocket until a convenient moment might arrive. It had not been shown to Lord Granville till nine months afterwards, but it was referred to by Lord Dufferin, writing on February 16, 1881, in the following terms:—
    "I consider the positive assurance given to me personally by the Emperor of Russia himself (as reported in my despatch of the 13th of

    1763
    August, 1879, and commented upon in my subsequent despatch, on the 26th of August of the same year) to the effect that there was no intention on the part of Russia of advancing to Merv, as still extant and in full force, and as never having been since qualified or withdrawn by His Majesty himself or by any of his Ministers. From time to time, I have taken care to remind M. de Giers that this was the sense in which I continued to regard His Majesty's gracious communication."—[No. 3 (1881), No. 41.]
    On March 8, 1881, Lord Dufferin again described his assurances as follows:—
    "When the Emperor deigned on two occasions to give me similar assurances, His Majesty made use of the most unequivocal language, and an intimation of this kind proceeding from so august a source possessed a direct and abiding force which, of necessity, endured until it was formally retracted."—[No. 47.]
    On March 7, 1881, M. de Giers informed Lord Dufferin that—
    "The Emperor had again authorized him to tell me that there was no question of an advance upon Merv. Not only we do not want to go there,"—[Ib.]
    said M. de Giers, "but happily there is nothing which can require us to go there." On June 15, 1881, M. de Giers had said—
    "With regard to Merv, his Excellency said that there was no question of negotiating a Treaty with the Merv Turkomans or of establishing a Resident there."—[No. 4 (1881), No. 17.]
    From that time he had no further documents, but he had no doubt that Her Majesty's Government possessed a great many of them. In February, 1884, that very district had been taken under the direct control of the Russian Government. With regard to the importance of Merv to this country, it should be borne in mind that the only possible reason for the advance of Russia was mischief towards this country. He was not afflicted with what the Duke of Argyll had some time ago called "Mervousness;" but, nevertheless, it could not be disguised that Merv was a most important strategical position, and they were told on high authority that when the Russians were at Merv there was not the smallest difficulty in their advancing on the important position of Herat. But the most serious part of the whole matter was one which could be made clear to everyone without strategical knowledge or geographical research. They had the positive assurance that the Russians were now at Merv. This being the case,
    1764
    they were face to face with all the problems that were raised by the immediate contiguity of Russia and Afghanistan, and they must face them, and at once. Under these circumstances, he preferred not to advance his own opinions; he relied on those of a statesman in whom he knew Her Majesty's Government placed great reliance. His first extract was from a despatch from Lord North-brook to Lord Salisbury on June 7, 1875—
    "Much discussion has recently taken place as to the effect that would he produced by a Russian advance to Merv. We have before stated to Her Majesty's Government our apprehension that the assumption by Russia of authority over the whole Turkoman country would create alarm in Afghanistan, and we think it desirable to express our opinion of the course which should be adopted if it should take place. It would then become necessary to give additional and more specific assurances to the Ruler of Afghanistan that we are prepared to assist him to defend Afghanistan against attacks from without. It would probably be desirable to enter into a Treaty engagement with him, and the establishment of a British Resident at Herat would be the natural consequence of such an engagement and of the nearer approach of the Russian frontier."—[Afghanistan (1878), pp. 134–3.]
    In accordance wish this declaration, Lord Derby sent a Memorandum to the Russian Government on October 25, 1875, of which the following was an extract:—
    "They (the Government) cannot but feel that such an event, for instance, as the occupation of Merv, which would bring the line of Russian territory into direct contact with Afghan territory, would arouse the susceptibilities of the Ameer to the highest degree, and possibly involve him in a common cause of defensive action with the Turkoman tribes upon his borders. Under such circumstances, it is unnecessary to observe how difficult it might be for the Imperial Government to maintain a policy of strict abstention in accordance with its present assurances, or how impossible it might be for Her Majesty's Government to exert any effectual control over the actions of the Ameer, without undertaking responsibilities which they would most reluctantly assume, and which would involve the very result which both Governments desire to avert—namely, the contact of the two Powers in Central Asia."—[Central Asia, No. 1 (1878), p. 60.]
    On the 13th of June, 1877, Lord Derby wrote to Lord Augustus Loftus as follows:—
    "I have now to instruct your Excellency to make a renewed representation to the Government of Russia on the subject of the movements of Russian troops now taking place on the Turkoman steppe, …clearly, though courteously,

    1765
    pointing out that the occupation of Merv would be held by the general opinion of the inhabitants of the neighbouring regions of Asia to announce a design on the part of His Majesty the Emperor of Russia to extend his influence, if not his dominion, into territories with which Her Majesty's Government have understood from the Government of His Imperial Majesty that it is not His Majesty's intention to interfere. Such an impression would impose upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity of making a corresponding advance in order to allay apprehension, and to remove misconception from the minds of the people of those countries. They could not, however, look upon so close an approximation of the outposts of the two Empires as in itself desirable, or likely to facilitate the discharge of the difficulties with which the administrations of each Government are charged. Her Majesty's Government therefore hope that His Majesty the Emperor of Russia will issue to his officers in those countries the strictest injunctions to abstain, in the course of any operations which the misconduct of the Turkomans may render necessary, from advancing into the neighbourhood of Merv."—[Ibid. pp. 112–13.]
    These were the expressions of statesmen whose opinions would be received with the greatest possible respect by the House. He ventured to point out that the first difficulty suggested by these opinions was the enormous difficulty of an uncertain frontier. If the Government believed the desire of Russia was not to interfere in any way with Afghanistan, it became exceedingly difficult for that or any other Government to keep its engagements when the frontier was in the condition of that of Afghanistan. If the Government did not believe in the intentions of Russia, then it would be easy for that Power to interfere contrary to her professions. The next difficulty was that the influence of Russia might prevail throughout Afghanistan. We knew nothing of the present state of the Ameer's mind, but if he was like the former Ameer he must be alarmed at the near approach of Russia, especially at a time when his authority seemed to be hardly settled throughout his extensive territories. What had the Ameer to rely on? In the first place, upon the engagement made by Russia that there was no intention on the part of that Power to interfere with the internal affairs of Afghanistan. He was afraid they would be trusting to a broken reed if they relied on that assurance. The compact that Russia would not interfere with Afghanistan was an assurance which had been repeatedly given, and as to which there was no
    1766
    guarantee that it would not be broken when the necessity arose. But did the House remember the engagement into which we had entered with the Ameer? It was dated June 14, 1880. It was not one of the engagements of the late Government, but one solely entered into by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Mr. Griffin, our Envoy, said in his letter to Abdurrahman, in conformity with his instructions—
    "With regard to the position of the ruler of Cabul to foreign Powers, since the British Government admit no right of interference by foreign Powers in Afghanistan, and since both Russia and Persia are pledged to abstain from all political interference with Afghanistan affairs, it is plain that the Kabul ruler can have no political relations with any foreign Power except the English; and if any such foreign Power should attempt to interfere in Afghanistan, and if such interference should lead to unprovoked aggression on the Kabul ruler, then the British Government will be prepared to aid him, if necessary, to repel it; provided that he follows the advice of the British Government in regard to his external relations."—[Afghanistan (1881), No. 1, p. 47.]
    Well, he had followed, he believed, the advice of the British Government in regard to his external relations; and, therefore, the conditional engagement, guarded by the three "ifs," came into full force. The way in which the Ameer himself regarded it might be seen by his answer of June 22, 1880—
    "You have also kindly written that should any unwarranted (improper) attack he made by any other power on Afghanistan, you will under all circumstances afford me assistance; and you will not permit any other person to take possession of the territory of Afghanistan. This also is my desire, which you have kindly granted."—[Ibid. p. 48.]
    Now, he repeated, they were face to face with their engagement. The frontiers of Afghanistan and Russia practically touched, and the Ameer might call upon them at any moment to fulfil the pledges they had made. He did not for a moment desire the Government to enter into any detailed account of what course they intended to take; they could not, however, say that they were taken by surprise. Everybody who had followed the question was quite aware of the likelihood of this further step being taken; and, therefore, it had been perfectly open to them to make any preparation they thought necessary. He thought, however, that they were entitled to ask for a frank and unambiguous declaration from

    1767
    the Government that they adhered to that portion of their policy which had been adopted by both political Parties, and which had hitherto remained unbroken—that they adhered, in fact, to that policy which had always been accepted in that country—namely, that British interests must dominate in Afghanistan. There was another question—that of the boundary of Afghanistan—to which he also wished to call attention. Were the Government prepared to adhere to the frontier mentioned by Lord Granville in 1872, and to insist upon it, or to take steps for defining a more accurate frontier? It was not his desire in any way to embarrass the action of the Government; he recognized to the full—indeed, everyone must feel—the extreme gravity of the occasion; but he was not without hope that the Government might furnish them with some clear and explicit declaration to show that Her Majesty's Government had learnt some lessons from the past, and that they were in a position to give some guarantees for our security in the future.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and the House generally, I have to thank the hon. Member for the speech which he has made—a speech marked by the extreme moderation and sense of responsibility which might be naturally expected from a Member of this House who has held the distinguished position he has when dealing with so delicate a question as that which he has brought before the House. The hon. Member has asked several questions; and while I wish to answer them as well as I can, the House and the hon. Member will see that it is impossible, in present circumstances, for me to go fully into the matter. The hon. Member asked, in the first place, what information we could give in regard to a secret Treaty which he assumes has been concluded between Russia and Persia. To give information as to a secret Treaty is rather a contradiction in terms, and I am afraid that in regard to any secret Treaty of which the hon. Member may suspect the existence it is not in the power of Her Majesty's Government to give any information either to him or the House; but, as far as the limitation of the frontier-line between Persia and Russia is concerned, I think the time has come when the
    1768
    House ought to be put in possession of further information than it already has, and Papers on the subject will be laid on the Table of the House. Then the hon. Member asked what was to be done with regard to Ayoub Khan, and spoke of the danger of allowing him to visit any portion of Afghanistan, and he rather assumed that Ayoub Khan is about to leave Persia and set out on a journey which might lead him to Afghanistan. In regard to that, I may say we have every reason to believe that Ayoub Khan is not about to leave Persia, and the Papers which we are about to lay before Parliament will comprise a considerable number of documents, showing the steps which have been taken by Her Majesty's Government in reference to Ayoub Khan. The hon. Member then proceeded to ask some questions with regard to the Russian action concerning Merv, and he asked for information, not only as to the manner in which Her Majesty's Government had taken steps, but also as to the steps themselves. He pointed out the apparent conflict between what has been done and the language of the Russian Government to the Government of this country, and he showed that he did not expect a full statement on this particular branch of the subject to-night. As he, of course, knows, the matter is now a subject of negotiation, and it is, therefore, not possible for the Government to speak in detail upon it at the present time. It is, of course, our duty to express our views upon the matter at St. Petersburg, and in doing so I may say that we shall be materially assisted by knowledge of the fact, as has been shown to-night, that there is no difference between the Front Benches in the House as to the manner in which the subject ought to be treated. The hon. Member pointed out the danger which might arise from the Afghan and Russian Frontiers being conterminous. He pointed out that Afghanistan is within the sphere of British influence, and that statesmen in this country have always shown a great dislike for the actual contact of British territory or territory under British influence with Russian territory. That is so, no doubt. In regard to this matter, the hon. Gentleman asked whether Her Majesty's Government hold to the assurances which have been given in times past to the Rulers of Afghanistan,

    1769
    and in answer to that question I have to say that we not only hold to the terms of those assurances as originally made, hut I may say that the assurances have been renewed and put in very plain terms between ourselves and the Ruler of Afghanistan. The question of the hon. Member as to what steps have been taken to define the boundaries of Afghanistan leads me to point out to the hon. Member that of which he must be perfectly aware, owing to the position which he has held in a former Government—namely, that there is a danger in defining boundaries in which you may be held to give over to somebody else territories which are not your own to give. There can be no doubt that in defining by an Anglo-Russian Commission the boundaries, for instance, of Northern Afghanistan, it might have been held that we had been handing over to Russia territories which were outside Afghanistan, and, therefore, outside the sphere of our immediate influence. Steps have been taken to ascertain the boundaries of Afghanistan upon the side where these boundaries have always been doubtful, and during the last year preliminary steps, which, I think, it would be undesirable for me to state in detail, have been taken by us for the purpose of ascertaining these boundaries. It is doubtful how far I can state, at present, what future steps are likely to be taken with regard to defining the Afghan boundaries on the North; but I can assure the House that the matter is well within the view of Her Majesty's Government, and that it is being carefully examined at the present time. The hon. Member and the House must be aware that in view of the assurances which have been given and recently renewed to the Ruler of Afghanistan, Her Majesty's Government cannot be indifferent to what is going on, even in the most remote parts of that country. I do not wish to import into this matter any controversial question in the present critical state of affairs, but I may say that it has always been our policy, and was the policy of those who were opposed to the Afghan War, to make Afghanistan, from its friendliness to this country, an advanced post of this country, and to set up in that country a strong and independent Government which should be friendly towards ourselves. We believe that we have met with very great success
    1770
    in that policy, and that at the present moment the Afghan Ruler, although he may not be very secure upon his Throne, is probably more secure than he has been for a great number of years. He is also friendly to ourselves, and every action he has taken during the last few years has been marked by extreme friendliness to this country. He has submitted the whole of his foreign policy to this country, and consulted us upon every act of State which he has undertaken. I think I can only inform the House further that we stand in a stronger position towards Afghanistan and Beloochistan, and in a more satisfactory position on the North-Western Frontier of Afghanistan, than we have probably ever stood in in time past. The recent mission, which has travelled through Beloochistan from end to end, has had a sort of triumphal progress, and our position there is very strong indeed. We have now, by the wish of the people of the country, formally taken over the Government of Quettah, and a formal arrangement has been made. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Eye probably thinks this is an operation similar to that of taking Candahar against the will of the people of Afghanistan. The friendliness of the people of Beloochistan now gives us entire control of the Bholan Pass, and that road is now perfectly assured, and is likely to remain tranquil. We are, therefore, practically assured on the North-Western Frontier of our Indian. Empire. We believe that the policy which ended in the evacuation of Candahar, and the arrangements which have been made in order to secure the tranquillity of Beloochistan have secured to this country a friendliness on the part of the Beloochees and the Afghan tribes which, as I have said, puts us in a much better position as far as the North-West of India is concerned than we have been in before, and I cannot conclude the few remarks I have felt it my duty to make without thanking the hon. Member for the support which he has given to Her Majesty's Government, and promising him that Papers on the subject shall as soon as possible be laid on the Table of the House.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he thought the remarkable and important statement of the right hon. Gentleman required some notice on that side of the

    1771
    House. It was an absolute and entire reversal of the policy which the Government had hitherto adopted. He ventured, three years ago, when the question of the abandonment of Candahar was under discussion, to point out that; there was a vital difference between the people of Northern and Southern Afghanistan. The people of the North were fanatical, and they hated us; while those of the South did not dislike us; and on that occasion he ventured to suggest that the Government should strengthen their positions in Southern Afghanistan when they had made up their minds to withdraw. That remark, however, was pooh-poohed by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), who was then Secretary of State for India, but the Government had now adopted that suggestion. The acquisition of Merv made certain facts clear. In the first place, that the advance of Russia had been steady and continuous; and in the second place, as the right hon. Gentleman, who spoke with all the reserve belonging to one of Her Majesty's Ministers, had been compelled to admit, that the engagement given by Russia had not been kept. In every case there was the same disregard of pledges by Russia, whether they came from an official or the august lips of the Emperor himself. Without making any personal reflection upon the Emperor of Russia, he wished to say that in his view the great mistake always made by Liberal Governments in this country in dealing with that potentate had been to assume that an autocrat was always and entirely master of his own servants. That however, was not the case. The tradition that Russia must get nearer to India was engrained in the minds of the Civil and Military Services of Russia; but opposition to it depended largely upon the will of the particular Emperor, and the stronger the line which was taken by the English Government the stronger would be the power of the Russian autocrat to keep his servants in order. It had always been admitted that there was one point beyond which it would be dangerous to British interests to allow Russia to advance, and that point was Merv. Russia was now there. Merv was in the position of a stepping-stone, and it would be just as easy for a man to remain on a stepping-stone in the middle of a
    1772
    stream as for Russia, having set foot in Merv, to remain there without going forward or making a retrograde movement. Would she go back? If she did not, she would go forward, and he was glad to see that in that respect Her Majesty's Government at last recognized the critical position of affairs. When the other day the Prime Minister was asked if Merv had been occupied, he knew perfectly well that the most solemn pledges had been given that Merv should not be occupied; but all that he said was that if it should turn out that Merv was occupied the diplomatic Correspondence and Papers should be laid on the Table. But that was exactly the way they ought not to deal with the Russian Government, because if they did so they would inevitably encourage disaster, and they would wake up some fine morning and find that an agent of the Russian Government in Central Asia whom they could not repudiate had done something which we could not tolerate, and then there would be nothing for it but war. It had been said by hon. Gentlemen, and he thought, among others, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), that the occupation of Merv by Russia would not prove a danger to British interests. He confessed, if the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to say so, that he had not been able to make out his views on the subject, because he had stated that he had no objection to Russia advancing until her boundary became conterminous with our own. If that was so, they would be establishing the principles of protection, which were not in favour with the right hon. Gentleman, or they would be establishing the principles of religious intolerance; and, therefore, it was perfectly apparent that if Russia advanced her territory until it became conterminous with our own, Russia would become possessed of that Afghanistan which it was the policy of every Government to maintain friendly and independent. There was one expression in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down to which he must refer. He had said it had always been the policy of every Government to make Afghanistan an advanced post of this country. Although that might be the intention of the Government now, 11 years ago they had an opportunity of

    1773
    doing that, and they failed to take advantage of it. He desired to read to the House two telegrams. One was a telegram which not very long ago Her Majesty's Government sent to their agent in Egypt; the other was a telegram which 11 years ago was sent by the Viceroy of India. They were not identical in their phraseology, but the same fatal abnegation of responsibility ran through both, and those telegrams had produced exactly the same disastrous results. He would take the Egyptian telegram first. In answer to a message from our agent in Egypt asking for the opinion of the Government as regarded the despairing position of Hicks Pasha, this reply was sent on the 11th of Juno, 1883—"Report decision of the Egyptian Government as soon as you can, taking care to give no advice." What had been the result? Bloodshed and massacre; and the Government were now forced to do in an exaggerated degree that which was done in order to stop further bloodshed. On the 24th of July, 1873, Lord Northbrook telegraphed, on behalf of Shere Ali, stating—"We are alarmed at Russian progress." Shere Ali was a shrewd man, and he was anxious to know that which every ally of the Government was always anxious to know—namely, how far he could rely on their support. What was the reply? It was couched in different words, but was almost identical in substance with the telegram sent to Egypt—"The Cabinet does not share his alarm, and thinks there is no cause for it." When the noble Marquess, the other night, referred to the unnecessary and bloody war, the responsibility of which he put upon the heads of the Opposition, he (Lord George Hamilton) said that war was the necessary and legitimate consequence of the Government telegram. It was a most extraordinary fact that, although Afghanistan was, above most nations, the most greedy of money, after the Government had sent that telegram £100,000 was in the Treasury for years waiting for the Ameer to call upon it. Do not let us repeat the same folly. The Government, he believed, had now wisely recognized the danger that was ahead. They said that they were the exponents of Lord Lawrence's policy. Lord Lawrence's policy was to prevent the approach of Russia; or, if negotiations failed, to inform Russia that when-
    1774
    ever she passed a certain point England would declare war. Let us, if possible, get rid of the word "if." The right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had admitted that we had gone a very long way. We had given to the Ameer of Afghanistan that subsidy which previously had been refused to him. We had given that guarantee which 11 years ago had been refused to him, and which, if given, would have averted all disaster. We had now practically annexed Beloochistan, and he thought the Government must reflect on the singular unwisdom of the step they had taken in destroying part of the railway which the previous Government had taken steps to construct. Such being the position of affairs, he was sure the Government would receive the support of almost every section of the House if they would only maintain a straightforward and intelligent policy. Although they had no doubt recently obtained a large majority in a vote of the House in support of their Egyptian policy—[Cries of "No, no!"]—well, a small majority, then. Although they had received that majority, he thought the Government must admit their policy had been in most parts of the world a failure. In every instance they had ultimately to do that which in the first instance they declined to do; and there was this unfortunate characteristic about their policy—that the more bloodshed they had occasioned the further they were from the realization of the objects they had in view. The Prime Minister would excuse him if he ventured to state what he believed now to be one of the great dangers in dealing with a Foreign Power like Russia. They had had the pleasure of listening to him with a natural admiration at the almost superhuman power he had acquired over the English language; but, after all, words were intended to express what a man meant. What he frequently could not help feeling when the Prime Minister spoke—particularly on a question of great importance and in which his Government were largely concerned—was that words with him were simply a loophole of escape from positions of difficulty. The history of the last four years was one record of sanguine expectations on the part of the Government, followed by disastrous results. But in

    1775
    every single instance the extraordinary dexterity of speech, possessed by the Prime Minister had extricated the Government from the difficulties in which they found themselves. The Minister escaped, but the national interests remained in peril. Therefore he wished to ask the Prime Minister—the right hon. Gentleman had plenty of courage—plainly to make up his mind what he would do in reference to the advance of Russia. They did not wish him to state what his views were, but when he had made up his mind he might then state, in unmistakable language, the intention of the Government. Let his intentions be clear to the English people and the Russian Government, and let them be accompanied by such action as would show that he was in earnest. He believed that was by far the best way to avert the consequences which all deplored. His reason for urging this point on the Government was that two-and-a-half years ago the Conservative Party ventured to deprecate precipitate retirement from Caudahar. The President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles Dilke) rose, and, in one of his adroit and dexterous speeches, he put in the very front the statement that the first act of the Russian Government was to recall General Skobeleff to St. Petersburg, and to put a stop to all operations which that General had been conducting in Asia; and then he went on to adduce as a reason for our retirement from Caudahar—
    "That as military men tried to show that England ought to maintain Candahar because Russia was trying to get to Merv, so the Russian military authorities urged on their Government that they should seize on Merv because England remained at Candahar. The policy of these two great Rowers could not be discussed in the abstract. The proceedings of each must bear on the other."
    They had always done so, and would always do so, until the end of time. This country retired from Caudahar, and the Russians approached to Merv. Let us have no more of such policy, because it was a dangerous one. If the Government would adopt a straightforward and clear policy in the direction of giving a guarantee in reference to Afghanistan, and reversing some of the foolish language that had been used upon the hustings, it would secure the support of the great majority of the House and of the country. It was only, he believed, by such means
    1776
    that we could extricate ourselves from an unquestionably dangerous dilemma—a dilemma which was partly due, no doubt, to the duplicity and the audacity of Russian agents, but also to a considerable extent due to the gullibility and past ineptitude of Her Majesty's Government.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he was inclined to regret the manifest and evident difference in the tone of the observations of the noble Lord who had just sat down from those which fell from the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject to the House. The tone of the hon. Gentleman who, in the late Government, had occupied the position of Under Secretary of State for India was calm and judicious, and was calculated to extricate the subject from the groove of Party recrimination, and to bring it into the higher region of political discussion. But in the speech of the noble Lord who had once occupied the same position was to be found the tone of those bitter discussions with which, not many years ago, the House was familiar. In his speech old issues were again brought up; old subjects which at the time were fully worthy of discussion were again revived; references were made to Papers and despatches which, no doubt, were technically before the House, and there was altogether a tone of exaggeration. There was, however, in the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) one expression, and one only, on which he would venture to offer a criticism, and that was that the only possible object which the advance of Russia in Turkestan could have was to do mischief to the interests of this country. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had always thought it was well to recollect, whatever their feelings might be on this subject, that there was one great and good work which Russia had done in Turkestan—she had struck a very great blow at one of the most barbarous and cruel systems of the Slave Trade which the world had ever seen. [Opposition laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh; but it was, nevertheless, a well-known fact, and it had been borne witness to repeatedly by travellers and politicians who could not be suspected of views favourable to the Russian advance. It was well known that the late Mr. O'Donovan, whoso loss he deplored, said—

    1777
    "Who shall say whether the conquest of Merv he for the better or for the worse, whether it be in the interests of civilization or not P For my part, I cannot forget the fact that it is not so many years ago that the Muscovite arms arrived at Khiva and Bokhara and sent 40,000 Persian captives to their homes who had long pined in captivity there. This was one great step in progress, something that had never been heard of before in the whole of Central Asian history; and if to-day these devastating Turkomans are wiped out by some who, perhaps, are not as liberal as we should be, who shall say whether it is not for the better?"
    Then, again, before the Royal Geographical Society, in 1881, Colonel Stewart, whose name was well known in the House as one of the greatest authorities on Asiatic geography, had said—
    "No one in England has any conception of the fearful sufferings of this Slave Trade carried on by the Turkomans. I believe the number of slaves in Bokhara, Khiva, and the Turkoman country itself, a few years since, amounted to more than 100,000. Of course, it is difficult to gather statistics on such a point; but 40,000 slaves are said—I do not know with what truth—to have been released by the Russians in Khiva alone. The value of slaves has fallen considerably since the Russians have closed the slave markets in Khiva and Bokhara. The Persian slaves in Bokhara have not been released, but the open sale of captives there has been prohibited; and though a few slaves, especially women, can still be secretly sold in Bokhara, Russia has struck a great blow at the Turkoman Slave Trade. The noble deed performed by that Power in releasing the numerous slaves in Khiva has added very much to her influence in this part of Persia. In almost every village I met liberated slaves, who spoke of the kindness of the Russians in freeing them. Great numbers of the freed slaves were killed by the Turkomans on their return journey from Khiva."
    He thought that that point, especially just at the present moment, when the subject of the Slave Trade was attracting so much attention and interest in this country, was a very important point for consideration, and he felt certain that hon. Members opposite would feel it was a point well worthy to be borne in mind. He could not help regretting that the noble Lord was not himself inspired by the spirit of the wise observations which, at an early period of the rule of the late Ministry, Lord Beaconsfield had addressed to the House. There were two Motions made on the subject, one in 1875 and one in 1876, by an hon. Member who now adorned "another place," Mr. Baillie Cochrane, when the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) made a very able speech.
    1778
    Lord Beaconsfield, then Mr. Disraeli, used, in replying, some very remarkable words. He had said, alluding to some remarks of Mr. Baillie Cochrane about the discussion between Lord Clarendon and Prince Gortchakoff with reference to the so-called neutral zone—
    "The fact is, that the neutral zone was a speculation in a diplomatic despatch, nothing more. It never was accepted at any Conference or Congress, nor was it ever expressed in any Protocol or Treaty. The idea that Great Britain and Russia agreed to establish a neutral zone between their respective Empires, and that Russia has all this time systematically violated the neutral zone that was agreed upon, is one of those illusions which, having once got possession of the public mind, it is very difficult to terminate. The fact is, that no neutral zone was ever agreed upon by the statesmen of the different Powers."—(3 Hansard, [229] 135.)
    It had just occurred to him (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) that one of those people whose minds were possessed with that delusion was the noble Lord himself. Lord Beaconsfield then went on to say—
    "I am not of that school who view the advances of Russia into Asia with those deep misgiving's some do. I think that Asia is large enough for the destinies of both Russia and England."—[Ibid. 138.]
    Again, in the following year, Lord Beaconsfield used similar language of high statesmanship. He said—
    "Whatever may be my confidence in the destiny of England, I know that Empires are only maintained by vigilance, by firmness, by courage, by understanding the temper of the times, and by watching those significant indications that may easily be observed."
    And he continued as follows—and to this he would call particular attention—
    "Now, far from looking forward with alarm to the development of the power of Russia in Central Asia, I see no reason why she should not conquer Tartary any more than why England should not have conquered India. I only wish that the people of Tartary may gain as much advantage by being conquered by Russia as the people of India from being conquered by this country."
    That language was of a statesmanlike character, and was not inspired by the feeling of apprehension which seemed to him to run through the observations of the noble Lord. But he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was quite willing to admit that, although a spirit of what might be called Russophobia was an exceedingly unwise thing, it could, nevertheless, be shown that there had

    1779
    been an agreement amongst statesmen of opposite Parties and different schools that the day when the limits of Russia might become coincident with those of Afghanistan would be one of a certain anxiety, which would require the attention of statesmen with a view to avoiding danger. There was no statesman who bad ever occupied the Foreign Office whose opinions were more respected than those of Lord Clarendon. Lord Clarendon, writing to Sir Andrew Buchanan, on March 27, 1869, said—
    "I have expressed my opinion that abstinence from aggression would, on every account, promote the true interests of Russia, whose territorial possessions needed no aggrandizement, and if the giving effect to this policy depended upon the Russian Government alone, I should not doubt its being maintained; but I was sure, judging from our own Indian experience, that such would not be the case, and that Russia would find the same difficulty that England had experienced in controlling its own power when exercised at so great a distance from the seat of government, as to make reference home almost a matter of impossibility; there was always some frontier to be improved, some broken engagement to be repaired, some faithless ally to be punished; and plausible reasons were seldom wanted for the acquisition of territory, which the Home Government never thought it expedient to reject, and could not, therefore, condemn the motives or the means by which it had been acquired. Such, in the main, had caused the extension of our Indian Empire, and there was reason to apprehend that such was the course into which Russia, however unwillingly, was about to be drawn."
    The day had no doubt now come when the position foreseen by Lord Clarendon, as sooner or later to come about, had arrived, and the risks which accompanied it. As his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had said, they were now face to face with the situation which ought undoubtedly to be met in a spirit of calm and moderation; but, at the same time, looking back upon the controversies of former years, it was not difficult to realize—in fact, it would be impossible not to realize—how very far they had travelled since the time in 1870 when Lord Clarendon and Prince Gortchakoff had these conversations to which he had referred. The intervening regions had fallen under the sway of the Russian Government. Formerly, in order to check the progress of Russia southward it would have been necessary to advance not only for hundreds of miles beyond the English Frontier, but also
    1780
    beyond the Afghan Border itself, leaving behind a scattered population whom it would have been very difficult to control. But the problem now before the Government was, what should be their policy when, notwithstanding the repeated pledges of Russia, the military frontier of Russia either was or was likely to be co-terminous with the frontiers of the territories adjacent to India? The Government were accused by the noble Lord of indifference at one time, of inability to foresee what would happen at another, and finally of an alteration of policy. He did not wish the discussion to degenerate into a Party wrangle over the dry bones of the old Afghan discussions. For convincing proof that the accusations of the noble Lord were baseless he would refer hon. Members to the observations made by the present Secretary of State for War in 1881. How anyone who had read those observations could possibly bring against the Government any charge of want of foresight or of indifference surpassed his comprehension. Replying to the hon. Member for Eye on August 1, 1831, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) said—
    "I have not the smallest hesitation in saying with perfect plainness that I do not think the annexation by Russia of the Akhal Tekke country is a matter of indifference to us. I will not enter into the discussion of the question whether that annexation was consistent or inconsistent with the pledges given by Russia to this country. I think that a good deal may be said on both sides of that question; but it has not been entered upon by the hon. Member, and I do not wish to enter upon it now. We are not concerned in the independence of the Akhal Tribes. But the recent advances and conquests of Russia have, no doubt, had consequences which do affect us in two points very nearly. The extension of Russian territory along the Northern Border of Persia raises a question of the integrity of Persia which cannot be indifferent to us; and the near approach of Russia to the Borders of Afghanistan is not a matter of indifference to us. The pre-sent Government have admitted as plainly as any other that the integrity and independence of Afghanistan is a matter to them of vital importance, and that they do not intend to permit interference by any foreign Rower with the internal or external affairs of Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were under a settled form of government it might be indifferent to us whether Russia or any other country extended to the very borders of Afghanistan. But that is not the case of Afghanistan. It has not, and perhaps it never may have, what we recognize as a settled form of government.—(3 Hansard, [264] 433.)
    That language was exceedingly plain.

    1781
    It was spoken with great consideration. It expressed the policy of the Government then, and it expressed the policy of the Government now; and how the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex could found upon that speech, taken in connection with the utterances of the President of the Local Government Board, a charge of want of foresight or inconsistency against the Government, surpassed, as he had already said, his comprehension. There was a complete accord between the policy of the Government now and their policy then. What was their policy in 1881 was their policy in 188–1. The position was this—that Her Majesty's Government did not in the least deny the force of the observations which were addressed by Lord Clarendon to Prince Gortchakoff and also Baron Bruunow, the Russian Ambassador in this country towards the close of his long and eminent career. They recognized that, owing to the occupation of Merv by Russia, or the tendering of allegiance by the tribes to the Russian Empire, which was, perhaps, the more correct description of the operation, a moment of anxiety had come. But it was not a moment for indulging in exaggerated fears or alarm. It was, on the contrary, a moment for calm and moderation both in action and speech. As the President of the Local Government Board had said, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to lay Papers before the House, feeling as they did that the Government never spoke with greater authority than when Parliament was fully informed of what was going on, and when they had the House of Commons at their back. With respect to the particular step that had attracted the attention of the House—with respect, namely, to the Russian approach to Merv—certain communications would be addressed to the Russian Government; and he hoped and believed that the result of those communications would ultimately be to strengthen those ties of amity and goodwill, which it must be the wish of every lover of peace and goodwill should subsist between the two nations.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Shall we have the Papers printed soon?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot give any definite date.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that the subject before the House interested every Eng-
    1782
    lishman and everyone in India. The advance of Russia was mistrusted throughout the length and breadth of India, from Peshawur to Cape Comorin. So far as he could make out of the speech of the noble Lord, he had foreshadowed somewhat of the policy of the Government—that they were to guarantee the present Ameer of Afghanistan protection from external and internal aggression. He could only hope that that was the case, and that Her Majesty's Government would act up to the words of the noble Lord. If a similar pledge had been given to Shore Ali in 1873, there would have been no rupture with Afghanistan, and consequently no war. If the Government now carried out what had been indicated by the noble Lord, it would be an utter reversal of the policy enunciated in the Mid Lothian speeches. The Prime Minister said four years ago that India was safe as long as we retained our mastery on the sea. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The chief danger with which. India was threatened was an invasion by Russia. If Afghanistan was to be retained as a buffer between India and Russia, that country ought to have our strong support. We ought not to allow intrigues to be carried on under our very noses, and we ought to impress upon the people of Afghanistan and of India that we were determined to maintain intact the integrity of the former country. Our policy in the East had not been aggressive; but Russia's policy was different. Russia's idea was to increase her influence in Afghanistan and South of the Caspian, in order to enable her to strike a severe blow against us should difficulties at any time arise between her and this country. He was one of those who thought that Russia was premature in sending her mission to Cabul; but now that she had got Merv, and was on the high road to Herat, it would be far easier for her to make intrigues with Afghanistan when we were in difficulties than it was in 1878. It was all very well for Her Majesty's Government to say they would write a strong despatch—he hoped in friendly terms—to the Russian Government. The important question for consideration was—Would Russia keep the pledges which she might make? [Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!] They had never done so yet; and had they any right to think that in

    1783
    the future they would act differently to what they had done in the past? She might give us certain pledges; she might say that she had no intention of going to Herat; but would she keep those pledges? It might not he to-day, or in two or three years; but he believed that Gentlemen now sitting in that House would live to see the Russians in Herat. No one in his senses would wish that we should fight Russia on the Northern side of Afghanistan. What they had to do was to let the Russian Government know in the clearest manner that if they attacked Afghanistan in any way, if they intrigued with the Ameer at Cabul, such action would be detrimental to the interests of this country, and that it would be a casus belli. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway might laugh, and might think that there were many things of greater importance than our foreign policy; but, for his own part, he held that the foreign policy of this country was of greater moment than any domestic question, however important that might be. He knew it was difficult, while negotiations were going on, for the Government to say what they were determined to do; but he hoped the House would get before long Papers which would show the determination of Her Majesty's Government. He wanted to know what were the engagements they had at present with the Ameer? The negotiations had not been conducted by an accredited Englishman, but by a Native at Cabul; and unless great care was exercised in the conduct of these negotiations this country might be involved in the greatest difficulties. He thought they had made the greatest mistake when they left Candahar and did not make the railway to that place which the late Government, had they remained in Office, would have nearly completed by the present time, and which, even commercially, would have been of the greatest advantage to Afghanistan. Without wishing to be a Russophobist, he hoped that the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government would be strong and determined in this matter, and that, if necessary, they would act up to it for the credit of the country.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDremarked, that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken belonged to that species of politicians who acted in all these matters on.
    1784
    the "key-to-India" theory. If the Government were willing to advance to Herat, these gentlemen would lead them on to Merv; and if they followed such blind guides as the hon. Member for Guildford, the time was not far distant when they might be attacking Russia on the Steppes of Siberia. He happened to meet that morning with a book dedicated to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), which described Merv as—
    "Little more than a geographical expression. The huts in the vicinity of the ruined castle offer no temptation whatever to an invader."
    One of the great difficulties with which the late Government had to contend in respect to Merv was the fear that the Tekke Turkomans might be driven across the Afghan Frontier, and that a difficulty might thus arise between Russia and Afghanistan. Now, however, the position was entirely different, for the Tekke Turkomans, after offering their submission to Persia and consenting that the Persian flag should be raised at Merv, had resolved to seek the Suzerainty of Russia, for they found it absolutely necessary to give themselves up to one Power or the other, and he thought that in choosing Russia they had acted wisely. There was one document for a copy of which he had asked in vain—that was the draft Convention which the late Government proposed to conclude with the Persian Government for the surrender of Herat to Persia. He, for one, was glad that a Government so blind to a wise and prudent policy in Central Asia as to propose to conclude such a Convention were not now in responsible charge of the affairs of this country. On questions affecting this particular part of the world, the late Government seemed to be affected with a diseased appetite for annexation, so much so that they imprudently desired to become responsible for regions that were the most inaccessible to British arms, and therefore the most difficult to defend. He was exceedingly glad to have heard from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) the clear, important, and reassuring statement of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. It was not true that Her Majesty's Government had changed their policy. Where had been the change in the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman? He had listened to that statement with profound

    1785
    pleasure; and he believed that throughout this country it would give rise to a feeling of satisfaction which would be entertained by all classes of the people.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he was glad to find that the President of the Local Government Board had recurred to the opinions as to the dangers of Russian advance in Central Asia which he held some 12 years ago; but when he at the end of his speech took credit for the retirement from Candahar, and accused the late Government of an inconsistent policy, he was very indifferent to the precise facts of the case. In advocating the retention of Candahar the late Government did not wish to hold a country against the wishes of its people. The inhabitants of Candahar were most anxious to place themselves under the direct protection of this country. The present Government, in abandoning Candahar, broke the solemn pledges they were under to the inhabitants of that district, and the consequences to them had been two disastrous conquests and two successive pillages. The people of that district were different in race from the warlike Pathans of Cabul. They were Parsuvians and Hazaras, a far more industrious and peaceful race than the Hill Tribes of the North. Candahar had generally been independent of Cabul, and was not annexed by Dost Mohamed. About 18 months ago the country had a very narrow escape. It was notorious that the Government were then in favour of the abandonment of Quettah. They were on the point of taking that course when they were restrained by the urgent remonstrances of their advisers in India; and it was the solitary piece of good policy which could be put down to the credit of Lord Ripon's Administration that he allowed the counsel of his political and military advisers in India to prevail. Every day Russia was steadily advancing; she had broken innumerable pledges made to this country. The statement of the President of the Local Government Board with regard to Beloochistan was entirely misleading. It was the late Conservative Government that established friendly relations with that country, and the inhabitants would always be glad to acknowledge the advantages of British rule and protection. He contended that the declaration made by the Government that
    1786
    evening was a perfect justification of the policy which the Conservatives advocated three years ago; and if Her Majesty's Ministers adhered to their statements, and defended Afghanistan against the certain inroads of Russian aggression, they would in less than a decade be back again in Candahar. It was amusing to hear the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs talking about the release of Persian slaves by Russia, when Her Majesty's Government had once more proclaimed the Slave Trade in the Soudan. Had the Government considered for a moment the treatment by Russia of her own population at home? The noble Lord could not with consistency give credit to the Czar for the release of those slaves and hold back the truth with reference to the gross treatment both of subject races and of the mass of its own population by the Russian Government. The railway which was designed by Lord Beaconsfield for the purpose of promoting the interests of this country in Central Asia had been abandoned; but Russia had been steadily advancing her railway towards Herat, Afghanistan, and India. He complained of the wretched state of the information the Government possessed with regard to this railway. Although he had often questioned the Government about it, the then Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington), with that sincerity of ignorance which was one of his most charming characteristics, had never any information but that which was six or nine months old. He would suggest that the Government should telegraph to our agent at Meshed to know how this railway was going on. It had been by warlike cavalry that successful attacks on India had been made; and the Russians had gained 100,000 horsemen of the finest physique in the Turkomans of Akhel and Merv. In his opinion, a friendly and united Afghanistan was more or less of a fiction; the Afghans were divided into many races having opposite interests; they would always go to the highest bidder, and to the Power which they deemed the strongest. The temptation to plunder India was the greatest temptation they could have held out to them. They had been for centuries the traditional raiders into India. [General Sir GEORGE BALFOUR said, they had kept quiet of

    1787
    late.] Yes; because they had been in the face of a stronger Power; but at the present time the hon. and gallant Member would not dare to ride four miles outside Peshawur. The Russians would go to Afghanistan, not as conquerors, but in the guise of insidious friends. As we knew, Russian officers had visited Cabul and had received every attention from the Ameer, who, it was said, had offered to help them in surveying the road to (Kandahar. They would make specious representations, and tell the Ameer, as General Skobeleff had done in 1878, to treat England with temporizing and with deceit, and that when he got into difficulty the Russian Government would come to his help. Our only security in India was in a strong and invulnerable frontier; the magnificent mountain chain was a scientific frontier, the passes of which could be held by a few men against thousands. Sir Edward Hamley had pointed out in 1881 how fatal a mistake it would be on our part if we allowed Russia to debouch into the plains on the West of the Indus, instead of meeting and checking her in the passes on the frontier. He had to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the telegram of the Vienna Correspondent of The Standard—a paper that commanded the respect of the Prime Minister. That remarkable telegram the other day stated that the writer had been informed, on trustworthy authority, that the belief in Central Asia was that Russia would lead the people of that country down to plunder the rich plains of India, where gold and diamonds and beautiful weapons were lying on the streets. The language of the letter, extravagant as it was, was the language that fascinated an Oriental people. It was the language in which General Gordon's Proclamation to the Soudanese was couched. The same writer went on to say—
    "Everybody in Afghanistan knows what is coming. When you hear that fresh differences have broken out between that country and India, you may feel sure that the Afghans are being used as an advance guard, and that all the available horsemen of Central Asia will follow at their heels to seize the Promised Land."
    A great danger was threatening our Indian Empire. Words were not sufficient to cope with the Russian Power, which during the time the present Administration had been in Office had advanced
    1788
    500 miles eastward. They were now within 240 miles of Herat, and they had acquired a new base, supported by steam, from which they Could bring up enormous forces for the invasion of Asia. Russia had in the Caucasus an Army of 200,000 men. By the Trans-Caucasian Railway, by steamers on the Caspian Sea, and by the railways from Teshikislar to Bami, these could readily be conveyed to the Afghan Frontier. In addition, Russia had just conquered the splendid horsemen of Turkomans, who would soon be well-disciplined and armed with breech-loaders, and who possessed horses capable of marching 100 miles a-day. History warranted him in saying that no great foreign invader of India had been ever yet repelled. One of the first things which should be done was to fortify Herat. At present it was not fortified; but there were hills surrounding it which might be made secure. The next step was to complete the railway to Candahar. It was much to be regretted that the Government ever sacrificed that place, for with it they sacrificed £1,000,000 a-year in trade. £1,000,000 a-year might not be much to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. A. Arnold); but it was by closing these little rivulets of trade that the present depression had been occasioned. They had lost £500,000 in Tunis, £2 50,000 in Tonquin, £500,000 in the Soudan, £750,000 in Madagascar, and so forth. These millions, had they gone to increase the earnings of the Lancashire operatives, might have relieved the depression that district was now suffering from. He thanked the House for listening to him, and took some comfort from the declaration of the Government. He hoped that they would be firm and clear in their Indian policy. It was a question not only where our Imperial interests and trade representing £100,000,000, but the future of 250,000,000 of people in India was at stake, whether she should enjoy the good government which the supremacy of England had conferred upon her, and which had been such a wonderful contrast to long centuries of oppression; or whether she should be subjected to the cruel and oppressive domination of the most backward military despotism in the world.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that when they contrasted the present state of India with what it was a few years ago during the war with

    1789
    Afghanistan, they might rejoice at the progress that had been made. The time, he thought, had come when the Government might embark upon further improvements, and so bind the people of India still closer to our rule. This was not the first time we had had Russia near Herat, and he thought they might look with some degree of quietude upon the progress that Russia had made. Undoubtedly the action of the Russian Government was a violation of the engagements which they had entered into, and to that extent Her Majesty's Government were justified in calling attention to the matter. He was, however, gratified with the assurance which had been given by Her Majesty's Government that the Russian Government would be dealt with, and he agreed with the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) that they ought not to press too heavily upon the Russian Government, because it was difficult to say whether the Government were primarily responsible, or whether the agents of that Government, who had always been most active in Central Asia, were more to blame. With regard to the policy of the late Government, he did not blame the Members of that Administration, because they had acted to the best of their light; but, at the same time, they must remember that their views were in favour of a policy of military occupation by our Army of Candahar and even of Herat—nay, even of the transfer of that city to Persia, than which none could be more difficult and dangerous. Happily these intentions had been set aside through a change of Government, and we had wisely withdrawn from Candahar. The consequence was that our relations with Afghanistan were now more friendly than they had been; while, so far from the trade of Candahar having decreased, it was notorious that that trade had increased, and was still on the increase. After the moderate speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) he hoped that the time had come when those questions would cease to be the occasions of Party conflict.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, that there seemed to be a general desire that the debate should come to an end; but as he had been the first, many years ago, to draw the attention of the House to the question, he hoped to be allowed to make a few re-
    1790
    marks. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that the subject was one which must be approached with a deep sense of responsibility. There was no doubt that the event which had just occurred was one which had been foreseen for many years, and was of the greatest importance. It was important to this country, important to Afghanistan, to India, and oven to Europe. Afghanistan looked upon the event as a step towards its own incorporation with Russia. The expectation of what had now happened had existed long in the minds of the Rulers of Afghanistan, and led Shore Ali to believe that he had been deserted by England. Tremendous effect would also be caused upon many minds in India; because it had been the traditional policy of the Northern neighbours of India to invade India, and anything which disquieted our Northern Frontier disquieted the whole of India. In addition to this, there was not a Court in Europe that was not at this moment somewhat surprised at the calmness with which the announcement of the Russian occupation had been received by England, as this question had always been regarded as a matter of vital interest. He was satisfied with the assurances which the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had given; but he regretted to see that the noble Lord still seemed to cling to belief in the assurances of Russia. He was glad to hear that the Government were taking measures with respect to the boundaries of Afghanistan; and hoped that those measures would be effective. The boundaries towards the Upper Oxus were quite as important as those connected with Merv; and he, therefore, hoped the Government would attend to that portion of the subject. He would impress on the Government not to be satisfied with diplomatic communications that might pass between the two Governments. He should be glad to see those communications; but he attached very little importance to them, because the question after all was what we were to do in India; and it would be perfectly competent for the Government to say, without consulting any Power, that, as these events had occurred, they would take those steps which they deemed ad-

    1791
    visable in their own interests and in those of India and Afghanistan. It was the duty of the Government to concert measures with the Government of India with respect to the frontier line in Afghanistan. The Government had entered into a very onerous engagement with the Ameer. It imposed a tremendous obligation on the Government; and he should be the last to ask the Government to tell the House how that obligation was going to be carried out at the present moment. The late Government had been accused of being anxious to occupy Herat with a British force; but that was not the ease. There never was any proposal of that hind that he was aware of. The Government were now perfectly free to take what steps they pleased; and though they might appear aggressive, that ought not to give umbrage to Russia.
    MR. CAINEsaid, that the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had stated that in consequence of the railway to Candahar they had lost £1,000,000 of trade to the country. He did not see how they could lose what they never had; and, as a matter of fact, their trade with Afghanistan was greater now than ever. In 1873 their exports to Afghanistan only reached £28,000, and they were exporting a great deal more to-day than they did in 1873.

  IRELAND—THE ORANGE SOCIETY-OATHS AND SECRET SIGNS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that, before the House passed this stage of the Address, he was anxious to elicit from the Government some statement in regard to the Orange Society in Ireland. He had lately addressed two Questions to the Chief Secretary upon the subject. He had asked if the Government were aware that oaths and secret signs were enforced in connection with the existing Orange Lodges? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would have answered the Question; but, before he was able to do so, the noble Viscount the Member for Fermanagh (Viscount Crichton) interposed with another Question. The noble Viscount asked—
    "If the Prime Minister is aware that since the issue of the Treasury Minute of the 15th March 1836, requiring public servants under the control of the Board to withdraw from the
    1792
    Orange Institution, that Society was dissolved, and has since been reconstituted upon a basis expressly excluding the use of oaths, illegal tests or declarations, and secret signs and symbols?"
    He (Mr. Sexton) proposed to show the House that the impression conveyed in the Question of the noble Viscount was directly contrary to the fact. He believed he should be able to show that the Orange Society at the present moment did not exclude the use of these illegal tests and declarations, and that it was conducted upon a complete and elaborate system of signs and symbols. The Prime Minister, in replying to the Question, gave as his reason for refusing to enforce, in the Public Service in Ireland, the provisions of the Treasury Minute of 1836, that since that time the Orange Society had been transformed. The right hon. Gentleman said that the case against the Orange Societies at that time was, first of all, that they were extremely extensive; but on the admission and avowed declaration of noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen, who were members of the Orange Society, in that House, that Society was extremely extensive now. The second point of the Prime Minister was that it had reached very extensively into the Army. He would only remind the right hon. Gentleman of the appeal made at the meeting at Rosslea, by Lord Rossmore, to the sympathy that existed between Orangemen and the soldiers, and of the significant declaration that was contained in an exclamation which came from one voice at that meeting—"There are 400 Orangemen in the regiment"—a statement referring, no doubt, to the local Militia. The third point adverted to by the Prime Minister was, that the Orange Society was, at the time referred to—namely, 1836—presided over by a Prince of the Blood Royal. He (Mr. Sexton) was not aware that any Prince of the Blood Royal gave his countenance to the Orange Society now; but, if not, it was, nevertheless, excited to acts of violence by the son of a noble Duke who had held the Office of Viceroy of Ireland; by Lord Lieutenants of counties; by magistrates; by Members of the House of Commons; and by High Sheriffs, who were entrusted with the administration of the law. He contended that the connection of these persons with the Orange Society of the pre-

    1793
    sent day constituted as grave a case as did the membership of the Duke of Cumberland in 1836. The fourth point urged by the Prime Minister was that the Orange Society was not exclusive in point of religion. He (Mr. Sexton) denied that since 1836 the Orange Society had made any change in that respect; and he asked if the right hon. Gentleman, or any hon. Member, pretended for one moment that Roman Catholics could be admitted? The right hon. Gentleman had dwelt upon two points which induced him to arrive at the conclusion that the Society was very different now from what it was in 1836. The right hon. Gentleman said those two points were that, in 1836, the Orange Society made use of secret signs; and the other was that the initiatory proceedings were attended by religious ceremonials partaking of the nature of an oath. Now, he took his stand on the declaration that the oath at the present moment was not administered, and that no secret signs or symbols were employed. He undertook to prove that years after the Society was reconstituted the members did use secret signs and symbols; and that as regarded the inner circle—the "Purple Arch," the "Purple Order," and the "Black Preceptory"—no person was admissible without the preliminary of an oath. The right hon. Gentleman had readily, and rather hastily, accepted the declaration of the noble Viscount (Viscount Crichton). The noble Viscount said—
    "That since the issue of the Treasury Minute of the 15th March, 1836, requiring public servants under the control of the Board to withdraw from the Orange Institution, that Society was dissolved, and has since been reconstituted upon a basis expressly excluding the use of oaths, tests or declarations, and secret signs and symbols."
    Upon that statement the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said it was quite clear that the case of the Orange Society of to-day, whatever it might be, was totally different from the case of the Orange Society which was debated in 1836. Now, he (Mr. Sexton) proposed, by the statement of a few facts, to show that the case was just the same. Before doing so, however, he would refer to the Question he had put to the First Lord of the Treasury the other day—
    "Whether, in view of the fact that the Supreme Court at Montreal, in 1832, by a
    1794
    unanimous judgment, declared the Orange Society in Canada to be illegal, he will, on an early day, move for or assent to a Motion for a Select Committee of the House to inquire into and report upon the nature, character, and tendency of the Orange Institution in Ireland, and with power to send for persons, papers, and records?"
    The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to that Question, said—
    "I have made inquiry of the Colonial Office, but we have no information as to that judgment; and I do not think that judgment, of itself, would constitute any reason for our assenting to the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee. I wish to be understood as strictly limiting myself to the terms of the answer I have given, and as conveying no opinion on any other matter."
    He (Mr. Sexton) would assume for a moment that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman was accurate, and that the Orange Society, after the year 1836, had not used oaths, secret signs, or symbols. How did the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement, as to the harmlessness of the Orange Society, with the letter of Lord Chancellor Brady on the subject? In 1857, did not Lord Chancellor Brady use the following language in a public document:—
    "It is manifest that the existence of this (the Orange) Society, and the conduct of many of those who belong to it, tend to keep up through large districts of the North a spirit of bitter and factious hostility among largo classes of Her Majesty's subjects, and to provoke violent animosities and aggression. It is impossible rightly to regard any Association such as this as one which ought to receive countenance from any persons in authority who are responsible for the preservation of the peace?"
    The Lord Chancellor of Ireland made this declaration at a time of social quiescence; and the year after the declaration was made a deputation from the Orange Society waited on Lord Palmerston, who was then Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister was not then in Office. Three years before he had held the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer; and soon after the deputation waited upon Lord Palmerston he resumed the same Office in the Ministry of Lord Palmerston. He (Mr. Sexton) wished to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the language used by his Chief on that occasion. Lord Palmerston said—
    "I must really say that I think it is offensive, as regards the Government and institutions of the country, to say that the general government of the nation is not adequate to

    1795
    protect individuals from violence. I must be allowed to say that the very foundation on which the Orange Association rests casts a reflection on the institutions of the Empire."
    The noble Lord concluded with this remark—
    "Nothing could he more desirable for the real interests of Ireland than the complete abandonment of the Association."
    Then, surely, a quarter of a century after those words were spoken by Lord Palmerston was too late in the day to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, who stood next to him in position among the official persons of the time, to give effect to his words. He now came to test the declaration which was inferred in the Question of the noble Viscount (Viscount Crichton)—that the Orange Society had been reconstructed since 1836, and all signs, oaths, and symbols done away with and abolished. He would refer the Prime Minister to an inquiry held at Magherafelt, in the county of Derry, in April, 1874, relative to a riot on the 17th of March at Bellaghy and Castledawson. Not only was it there sworn that the Orange Lodge was utilized for the purpose of "getting up" evidence for these inquiries, but it was elicited, in the cross-examination of some of the Orangemen, that an oath was taken upon their entering the Society, that secrets were revealed in the Lodge-room which they dared not disclose even for the purposes of the administration of justice. It was also sworn that there were secret signs and passwords in connection with the Institution. John Martin, an Orangeman, was asked in evidence—
    "Are there secret signs and passwords in connection with the Institution? Witness objected to answer. Mr. Gaussen ruled that he was bound to answer, providing he did not tell what the secret signs and passwords were. Witness: There are secret signs and passwords in connection with the Orange Institution, and that is all I will tell you.—Is there a secret oath in connection with the Institution?—Mr. Gaussen: You are not bound to answer that question."
    The next question was—
    "Is there a secret oath in connection with the Orange Institution?"
    And he (Mr. Sexton) asked the House to observe that this was 38 years after the reconstruction of the Society. Mr. Gaussen, the presiding magistrate, said—
    "You are not bound to answer that question."
    1796
    Martin Davidson, a publican in Bellaghy, and an Orangemen for five years, and Master of Lodge 1,511, was prevailed upon by the Court to answer, and corroborated Martin's evidence by saying—
    "Of course there are secret signs and pass words in connection with the Orange Society."
    One of the counsel, Mr. M'Erlean, then said that—
    "There were three orders in the Society that were sworn—the Purplemen, the Knights of Malta, and the Black Preceptory—and every one of these orders was illegal. The 37 Geo. III. c. 173, made it an offence against the law for anyone to take an oath not required by law, to subscribe or assent to any oath or declaration or test not sanctioned by law."
    The next witness, Andrew Kennedy, said—
    "He did not know that he ever knew an Orangeman who had not the signs and passwords.—Mr. Rea: Is this the first time you were ever sworn in a Court of Law?—Yes.—Is this the first time you have ever been sworn?—Mr. Gaussen: You are not bound to answer that.—Mr. Rea: Well, of course, the refusal will do as well as if he answered. How often have you been sworn before this day, which you say is the first time you ever were sworn in a Court of Justice?—I was sworn once.—About how long ago is that?—I don't remember. Is it a year, or two years, or three years?—It might be about two years ago since I was sworn.—Was it in Magherafelt, in Bellaghy, or in Castle-dawson?—It was in Castledawson.—Was it be-fore a magistrate? No.—The Chairman: Well, now, you see, there's the point, because no one can lawfully administer an oath except a magistrate.—Mr. Rea; Wasn't it as a member of the Orange organization that the oath was administered?—I decline to answer.—Well, is it because it would subject you to a criminal prosecution you decline to answer?"
    The Court decided that he was not bound to give a reason, and the witness refused to give one. William Gray, a letter-carrier, and a member of the Orange Society for about eight or nine years, was sworn, and in cross-examination by Mr. Rea, gave corroborative evidence relative to the existence of signs and passwords, which he believed always came from Dublin, and were given him from the Master of the Lodge—
    "Were you ever sworn outside a Court of Justice?—(After a pause) I'll not answer that question.—Were you ever sworn on the Evangelist except in a Court of Justice or before a magistrate?—I don't see that I have a right to answer that question.—The Chairman: Can't you answer the question?—Witness; I was once.—Mr. Rea: Was that in Castledawson or Bellaghy?—It was in Castledawson.—Wasn't it about seven or eight years ago?—It was

    1797
    between seven and eight years ago.—Now, you need not answer this question if you don't like. Wasn't it as a member of the Orange Society that you were sworn? You may decline to answer it if it would tend to criminate you.—No answer.—Do you decline to answer it on that ground?—I do."
    He (Mr. Sexton) asked the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to lay on the Table a copy of these sworn informations, so that he might satisfy himself and the House by what must be considered most authentic evidence. He thought the noble Viscount (Viscount Crichton), who contended that the Society was reconstructed 38 years ago on the basis of the exclusion of all oaths, secret signs, and symbols, would now see that as recently as nine years ago it was proved in a Court in Ireland that secret signs, oaths, and symbols were the basis of the Institution. It was well known that there was an outer circle, to which men like the noble Viscount were admitted without taking an oath; but, even in that outer circle, he believed every person who was initiated was told that, although the law forbade the administration of an oath, he might administer it to himself. No man could procure admission into the inner circle, or the Knights of Malta, or the Black Preceptory without taking an oath. With regard to the legality of this Society, the Primo Minister told him the other day that he had no information in regard to a judgment which had been given by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Montreal, in the case of "Grant v. The Mayor of Montreal," for unlawful arrest while attempting to hold an Orange procession. The dispute out of which the proceedings arose took place as far back as 1878. On the 12th of July of that year, there was a demonstration at Montreal to commemorate the "Battle of the Boyne." The Mayor of the city, however, took steps to prevent the display. The District Master who headed the party was arrested immediately on his emerging from the Orange Hall; with him five of his fellow-ringleaders. All the others were surrounded and beleaguered in their Hall until they were glad to get out, and to be allowed to proceed to their homes under protection from the hostile crowds that had assembled. They were marched out in small bodies between lines of armed soldiers, and thus escorted out of danger. It was the Mayor who ordered the arrest of the District Master and his five bre-
    1798
    thren, thus setting an example which it would have been well to have imitated more generally elsewhere. But in return for this act of kindness, and for which a vote of thanks ought to have been passed to him, he was proceeded against in the Civil Courts for 10,000 dollars damages for illegal arrest. The case was heard in 1880, and the suit was dismissed by the Superior Court, but upon the technical ground that the plaintiff had not given the Mayor, as defendant, the full notice required by law. The case was taken to the Court of Appeal—as might be expected, where such mighty interests were at stake—and five Judges of that High Court not only sustained the previous decision, but, what was eminently more satisfactory, they went much further, and deciding on the merits of the suit, declared that by virtue of Chap. X., Sec. 6, of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, the Orange Order—
    "Is an illegal body, and its members may be prosecuted and found guilty of misdemeanour, for the reason that the Orange oath enjoins secrecy."
    He (Mr. Sexton) would conclude by reading a short extract from a letter from a gentleman, who gave his name and address, and who lived in a part of Ireland where correct information as to the Orange Society was easily obtained. This gentleman said—
    "Mr. Gladstone seems to know very little about the Orange Society if he savs it is not established upon a religious basis. There is an order in the Orange Society, and there is not much mystery about the fact, that they were obliged to take oaths. This rule was in force in the Purple and Black Preceptory,' and those who say there is no secrecy in it, or that it is not a religious Society, do not know what they are talking about. They have signs and oaths which they take (this description is graphic) which would send the hon. Member for Northampton into fits."
    He (Mr. Sexton) had now laid before the right hon. Gentleman the matters of fact on which he relied in asking him, first of all, to prevent persons from being members of it who were receiving pay from the public purse; and, secondly, to assent to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry to ascertain whether the Orange Society had or had not given up oaths, secret signs, and symbols. The Orange Society boasted of its solidarity all over the world; and he thought he had proved conclusively, by the judgment of the Court of Montreal, that not

    1799
    only was it illegal in Ireland, but also in Canada. He regretted that he had been obliged to trouble the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that night; but as the Question which he had placed upon the Table upon the subject had been ruled out of Order, for some reason which was beyond his understanding, he had found himself obliged to trouble the right hon. Gentleman. He thought the time and temper of the House would be spared if the officials of the House were requested not to impede and embarrass Members in the discharge of their duty.
    VISCOUNT CRICHTONsaid, he was sorry not to have been in the House when the hon. Member for Sligo commenced his observations; but he had not been aware that the subject was intended to be brought on that night. He believed Notice had been given of a Motion for a Committee of Inquiry, and also that a Bill was to be introduced on the subject by the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Sullivan). A Question put to the Prime Minister the other night inferred that the Orange Society enforced oaths, signs, and passwords, or symbols of that sort. Now, the Orange Society was dissolved in 1836, and reconstituted in 1845 on a new basis. In that year a Committee was appointed to draw up rules for the guidance and organization of the Society; and in order that there might be no mistake, and that the Society might be reconstituted on a strictly legal basis, the rules were submitted to a well-known counsel. The hon. Member had quoted the opinion of Lord Chancellor Brady; he (Viscount Crichton) was about to quote the opinion of a lawyer quite as eminent—namely, Lord Chancellor Sir Joseph Napier. The following was the case submitted to Sir Joseph Napier, then Mr. Napier:—
    "Counsel is herewith sent the Rules and Ordinances of the Orange Institution, and will please to peruse the same and advise. First, whether the Orange Society, retaining its former name and acting by affiliated branches, can he reorganized consistently with the law as it exists at present? Secondly, in what manner, if at all, this reorganization can he effected; and he will please peruse and remodel the Rules, so as to render them conformable to law; and, thirdly, is it lawful for a magistrate holding the Commission of the Peace to advise or encourage such reorganization?"
    The opinion given by Mr. Napier was—
    "First, that no form of oath can in any manner, or under any pretence, lawfully be
    1800
    used in the proposed Association; secondly, that secret signs and passwords, or other secret modes of communication, cannot be employed or sanctioned; and, thirdly, that no test or declaration can be used that has not been approved and subscribed by two Justices of the Peace in the county, registered by the Clerk of the Peace, and sanctioned by the majority of the Justices at the next General Sessions after it is approved in the first instance."
    Mr. Napier went on to show how the Rules could be made to conform to the law, and said—
    "I have remodelled the Rules and Ordinances so as to render them consistent with law, and so as to be capable of adoption either with or without a test or declaration."
    The Rules as revised by Mr. Napier were practically the Rules now in force in the Orange Institution of the present day. There was one change made in the year 1862. In that year some legislation had passed through Parliament which rendered it necessary that there should be a revision of the Rules. The revision was made under the advice of the present Vice Chancellor of Ireland (Mr. Chatterton), and that was the only alteration which had been made since 1845.
    MR. SEXTONasked in what year the alteration itself was made?
    VISCOUNT CRICHTONsaid, bethought it was in the year 1862. And these were the only Rules under which the Orange Society was organized. The hon. Member for Sligo had talked about a number of Orders in connection with the Orange Institution—such as the Knights of Malta, and others; but he (Viscount Crichton) had never heard of them himself. Indeed, he had always believed that the Knights of Malta were a Masonic Order, and he had never hoard of them in connection with this Society. The only two recognized Orders of the Association were the Orange and the Purple. He held in his hand a copy of the Rules and Ordinances of the Orange Institution of Ireland, revised and adopted by the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, and he was quite willing to supply the hon. Member with a copy, believing that the hon. Member might use it with advantage to himself. In regard to the qualifications of officers, the Rule laid down was not to
    "Admit, or assist at the admission, of any Member into any other Order, purporting to be part of the Orange system, than the Orange and the Purple, which were the only Orders recognized by the Orange Institution."

    1801
    Directly after this Rule came the general laws; and the first law of the Orange Institution was as follows:—
    "The Orange Institution consists of an unlimited number of Protestant Brethren, whose admission is not regulated by the taking, subscribing, or assenting to any oath, or any illegal test or declaration."
    These were the whole of the Rules in the Orange Institution which bore upon this subject, and he thought they were a complete answer to the statements of the hon. Member for Slige.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I make no complaint against the hon. Member for Sligo for having now called the attention of the House to this subject. On the other hand, I have not the smallest doubt of the good faith and perfect accuracy of the noble Viscount opposite in all he has stated; but I am not sure whether those statements can be regarded as covering the whole ground. I must own that when I came to the House I did not in the slightest degree anticipate that the hon. Member for Sligo would have produced documentary evidence of the character he has detailed to the House. He has referred to proceedings which seem to have been of a loyal, regular, and solemn character in Canada; and he has likewise referred, if I understand him rightly, to more than one legal proceeding in Ireland, one of them relating to a number of persons, and in all of these several cases he gives evidence more or less of the apparent existence of secret signs and likewise of oaths in the Orange Society of the present day. The noble Viscount most properly referred to the Rules of the Society, and the last extract he read does appear certainly to imply that there could be no other Rules, and no inner, secret, concealed system, under which conditions might be imported into the the existing Societies, such as do not appear in a regular and acknowledged Rules. With regard to the case of Canada, I presume, and should suppose, that that case is identical with the case of Ireland—that the Orangeman of Canada is the same thing as the Orangeman of Ireland. [Viscount CRICHTON dissented.] The noble Viscount may know more about it than I do, and I am not giving any conclusive judgment on any portion of this case; neither docs the hon. Gentleman opposite ask me for one. But what I think is this—that, to
    1802
    a certain extent, the hon. Member for Sligo has established a presumptive case, I may add to my great sorrow and regret. I do not know to what extent it may exist. Possibly further investigation may dissipate altogether the inferences now drawn; but as they now stand, they are clearly and intelligibly before us. The noble Viscount, in the very fair observations he has made, has not offered any comments that tend to discredit or disprove the statement of the hon. Member for Sligo, beyond citing the Rules of the Orange Society, which appear undoubtedly to provide that there shall be no inner system of concealed regulations. But that can be hardly considered, I think, as setting aside the very direct and plausible evidence produced by the hon. Member for Sligo. The hon. Member has referred to Lord Palmerston, and to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He did not give the exact date of Lord Palmerston's words.
    MR. SEXTON: The 15th of February, 1858.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am not quite certain that Lord Palmerston was in Office in February, 1858. Perhaps the hon. Member will be able to inform me?
    MR. SEXTON: Yes; he was.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Oh, he was in Office. What I was going to say, how-over, was this—that I look with great respect, indeed, on the character of Lord Palmerston in his capacity of a gentleman connected with Ireland, and of one who always looked with a generous spirit on the religious animosities which prevailed in that country. I am not, therefore, surprised that Lord Palmerston, rather as a man connected with Ireland, than as Prime Minister, should have used dissuasive language in regard to a Society which he must have regarded as calculated to keep up religious animosity. It would be a venturesome act on my part to speak confidently of Orange Societies with which I am not so conversant as Lord Palmerston was; but I am not surprised at the language used by him, or by Lord Chancellor Brady. The hon. Member for Sligo has said—"Will the Government accede to a Select Committee for the purpose of investigating these matters?" I think he will feel that it would be rash and premature on my part to give an answer to that question at the present moment.

    1803
    I should like to have an opportunity of considering a little further what has fallen from him, and I should also like to have an opportunity of consulting with my Colleagues on the subject. I think, therefore, that I should not be justified at the present moment in assenting to the appointment of such a Committee. There are many things to be considered in the matter, and we should not be justified in appointing a Committee unless we found the evidence produced by the hon. Member has stood, at least, the test of preliminary examination. If, however, the hon. Gentleman, in further prosecution of the task he has undertaken to-night, will give a Notice to that effect, I will take care that he shall have, on the part of the Government, an early answer. And, in the meantime, I shall be glad to be made acquainted with any circumstances that may tend to diminish or extenuate the force of what has been stated to-night. Unless hon. Members opposite are able to do that, it appears to me that the matter which has been laid before the House by the hon. Member for Sligo is of considerable importance.
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he should not have troubled the House with any remarks if it had not been that the speech of the Prime Minister appeared to have produced the impression that there was something behind the Rules of the Society.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I hope I have explained myself quite clearly that nothing lies behind the Rules to the knowledge of the noble Viscount (Viscount Crichton); but, undoubtedly, the suggestion made by the hon. Member opposite is that apparently there may be some system lying behind the Rules which may exist without the knowledge of gentlemen who are connected with the Society.
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, that that might be so; but the impression conveyed to the mind of every person who heard the right hon. Gentleman was that there might be something behind to which the Rules themselves were opposed. He (Mr. Tottenham) had been a member of the Society, and also a member of the Purple Order, for many years; he had never taken any oath on any subject; and he thought he might say the same for the noble Viscount, who had been initiated in the mysteries of
    1804
    the Society on the same day as himself. He might add that he had never been made cognizant of any signs, grips, or passwords.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he had no wish to detain the House after the remarks of the Prime Minister. He thought it would be unbecoming on his part to do so. He simply wished to draw the attention of the Prime Minister and of the House to an important fact which had cropped up in the reading of the Rules of the Society by the noble Viscount (Viscount Crichton). One of the marks and signs of the Association, and one upon which it was declared illegal in former times, was that it excluded people of different religious denominations, and confined the Society to one denomination only. They now had it from the printed Rules that it was only Protestants who were qualified for admission into the Society. He took that to be a very important fact in the matter, and he hoped it would not escape the attention of the Prime Minister or of the House. He would only say one word more. He begged the Prime Minister to consider an important question in relation to this grave matter. It was constantly alleged by Gentlemen who appeared as the champions of the Society, in that House and out of it, that it was a loyal Society; that it was a bulwark of loyalty in Ireland; and a safeguard for the integrity of the Empire. Now, that was exactly what he wanted to challenge. He contended that, in the North of Ireland, the Society, far from promoting loyalty, had been the cause of disloyalty—that loyalty could not flourish, or grow, or extend in any part of Ireland where this Society existed; and that, as far as regarded the integrity of the Empire, this Orange Society did more harm than good. In point of fact, it was a peril to the integrity of the Empire. In the name of loyalty the Catholics of the North of Ireland were continually intuited and outraged by the Society. That being the case, the natural consequence was that the very word "loyalty" was made hateful by the conduct of the people who professed to be its champions. This Orange Society was a stone in the wound of Ireland, and prevented that wound from healing. Year after year the people of the North of Ireland were called upon to celebrate his-

    1805
    toric events which ought to be allowed to pass into the domain of ancient history. Religious animosities were kept alive; and he asked Her Majesty's Government to take into consideration whether or not the Orange Society was not provocative of disloyalty among large masses of the people; whether it was not an obstacle to the spread of loyalty; and whether it did not prevent the union of the people in peace and contentment under the Crown? If that were so, these facts constituted, in his opinion, a very heavy clause indeed in the indictment against the Orange Society, and he hoped they would be taken fully into consideration by Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the hon. Member seemed to forget that the National Party in Ireland usually set aside St. Patrick's Day—the 17th of March—for their demonstration. The hon. Member complained of symbols, and insults, and disloyalty in the North of Ireland; but he would remind him that although he might not like to see loyal men making use of symbols, Orangemen were equally annoyed at seeing disloyal symbols and language made use of by the opposite Party. He would only detain the House to point out that there was a great difference between the Orange Society in Canada and the Orange Society in Ireland. They were not subject to the same laws.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he should ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, on Thursday next, if he would move for a Select Committee to inquire into the character of the Orange Society?
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not intend to follow his hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Sullivan) in his attack upon the Orange Society. He rose for the purpose of saying that he could corroborate the evidence read by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). A Report had been published of the evidence given before a Committee of Inquiry in 1874, which he had read very carefully; and although he could not at the moment lay his finger on the exact place where it appeared, he knew that the Report contained ample evidence with regard to the riots having originated with the Orange body. Again, when the Coercion Bill was introduced
    1806
    by the late Government, Mr. Johnstone suggested that the Orange Society should be excluded from its operation, and the late Mr. Butt also moved that the Freemasons should be exempt from the Act. Mr. Johnstone did not take a Division on his Motion, but he declared that secret signs and passwords were obsolete in the Rules of the Association; and he (Mr. Biggar) gathered from that circumstance that he allowed judgment to go by default, and that he acknowledged the secret signs and passwords which then existed. He did not gather from the noble Viscount (Viscount Crichton), or the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham), any disavowal of the fact that there were signs and passwords, in spite of the Rules of the Association; but whether or not the hon. Gentleman and the noble Viscount were at fault on this question, it seemed to him most strange that secret signs and passwords should exist in the Society without their knowledge.
    VISCOUNT CRICHTON: I beg to say that I denied their existence distinctly.
    MR. TOTTENHAM: And I also.
    Question put, and agreed to:—To be presented by Privy Councillors.

    SUPPLY.
    Resolved, That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
    Ordered, That the several Estimates presented to this House during the present Session be referred to the Committee of Supply.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked if the House could have any information as to when Supply would be taken, and when the Supplementary Estimates would be in the hands of Members? Of course, he particularly referred to that portion of the Supplementary Estimates which related to the operations in Egypt, which he thought it desirable should be laid on the Table as soon as possible.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GUILDERS)said, he had every reason to believe that the Supplementary Estimates would be presented on Monday. It was impossible at that moment to say when they would be taken.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Resolved, That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

    RETIREMENT OF MR. SPEAKER.
    MR. SPEAKERaddressed the House, announcing his intention of retiring from the Chair, as follows:—
    As the House has now agreed to the Address, in answer to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, I have to ask the House for its indulgence for a few minutes.
    The time has come when I have to discharge a most painful duly, in announcing to the House that I am no longer able to undergo the severe work of the Chair.
    At the end of last Session 1 suffered much from our long and late sittings, and I was learned that I was not equal to the work of another Session, and I then made up my mind to retire; but it appeared to me that it would not be becoming in me to tender my resignation at the end of the Session, when the attendance of Members was reduced, and the House in an incomplete condition.
    I have therefore postponed the announcement of my resignation to this day, the Address to the Crown, in answer to Her Majesty's Speech, having been agreed to.
    No words that I can use will adequately convey my feeling of deep regret at having to descend from this Chair, and to separate myself from a House which has done me so much honour, by choosing me for three Parliaments to preside over its deliberations.
    If during that period I have done the House any service, it has been due, not to my own merits, but to the constant and generous support which I have uniformly received from the House. 'That support has made my weakness, strength; and has enabled me in trying times to sustain the authority of the House, which, without that support, would have been impossible.
    For my own part, I should be content to live and die in the service of the House; but that cannot be, consistently with my duty to
    1808
    the House, for failing strength warns me that I cannot render that full and efficient service to which the House is entitled.
    I have therefore, very reluctantly, to ask leave to surrender the authority with which you have invested me.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, this evening will be one not readily forgotten by any of us. You have spoken, Sir, to us in few words—words of deep meaning—marked by all the grace and all the depth of feeling which has characterized your whole conduct during your tenure of your high Office, and has endeared you to the hearts of us all. I am aware, Sir, that there must be a desire on the part of the House that the words which you have spoken should be fittingly acknowledged by those who may be said, in some degree, to represent the House; but I feel that at this hour of the night, and in the presence of a number of Members exceedingly limited compared with those who would wish to participate in such a manifestation, it would not be desirable that I should enter at length upon the subject. I will, therefore, content myself with giving a Notice—or, rather, two Notices—with which it will be my duty to proceed at the next Sitting of the House, and which will afford a suitable opportunity for the expression of such sentiments as may be fitting to the occasion. On Monday next I propose to move, at half-past 4 o'clock, as follows:—
    "That the Thanks of this House he given to Mr. Speaker for his distinguished services in the Chair for more than twelve years; that he he assured that this House fully appreciates the zeal and ability with which he has discharged the duties of his high office, through a period of unusual labour, difficulty, and anxiety, and the judgment and firmness with which he has maintained its privileges and dignity; and that this House feels the strongest sense of his unremitting attention to the constantly increasing business of Parliament, and of his uniform urbanity, which have secured for him the respect and esteem of this House."
    I shall also move, in the event of the adoption of that Motion—
    "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of Her Royal Favour upon the Right Honourable Sir Henry Bouverie William Brand, G.C.B., Speaker of this House, for his eminent services during the important period in which he has with such distinguished ability

    1809
    and dignity presided in the Chair of this House, I and to assure Her Majesty that whatever expense Her Majesty shall think proper to he incurred upon that account, this House will make good the same."
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, this subject will be more fittingly dealt with on Monday, and it would ill become me to add anything to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. But, Sir, in the absence of my right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote), I may be permitted to say, on behalf of those who sit on this side of the House, how cordially we reciprocate the sentiments which have fallen from the Prime Minister, and how deeply we regret the necessity which has led to your retirement from the Chair.

  STANDING COMMITTEES—REVIVAL OF RESOLUTIONS OF 1ST DECEMBER, 1882.—RESOLUTION.

    ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    MR. ONSLOWasked the Prime Minister, whether he really intended to bring on the debate upon the question relating to the Standing Committees on Monday? They had heard that night of the retirement of Mr. Speaker, and also from the Prime Minister the terms of a Motion which he intended to make at half-past 4 o'clock on Monday, the interest and importance of which would, in his opinion, make it undesirable that the Order relating to the Business of the House should be taken on that day.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir. In the event of the debate upon the Motion which I shall move upon the retirement of Mr. Speaker not occupying any considerable time, I intend to proceed with the adjourned debate on the question relating to the Standing Committees.
    MR. ONSLOW: There will then be no Speaker in the Chair?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes.
    Adjourned Debate on Amendment on Question [12th February] further adjourned till Monday next.

  MARKET TOLLS (IRELAND).

    ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was aware that at that hour he could not make a speech on this question; but he would just state, for the information of the Secretary to the Treasury and the Chief
    1810
    Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, that he was willing to insert in his original Motion the words "So far as it can be obtained from the Registries of the Public Service."
    MR. GRAYsaid, that if there was any difficulty in the way of the Government furnishing the Return asked for by his hon. and gallant Friend, he believed it would be entirely obviated by the addition which he had just stated his willingness to make to the terms of his Motion.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was ready to accede to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member, with the alteration that the 4th paragraph should be struck out. He would not enter into debate on the matter further than to say that he could not go beyond the statement of his right hon. Friend. He was sorry to find that his right hon. Friend and the hon. and gallant Gentleman were not in accord on the subject of this Return, as he gathered the other night from the statement of the latter hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he had no wish that the hon. Gentleman should go further than the statement of the Chief Secretary. He wished, however, to point out that the hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong on the subject of the communication which he (Colonel Nolan) had had with the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of this Return. His statement was that the right hon. Gentleman had rather given him to understand that he was willing to give the Return; but he had made no such statement as that he had agreed that the Return should be furnished. He would, however, postpone the matter until Monday, when perhaps the Chief Secretary would be in his place.
    Adjourned Debate thereupon [15th February] further adjourned till Monday next.

  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).

    MOTION FOR A STANDING COMMITTEE.
    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Nomination of Committee [11th February].
    Question again proposed, "That Mr. Henry Edwards be one other Member of the said Committee."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir Edmund Filmer be one other Member of the said Committee."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)
    MR. SEXTONmoved the omission of the name of Sir Edmund Filmer, in order that the name of Mr. Leamy might be inserted in its stead. The constitution of this Committee was extremely unsatisfactory to the Members of the Party with whom he had the honour to act; and he might say that, as a Party, they used the Dining Room more regularly and more constantly than any other Party in the House. He did not know on what principle the Committee had been selected. The Committee was chosen at the beginning of each Session; but no one had been able to discover that the majority of the Gentlemen selected had any knowledge of the duties they were appointed to discharge. Several of them never saw the Dining Room; but he thought a Committee of this kind ought to be chosen from amongst those who frequented the Dining and Refreshment Rooms. His own observation, and that of his hon. Friends, went to prove that the catering arrangements were bad both in respect of efficiency and economy. The record of the Committee was a most lamentable one, for the Committee were guilty of a woeful neglect of duty. They appeared to do their work in the dark, and the result had not been satisfactory to the majority of the Members. He should be inclined to take a Division in respect to each name proposed, unless the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke), who had charge of the Motion, would consent to accept one or two names he had to suggest, in order that the Irish Party might be able to bring their opinions to bear upon the proceedings of the Committee.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the name of "Sir Edmund Filmer," in order to insert the name of "Mr. Leamy,"—(Mr. Sexton,)—instead thereof.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, that some discussion took place with reference to the appointment of this Committee some nights ago; and he
    1812
    could say at once that he was not prepared, on the part of the Committee, to accept the Amendment which had been proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton). Of course, he did not wish it to be understood that he was desirous of excluding Irish Members from the Committee. As a matter of fact, Irish Members were well represented upon the Committee—that was to say, they enjoyed fair representation. There were three Members representing Irish constituencies now upon the Committee; and therefore he was not disposed to accept the name of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Leamy), much as he should like to see him upon the Committee. Perhaps he might be permitted to say one word further with reference to the appointment of this Committee. It was obviously a grave disadvantage to the Kitchen arrangements of the House that this Committee should be left for a given period unappointed. There were constant complaints made with regard to the management of the Refreshment Rooms; therefore he need hardly point out to the House that it was a great disadvantage that there should be no body of Members sitting to hear the complaints and control the arrangements. He had nothing more to say with reference to the matter except this—that during the last year or two the Kitchen Committee had paid far more attention to the Refreshment Department than was paid to it in previous years. Members of the House were aware that an extra grant had been made to the contractor; and he might say also that different arrangements had been made by the Refreshment Committee, which it was always hoped would provide good results. He did not think it would be right to extensively increase the number of Members of the Committee at such a time. They wished the arrangements they had now made to be fairly tested. In conclusion, he could only point out the obvious necessity of appointing the Committee on as early a date as possible.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, that the other night he made some strong complaints with regard to this Committee, and he did so as a means of bringing the matter before the House. Even presuming that the proposition which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) had made were accepted, it would effect to a very small

    1813
    degree the object which a large majority of the Members of the House had in view at the present time. The complaint, as he explained the other night, was not against the hon. Members who composed the Committee. No one for an instant supposed that they had any other interest than that of obtaining the best conditions under which the Kitchen arrangements could be conducted. They had very little power in the matter. Though some of them had not attended the meetings of the Committee at all, a considerable number of them had attended and done their best. It was not the Committee that was the object of attack—he stated that most distinctly the other night—it was the whole system. Since he made some strong observations on this subject the other night, he had had communications with a large number of hon. Members. They told him distinctly that though they walked into the Lobby with the Government the other night, they did so simply at the request of the Government Whips; they added—"Although we did that you have our best wishes in this matter." ["Name!"] He was not prepared to give names. He quite understood the position in which those hon. Gentlemen were, and he could not say he was surprised at the course they took. It was not only the Members of the House who complained. They had no concern with the other House; but he might mention incidentally that a Member of the other House had told him that the conditions of their Refreshment Booms were of such a disgraceful character that it was an absolute nuisance to their Lordships when they were obliged to dine at the House. As regarded the Commons, those who were in the position of officers of the House, and who were compelled to be in attendance during the whole course of the debates, were also treated in exactly the same manner as the Members were. As he stated on a previous occasion, the facts were simply these. What they got was of inferior quality, and the prices charged were from 50 to 100 per cent higher than those charged in any restaurant in London. If he might venture to make a suggestion in the matter it would be one which might be acceptable to the House. This was not a matter which concerned the Government, or the Tory Party, or the Irish Party only, it con-
    1814
    cerned them all; and he suggested, with the view of effecting not a mere improvement, which could be effected by some small change made on the recommendation of the Committee, but an improvement in the whole management—he suggested the appointment of a Select Committee to examine into the whole thing. The appointment of such a Committee for such a purpose could not cast any slur upon the hon. Members who sat upon the Kitchen Committee; it could not affect the Government or any Party in the House. A large number of hon. Members desired to see some radical change in the general arrangements; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, he presumed, would say a word or two upon this subject, what possible objection there could be to the adoption of the course he proposed? It would cost nothing; it would cost little trouble; and there were many Members sitting on the Government side of the House whom he knew were prepared to do whatever work was necessary. He was aware the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) had done his best, and had devoted much time and attention to the duties of the Committee—his attendances proved that; but he was in a position in which he had very little power. The whole matter was in the hands of the contractor. The House had placed it in his hands; and, oddly enough, they were told, as a reason why things were so bad, that it was impossible to make any profit out of the contract. If it was impossible to make money when the contractor had nothing to pay for his licence, when everything was found him except mere eatables and drink, and especially with a double grant which had been made him this year, why was he so anxious to retain the work? ["He is not!"] An hon. Gentleman cried, "He is not!" It appeared to him (Mr. Molloy) he was—in fact, he knew he was—and, moreover, he (Mr. Molloy) was perfectly satisfied there was a very large profit to be made out of the Kitchen. He was not interested in the business himself; but all he wanted to see was that Members of the House should get a fair dinner at a fair price. The Dining Boom arrangements were bad; the refreshments outside the Dining Room were bad; the Smoking Room.

    1815
    arrangements were bad; and there was not a Member of the House who frequented the Refreshment Rooms who did not, at some time or other, complain bitterly of the treatment to which he was subjected. He (Mr. Molloy) suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he might very fairly grant this Select Committee; he did not wish to press the matter further; and he only threw out the suggestion as a means of arriving at a satisfactory settlement of the whole matter.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that as this was not in any sense a Party question, but merely a practical question, he had no objection to answer the appeal which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Molloy) had made to him. As far as he understood matters, one objection to the reappointment of the Committee was taken on the ground that the Gentlemen selected were not chosen fairly, having regard to the different Parties in the House; and another was that the whole system was wrong, and that the House should discard the present Committee and appoint a Select Committee to examine into the whole question.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood him. If a Select Committee were appointed, the old Committee would be elected to act until fresh arrangements were made.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDEHS)said, he would deal with the first objection in a word. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) complained that the Committee was selected with an unfair regard for the requirements of hon. Members sitting upon the Irish Benches. As a matter of fact, it was proposed to elect four Irish Members upon the Kitchen Committee, two Members of what was called the Nationalist Party opposite, and two sitting on the Ministerial Benches. One of the former had been already appointed, and to the addition of another he had no objection; but it struck him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that, out of 15 who composed the Committee, four was rather a largo proportion of Irish Members. The real question, however, which had been put to him by the hon. Member (Mr. Molloy) was, whether in his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) opinion it was desirable
    1816
    to have a Select Committee to examine specially into the whole question of the arrangements of the Dining and Refreshment and Smoking Rooms in the House? He remembered well when a very young man coming to hear the debates, in the old days of Bellamy, when you could got a chop or a steak and little more; and, for his part, he thought the old arrangements were much better than the new. However, they had drifted into a much more luxurious state of things, and Members of the House seemed to think that nothing short of club dinners ought to be provided at club prices. Perhaps the House would allow him to make a suggestion. He did not think it would be fair to the Committee who had the ordinary charge of the kitchen matters, that they should be practically superseded, because that would really be the result if a Select Committee were appointed to inquire into the arrangements. Surely the present Committee themselves were quite competent to look into the whole question. They had a very considerable acquaintance with the requirements of Members in the Refreshment and Dining Rooms; and therefore it would be very much better, after the debate which had occurred, that their attention should be fully given to the points raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Molloy). There seemed to be an idea—and perhaps it was a proper one—that it had been too much the custom to re-appoint year after year those who had served in previous years, without any regard being had to the amount of attention which they had given to the business of the Committee. He would suggest that the Committee should now be re-elected, and that next year those who had given little or no attention to their duties should not be re-appointed, but in their stead Members should be chosen who did take an interest in the subject. The right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) and the Committee might then with advantage take up the whole question of the catering arrangements; considering it part of their duty, not only to manage under the present system, but to recommend any better arrangements, if, upon inquiry, they thought it necessary. If that was the view of the House, he would ask them to proceed to the re-appointment of the Members of the Committee, adding the name of the hon. Member for Meath

    1817
    (Mr. Leamy), as recommended by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). Of course, the name could not he added to night; but it could on Monday after Notice had been given.
    MR. E. POWERsaid be thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very fair one indeed—namely, that next year a Return of the number of attendances of the Members of the Committee should be issued, and that those Members who had not attended to their duties should be struck off, and other Gentlemen elected in their place. He (Mr. Power) trusted, however, that now the House would give its assent to the Motion that his hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy) be added to the Committee.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he did not often dine in the House; but he had dined here this Session, and should like to remark that nothing could possibly be worse than the dinners Members were served with in the building. He did not wish to disparage the Kitchen Committee; but he should be very glad indeed to see a Select Committee appointed to consider the matter, and did not think it would be derogatory upon the present Committee to expect them to give evidence. He dined in the House the other night, and was supplied with something the waiters called codfish. He did not himself know what it was; but he was perfectly sure that nothing more filthy could possibly be served. He sent the stuff away. Something else was brought that was also described as fish; but it was perfectly black, and he sent that away too. The contractor, when he complained, said—"Do not back your bill, sir; we should be very sorry if you made a complaint." It was perfectly scandalous that they should be treated in this way. They did not want so very much; but what they did want they should have of a tolerably decent kind. If this Committee were to be appointed, it was really necessary that they should see that Members got something better than they were at present supplied with. Nothing could be worse than the present catering, and he was by no means the only person who made complaint. Members of the Committee asked—"Why do you not back your bill?" Why should he? He knew how useless it was, and never backed a bill at a Club, or anywhere else. It was not worth the
    1818
    time nor the trouble. As he had said, he seldom dined in the House; but he wished to impress it on the Committee that when Gentlemen did dine within the building, it was desirable that they should get something infinitely better than they were at present supplied with.
    MR. SEXTONthought the proposal that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil) should be put upon the Commitee a very fair one, and hoped that a Motion to that effect would be made on Monday.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I will give Notice of Motion.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was sure that all the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power) and the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) desired was that there should be an efficient Committee appointed.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he was glad the proposal had been agreed to. It was quite time attention was called to the operations of this Committee, because it appeared to him that its chief weakness was this—that though there were good men upon it, who were thorougly competent to appreciate a good dinner, those were the persons who seldom dined in the House, and had, therefore, little knowledge of what the catering really was. It was Members who came from a distance, and who had no residence in London, who, naturally, required to use the Dining Room more frequently than others. Those ought to be the Gentlemen represented on the Committee. He quite appreciated the difficulties which those who undertook the catering had to face. One night they might have to cater for 300, whilst next night they might only have 30 Members to attend to. An unexpected "Count" might occur, when extensive preparations had been made, and the caterer might find his whole business lost for the day. Great consideration, therefore, ought to be extended to the contractors; and he did not think they ought to be compared, either in the matter of promptitude or cost, with restaurant keepers, who could always count on a certain number of customers per day. Still, he believed, great improvement could be effected, and that great improvement was necessary. He did not think the difficulties in connection with the Dining Room existed also in connection with the

    1819
    Smoking Room. All last year the Smoking Room had no bell, and it was almost impossible to summon an attendant. There was no means of getting a waiter unless a Member walked about the place to find one. A bell had been supplied this Session, however; but the attendant was usually asleep in a cupboard in the Dining Room when required, and the bell was of little use. This evil could be rectified without large additional expenditure from the Public Treasury, and without much extra difficulty on the part of the Committee. He was sure the addition of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil) to the Committee would be of some use, and that this discussion would not be without effect.
    MR. O'SHEAsaid, that as to the want of a bell in the Smoking Room, complaint had frequently been made to the Kitchen Committee, who had no power to do anything. There were many other things complained of and laid to the charge of that Committee, which really had nothing to do with them. It would be a good plan, he thought, if the First Commissioner of Works were appointed a Member of the Committee, so that the Committee would be able to bring their moral influence to bear on him. Later on he should move that the name of the First Commissioner of Works be added to the Committee.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he dined in the House very often, indeed, for one reason, because he could not trust the Government, and desired to be always on the watch. To his mind, if bon. Members had any complaint to urge, it was far better to submit it to the representative of the contractor—who was a very obliging person—than to make it in that House. He had already by this means secured two reforms. He was now able to get Yorkshire pudding with his beef, and cream with his tart, without having to wait a long time for it.
    MR. TOMLINSONsuggested that the system of supplying coffee and tea in the Smoking Boom should be considered by the Kitchen Committee. This debate would not be without its good results if the Committee would direct their attention to the general arrangements, with a view to their future improvement.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    1820
    Sir EDMUND FILMER, Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEY, Mr. DUFF, Lord KENSINGTON, Mr. MONK, Mr. MUNTZ, Captain O'SHEA, Mr. RICHARD POWER, Lord HENRY THYNNE, Mr. ARMITSTEAD, Mr. THORNHILL, and Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE, nominated other Members of the said Committee:—Three to be the quorum.

    HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee to inquire into the Harbour Accommodation on the coasts of the United Kingdom, having regard to the Laws and arrangements under which the construction and improvement of Harbours may now be effected, be re-appointed:—That the Committee do consist of Twenty-three Members:—Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD, Sir GEORGE BALFOUR, Viscount BARING, Mr. BLAKE, Sir THOMAS BRASSEY, Sir DONALD CURRIE, Mr. GUY DAWNAY, Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. HENEAGE, Lord ARTHUR HILL, Colonel MILNE HOME, Mr. MARJORIBANKS, Sir CHARLES MILLS, Colonel NOLAN, Lord RENDLESHAM, Mr. CHARLES Ross, Mr. SALT, Mr. STEVENSON, Mr. HANBURY-THACY, Colonel WALROND, Sir EDWARD WAT-KIN, and Sir EARDLEY WILMOT:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
    House adjourned at a Quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.