Commons Sitting of 7 March 1884

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Public Accounts; Dublin Museum of Science and Art; East Indian Railways nominated.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Heading—Metropolitan Board of Works (Various Powers).
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Report—Marriages Legalisation (Stopsley, Beds.) * [125].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  (By Order.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the attention of the House had already been called by various Members to this Bill, and he was sorry to say that the Notice of opposition which had been given to the measure by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) rendered it necessary for him to encroach more than he usually did upon the time of the House in order to explain a few of the salient points of the Bill which he had reason to know were objected to. He would pass over the preliminary clauses of the Bill in order at once to come to these salient points. The first desire of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who promoted the Bill, was to make two small street improvements, one of which was a new street in continuation of Clarence Road, commencing in the Kentish Town Road, at the junction therewith of Clarence Road, and terminating at the junction of Great College Street and King's Road, wholly in the parish of St. Pancras; and the other was a new street connecting Cotton Street with Preston's Road, in the parish of All Saints', Poplar, commencing in Cotton Street at its junction with Wells Street, and terminating in Preston's Road at its junction with Bedford Street. Nobody made any objection to the street improvement in Kentish Town. It was not necessary, therefore, that he should make any observation upon it; but with regard to the Poplar improvement certain papers had been placed in his hand which alleged that the Metropolitan Board were anxious to evade their responsibilities in regard to the accommodation of the working classes. He wished to give a most distinct denial to that charge. They had long had under consideration the best means of accommodating the whole of the people whom it was intended to displace; and everybody in the district was in favour of the Bill. Indeed, the Poplar District Board in-
  828
  tended to contribute one-half of the expenses; and although he did not know who had issued the circular to which he referred, in that respect it was entirely inaccurate, and the persons who had issued it might have spared themselves the trouble. Clause 39 of the Bill was one of the provisions of the most vital importance which the measure contained. It was a clause to extend the time limited for the compulsory purchase of certain lands under the Act obtained by the Metropolitan Board in 1877 in regard to the Western improvements. He thought that everybody would allow that a new street 60 feet wide from Charing Cross to Tottenham Court Road, and another from Regent Street up to New Oxford Street, were most desirable improvements so far as the Metropolis was concerned. They would have been finished long before this but for the unfortunate 33rd section of the Act of 1877, which had acted as a bar ever since the Act was passed. That clause required that before throwing open to the public any new streets provision should be made for the accommodation of the labouring classes who were displaced by the making of such new streets. That clause had so impeded the operations of the Metropolitan Board, and, in point of fact, the Act was found to be so unworkable and so useless in every shape and form, that it had been reconsidered by a Committee, over which the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) presided, who recommended that its provisions should be mitigated. The Metropolitan Board had now, in consequence, been able to clear a part of the land, and two blocks of buildings were being erected; and as soon as they were finished, which he thought would be about the month of October if this Bill were passed, the Board would be able to proceed with their improvements, and it was hoped that in the course of a year and a-half, or two years, these two great improvements, which were most necessary for, and would be most useful to, the Metropolis, would be entirely and in every shape completed. Clause 40 repealed the 33rd section of the Act of 1877, so far as it imposed obligations upon the Board with respect to providing accommodation for such of the labouring classes as would be displaced by

  829
  the making of the new street between Southwark Bridge Road and Blackman Street, in the Borough; and, in regard to that matter, he might say that the Metropolitan Board were, if possible, in still greater difficulties than they were in respect of the Western improvements, because almost all of the habitations it was proposed to remove were inhabited by artizans, and, he was sorry to say, many of them by the lower class of artizans. The Board were most anxious to carry out that improvement; but the 33rd section of the Act of 1877 was a difficulty in the way of carrying it out, which stared them in the face. They had, therefore, felt it incumbent upon them to postpone the improvements in which this difficulty arose, and to proceed with the other improvements which were pressing upon them, but in regard to which there was not the same difficulty. Out of 12 improvements comprised in the Act of 1877 nine were now entirely completed, and there were only three in which the formation of the streets had not been commenced—namely, the Western improvements and the improvement between Southwark Bridge Road and Blackman Street. The proposal which the Metropolitan Board now made to repeal the 33rd section of the Act of 1877 was opposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow), and he really could not for the life of him make out why his hon. Friend did oppose it, because, if his hon. Friend succeeded in persuading the House of Commons to reject the Bill, what would he do? He would prevent a number of improvements of a most magnificent character, as far as the Metropolis was concerned, from being carried out. But his hon. Friend would do even more than that. He would pre-vent what he wanted himself—namely, the widening of certain streets. He had no wish to bandy words with the hon. Baronet, and he would, therefore, only say that his hon. Friend was entirely mistaken in the view he took. His hon. Friend had made speeches and published letters on various occasions, and he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) wished to tell his hon. Friend in the most friendly spirit that if he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) thought the Metropolitan Board had not entirely and faithfully fulfilled their duties, the best thing he could do was to go to the Courts of Law and ascertain what their
  830
  opinion was in the matter. He only made this remark in a friendly spirit, and having made it he would say no more on the subject except this, that one of the great difficulties now experienced in regard to these improvements was that, in 1882, Parliament, in spite of the strenuous opposition of the Metropolitan Board, passed a Bill giving the whole, or nearly the whole, of the ground they had authorized the Metropolitan Board to take in connection with the Southwark Bridge Road to the South-Eastern Railway Company. The land reserved for artizans' dwellings in the Southwark Street improvements extended over one and a - half acres of land; but Parliament passed a Bill permitting the Railway Company to take out of this about an acre, leaving the Metropolitan Board with all their liabilities so far as rehousing the labouring classes, who were displaced, was concerned. All they had left to the Metropolitan Board for this purpose was about half-an-acre, and that half-an-acre did not consist of a plot of land altogether, but was cut into little bits. If any hon. Member would take a map in his hand, he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) would defy him to point out how the Metropolitan Board were to discharge their obligations. He believed that he would be able to show in a very few minutes that it was now altogether impossible to house the working classes in the manner the Metropolitan Board intended to have done originally before the Act of 1882 was passed. The Metropolitan Board were taunted with not complying with the spirit of the Act they had thus obtained; but he contended that they were doing more. In the Bill which he asked the House to read a second time they had inserted clauses empowering them to appropriate land purchased elsewhere for the purpose of housing these poor people if they could not do it on their own land; and if the pieces of land left to them were not sufficient for that purpose they were seeking power to place themselves in the hands of the Home Secretary, and whatever the right hon. Gentleman required them to do would be done. All he could say was that hitherto the Metropolitan Board had found the Home Secretary on both sides, whoever he might happen to be, very stringent in these matters, and whatever laws the Home Secretary laid

  831
  down the Metropolitan Board would do their best to carry out. He only wanted to assure the House that, so far, the Metropolitan Board had done as much and even more than anybody else for the artizan. There was no philanthropic Company in the United Kingdom who had done as much, notwithstanding the great difficulties which had been placed in their way, and he certainly thought those who had interposed the difficulties might have used their talents to a better purpose. But the Metropolitan Board also contemplated another improvement—namely, the acquisition of lands in and near Elm Street in connection with the Gray's Inn Lane improvement, an improvement authorized by the Act of 1877. In regard to that improvement the late Home Secretary made certain recommendations which the Metropolitan Board had entirely adopted, and they wanted now to extend the Gray's Inn Road improvement, and if this Bill passed they would do everything in their power to make a satisfactory extension. He might add that in about a fortnight's time the improvement, so far as it had yet been authorized, could be thrown open to the public; but the Metropolitan Board were anxious to extend it and to make it still more useful. They only asked now for a little delay and for further powers, in order to enable them to do their duty in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. The 42nd clause of the Bill gave the Board power to enlarge and improve Plumstead Common by the addition of certain waste lands in the parish of Plumstead. There were in that House many advocates of open spaces for the enjoyment and recreation of the public, and the only object of this clause was to carry out that object, and by adding a considerable extent of waste land to the existing common to render it more valuable and useful to the people of Plumstead and the public generally. Probably the next improvement in importance to the Western improvements was that which was included in Part V. of the Bill, and which related to the vesting of Hackney Commons in the Metropolitan Board. The Board had experienced the greatest difficulty at Hackney; they had found that there were lammas rights and a variety of other rights, and they had spent a large sum of the public money in en-
  832
  deavouring to make the commons useful and acceptable to the public in spite of certain persons with other rights, which the Board had not been able to prevent them from exercising. What they wanted to do now was to vest the Hackney Commons in the Metropolitan Board, or in somebody else if that Board was destroyed, so that anybody who had a grievance to complain of or a claim to make should be able to go before a properly constituted authority and ask for compensation. It was believed that if a power of this kind were conferred upon an independent Body, in a very short time every grievance would be disposed of, and the common-land would be entirely devoted to the public interest. There was another clause in the Bill—the 43rd—which gave to the Metropolitan Board power to enlarge and improve Hampstead Heath by the addition of certain lands in the parish of St. John, Hampstead. This land was surrounded by land belonging to the Metropolitan Board, or, rather, to the public, and the Board were anxious to be able to purchase it in order that it might be dedicated to the public. He trusted the House would not refuse to give the Metropolitan Board the power they now asked for. He had dealt very shortly and succinctly with the principal provisions of the Bill, and he had very few general observations to make. He hoped the House would not think he had taken up too much of its time in explaining the clauses of the Bill and in asking the House to assent to the second reading of it, so that it might be allowed to go before a Committee in the usual way. As would be seen, it was an omnibus Bill containing various important powers, and he was astonished that his hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) should oppose it on account of one single clause which it contained, and which his hon. Friend did not happen to approve of. He could only repeat that his hon. Friend was entirely mistaken in the view he took, and he very much regretted that his hon. Friend should endeavour to destroy the Bill by rejecting it upon the second reading owing to a simple misapprehension. The measure was one of the greatest public importance, and he begged to move that it be read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir James M'Garel-Hogg.)
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he regretted that he could not agree with the observations of the hon. Baronet who had proposed the second reading of the Bill. No man in that House appreciated the great public usefulness which had resulted from the work his hon. Friend had performed, and the work of the Board over which his hon. Friend presided, more than he did; but he could not forget that the Metropolitan Board, in proposing this Bill, were seeking to override and to set aside the provisions of Public and Private Acts of Parliament which had been passed during the last 20 years, and that they were trying to persuade Parliament to set aside the policy which it had clearly set forth in those Acts—a policy which, he ventured to think, the public, at the present moment, were not prepared to set aside. It was a policy which was clearly set out in the Artizans' Dwellings Act of 1875, and in all the Provisional Orders which had passed the House of Commons under that Act, as well as in all Private Railway Acts which had been passed since that date. That policy clearly declared this—that whenever any public body or private individuals sought to take and destroy houses occupied by the labouring classes they should provide accommodation in lieu of the dwellings so destroyed to the extent, and for the number provided in the provisions of the several Bills. Now, he ventured to think that the public at present were not prepared to reverse that policy. The hon. Baronet had said truly that the Bill was an Omnibus Bill. It consisted of six parts, but he did not intend to trouble the House with any observations except in regard to Parts II. and III. He fully admitted the force of what his hon. Friend had said, that the Bill ought to go before a Committee to have the provisions it contained fairly inquired into; and if the House thought lit, he should be quite prepared to withdraw the Motion of which he had given Notice against the second reading of the Bill, reserving to himself the right of giving a vote in favour of either or both of the other Resolutions which were to be proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), and
  834
  the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers), after the Bill should have been read a second time. By Part II. of the Bill the Metropolitan Board of Works proposed to make two new streets—one in St. Pancras and the other in Poplar. He wished to call attention particularly to the one which was proposed to be made in Poplar. It was to be made upon a site which the Metropolitan Board obtained under a Provisional Order Act in 1879; and his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) knew very well that that Provisional Order carried with it, and had incorporated in it, the Artizans' Dwellings Act of 1875. By that Act it was necessary that, unless provision was made for the erection of artizans' dwellings elsewhere, the space when cleared was to be utilized mainly, if not entirely, in that way. Now, this area was nearly four acres in extent. Not 12 months ago—namely, in May, 1883, the Metropolitan Board made a Return, in answer to a Motion by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), which stated that out of an area of 150,000 feet 3,600 were to be devoted to a new street. That was not the new street now asked for; but it was the street included in the Bill of 1879. The Metropolitan Board now only asked for a cross corner of the land, and took a much smaller area, without utilizing the whole plot. Clause 22 of the Bill said—
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board may enter upon, take, and use all or any of the lands shown on the deposited plans and described in the deposited book of reference and any casement, right, or privilege in, over, or affecting such lands which they may require for the purposes of or in connection with the improvements, and for providing space for the erection of houses and buildings adjoining or near thereto, and the Board may appropriate for the purposes of the Poplar improvements any lands which they may have acquired under the Metropolis (Little Coram Street, Bloomsbury, Well Street, Poplar, and Great Peter Street, Westminster) Improvements Provisional Orders Confirmation Act, 1879, and thereupon the Board shall, as to such last-mentioned lands, be discharged from any obligation imposed upon them in relation thereto by the last-mentioned Act and the Order thereto confirmed."
  It would thus be seen that the Board did not intend to obtain land of equivalent area, or, indeed, to buy land at all. His hon. Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board said they intended to do it; and, if so, why did they not insert a provision to that effect in the Bill?

  835
  They were asking Parliament to relieve them of their existing obligations; and he hoped the House, in agreeing to the second reading of the Bill, would take care that they were not relieved unless they made ample provision for rehousing the artizans whom they displaced. He now came to Part III. of the Bill, which consisted of only two clauses, with four or five sub-divisions. By Clause 39—the first clause of Part III.—the Board asked for an extension of two years for the serving of notices for the compulsory purchase of land in connection with the new street proposed to be constructed from Southwark Bridge Road to Great Dover Street, opposite to St. George's Church in the Borough. The Board obtained power to construct that street in 1877, seven years ago, and no doubt public opinion supported them. Parliament sanctioned the formation of the street, knowing that it would pass through one of the most degraded, immoral, and criminal districts to be found in London. Seven years had now expired; but the houses and the district remained exactly as they were; nothing whatever had been done. They had been told, and would probably be told, at still greater length, that the Metropolitan Board could not proceed with its improvement, because, after they obtained authority to carry it out, the South-Eastern Railway Company came to Parliament and obtained permission to make a short line of railway passing over a considerable portion of the land proposed to be taken for the new street, and running, in fact, along one side of the proposed street very nearly throughout the whole of its length. The Bill of the South-Eastern Railway Company went to a Private Bill Committee, where it was carefully examined, and the best surveying evidence brought to bear upon it. The Committee inserted a clause in the Bill which provided that the railway should be constructed on such a level as not to interfere with the making of a new street, and providing, further, that if any differences arose between the Railway Company and the Metropolitan Board they were to be settled by the Board of Trade, with the proviso that no decision of the Board of Trade should be inconsistent with the making of the railway or the making of the new street. It was, therefore, manifest that a Private Bill Committee,
  836
  after a long and protracted Sitting, came to the conclusion, on the best possible evidence, that the street and the railway might both of them be made in the interests of the people. Then, why did not the Metropolitan Board proceed to make the street? The Bill of the Railway Company was passed in 1882; and now, two years after the decision of the Committee had been given, they asked for two years more to enable them to perform the obligation they had undertaken. This brought him to the 2nd clause of Part III.—namely, Clause 40, to which he hoped the House would listen, because it was an attempt to override Section 33 of the Act of 1877. Clause 40 said—
  "From and after the passing of this Act, Section 33 of the Act of 1877, so far as it imposes obligations upon the Board with respect to providing accommodation for such of the labouring classes as would he displaced by reason of the making of the new street between Southwark Bridge Road and Blackman Street, Borough, by the said Act authorized, shall be and the same is hereby repealed,"
  excepting so far as one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State might direct. [Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Hear, hear!] His hon. Friend said "Hear, hear!" and he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) fully endorsed that cry. He wished to make an appeal to his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend was well aware that when the question of the extent to which the Board should be relieved was before Parliament as recently as the year 1882, this very point was discussed in reference to the Artizans' Dwellings Amendment Act of that year, and Parliament declined to assent to the proposal then made that they should be entirely relieved, and decided that the discretion of the Home Secretary should only extend to a number not exceeding one-half of those for whom accommodation was required. No one could doubt that the interests of the labouring classes would be perfectly safe in the hands of the present Home Secretary; but they never knew how long the right hon. and learned Gentleman might retain his Office, and, seeing that Parliament had so recently considered the question, why should the policy and principle of the Act of 1882 bearing upon the subject be now upset? Was it not a much harder case upon the labouring classes than upon the Metropolitan Board? Between the two parties—the Metro-

  837
  politan Board and the Railway Company, the houses of the labouring classes were to be taken and nothing whatever to be substituted. He contended that that was an intolerable policy and principle, and he asked the House not to allow the Bill to go to a Committee, unless they gave an Instruction to that Committee to see that accommodation was provided for the labouring classes, and that the accommodation which now existed should not be taken away, except to the extent which was assented to in the principle laid down by the Act of 1882. He had now tried, tersely and briefly, and without having any interest in the subject except that of one who had for many years studied this question, to explain the whole case to the House. And, in conclusion, he was fully prepared to withdraw his Motion for the rejection of the Bill; but he would reserve his right to vote for the Instruction to the Committee which the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) had placed upon the Paper.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was glad that the hon. Baronet did not intend to divide the House against the second reading of the Bill, and that he was going to reserve his further action until the Instruction, which was to be moved after the second reading, was brought forward. At the same time, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) did not think it was altogether desirable that one or two things the hon. Baronet had said should pass entirely without comment. The hon. Baronet said that the Bill involved a reversal of the general policy adopted by Parliament; but he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was of opinion that, on the contrary, it would bring the particular circumstances mentioned in the Bill in accord with the policy of Parliament. It was a matter that was carefully considered by a Committee which sat in 1881 and 1882, and was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). That Committee unanimously recommended a relaxation of the law if it was intended to make it more workable. Therefore this Bill, instead of reversing the policy of Parliament, would bring it into accord with the general law. While reserving any discussion upon the details of the Bill until they came to the Instruction about to be moved by the hon. Gentleman the
  838
  Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) he had considered it desirable to make this statement in answer to the observations of the hon. Baronet who had just spoken.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEY, in moving—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee not to permit any diminution in the accommodation now required by Law to he provided for persons of the labouring class, in connection with any of the schemes included in this Bill."
  said, that his remarks would apply to only two parts of the Bill. He was very glad that his hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had not moved the rejection of the Bill, because he thought it desirable that the measure should go to a Committee, where all matters of detail in connection with it might be fairly considered. His remarks applied to the Poplar improvement and the Southwark Bridge Road improvement. So far as the Poplar improvement was concerned, the powers were acquired in 1879; but the Metropolitan Board of Works had only cleared the land within the last 12 months. The land was now cleared, and the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, in his speech, assured the House that it was the desire of the Board to rehouse the whole of the 1,030 people who, according to the official figures, had been cleared off from that site. He would only say, in regard to that declaration, that he fully concurred with the remark made by his hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend that if the Metropolitan Board had such a wish, why on earth did they not put it in the Bill? In the Bill itself they proposed something quite different. They proposed, in concert with the Local District Board, to run a new street, and they took power in their Bill to take any land they pleased fronting the new street, and to deal with it in the open market, selling it, if they chose, free from all restrictions, for artizans' dwellings. It might be that on this large site they might be able, to the satisfaction of the Home Office and to the satisfaction of the sanitary authorities, to put up dwellings for upwards of 1,000 persons, and, at the same time, to retain a certain amount of reserve frontage for sale in the open

  839
  market in connection with the new street. If that were so the law would allow them to do it, and his Instruction would not prevent them. All his Instruction asked was that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be bound to do that which the law now said they should do, and which the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board said they were willing to do—namely, to rehouse the whole of the 1,030 people who would be displaced in consequence of carrying out this street improvement. He now passed on to the other scheme, the Southwark Bridge Road improvement. The Southwark Bridge Road improvement was before Parliament in 1877. In that year the Metropolitan Board of Works obtained power to make this street improvement with an obligation to rehouse the people they displaced, He thought it was rather singular that, although so many years had elapsed, nothing as yet had been done. The action of the Railway Company was now alleged as the excuse for not carrying out the provisions of the Act; but the Railway Company only obtained their powers in 1882, five years after the Metropolitan Board of Works got theirs. Surely five years were time enough, and more than enough, to enable the Board to set to work in making this new street, and erecting the buildings in which the working people were to be rehoused. To judge from the language of the hon. Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), the Metropolitan Board of Works only considered a scheme complete when all the houses were pulled down and all the people thrown into the streets. That was the hon. Member's idea of a complete scheme. He would only tell the House, in regard to two of the schemes to which the term "complete" had been applied—namely, the widening of Great College Street and clearances in the City and in White-chapel, that all of the houses had been pulled down, and in each case only one of them had been rebuilt, that one being a public-house. They had been told that the Metropolitan Board of Works went before the Committee which sat in 1882, and was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and that they asked for a certain amount of relief with respect to these restrictions. In
  840
  this particular case of the Southwark Bridge Road improvements they made no application. Indeed, they had applied for relief from Parliament on only three points; first of all, in regard to the West End improvements, in which some relief was recommended, which relief, however, when tested by another Committee, was countermanded to a certain extent; they also obtained relief in the case of the Gray's Inn Lane improvement; and, with reference to the Southwark Bridge Road improvements, what was it that the Metropolitan Board asked for? Through their Surveyor, Mr. Goddard, when their application came before Parliament, they said they were ready and willing to rehouse every one of the 1,600 people who were displaced by the carrying out of that improvement, and all they asked for was permission to build blocks upon the land, which was cleared, devoting the ground floor of the new dwellings to the use of shopkeepers, and taking one or two plots at the back of the square for dwellings for the artizan classes. Having so arranged and obtained that power, they could not come to Parliament and ask not only that what they did not ask for in 1882 should be granted, but what Parliament had deliberately refused to grant in connection with the Artizans' Dwellings Act Amendment Bill. As a matter of fact, what they requested Parliament to concede to them now was liberty to rehouse the displaced artizans or not, as they pleased, at the discretion of the Home Secretary. The Metropolitan Board had been very careful, in their contest with the Railway Company, to obtain clauses for their own protection; but they did not appear to have thought it worth while to obtain clauses for the protection of those whom they were specially bound to protect—namely, the artizans whom they and the Railway Company were proposing to displace, and whom it was their duty to rehouse. It might be said that the Railway Company would have the same obligation as the Metropolitan Board were under to rehouse the poor; but if this Instruction were agreed to, both the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Railway Company would be absolutely protected from any injustice. What was the clause of the Act of 1877 of which the Board complained so much? That clause only

  841
  provided that when the Metropolitan Board of Works themselves served the notices, and proceeded to take the houses, they should satisfy the Home Secretary that they had provided equivalent accommodation for the persons who were settled on the land at the time of the passing of the Act of 1877. What they now said was, that the Railway Company were going to take these houses; but if the Railway Company served the notices and took the land, then the Metropolitan Board of Works would not be bound either to serve notices or to rehouse the poor who were displaced; and, therefore, the making of this railway could in no way impose any liability upon the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Chairman of the Metropolitan Board told the House that the area in this clause was only one and a quarter acres; but it was considerably more. The hon. Member said the railway proposed to take one acre, and the houses situated upon the area. If that were so, the Metropolitan Board would be free from any obligations to rehouse the people who would be displaced from the ground. As to the question of responsibility, the Metropolitan Board were amply protected by the law as it stood, because they had taken care to secure the insertion of a clause in the South-Eastern Railway Act by which it was provided that if either party gave the notices, or in any other way dealt with the land, in the event of any difference arising, the whole question should be decided by the Board of Trade after hearing both parties. Therefore, the Metropolitan Board would be amply protected against any responsibility they might incur in regard to serving the notices for carrying out the provisions of the Act. There was, therefore, no reason why the House should not agree to this Instruction. The Metropolitan Board asked in this Bill to be absolutely relieved from any obligation to rehouse the poor.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: No, no.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, "Yes." As far as the law went, the Board only asked that they should be left to negotiate with unfettered discretion.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: No.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, the Metropolitan Board proposed that they should be left to settle the matter with the Home Secretary. Now, as far as
  842
  the South-Eastern Railway Company were concerned, it was very likely that they would never make this railway at all. They had had their powers for two years, and, as far as he could learn, the whole matter was flagging very much, and no steps had yet been taken to make the railway. If the powers of the South-Eastern Railway Company were to expire, what would be the result? The Railway Company would be relieved of their obligations altogether, and if the present Bill were passed, without the Instruction he suggested, the Metropolitan Board would step in; and if they could only persuade the present, or any future Home Secretary, they would be able to use this land as a source of profit to themselves; and while making this street improvement as cheaply as possible, they would get rid of their liability to rehouse the poor already imposed upon them by Parliament. He might have shown that there were other instances, but he was unwilling to delay the House. He trusted the House would consent to the proposed Instruction, which would not interfere with the reasonable discretion imposed by Parliament on the Home Secretary, and which would impose no liabilities on the Metropolitan Board which they ought not fairly to bear, and which were perfectly compatible with the proper improvement of the Metropolis. He begged to move the Instruction which stood in his name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee not to permit any diminution in the accommodation now required by Law to he provided for persons of the labouring class, in connection with any of the schemes included in this Bill."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was sorry that he felt compelled to oppose his hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) in what he now proposed to the House; but he did so because he was of opinion that if this proposal were carried it would be exceedingly unfair to the Metropolitan Board of Works. He thought the House would concur with him in that view, and, in a few words, he would explain how the matter stood. The Metropolitan Board of Works were compelled, under the 33rd clause of the Metropolitan Streets Improvements Act, to provide in this particular place certain accommodation for the poor displaced by

  843
  the improvement. It might be asked why the Metropolitan Board of Works had not carried out the improvement they were authorized to make? In justice to the Board it ought to be stated that since the Act passed the South-Eastern Railway Company had interfered with the proposal by obtaining a Bill empowering them to make a railway through a portion of the property in question. The 33rd section of the Act had also been found to be unworkable, and he thought he should be borne out in that view by his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), whose Committee considered the question a few years ago, and found that section to be unworkable. There had been two Acts of Parliament passed since which referred to two different portions of the scheme under the Metropolitan Streets Improvements Act, and which gave relaxation from the conditions originally laid down. Not only had that been done, but the Committee to which he had alluded actually passed a Resolution in favour of relaxation in any future schemes that might be brought before Parliament. Therefore, the Metropolitan Board were not, in regard to these improvement schemes, to be held bound, by the total number of persons displaced, to provide compensation; but they were virtually placed in a different position by the relaxation which had been given by Parliament in reference to the two schemes already considered and sanctioned. On this ground they could hardly, therefore, place the Metropolitan Board of Works in a position of such unfairness as that proposed by the present Instruction. The Metropolitan Board proposed to leave the decision of the matter to the Secretary of State, and he thought they might rely upon the Secretary of State not to go beyond the intentions of Parliament. The Report of the Committee recommended that, at least, not more than one-third of the persons displaced should be accommodated, and, supposing the Bill of the Metropolitan Board were passed by Parliament, the Home Secretary would be guided very much by the recommendation of that Committee in considering what provision should be made. It seemed to him, therefore, that it was unfair to call upon the Board of Works to carry out the conditions imposed upon them by their original Act,
  844
  and he was quite certain that the House would not agree to the Instruction which had been proposed by his hon. Friend and Colleague. He was also anxious to say that while he viewed the present proposal in that light he was not disposed to say that the Metropolitan Board of Works had in every instance done what was desirable and proper. He thought it would be found that there were some cases in which the Metropolitan Board had not discharged what was their real duty. That, however, was not the case in the present instance, and he believed that in regard to the Southwark Bridge Road scheme the Metropolitan Board intended to carry out as far as they could, the intentions of Parliament in the way of providing accommodation for the artizans and labourers whom they displaced. Before he sat down he wished to say that the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Home Office, with respect to the delay which had taken place in carrying out this particular scheme, had been very much hampered in their operations by the Company over which his hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) presided, and which was established for the benefit of the working classes. The delay had arisen in consequence of the fact that the plans of that Company, which had been submitted to the Home Secretary, had not been considered satisfactory. The Company proposed the erection of houses of six or seven stories, whereas the Homo Office were of opinion that there ought not to be more than four or five stories. That had caused the whole of the delay in this particular instance. Therefore, upon these grounds, and upon other grounds, he thought the House ought not to assent to the Instruction which had been moved. The Select Committee, on the general question, recommended that accommodation should be provided for the housing of at least one-third of the displaced population, and that the provision for the remainder should be at the discretion of the Home Secretary.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there was one question which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would probably be able to answer. His (Sir R. Assheton Cross's) impression, in regard to the Report made by the Committee, was that in all cases that occurred in London the Committee recommended

  845
  that the amount of accommodation to be provided for the poorer classes, who were to be displaced, should extend to one-half, and it might amount to more than that, if the Secretary of State thought, on full consideration of the facts laid before him, that more than one-half was necessary for the accommodation of the persons displaced. As far as he read the present Bill, it did not contain those important words "not less than one-half." That was a very important fact, and although it was quite true that the Secretary of State might refer to the Reports of the Committee, and to other cases under other Acts of Parliament, and especially to the General Public Act, yet, on the other hand, he might not do so, and that was a point which ought not to be lost sight of. He understood, from the assent which had been given to his statement by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that it was actually the case that the Report of the Committee recommended a provision to be made for one-half of those displaced, at all events. In that case he would ask his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) whether he would be content if the Bill were allowed to go to a Committee, and that those words should be inserted in it in Committee; because he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) thought the House was bound to insist upon their insertion. The Bill proposed to carry out the Report of the Committee. But the Committee said—"At all events, there must be provision made for one-half of the persons whom the Bill turns out." Would his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board assent to the insertion of those words in the Bill when it got into Committee? If he did so, then, of course, the Report of the Committee would be carried out; but, if not, the matter would be left entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State, and that was not what the Committee had recommended.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, there was something very much stronger than even the Report of the Committee, and that was an Act of Parliament. An Act had been passed after the Committee made this Report; and, if he remembered rightly, an attempt was made at the time of the passing of that Act to give the Secretary of State entire discretion as to the number of people to be rehoused;
  846
  but Parliament would not consent, and limited the power of the Secretary of State to one-half. As a general principle, he strongly objected to the repeal of Public Acts of Parliament by Private Acts; but when it came to an Act of Parliament passed so recently as the year 1882, his objections were magnified ten-fold. It must also be remembered that the question of the housing of the poor was one in which the whole community was deeply interested. He understood the Instruction now proposed, if carried, would be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert in it words which would limit the power and the discretion of the Home Secretary in the same way as the Act of 1882. [Sir SYDNEY WATERLOW: No.] He understood that was the intention of his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley); and he would point out to his hon. Friend, in order to make it clear, the advisability of omitting from the Instruction the words "in connection with any of the schemes included in this Bill." The Instruction would then read—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee not to permit any diminution in the accommodation now required by Law to be provided for persons of the labouring class."
  If the words he suggested were omitted there could be no doubt as to the object of the Instruction; but otherwise it might be contended that the intention of the Instruction was that the accommodation to be provided was that specified in the original scheme.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he had no objection to accept the alteration suggested.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought the House would be most ill-advised if they did away with the protection now afforded by an Act of Parliament and substituted a discretionary power in the hands of the Home Secretary, which had been so expressly limited by the Act of 1882. He would, therefore, move, as an Amendment, that all the words after the word "class" to the end of the Instruction be omitted.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, it was suggested to him that instead of the words "now required by law" the words "now required by the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1882," should be substituted. He should be quite willing to accept that Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the Motion he has already made?
  MR. LYULPH STANLEY: Yes.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is that the Motion be, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked that before the Motion was withdrawn he wished to say that he entirely agreed with everything that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South - West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). The discussion which had been going on for the last minute or two, and which had been raised by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), had brought out the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) had no intention of maintaining the obligation upon the Metropolitan Board created by a former Act, but only that part of the obligation which was imposed upon them by the Act of 1882. They were all agreed that that obligation ought to be maintained, and all they had to settle was the right form of words in which to carry out the intentions of the House. He was not quite sure whether the form in which it was proposed to move the Instruction would meet the necessities of the case—namely—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee not to permit any diminution of the accommodation now required by Law to be provided for persons of the labouring class."
  He thought it would be better to point in some more direct way to the Act of 1882.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would suggest that the Motion should take the form of an Instruction to the Committee not to permit any diminution of the accommodation provided by the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1882, for persons of the labouring class.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he was quite willing to move an Instruction to that effect.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee not to permit any diminution in the accommodation now required to be provided for persons of the labouring class by 'The Artizans' Dwellings Act, 1882.' "—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he was very anxious to meet the wishes
  848
  of the House as far as possible. All that he could say was that he was placed in a very difficult position. The Railway Company had taken away from them two-thirds of the land over which the Metropolitan Board originally acquired powers; and how on earth the artizans, who ought to be put upon an acre and three-quarters, were to be housed upon three-quarters of an acre he really did not know. He, therefore, must enter his protest against the action of the House. At the same time, he had no intention of dividing the House against the Motion; he would only enter a protest, and he certainly did not think that what the House was ordering could possibly be carried out. If it could, all he would say was that the Metropolitan Board and himself would do all in their power to comply with the wishes of the House. They could not, however, do impossibilities, or cram a quart bottle into a pint pot, however much they might wish to do so.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he was glad he had not divided the House against the second reading of the Bill, as the object he had in placing his Motion upon the Paper was now practically accomplished. He should like to say one word in answer to the statement just made by his hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), who said the Metropolitan Board would not be able to comply with the wishes of the House. His hon. Friend seemed to forget that, under the Act of 1882, the Board had power to appropriate any land they thought was suitable for housing the labouring class, and the Home Secretary could approve of the appropriation of such land if he thought it would answer the purpose as well. Therefore, the House, in imposing upon the Metropolitan Board the obligation of the Act of 1882, were really doing that which was very easy for the Metropolitan Board of Works to carry out.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee not to permit any diminution in the accommodation now required to be provided for persons of the labouring class by "The Artizans' Dwellings Act, 1882."
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, the Instruction which he wished that the House should give to the Committee, after the second reading of the Bill,

  849
  was modest and narrow. It referred to only one part of the project which the Board of Works, acting through his hon. Friend opposite (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), sought to secure with the approval of the House. It was not, however, so trivial as the hon. Gentleman suggested. Unless he had heard the hon. Gentleman wrongly, he had said in his opening remarks that the area of the Mint, in Southwark, was about an acre; but the Schedule of his Bill made its extent five acres. Which was right, the Chairman of the Board of Works, or the Bill before the House? Again, he entirely sympathized with the Board of Works in their difficulties. They had had—they told the House—to join prices for the sites which they were constrained to purchase, which were often three times as much as they could secure from purchasers under the clauses of the Act of which the late Home Secretary was the reputed author; although the right hon. Gentleman had lately told them in the public prints that the unofficial Home Secretary in this most unfortunate business was the late Mr. Cawley, sometime Member for Salford, who guided the hand of the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and so inflicted the heavy loss on the London ratepayers. Considering, therefore, the enormous costs which the law put upon occupiers in London, he did not wonder that the Board of Works hesitated before it incurred these charges. But the case of the Mint, the five acres of the Schedule, was peculiar. It was almost the worst district in London. It was a slum in which the lowest thieves and prostitutes congregated. It was unsafe for any respectable person to enter it by day or night, except under the protection of the police; and it ought to have been long since swept away. Nearly seven years ago the Board of Works took powers under an Act to purify this stew, and now they wished to postpone the operation; while he, by the Instruction which he proposed, wished to hasten the process by which this vile den, lying close to some of our most important thoroughfares, should be and would be transformed. He considered it to be his duty to find out the facts. He might say that two gentlemen of great practical good sense and benevolence, Mr. Hawkins of the London School Board, and Mr. Berry, a resident in St. George's parish,
  850
  aided by the efforts of his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Cohen) had done what they could for this miserable place. He had received a very important letter from a person on whom he could fully rely, and from which he would, with the permission of the House, read an extract. The writer was under an impression that the Board of Works might want time, being ignorant of the fact that the Board could give notices easily before the time prescribed in their present Act elapsed, and take three years before they finally completed the operation. The writer of the letter—Mr. Oliver—said—
  "There is considerable indignation at the long delay, especially among the ratepayers of St. George's, in which it (the district) is situated, a very large sum being lost annually by the unoccupied land. Again, there is another serious matter worth mentioning, if you have a chance to speak on the matter. A large sewer has been commenced, and has been awaiting completion nearly two years in consequence of this delay in making the street. It is finished on the Bermondsey side to St. George's Church, and on the St. Saviour's side to Mint Street, and complaint is being made by the inhabitants of the smell from it."
  The remainder of the letter was full of practical suggestions, in which the large discretion granted to the Board of Works was contrasted with the very limited discretion granted to the School Board. Now, he (Mr. Thorold Rogers) wished that the Board of Works should be constrained to commence this work before August by giving the notices. The place was a disgrace to London, to the Board of Works, to decency itself, and no one knew this better than the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg). He could find only one explanation for the delay. Two years ago the South-Eastern Railway obtained powers for constructing a railway over this site, the Committee taking care that their powers should not conflict with the duties of the Board of Works under the Act which the House was asked to amend, as to the condition of time which they were invited to prolong. The South-Eastern Railway was presided over by an exceedingly acute gentleman, who wanted to purchase the land when cleared, and the Board of Works wanted the railway to take it uncleared; and during this contest of rights a vile, loathsome, and dangerous nuisance was continued, and, at the instance of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, was to be

  851
  prolonged. He did not think that such a delay was in the interests of his constituency, of the Metropolis, or of the public at large, or in that of public decency; and he, therefore, begged to move the Instruction which stood in his name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee not to extend the time for taking the land which is necessary for the formation of the New Street from Southwark Bridge Road to Great Dover Street."—(Mr. Thorold Rogers.)
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid-he was sorry that it was necessary for him again to trouble the House. All he would say was, that as the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) expressed such great sympathy with him, he hoped he would prove it by withdrawing the Motion, and not troubling the House with a Division upon it; because, if he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) got half-a-dozen Members to support him, he should certainly vote against it, as the Instruction proposed was altogether impracticable. He had thought that the hon. Member for Southwark knew everything; but it was now quite clear that there was one thing he knew nothing about, and that was the serving of notices, and the difficulties involved in freehold, leasehold, and copyhold property. If the hon. Member had had as much to do with such matters as he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had, he would not have risen in that House to deliver the speech he had just made. He (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) would certainly ask the House to follow him into the Lobby; because, if this Instruction were given to the Committee, the improvements to which it related would never be carried out at all; and he thought that the Instruction already given to the Committee was quite sufficient to hamper and embarrass the action of the Metropolitan Board. He would not take up the time of the House any longer; but he certainly gave the most strenuous opposition to the Instruction, and he asked the House to reject it.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he had risen simply to say, on the part of the Government, that if his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark went to a Division they would feel called upon to oppose him. The Instruction would impose great difficulties upon the obligations of
  852
  the Metropolitan Board of Works in connection with this scheme; and he thought it would be better to leave them unfettered in the discharge of their duties. The proposal contained in the Bill was that there should be an extension of time for the completion of these improvements for two years; and those who opposed the extension could appear before the Committee, and use their best efforts to shorten that period. Upon these grounds, he should certainly vote against the Instruction.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had no wish to detain the House for more than a minute; but this was a matter which came before the Committee over which he had the honour to preside, and they went carefully into it. He was bound to say that he thought it would be a great hardship upon the Metropolitan Board of Works if this Instruction were to be sent up to the Committee. He knew that the Metropolitan Board had great difficulty in carrying out the obligations which Parliament had already imposed upon them; and he hoped the House would not consent to any steps that might further impede or embarrass them.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Southwark press the Instruction?
  MR. THOROLD ROGERS: No, Sir.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  PARLIAMENT—COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (SPECIAL REPORT).
  Leave to Committee to make a Special Report.
  Special Report brought up, and read.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee:—Mr. Agnew, General Alexander, Mr. Armitstead, Mr. Arthur Arnold, The Lord Advocate, Sir Walter Barttelot, Sir Arthur Bass, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Bulwer, Mr. Burt, Sir George Campbell, Lord Edward Cavendish, Sir Thomas Chambers, Mr. Chaplin, Sir Edward Colebrooke, Mr. Cotton, Sir Richard Cross, Baron Henry De Worms,

  853
  Mr. Thomas Dickson, Mr. Dillwyn, Mr. Dodds, Mr. Dodson, Mr. Dundas, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Ewart, Mr. John Fitzwilliam, Mr. Lewis Fry, Mr. Gibson, Sir Hardinge Giffard, Mr. William Henry Gladstone, Mr. Gorst, Mr. Leveson Gower, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Hibbert, Mr. Staveley Hill, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Hopwood, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Stanley Leighton, Mr. Macnaghten, Mr. Marriott, Mr. Monk, Mr. Arnold Morley, Colonel Nolan, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. Richard Paget, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Pell, Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Puleston, Mr. Raikes, Mr. Rathbone, Mr. Roundell, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Villiers Stuart, Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Mr. Walter, Mr. Stuart-Wortley, and Mr. Percy Wyndham.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYfurther reported from the said Committee, That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures, which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee:—Mr. Anderson, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Thomas Baring, Mr. Barran, Mr. Birkbeck, Mr. Rowland Blennerhassett, Mr. Jacob Bright, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Maurice Brooks, Mr. Alexander Brown, Mr. Thomas Bruce, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Caine, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Edward Clarke, Mr. Coope, Mr. James Corry, Mr. Cowen, Sir Robert Cunliffe, Sir Donald Currie, Mr. Dalrymple, Mr. Richard Davies, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Ecroyd, Mr. Algernon Egerton, Sir George Elliot, Mr. William Edward Eorster, Mr. William Fowler, Mr. Gourley, Mr. Albert Grey, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. John Holms, Mr. Houldsworth, Mr. Jackson, Colonel King-Harman, Mr. Edward Leatham, Mr. William Lawrence, Mr. Henry Lee, Mr. William Lowther, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. MacIver, Sir William M Arthur, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Richard Martin, Mr. Marum, Sir Charles Mills, Mr. Mulholland, Mr. Henry Northcote, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Arthur Pease, Sir Henry Peek, Earl Percy, Mr. O'Connor Power, Mr. Clare Read, Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Rylands, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Samuel Smith, Mr. Edward Stanhope, Marquess of Tavistock,
  854
  Mr. Whitley, Mr. Williamson, and Mr. Wills.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS.

  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT-PROMOTION OF OFFICERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Was one of the ride officers recently specially promoted over the heads of others in the Inland Revenue Department, the son of a collector in that branch; what are the subjects of the test examination that ride officers have to pass on promotion to divisions; is it laid down in 7 and 8 Geo. 4, c. 53, s. 4, that the efficient and well-conducted officers can be deprived of their right to promotion in the ordinary course; and, what proof has the Board that the officers passed over do not possess equal or superior merit to those promoted?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, no collector's son has recently been specially promoted. The test examination referred to is a careful scrutiny of the candidate's official books for three months by examiners of the head office, in order to see whether they have conducted their duties properly and systematically. No one in the Civil Service can claim promotion as a right; and there is, therefore, no question of depriving these men of what does not exist. As it is open to Collectors and Inspectors in every part of the Kingdom to recommend officers for special promotion, it must fairly be believed that those selected are superior in merits to those not so. With reference to a previous Question of the hon. Member, I may add that religion and politics are absolutely disregarded by the Board, and they do their best to see the recommendations of the Collectors are not biassed by such considerations.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION COURTS—DECISIONS GIVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE LEGAL SUB-COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that in the case of Thomas Parker, tenant, Cornelius O'Brien, landlord, Messrs. Griffin and Walpole on the 2nd of April 1883, in the absence of the legal Sub-Commis-

  855
  sioner, decided a question of law as to the effect of a sheriff's sale, and dismissed the originating notice; that on the 31st January 1884 the case was taken before the Recorder of Cork, who refused a dismiss on the same question of law; whether the Land Commission will instruct non-legal Sub-Commissioners to refrain from deciding legal questions when they sit alone; and, if he would inquire what explanation Messrs. Griffin and Walpole have to offer?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Land Commissioners inform me that during the absence through illness of the legal Assistant Commissioner, the instructions to the lay Sub-Commissioners were to comply with any application made either by the landlord or the tenant for the postponement of a case for the attendance of the legal Sub-Commissioner. These instructions were complied with; but no application for adjournment appears to have been made in the case of "Parker v. O'Brien." With regard to the case before the Recorder of Cork, the Land Commissioners inform me that they know nothing about it. They had tried to obtain information, but had failed.
  MR. HEALYwished to know whether it was not the fact that the lay Sub-Commissioners dismissed the case upon a legal point?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The instructions are that the non-legal Sub-Commissioners are to adjourn if either party in the suit requests them to do so.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION COURTS—IRISH-SPEAKING WITNESSES.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether in re Mary Staunton, tenant, Rev. Dr. Collis, landlord, the tenant, an Irish-speaking witness, because she declined to speak English, saying she could not, and then having spoken a few words in that language, had her case dismissed, in Fermoy, last July, by Mr. M'Devitts, Sub-Commissioner; that she has had to file a second originating notice; that this has not since been heard; that other tenants on the same estate got large abatements; that this woman is still paying the old rent; whether it is the practice of the Sub-Commissions to insist on making persons who only know a few words of
  856
  English to attempt to give their evidence in that language; and, whether their attention will be called to the fact that an acquaintance with a few words of English does not justify this practice when important interests are involved, and the distinction of shades of meaning in words and phrases may make all the difference in evidence?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Land Commissioners inform me that they have ascertained upon inquiry that the case in question was dismissed by the Sub-Commission on the ground that the tenant, Mary Staunton, deliberately "attempted to deceive the Court."
  MR. HEALY: On what point?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That is what I am informed by the Land Commissioners. With regard to witnesses who do not understand or speak English, the practice in all the Courts of the Land Commission is to employ an interpreter, and this course is also adopted when a witness's knowledge of English is imperfect.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the allegation that the woman Staunton attempted to deceive the Court related to her having spoken a few words of English after she had stated she could speak only Irish?
  [No reply was given.]
  MR. HEALYsaid that he should repeat the Question on Monday.
  MR. DAWSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that, owing to Irish-speaking people not having been properly taught English in the National schools through the medium of their own tongue, it might be supposed they were deceiving, when in reality they did not properly understand English?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that his attention had been drawn to that matter in a long and interesting Correspondence with Sir Patrick Keenan, which had just been laid upon the Table of the House.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—THREATENING LETTERS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that a naval pensioner named Thomas Walsh, postmaster at Castletownshend, county Cork, was sentenced to two months' imprisonment,

  857
  under the Crimes Act, at Skibbereen, for writing a threatening letter, and that this sentence was confirmed, on appeal, by the county court judge; that a memorial, signed by the district magistrates, was presented, through Judge Townshend, to the Lord Lieutenant, in favour of the prisoner; that Walsh was thereupon liberated, after being a few days in gaol; that, although he was temporarily deprived of his office of postmaster, he was restored to it shortly after his release; whether any precedent exists for the Lord Lieutenant remitting a sentence passed under the Crimes Act, and confirmed, on appeal, by the county court judge; if he could state on what grounds did His Excellency pardon Walsh; how long was he in gaol; is it the fact that, in 1881–2, persons in the Postal Service arrested on mere suspicion, under the Coercion Act, were refused reinstatement upon release; and, if he will inquire of the postal authorities upon what principle Walsh was restored to the Service, after conviction?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the facts are as stated in the first paragraph of this Question, except that the memorial on behalf of Walsh was not forwarded by Judge Townshend, and that it was not the Lord Lieutenant; but the Lords Justices, acting in His Excellency's absence, who reduced the sentence. Very few cases under the Crimes Act, confirmed on appeal, have come before His Excellency by memorial—I believe only three in all. In one of those the appeal was not proceeded with, and the County Court Judge affirmed the sentence, which was afterwards reduced by His Excellency, the prisoner being released on bail after he had suffered one month out of a sentence of four months. Walsh was in custody from the 20th of October to the 3rd of November. He was released by the Lords Justices, after a most careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case, because they considered it a proper one in which to exercise the Prerogative of the Crown. I cannot undertake to answer Questions relating to the action of the Post Office Department.

  INTERMEDIATE AND HIGHER EDUCATION (WALES)—ABERYSTWITH COLLEGE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Vice President of the Council, If the Departmental
  858
  Committee appointed to inquire into the condition of Intermediate and Higher Education in Wales recommended that the College at Aberystwith, whether retained on its present site or removed to Carnarvon or Bangor, must be accepted as the College for North Wales; whether the Government intends to accept and act upon the recommendation of the Committee; and, whether, in the event of the College not being removed, it is the intention of the Government to continue the grant now temporarily paid to it?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, we have carried out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee by the establishment of Colleges at Bangor and Cardiff, in conformity with the wishes of the inhabitants of North and South Wales. The continuance of a grant to Aberystwith is a question which is shortly to be brought under the notice of this House and of the Government; and it would be premature at this moment, before the advocates of Aberystwith have been heard, to express any opinion on the subject.

  PRISON REGULATIONS—RELEASE OF DYING PRISONERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the practice existing in English prisons as to the release of dying prisoners upon application, and the surrender of the bodies of such as die in prison to their friends; why a different practice is followed in Ireland; whether it is the fact that the governor of Mountjoy Prison, before the death of Michael Waters, telegraphed to his uncle that the young man was dying; if he could explain why was Waters not released; whether it is the case that an application for his release was made by a local clergyman; why the body was not surrendered for burial to his relatives; by what right the Crown claim control of the bodies of convicts not sentenced to death; whether he can show any authority for the assumption that a sentence of imprisonment involves the detainer of the corpse of the prisoner, and its burial within prison precincts; if it is the fact that the burial of Waters was subsequently conducted by Government officials in Glasnevin Cemetery; on what grounds

  859
  were his relatives denied the consolation of attending his burial; and, if he will state whether any prison regulations exist as to dying prisoners, or as to the disposition of their bodies after death; and, if not, on what authority the governor of Mountjoy acted?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, if there is any material difference between the English and Irish practice, it will, no doubt, be dealt with in the Report of the Royal Commission, to whom the question of differences of system was a special matter of reference in their warrant. With regard to the case of Michael Waters, the Governor did telegraph to his uncle as to his dangerous condition. It is true, also, that an application for his release was made by a local clergyman; but the medical officer could not recommend compliance with this application, as he did not consider the prisoner to be in a fit condition to be removed. With regard to the disposal of the remains of deceased prisoners, it seems to be a matter of long-established practice. The custom has been, to give up, if desired, the bodies of prisoners dying in local prisons; but not the bodies of prisoners dying in convict prisons. In the ease of a felon under sentence of penal servitude, the Crown has complete power to prevent the removal of the body from the prison; and in the case of Waters there were special reasons why the Government considered it right that no exception to the usual practice should be made, and the Governor was instructed accordingly. The burial was accordingly conducted in the usual manner in a Roman Catholic Cemetery, the deceased having been of that persuasion. The Deputy Governor of the prison was present. It is not true that any of the deceased's relatives were denied permission to attend. His uncle was the only one who asked to be allowed to attend, and his request was complied with.
  MR. HEALYinquired where the Government got power to claim control over the bodies of deceased convicts—in the Common or Statute Law?
  MR. TREVELYANreplied, that he had stated it on the highest legal authority in Ireland, whom he had specially consulted.
  MR. HEALY: Will the highest legal authority from Ireland in this House say under what Statute the Government
  860
  claims control over the corpses of convicts? ["No, no!"]
  MR. HEALY: I shall put the Question on the Notice Paper.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND)—"LUMPING" OR BRACKETING.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, as Chairman of the Local Government Board, it has come to his knowledge that a large number of voters in the county of Wicklow are deprived of their votes by the process known as "lumping" or "bracketing;" and, whether, if supplied with a list of cases, he will cause an inquiry to be made in regard to the action of the revising valuers and clerks of union in the matter? He wished also to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he is aware that in Ireland persons of known National politics who are entitled to be on the Register of Voters have lost their right to vote, either by refusal of the revising valuer to revise the valuation and register their holdings separately or by the reduction of the valuation a few shillings below the qualifying amount; whether he is aware that at the late revision sessions at Rathdrum, Denis Byrne and Joseph Keenan lost their votes by being bracketed in the rate book, the revising valuer when called on to unbracket them saying—
  "He could not effect the object in view without taking his chain out to measure the old bounds;"
  whether the revising barrister is reported to have commented severely on the conduct of the revising valuer, stating that he was paid for performing the duty and should have done it; whether he has seen the following extract from the Report of the proceedings of the Rathdrum Board of Guardians on the 5th December last:—
  "Mr. John Byrne, of Cloneen, submitted the rate book to the Chairman, and said, before the Board adjourned he would wish to point out to him a mistake thereon. Some short time ago he (Mr. Byrne) had occasion to refer to the valuation book of the Union, and, in doing so, he was astounded to find that the name of his brother, Mr. Michael Byrne, P.L.G. Cronawinna (who was now present) had his area bracketed in on the book with two other parties, although his rating was separate. The area of a neighbour, Mr. Just, was similarly bracketed in with other men's holdings. Neither of these men

  861
  (and several others whose areas were also lumped on the rate hooks) had anything whatsoever to do with anyone else's holding, their farms being clear and distinct, and in no way held jointly with any other person.…Several parties had been disfranchised at the late Revision Sessions by Dr. Darley, on account of their areas being grouped on the books this way. If his brother had been objected to, or Mr. Just, their votes and those of the persons with whom they were bracketed would have been broken; the Chairman said it was manifestly unfair to deprive persons of their votes for such a cause; the Clerk said the only remedy was to see that the revising valuer, when He came round, made the necessary changes; "
  whether he is aware that Mr. Ball Greene, the head of the Valuation Office in Ireland, has stated he had no knowledge of the complaints made against the revising valuers; and, whether, if a list of cases is submitted to him, he will cause an extra departmental inquiry to be made into the allegations?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, my right hon. Friend has asked me to deal with this Question, as I have already been in correspondence with the hon. Member upon it. As regards the alleged "lumping," I have to say that in no case has any alteration of this nature been made in the valuation books for over 30 years; in fact, there is no legal power to do so. The whole difficulty has arisen from a decision of a Revising Barrister, which I have heard of with surprise; and I cannot ascertain how far it has been made the subject of appeal. In each of these three cases referred to in the Question the valuations are now exactly the same as they were 30 years ago. There is no power to revise in such cases except upon the evidence of the Ordnance Maps. But, as it may be possible in some cases to separate the holdings, a special inquiry will be made in the favourable summer weather, with the view of dividing them wherever the maps give sufficient detail. As regards the alleged reduction below the qualifying amount, there is here, again, a misapprehension of the powers and duties of the Valuation Office. No change in a valuation can be made except upon the initiative of the local authorities, and then only where there have been changes in the holding or in the buildings upon it. Only two cases are known to have arisen at the last revision where premises ceased to confer the franchise in this way, and in each of them the occupier had a qualification elsewhere in
  862
  the county. We are most anxious that everyone really qualified to vote should be able to do so, and if the hon. Member knows of any cases where votes have been lost through difficulties in the valuation, my right hon. Friend and I will give them our best personal consideration; but we must altogether repudiate the suggestion of partizan motives conveyed in the Question.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—OVER-WORKING-BRADFORD BOARD SCHOOL.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to a Memorial addressed to the School Board at Bradford, signed by over fifty medical men of that town, in which they pray the Board to direct that home lessons shall not be enforced on children under ten years of age; and, whether he proposes to take any steps to limit pressure upon children of tender age in this direction?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I have seen the Memorial in question, and I have read some of the statements made on its presentation as to the prevalence of brain disease among children. I find, however, that these statements are not corroborated by the Registrar General's Returns. I have every confidence that the Bradford School Board—which is an exceptionally able one—will exercise wisdom and discretion in dealing with the subject of over-pressure. In the Code which I have laid on the Table, it will be found that we have taken special precautions to prevent children being over-worked in schools—first, by directing that exceptionally dull children, or children who are weakly in body or delicate in health, or who have suffered from prolonged illness, shall be withheld from examination; secondly, by making it incumbent on managers that during the year prior to examination such children shall not be unduly pressed; thirdly, by enabling children who have failed in two subjects, or twice in one subject, to be re-examined in the same Standard. We shall also direct Her Majesty's Inspectors to see that these rules are carried into effect. But we are of opinion that no regulations which we could lay down would be effectual unless parents, teachers, and managers co-operate with the Department to protect the children.

  863
  There are nearly 5,000,000 of children on the rolls of public elementary schools in Great Britain, and it is impossible for a central Department to lay down hard-and-fast rules for the guidance of local authorities as to the due amount of instruction that may be given with safety to every child.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked whether the statement made by Dr. Alexander in bringing the Memorial before the Bradford School Board was untrue? The statement being that within the last three weeks he had seen no less than three cases of brain disease, one fatal, brought on by over-work in schools.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he did not know anything about Dr. Alexander's statement. What He had himself said was, that the statements as to the prevalence of brain disease during the last 15 years were not corroborated by the Registrar General's Returns.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make special inquiry into the serious allegations contained in the Report of Dr. Alexander?
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that whenever a case came before him he had ordered special inquiries to be made; but he could not undertake to inquire into the statements made by Dr. Alexander where the cases were not specified.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not inquire what the specific cases were?
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that he could not undertake to do so.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the Report of the Government Inspector on the case of Emma Rowley, a scholar in the British School at Cheltenham, who died of inflammation of the brain, confirms the evidence of Dr. Moseley, given at the coroner's inquest—
  "That the lessons which the deceased had to learn at school, coupled with the time devoted to study, was too great a mental strain for any healthy child of seven or eight years to bear, and, looking at the state of the deceased, the strain was much more severe. That he thought the mental strain she had to hear most certainly hastened her death; "
  and, whether it is true that the coroner, in his charge to the jury, declared—
  "That the evidence went far to confirm the growing feeling amongst the public that children
  864
  were too severely taxed as far as their education was concerned?"
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, we have received the Report of the Government Inspector, which does not confirm the opinion of Dr. Moseley, who is said to appear not to have any acquaintance with the requirements of the Code which he pronounces to be excessive. I must remind the House that Dr. Moseley stated at the inquest that Emma Rowley was suffering from inflammation of the right lung, and that the base of the left lung was congested, as well as from inflammation of the membranes of the brain, and that, at the post-mortem examination, "he discovered tubercles on the brain—in other words, that the primary or predisposing cause of the child's death was tubercular meningitis." Although the coroner is reported to have made the declaration quoted by the hon. Member, the jury, in their verdict, avoided all reference to mental strain, and stated that no blame attached to the teachers or the school authorities.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SECRET INSTRUCTIONS TO SCHOOL INSPECTORS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the secret instructions issued last year to Government School Inspectors remain in force; and, whether, in view of the importance of Parliament being kept acquainted with the interpretation placed on the Code, by the Department, and of the expediency of making known to school managers the authorised mode of assessing the grant, he will this year communicate to Parliament all the instructions of the Department to the school inspectors?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the instructions issued last year to School Inspectors were not so secret as the hon. Gentleman seems to suppose. Those instructions do remain in force; but we have made changes in the Code which will supersede some of them. It has never been found possible to administer properly the Parliamentary grant without issuing from time to time Circulars and confidential instructions to the many Inspectors who are in charge of school districts all over the country; and it is possible that after the next conference of Inspectors at Easter, in order to obtain uniformity of examination, additional

  865
  instructions may be requisite. If so, they will be issued; but I cannot undertake, contrary to the invariable practice of the Department, to lay such instructions before Parliament.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—SALARIES OF CONVENT TEACHERS.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that the salaries of Convent National Teachers are much lower than the salaries of Secular Teachers; and, if so, whether this grievance will be remedied by the Bill affecting National Teachers, which the Irish Government has promised to bring in this Session?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Convent National teachers are in all cases at liberty to adopt the principle of classification, and when they do so their salaries are the same as those of secular teachers. When they do not adopt this principle, the amount of salary is regulated by the average number of pupils in daily attendance, and is considerably less than it would be if the teachers were classified. I cannot at present enter into details as to any of the provisions of the Bill which I intend to introduce.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he still adheres to his determination to postpone the introduction of this Bill until after the Sunday Closing Bill has been disposed of?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could not answer the Question without some consideration.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS ACTS-DEATH FROM LEAD POISONING AT JARROW—CASE OF MARY WALSH.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the verdict of a jury at an adjourned inquest on the body of Mary Walsh, at the Police Court at Jarrow, on the 27th instant; whether such verdict was to the effect that the deceased died from the effects of chronic lead poisoning, contracted while following her employment; and, whether he has directed a special Report of the Inspector of Factories to be made upon the case; and, if so, whether he would consent to lay it upon the Table of the House?
  MR. HIBBERT, in reply, said, it appeared that at the works where the
  866
  woman in question was employed every protection was given to the workpeople.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE X.—BULGARIA—THE VARNA RAILWAY.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Delegates of the Bulgarian Government have broken off negotiations on the subject of the Varna Railway, upon which they have been engaged for six months, and are leaving the country to-morrow, without making any arrangement to carry out the 10th Article of the Treaty of Berlin; and, if so, what course Her Majesty's Government propose to take to insist upon its performance?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the Bulgarian Delegates have not left the country. Although their present proposals have not been accepted by the Company, a reasonable time must be allowed to elapse for the further consideration by them of the counter-proposals of the Company. These negotiations are without prejudice to the proposal for arbitration by the Ambassadors, in the event of the negotiations failing; a proposal which, in principle, has been accepted by the Bulgarian Government.
  MR. DIXON - HARTLAND: The noble Lord has not answered the last part of my Question.
  LORD EDMOND -FITZMAURICE: I informed the hon. Member the other day that if these negotiations failed, then Her Majesty's Government would naturally revert to the proposal to submit the matter to arbitration.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: Does the noble Lord mean that they will take no further steps than they have taken for six years past?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I can only inform the hon. Member that Papers containing a full account of what has passed on this matter will shortly be laid before the House.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—PENSIONS TO SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. ROUNDasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he is prepared to consider favourably the case of the teachers in elementary schools who having entered the profession under a Parliamentary guarantee of a pension, and having fulfilled all the conditions

  867
  imposed by Parliament, are denied the pension because the fund is exhausted?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I am anxious to be able to deal more favourably than at present with the applications for pensions from the teachers referred to by the hon. Member; and their case is now under consideration. But the Committee of this House who considered this subject in 1872 did not admit that the teachers "entered the profession under a Parliamentary guarantee." They reported that the Minutes of 1846 sanctioning a limited number of pensions "were not intended to hold out any promise," and "that the Committee of Council on Education took powers, but did not pledge themselves to grant pensions." We are, however, submitting the whole of the facts to the Treasury for their consideration.

  NAVY—CONVEYANCE OF TROOPS—THE ROYAL MARINES.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the fact that the battalion of Royal Marines which left England in the Poonah, were transferred at Malta to the Gilsland, on board which ship the accommodation was very inferior; whether the Royal Marines were put to this inconvenience in order to embark the 38th Regiment on board the Poonah; whether the same thing did not occur in 1882, when the Marine Battalion embarked for Egypt in the Orantes were transferred to another ship at Gibraltar, in order to make room for a Line Regiment; and, what is the reason for submitting the Royal Marines to this kind of inconvenience?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, before replying to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, perhaps he will allow me to express my belief that his Question cannot have been inspired by any member of the Corps of Royal Marines, who, I feel sure, would be the last to complain of any inconvenience to which the exigencies of the Public Service might expose them. The facts of the case are these. The Poonah was chartered to convey 500 Marines to Malta only. The Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean had ordered 256 Marines to be sent from Malta to Alexandria, and the Gilsland was taken up at Malta for that purpose. Before the Poonah arrived it was decided to send a battalion of the Line from Malta to Alexandria, and the
  868
  Poonah was engaged for that duty, as she could take the whole battalion and other drafts, while the Gilsland could only accommodate 400. The Gilsland was accordingly got ready to leave Malta with Marines immediately on their arrival. Before their arrival Lord John Hay ordered all the 500 Marines to Alexandria; and the Gilsland, therefore, proceeded at once with all she could carry—namely, 400. The Poonah followed with 944 soldiers without dividing the battalion. The hon. and gallant Member refers to the case of the Orontes in 1882. That vessel conveyed 800 Marines for the Mediterranean Station with orders to transfer them to the Tamar at Gibraltar, because the Orontes was required to convey thence to Malta or Egypt the Berkshire Regiment with its transport animals, a duty which she was capable of performing, but for which the Tamar was not large enough, although she had ample accommodation for the Marines. From this detailed explanation the House will see that in both instances our action was governed by a consideration of the interests of the Public Service, to which I am certain that no Royal Marine, whether officer, non-commissioned officer, or private would desire his personal convenience to be preferred.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMasked, whether it was the fact that the military authorities at Malta had refused to permit a certain body of Regular soldiers to proceed to Egypt in the Gilsland?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: If the noble Lord desires information on that subject I must ask him to give Notice of his Question.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMgave Notice that he would repeat his Question on Monday.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS IN THE SOUDAN)—THE BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE—SUPPLY OF ARTILLERY.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, On what date General Stephenson applied for a battery of Artillery to accompany Sir Gerald Graham's Force; on what date the application was refused; what were the reasons for refusing such an application; whether it was originally intended that the guns should be dragged through heavy sand and soil, under the

  869
  disadvantages of heat and thirst, as appears from the following extract from Sir Gerald Graham's General Order:—
  "The General Officer Commanding thanks the Naval Brigade for their cheerful endurance during the severe work of dragging the guns over difficult country when suffering from heat and scarcity of water, and for their ready gallantry and steadiness under fire while serving the guns. The Naval Brigade contributed materially to the success of the action, and the General Officer Commanding cannot too highly express his thanks for their services;"
  and, whether it was intended that Sir Gerald Graham should do without the Artillery, which thus accompanied him?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: General Stephenson inquired on the 14th of February whether a battery of Horse Artillery might be sent, as advised by Baker Pasha. On the following day he was instructed not to send it. General Gordon had, before his departure, emphatically deprecated the employment of Field Artillery in desert warfare, and had expressed an opinion that Hicks Pasha's defeat might have been caused by his being encumbered with guns, in which view he was supported by Lord Wolseley. It was considered, among other reasons, that the employment of horses should be diminished as much as possible, owing to scarcity of water. Ten mountain guns were sent on camels with General Graham's force, and that amount of Artillery was considered ample for the operation to be undertaken. The following is an extract from the Minute of Lord Wolseley, to which I refer:—
  "To have sent field guns with the force intended for the relief of Tokar would have added greatly to the difficulty of the water supply, as water would have to be carried on camels for the horses. Every extra camel accompanying the little force under General Graham weakens the fighting power of that force, as the protection of your camel train, when engaged in the desert with Arabs, is one of the most serious difficulties to be encountered. It is by no means certain that horses could drag the guns beyond Teb. Anyone who saw the attempt made on the evening of the 24th of August, 1882, and during the following night, by the Horse Artillery, to get their guns and ammunition waggons to the front for the action which was expected the following morning, will realize how absurd it would have been to have sent Field Artillery on wheels with the Tokar expedition."
  It must be understood that Lord Wolseley, in expressing this opinion, does not impute the slightest blame to the Artillery. He merely explains the
  870
  enormous difficulties of dragging guns of considerable weight through the sands of the desert.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked whether it was not more difficult for sailors and artillerymen to draw the guns than for horses to draw them? He also wished to know whether, in the expedition now being prepared against Osman Digna, there would be Field Artillery; and, if so, whether sailors and artillerymen were to drag the guns?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have not yet received information as to the circumstances under which the Naval Brigade attached to General Graham's force thought it necessary to take these guns with them. The Naval Brigade did not form part of the force as organized either in Egypt or in this country. No doubt, General Graham was extremely glad to employ the sailors who were available at Trinkitat, and the best way to employ them was in dragging the guns as they had done on many former occasions. The force which is now about to be sent, from Suakin will not have any Field Artillery. Orders were sent to the General Officer Commanding in Cairo and to General Graham to make any demand for this Artillery which they might consider necessary; but I have heard recently that General Graham is not going to employ any field guns.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE RIOTS AT LONDONDERRY—REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Report of the Commissioners, sent to Londonderry to inquire into the circumstances of wounding a man at the time of the visit of the late Lord Mayor of Dublin, will be laid upon the Table of the House and printed before the coming assizes?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Report will be presented as soon as the Government have considered it with the evidence, and have come to conclusions about it. I have not heard from Ireland whether it has been resolved to change the venue in this case; but I am sure that if, in the interests of justice, it is thought right to have a change of venue, the House of Commons will not be disposed to interfere with the proceedings.
  MR. HEALY: I wish to ask whether it is a fact that the change of venue has not been granted at all; and whether Doherty has been allowed out of gaol because he became suddenly sick and unable to undertake the journey?
  [No reply was given.]

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether fishing vessels will be exempted from the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Bill?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; they will be exempted from the provisions of the present Bill; but if the fishermen or smack-owners should desire that any portion of the Bill should be applied to their industry, that can be most conveniently done by a subsequent measure.
  MR. GIBSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether there is any truth in the report that the Merchant Shipping Bill, which stands for Second Beading on Monday next, will not be further proceeded with; and, whether, in the event of its being pressed forward, he intends, in deference to repeated requests, to refer it to a Select Committee?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; there is no truth in the report to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers. As regards his second Question, I can only say that I am now in communication with the representatives of the various interests affected by this Bill; and, under these circumstances, I think, at the present time, it would be premature to announce any decision on the part of the Government.

  IRELAND—GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE, DUBLIN.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Secretary in the General Register Office, Dublin, has lately assumed the title of Assistant Registrar General; whether he is authorised in so doing; whether any new responsibilities have been placed upon this officer; and, whether any increase of salary has been, or is about to be, attached to the office of secretary, in consequence of any new title or duties?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Matheson, the Secretary in the Department mentioned, was appointed Assistant Registrar General on the 18th of October, 1879, by the Registrar General with the approval of the then Lord Lieutenant, in accordance with Section 10 of the Act 26 Vict., c. 11. He is, therefore, authorized to assume the title, as he has done for more than three years. The duties and responsibilities are those constituted under the section mentioned, and are only occasional. There is no salary attached to the office, nor is it intended to increase the salary attached to the office of Secretary.

  EGYPT (AFFAIRS OF THE SOUDAN)—THE PROCLAMATION OF GENERAL GRAHAM AND ADMIRAL HEWETT.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had placed on the Paper the following Question:—To ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Joint Proclamation of Admiral Hewett and General Graham contains anything of the character of the following expressions reported by The Standard Correspondent at Suakin, under date March 5th:—
  "The English Force have come here not only to relieve Tokar, but to redress the wrongs under which you have so long suffered: "
  "The Great God who rules the Universe dare not send such scoundrels as Osman Digna:"
  "Awake; chase Osman Digna from your country:"
  "We promise protection and pardon to all who come in at once; otherwise the fate of those who fell at El Teb shall surely overtake you; "
  and, if the Government does not approve of the Proclamation, whether they will take steps to obviate the misconception of their policy? The hon. Member said, the Question had been somewhat emasculated and edited. Perhaps, therefore, he had better simply ask the noble Lord whether the Proclamation appearing in The Standard was a substantially correct version; and, if not, what was the correct version? He would also ask, in reference to an expression by the Prime Minister, as reported in The Standard, whether there was any reason to suppose that the Proclamation emanated from General Gordon?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I certainly never heard any assertion made that this Proclamation emanated from General Gordon. I believe it is a fact that a Proclamation of this character has been issued by Admiral

  873
  Hewett and General Graham at Suakin. I am not, however, prepared to guarantee the exact accuracy of the translation of the Arabic original that has been telegraphed to this country. I am not certain, but I apprehend that it has been issued in Arabic, and certainly it appears to be composed in an Eastern style, and very different from that ordinarily adopted in documents of this description addressed to Western people. I am not prepared to say, on behalf of the Government, that they disapprove this Proclamation. I think that, probably, the terms employed are such as were supposed to be most effective for the purpose of inducing the tribes assembled under the leadership of Osman Digna to disperse peaceably, without any further effusion of blood. I think it extremely probable that those who are at Suakin are better acquainted with the circumstances of Osman Digna's private character than we are.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION COURT—SUB-COMMISSION SITTING AT NAVAN.
  MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. SHEIL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a special Sub-Commission of the Land Court is to sit at Navan on the 17th of March; and, who are to be the members of this Sub-Commission?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Land Commissioners inform me that the Sub-Commission will sit in ordinary course at Navan on the 17th of March, as is announced in the published Circuit Lists. The members of the Sub-Commission are Messrs. Doyle, Howlan, Guiry, Davys, and Johnston.

  GIBRALTAR—CESSION TO SPAIN.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (for Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any communications have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Spain, or whether any other steps have been taken with the view of ceding Gibraltar to Spain?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question is "No."

  SUPPLY—ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES—VOTES OF CREDIT.
  MR. RAIKESasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that
  874
  the Estimate for the expenditure involved in strengthening Her Majesty's Forces in the Mediterranean in connection with the Expedition to Egypt in 1882 was presented to this House in the form of a Vote of Credit, by Her Majesty's Command; whether this Estimate was not presented by Her Majesty's present Government subsequently to the recent Report of the Committee on Public Accounts on the subject of Votes of Credit; and, whether he can state to the House the reasons which have led Her Majesty's Government to depart from this and other precedents in submitting the Vote for the Red Sea Expedition as part of the Supplementary Estimates for Army Services on the present occasion?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I find no fault with the Question, and I find no fault with the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend. But I answer the Question because it refers to an act of my own as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Question has three paragraphs. In regard to the first two, they are recitals of fact, and I believe they are accurate. With regard to the third paragraph, I think I may state very briefly what the history of these Votes of Credit has been. It is not going back very far, for 15 or 20 years ago Votes of Credit were unlimited in all respects. In the first place, the sums mentioned in them were disposable among any of the Military Services, thereby entailing a great abridgment of the power and privilege of Parliament; and, in the second place, they might be spent at any time. When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the second Government of Lord Palmerston I think, I remember paying money under a Vote of Credit for the Russian War, which had closed, I believe, six or seven years before. The first reform was, I rather think, when Lord Sherbrooke was Chancellor of the Exchequer; and that was that Votes of Credit, instead of being available without limit of time, were confined to the year in which they were voted. That removed one objection to Votes of Credit. They still remained, however, available for any of the Services. Then came the investigation of the Committee, and the Government read the Report of the Committee, to the effect that it decidedly prefers the form of Estimates to be adopted with

  875
  reference to Votes of Credit; and, consequently, the Treasury had proceeded upon the principle whenever it could be done. In this case the Vote was for a limited service, and for a service to be performed in a limited time, inasmuch as this Estimate is only available to the 31st of the present month. The Department, under these circumstances, were able to estimate with the usual degree of accuracy required in an Estimate of this kind; and, in conformity with the distinct recommendation of the Committee, the form of Estimate was preferred. In 1882 the sum was very large, and the service to which it was applicable might have extended to a period of no less than eight months. It was not possible, then, to frame an Estimate with sufficient accuracy to justify us in asking Parliament for money in that form. On that account the shape of the Vote of Credit was taken; but the rule which may be said to be established by the Treasury is, that whenever an Estimate can be framed by the Departments, this form of Estimates is preferred, as it would be by the Committee. Where the money cannot be asked in the form of Estimate on account of the magnitude or the indefiniteness of the service, the form of a Vote of Credit is necessarily the result.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER—RULES AND ORDERS OF THE HOUSE-QUESTIONS.
  MR. M'COANsaid, he desired to take the opinion of the Speaker on a point of Order, which not merely affected himself, but concerned also every private Member in the House. It would be in the recollection of the House that yesterday he put a Question on the Notice Paper with regard to the conduct of our Agent in Egypt, in connection with the suppression of a French newspaper published in Cairo. After he had asked his Question another hon. Member opposite rose, and asked leave to couple with it another Question to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) with reference to another paper. The noble Lord, in a manner which it was not for him (Mr. M'Coan) to call evasive, answered the Question put by the hon. Member opposite; but when he had done so he sat down, without giving a reply to his (Mr. M'Coan's)
  876
  first Question. He (Mr. M'Coan) then, as respectfully as he could, asked for a reply to his own Question; but the noble Lord sat in what, if the adjective were not un-Parliamentary, he might call contumacious silence. Therefore he had no choice but to rise and give Notice that he would repeat his Question to-day. Half-an-hour after he handed the Question to the Clerk at the Table, and expected to see it on the Notice Paper. To his surprise, he found that the Question had not been put on the Paper; and, from what he had been able to ascertain on inquiry, it appeared that after he had handed the Question in, the Clerk had communicated with the noble Lord to know whether it would be convenient for him to answer it, and, the noble Lord's reply being that it would not be officially convenient for him to do so, the Question was suppressed. Apart from any question of courtesy or respect to hon. Members, it appeared to him that the matter was one so much affecting the rights and privileges of Members that he had no choice but to ask the Speaker for his ruling.
  MR. SPEAKER: I was not aware of the specific point to be brought to my notice by the hon. Member for Wicklow County (Mr. M'Coan). If the hon. Member complains that the noble Lord did not answer a Question put to him by the hon. Member, I have to say that it is within the province of any Member of the Government to decline to give an answer to any Question put to him, if he considers that course to be in the interests of the Public Service; and in that case the responsibility for so declining rests entirely with the Member of the Government. If the hon. Member complains of any action taken by the Clerk at the Table, I am informed that what passed was, that the Question was handed in the ordinary form and presented to the Clerk at the Table; and I would remind the hon. Member that any Question so put in becomes the public property of the House, and is entitled to be seen by any Member of the House. I am assured that nothing more passed between any Clerk at the Table and the noble Lord than that the Clerk simply handed the Question to the noble Lord for information, which it is conducive to the interest of Public Business should be given, and which greatly facilitates the labours of this House.
  MR. M'COAN: One remark, Sir, in partial correction of your views. My appeal to you was not intended as a complaint against the Clerks at the Table, to whose courtesy I am constantly indebted, but was intended to bring to your knowledge that which I think was an interference with the usual practice, the suppression of my Question. I do not complain that the Notice of the Question was communicated to the noble Lord, although I see a connection between its communication to him and its non-appearance on the Paper; but I wish to ask you, was it competent for the Clerk to suppress a Question which had been already printed, and has appeared on the Paper?
  MR. SPEAKER: It would have been very convenient if the hon. Member had communicated with me beforehand as to the exact point he has to complain of, because his Question now comes on me by surprise. If the Question handed in by the hon. Member was substantially the same——
  MR. M'COAN: Identically.
  MR. SPEAKER: Identically the same with that which was previously asked, and which the noble Lord declined to answer, I am not prepared to say an identical Question can be repeated.
  MR. M'COAN: He did not decline to answer the Question, but sat down without making any reply at all.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SUPPLY—ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES—FURTHER VOTES OF CREDIT.
  MR. RAIKESasked the Prime Minister, Whether, in the event of military operations on the Red Sea littoral extending beyond the 31st of March—that was, beyond the end of the financial year—the Government proposed to come to the House for a further Vote of Credit?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is a Question which would be more conveniently put to a Member of the War Department, because he would be able to answer with greater confidence. I limit myself to this—that the money which we are now asking Parliament for is only available to the 31st March. I do not wish to contemplate any possibility of going beyond that.
  MR. SALTasked after what hour the Supplementary Estimates would not be taken?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I was in hope, from the extreme languor which, to say the least of it, characterized the greater part of the debate last night, that a portion of this evening might have sufficed to bring it to a natural death; but I am told that that is not so. If that is the case, I think it would be more for the convenience of those who desire to take part in it that we should not revert to it to-night; and, consequently, we propose to take the Civil Service Estimates to-night, and postpone the other.
  MR. SALT: At what hour would the Civil Service Estimates be taken?
  MR. GLADSTONE: They would stand as usual; and if the House finds it worth while to go on with them, they will be proceeded with.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked if the Prime Minister proposed to take advantage of any opportunity there might be that evening for proceeding with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: What we are endeavouring to do is to get the second reading taken by consent. If we could do that, it would be desirable to take it as early as possible.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ARMY—COMMISSARIAT AND TRANSPORT SERVICES (EGYPTIAN AND AFGHAN CAMPAIGNS).

  RESOLUTION.
  DR. CAMERON, in rising to call attention to the cruelty, waste of money, and danger to British Arms, in recent campaigns, caused by the defective organization of the Indian and British Transport and Commissariat Services; and to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the working of the Commissariat and Transport Services of the British and Indian Armies in the recent Egyptian and Afghan Campaigns, and to consider what changes, if any, are required to secure increased efficiency in these Services,"
  said, that on the Army Estimates last year he ventured to call attention to sundry shortcomings in connection with

  879
  the Commissariat and Transport arrangements of the last Egyptian Campaign. There never had been a war in which more ample opportunity had been afforded for preparation; and, at the same time, there had never been a war which more conclusively demonstrated the utter incapacity of these Departments to cope with the demands of actual warfare. Telegraphing the other day—on the 26th February—from Suakin, the Correspondent of The Daily News said—
  "Dr. Macdowell, the chief medical officer, complains that his transport is insufficient, and says he will have the greatest difficulty to meet the requirements if casualties in the coming fight amount to, say, even 300."
  Of course, he did not found his case upon that. He intended to rest it solely upon well-substantiated facts, and he referred to this telegram simply because, if substantiated, it would show that one of the most glaring faults of the last campaign was being again repeated in Egypt. At the end of a campaign it was usual for the gentlemen at the head of the several Departments of the Army to make Departmental Reports. He would like to know from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War whether it was not the fact that the head of the Commissariat Department drew up a Departmental Report in connection with the operations of the last Egyptian War; and whether it was not true that in that Report the Chief of the Department said the Department had got into a positively unworkable state, that it was going from bad to worse, and that immediate re-organization was necessary if its efficiency was to be maintained? In the discussion on the Army Estimates last year the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil)—whose opinion was of great value, because at one time he was Chief of the Ordnance—said his view was that, if it should be found necessary at the present moment, the country could not send out an Army Corps consisting of 20,000 men. [Lord EUSTACE CECIL30,000.] That was a very unsatisfactory state of matters with which to rest content; and if it was a true representation of the state of affairs, it was clear that if at any time we should find ourselves confronted with a well-organized and powerful foe we might have to pay very dearly for our neglect. In the last Egyptian War every branch of the transport broke down.
  880
  The divisional transport, the auxiliary transport, the regimental transport alike broke down, and the commissariat arrangements entirely broke down, so far as they depended upon transport, and so far as they hung upon the absurd system of purchase and handling of supplies en route. According to the plan of the campaign, a Transport Corps was to have been attached to each Army division; but the transport belonging to one division did not land at Alexandria for a fortnight after the division to which it belonged arrived, and the result was that so much valuable time was thus lost in getting the men accustomed to their work. At Ismailia only one division—the second—was able to march with its transport. The first division and the Cavalry division landed without their transport, and the result was a very great amount of inconvenience and a very considerable amount of delay. Now, he asked, who was to blame for this dislocation of departmental arrangements? He confessed he did not know. Last year, with a view of raising the question, he put down a Motion for the reduction of the salary of the Director of Supplies, and the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil) then said—
  "It was far from his object to suggest that, if any official ought to be censured, it should be a subordinate, but that the censure should go higher; and in reference to that point He would say nothing as to whether, in his opinion, the responsibility ought to rest upon the General or his Chief of the Staff."—(3 Hansard, [280] 1720.)
  Now, he (Dr. Cameron) did not pretend to allocate blame; but what he would say was this—that the Commissariat Department entirely repudiated the blame. Therefore the matter was precisely one of those where inquiry was very desirable. At work in Egypt our transport arrangements proved utterly inefficient. The divisional transport attached to one division was unable to carry forward two days' supplies. No provision was made in the departmental scale for the carriage of fuel and forage; and the consequence was that, in order to make room for these, so much of the supplies for men had to be left behind. In one division, out of 55 baggage carts, 26 were taken up by the Divisional and Brigade Staffs and Commissariat and Transport gear, leaving only 29 for the carriage of supplies. The carts sent out had been reported over and over again as

  881
  unfitted for the work. The drivers, supplied chiefly from the Infantry and the Militia Reserve, knew nothing of the management of horses, could neither ride nor drive properly, and the saddles supplied had been discarded in every branch of the Army as calculated to produce sore backs. Then, when we got hold of the railway, there was no one to control the movement of supplies, and there were constant complaints that the supplies most urgently wanted and ordered up could not be got to the front. Now, this question of the railway service was a most important one in modern warfare. In a war in Europe the railway would be to us of vital importance. The whole war would require to be fought out on the railways. Sir Robert Rawlinson stated that a railway was sent out to Egypt; but he (Dr. Cameron) was told by officers who were there that though it was understood that locomotives and other plant were sent out, when they were wanted they could not be got out of the vessels in which they were loaded, and were consequently sent home. When this matter was under discussion last year the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said that when our Army landed at Ismailia there was absolutely no transport, and the statement of the hon. and gallant Baronet was quite correct. The hon. and gallant Baronet, moreover, said that at that precise juncture any number of camels could have been had on the spot at £16 a head, including kits; but, he added, a General Order had been issued that camels were not to be bought, and, owing to this red-tape regulation, the much-needed transport could not be procured. The Commissary General and the Transport Department were not to blame. They were not consulted; the Commissary General was, he understood, not even told of the intention of the Commander-in-Chief to change the base of operations in Ismailia. He went without being informed of what was to take place, or being afforded an opportunity of making arrangements. At that moment mules were being purchased at Smyrna, Syria, and elsewhere; but the purchase and shipment of these animals was conducted in such an unskilful way that out of 1,100 sent to Egypt, two-thirds, when landed, were totally unfit for work. Of the purchase of one lot of mules—those
  882
  bought at Smyrna—he had been able to bring the particulars before the public. The purchase of these mules at Smyrna was effected in a most unbusiness-like manner. They were bought contrary to the advice of the veterinary surgeon, sent out with the officer intrusted with the purchase—that officer did not belong to the Commissariat Department—and they were sent on a voyage of nine days to Ismailia with nothing to feed upon except chopped straw. The result was that out of 600 animals 400 were landed unfit for service. Some were sold, some were shot, and the rest were got to work in from a week to a fortnight. But they were landed on September 5, and Tel-el-Kebir was fought on September 13; so that at the precise juncture when most needed they were unfit to work, and could not be got to work until the war had been decided. The saddles and saddlery sent from England were faulty. A quantity of Turkish pack-saddles which were procured were even worse. Many of them bore stains which testified to their powers of galling previous animals that had carried them, and, the mode of loading them not being apparent, they had to be recon-signed into store. The drivers sent out from England were inefficient; but the auxiliary drivers hired at Malta, Cyprus, and elsewhere were worse. They were described as a "rabble," hired under various agreements, which were not always kept, and as being sent out without proper clothing or war equipment. No pay books were forthcoming for long after the troops were landed, and the payments to the auxiliary drivers were irregular, and the desertions numerous. The regimental transport was on a scale corresponding with the rest. Each regiment on a war footing was supposed to include a certain amount of transport—men, waggons, and horses. But the horses were non-existent, or existed only on paper; the men were volunteers selected from the ranks at the last moment, and not half trained to their work; and as to the waggons, it was found when they were used in Egypt that the regulation number of horses, two to each cart, could not drag them empty over the sand. The consequence was that the regimental transport was constantly left far behind, and that large quantities of supplies were lost through its inefficiency. Indeed, so hopeless did some

  883
  of the troops come to consider it to carry forward their reserve supplies by means of their regimental transport that they gave up the attempt altogether; and on one occasion a ton of biscuits and preserved meat, and about the same amount of oats, barley, and potatoes, intended for use on the following day, were found to have been deliberately abandoned on the camping ground from which our men had just marched. He might amplify these cases, but must pass on to the Commissariat. Among other provisions sent out was two months' flour. It was bought without consulting the Commissary General or his Staff. It was shipped in a manner of which the experience of the Commissariat Department led them to disapprove, and, when landed in Egypt and baked, the bread made from it was so bad as to be unfit for human food. That was the description given of it before Lord Morley's Committee. It was of the utmost importance to get at the second consignment of flour, which, though bad, was not so bad as the first. When the Commissariat officers at Ismailia proceeded to search for it, they found it so stowed away on board the Empusa that it took them two days of hard work to get at it. Groceries were urgently needed; but it took three days to get at the tea on board the Amethyst, and five days to get to the sugar. A lot of stores were sent out in cases so weak that they got smashed in the transit, and the stores were destroyed. Quantities of goods were sent out in cases too large for convenient handling, and had to be repacked. The wood supplied to the troops was in such large blocks that, where Native labour was not available to break it up, great inconvenience was entailed upon the troops dependent on it. A large quantity of the hay which was sent out was pressed by some new patent process, and was landed in such a musty and mildewed condition that it had to be used for bedding. Now, who was responsible for all this? Not the Commissariat Department. They were not consulted, as he had said, about the purchase of the flour, or about its mode of shipment, any more than they were about the hay or the mules. Both these operations were conducted in direct defiance of their experience. It was the system, the entire system, that was at fault. What he wanted was an independent inquiry into this system of divided responsibility and
  884
  no one to blame. He understood that a departmental inquiry had been instituted; but he had heard of a good number of departmental inquiries, and he never knew one to end in any much more thorough-going reform than the establishment of some new lucrative berth for some favoured official. They had had far too many departmental inquiries in connection with the Commissariat. What was wanted was a good, thorough, and independent investigation. They knew what a prominent part sausages played in the German War. Well, sausages and cheese were sent out to Egypt; but they did not arrive till our troops occupied Cairo. A corps of Indian muleteers were sent, but did not arrive till the war was over. Stationery forms were always in great request in war time. All sorts of requisitions and transactions required stationery forms. Well, stationery forms were sent out, but were not landed in Egypt till a month after the troops had arrived. All the weighing machines sent out were found, when landed, to be broken. A lot of iron huts sent out did not arrive till the war was concluded, and the siege train, he understood, suffered the same fate. He again asked the noble Lord, had not the head of the Commissariat Department, who declared that it was in an unworkable condition, indicated that, so far from being in the way of improving, it was going from bad to worse? He asked him, had any of the recommendations which had been based on the experience of the Egyptian Campaign been carried into effect, or was the Department still in the same unworkable condition which its Chief admitted and lamented? It would be said he exaggerated. He could only say that if he got the Committee he asked for he was prepared to prove every statement he had made. He now came to the Afghan War. Telegraphing from Simla in June, 1879, The Times Correspondent said—
  "It is earnestly to be hoped that the successful termination of the campaign may not prevent the fullest inquiry into the causes of mismanagement so discreditable and so dangerous. The Khyber Force, was," he adds, "for some time so helpless, owing to the want of transport, that they could not have advanced to Cabul if Yakoob Khan had defied us."
  In March of the same year, 1879, an officer of high rank in our Army, in a private letter which he held in his Land, wrote—

  885
  "There is no doubt about the fact, which will come out some day, that the Candahar Force under General Stewart could not get on farther than Candahar owing to the great mortality among the transport animals."
  Mr. Charles Williams, an experienced war correspondent, in his notes on the first portion of the Afghan War, said that in consequence of the impossibility of bringing up food for the Kurrum column the Native troops had to be put upon half-rations—
  "Seven hundred camels died in a week, and in less than a month it came about that this column could neither feed itself nor move back for food from want of transport. Nor was it much better, "he added," with General Biddulph's column; and it is a matter of fact that General Lacy's brigade was kept oscillating on the road between Candahar and Giriskh in this wise—when provisions reached it from Candahar it moved towards Giriskh three or four marches. As they were consumed, and the camels died, the brigade fell back towards Candahar until it met another convoy, when it resumed its march. And this was repeated not merely once or twice."
  In his work on the Afghan War, Mr. Duke had published a letter from General Roberts in which that officer wrote—"In the Kurrum Pass our great difficulty was want of transport; "and if he were to quote from the work of Mr. Howard Hensman he might multiply evidence to the same effect. The history of the whole campaign was, however, summed up by a well-informed officer who had written to him (Dr. Cameron) in this single sentence—" Over and over again our columns could not move for want of transport." Had they been in such condition in the presence of a daring and enterprizing foe, the inability of the troops to move must certainly have led to disaster. He would not argue the question as to whether camels were the proper animals to employ in such a campaign; but, evidently, if used, only strong adult camels should have been relied upon for such service. But that was very far from being the system adopted by the Indian Department. Baby camels, camels incapacitated from age, ponies barely able to drag their own carcases through the campaign, were all bought up for the Transport Service.
  "Anything more atrocious than the cruelty and neglect culminating in such tremendous losses as occurred in the Afghan Campaign I have never heard or read of."
  These were the words of an officer of
  886
  great experience, and thoroughly well entitled to speak on the subject.
  "Putting aside," he continued, "the horrid cruelty, the direct loss must have been immense; but the indirect loss will be felt in the agricultural districts from which the animals were drawn for long years to come."
  And in this connection Mr. Charles Williams mentioned that, in the opinion of the civil authorities in Scinde, one-third of the available animals in Scinde were used up in the first phase of the Afghan War. And the officer from whom he was quoting went on to say—
  "Veterinary science in the Afghan, as in the Egyptian Campaign, was utterly ignored by the Indian authorities. There was no veterinary organization—nothing but the grossest mismanagement as far as animals were concerned."
  The Indian authorities entertained the utmost contempt for the dictates of veterinary science, and the result was that they neutralized in Afghanistan and afterwards in Egypt the elaborate precautions we took with the animals intended for the Transport Service of our troops. The letter from Simla already referred to contained the following words:—
  "I forward by this mail Civil and Military Gazette of 19th March, 1879. It will give you an idea of the fearful mortality among the camels at the front, and really we cannot be surprised at the loss. I have been fighting for sanction for administrative veterinary officers to be posted with the various columns at the front; but the Government will not sanction the expense. However, facts are cropping up showing the grossest neglect—or, rather, I should call it rascality. Steele reports that out of 70 camels he examined lying dead at Quetta 26 were but two years old. Mr. Edwards, veterinary surgeon, reports that many of the female camels were with calf, and died of slipping their calves. Thousands of animals have died from neglect, ignorance, and rascality. The officers of the Transport have been chiefly taken from Infantry regiments, and are ignorant to a degree upon all subjects pertaining to animals. I have reported all this officially, and there is sure to be an investigation, and Government is sure to burke the whole thing."
  From that extract it would appear that the facts had been all officially reported, and if the Committee were granted, he should be able to prove, by means of the Reports, the facts he had stated. The Report had, of course, been burked, as it was predicted it would be. He wanted the facts brought to light for the sake of the efficiency of the Service, because

  887
  India was going on pursuing the even tenour of her way; and on the first occasion on which our troops had to cooperate with Indian troops, if let alone, she was sure to land us in some mess. He now came to the cruelty and waste. If the House thought the statements he had to make were incredible—and to his mind they were so horrible as to make him wish to be able to believe they were incredible—all he could say was that if he got the Committee he undertook to prove every one of them. In the Kurrum column, of 6,000 animals 40 per cent were reported as either too young, too old, or in other respects so physically incapable of performing the work of the campaign that it was sheer waste of public money to buy them. Everywhere the veterinary surgeons reported the same thing as to the large number of unfit animals purchased for the Transport Service in the Afghan Campaign. Of a batch of 400 ponies inspected at Jhelum, 395 were condemned as utterly unfit for the work. Again and again he found it reported that when animals had been purchased under proper veterinary supervision, the fact that they had been so purchased was at once apparent, and among them the number of rejections for unfitness for work was not more than 5 per cent. But the Indian authorities treated veterinary opinions with the most profound contempt. They held, he was told, that the requirements of the veterinary surgeons were far too high, and maintained that what they wanted was baggage animals that could carry a load of so many pounds weight. Accordingly, they loaded the wretched animals, including the condemned ponies, and sent the 395 to the front with the rest. The result was that the miserable brutes died by the way, and we lost not only the money expended in purchasing them, but also the loads they carried. Anything more cruel than sending on animals unfit for such service was to him inconceivable. They stood as so many animals of burden on paper; but we lost both the animals and their loads. No improvement in this state of things took place as the war went on, and it was estimated by competent authorities that in the two phases of the Afghan Campaign no fewer than 60,000 animals and 30,000 other baggage and slaughter animals died, and of these it was estimated that at least
  888
  one-half died because they were utterly unfit for the work for which they were bought. He did not know the exact value of the animals thus purchased; but, taking the camels at £20 a-head, the loss sustained in camels alone must have been upwards of £500,000 sterling, and the cost directly and indirectly to the British taxpayer in beasts and material, including the loss caused by the delays from the breakdown of the transport, must have amounted to many times that sum. And now he came to the cruelty, and he ventured to say that any man with the smallest feelings of humanity would shudder at the barest recital of it. From every quarter it was described as having been simply atrocious. The transport animals were in charge of ignorant Native salootries or farriers. Infectious diseases were rife amongst the animals; and no precautions were taken to prevent their spread. Animals suffering from rinderpest, scabies, glanders, and pleuro-pneumonia were beaten forward with the rest without any precaution taken to separate them, and the consequence was that every elephant in the Kurrum column got the foot-and-mouth disease, and in some cases the soles of their feet sloughed off, carrying the nails with them. No provision was made for shoeing animals; and at a dozen stations visited by one veterinary officer there were no shoes, no nails, no workmen. No care was taken to prevent sore backs; there were no dressings, no medicines, no instruments. It was with difficulty veterinary surgeons could get sacking to put over wounds to keep off the flies. At Quetta, out of 15,000 animals 80 per cent of the ponies and 20 per cent of the mules suffered from sore backs. At Cabul there were 1,700 cases of sore backs. Hon. Members might think it absurd to make so much fuss about sore backs; but the sore backs to which he referred were such as, by their extent and fœtor, sickened even the most experienced veterinary surgeons—backs on which the packs had eaten through the muscles and laid bare the ribs beneath. Sore backs swarming with maggots, backs in camels in which the sores had laid bare the spinous processes of the vertebraæ, and in which the tissues were so infiltrated with purulent matter that when, to put them out of pain, the wretched beasts were shot, the coverings of the back

  889
  gave way with the shock of the animal's fall, ejecting the fœtid contents to a considerable distance. Such a state of things might seem incredible; but if he were granted the Committee he asked for he would be prepared to prove that what he had said was literally true. It might be said such cases were rare; they were not rare, they were common. From everywhere he had the same testimony. One gentleman going through the Bolan Pass counted as many as 300 dead camels on one side, and 200 on the other, and saw many others dying and the ravens picking out their eyes while they were yet alive. He could multiply instances of this kind, but would content himself with one wholesale case. Between October and December, 1880, 2,000 animals were sent to Sherawak to pick up. Of course, there was no veterinary surgeon in attendance. In the month of March the animals that survived were sold by auction. They numbered but 10 or 15; all the rest were rotting in the valley. The same mismanagement existed from the beginning to the end of the Afghan War, and the same mismanagement was repeated in connection with the Egyptian War. Among the witnesses as to the cause of the Afghan breakdown was General Showers, who ascribed the failure in the Transport arrangements as largely to the absence of all administrative veterinary control. He said—
  "The fact of there having been no administrative veterinary officer with any of the columns will hardly be credited."
  Since this report the Indian Government, so little economical in many other affairs, had been guilty of the economy of cutting down their veterinary staff one-third—from 70 to 46. When they sent then-contingent to Egypt there were only four veterinary surgeons attached to it. Two of these went on with the troops, and two only remained with the transport, which embraced 6,000 or 7,000 animals. In our British Forces we considered it necessary to send one veterinary surgeon for every 250 or 300 animals. The result of this Indian arrangement was that glanders was introduced into Egypt once, and rinderpest on two separate occasions, despite elaborate precautions by our own Veterinary Department. He did not propose to offer any suggestions as to how this state of things should be remedied. He could, if necessary, quote a number of what appeared to
  890
  be common-sense suggestions that had been made; but it was his opinion that what was above all things required was a knowledge of the facts, and of the extent of the evil. If the Committee he asked for was appointed, it would have no difficulty in finding numbers of competent men to make suggestions; and he would very much rather trust to the common sense of a Committee of the House of Commons for a reform of the evils which he had endeavoured to expose than trust the matter to the consideration of a Departmental Committee of experts. In conclusion, he begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.
  MR. PULESTON, in seconding the Resolution, said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow deserved thanks for bringing forward a matter of great importance and practical utility, and one vitally concerning the interests of the nation. If but one-quarter of the statements and statistics given to the House by his hon. Friend were true, even then it was difficult to conceive how the Government should hesitate for a moment to grant the Committee now asked for. The country would regard it as extraordinary if the proposed inquiry were withheld, in face of the startling and shocking facts presented to the House by his hon. Friend, who had stated on his own responsibility that he would bring before the Committee abundant testimony to the correctness of every statement he had made. Ho, therefore, preferred to believe that the Government would at once respond by accepting the terms of the Resolution. He regretted to see so many Benches empty while his hon. Friend was speaking; but in those days, unhappily, under the auspices of the present Government, the House had become intoxicated and saturated with questions of Bradlaughism and other exciting topics, and had lost its taste for healthier and more useful discussions. In days gone by Members discussed the Estimates, considering them to be most important matters closely affecting the well-being of the country; but now, when the House attempted legitimate work, hon. Members suddenly vanished. The sooner, however, they reverted to the serious consideration of matters like the one now before them, the better it would be for the credit of the House and the interests of the country. When our Commissariat

  891
  and Transport notoriously broke down in the Crimean War the remedy was suggested that the control should betaken away from the Treasury, and the control of the Transport was then vested in the War Office, and very properly; but, nevertheless, little improvement resulted. Then, in 1867, he thought they had Lord Strathnairn's Committee, which made a Report on the French model. No notice was taken of that Report, and, perhaps, the French system would not now be approved; but, at all events, it was an effort in the right direction. Yet nothing more was done until 1870, when all of a sudden a panic arose as to probable contingencies connected with the Franco-German War. It was then feared that the same breakdown that happened in the Crimea and elsewhere would recur if the Commissariat and Transport Services were called upon. When Lord Cranbrook was Secretary of State for War he abolished the civilian Controller—also a right thing to do; and then they had a Committee, with Lord Cadogan as Chairman; but, forgetting the proverb about peace being the right time to prepare for war, nothing effectual was done, and the consequence was that when war suddenly arose everything was hurry-scurry and wild confusion. He did not now ask for the adoption of any specific plan; but let the Government grant a Select Committee which would thrash out that subject, and before the Committee everything they had to urge pro and con could be brought forward by the Government. His hon. Friend had referred to the war in Afghanistan. In that case Bombay was forced to supply camels and other baggage animals, and had to do it in a very haphazard sort of way, scouring the whole of Scinde for everything. Within three or four months after that pretty much the whole of the beasts of burden in Scinde were destroyed. We had devoted ourselves to purchasing camels which were too young or too old, and which were not suited for the purposes of frontier war. Not only had this loss of money been knowingly incurred, but it had been an utterly useless sacrifice; the public interest had not been advanced by the expenditure; on the contrary, human life would absolutely have been saved by the practice of economy. As regarded the supply of mules, the best thing would be for the Government
  892
  to breed them in India. It might be urged against this that we should have to keep them in times of peace; but they might be let out to the cultivators of the soil, and the Government would have them when they were in need of them. Thus the breeding of mules would entail no loss whatever on the Government; while in times of famine it would be found of the greatest importance to have mule trains. Thus the keeping of mules would not be a luxury as it had been described, but a source of profit. With regard to the loss of transport animals by General Stewart's column, not only had there been the danger of being deprived of means of transport, but in one case 500 dead mules lay absolutely polluting the air and water and imperilling life. In Egypt, again, he thought that we had been very fortunate in being victorious at Tel-el-Kebir, for such had been the state of affairs that we could not have remained there much longer without starvation and the difficulties of transport operating against us. As it was, the want of transport had locked the troops up here and there, not to speak of the great loss of stores incurred. Gatlings were no use unless properly horsed; but in Egypt any tagrag and bobtail out of the camp followers had been appointed to look after the horses. The Surveyor General of Ordnance said last year that we should wait until we saw the weak points in our transport system before any changes were undertaken. Those weak points were now apparent, and had called forth the Resolution of his hon. Friend. He would only add that this question of Transport and Commissariat was one of deep interest, not only to the Army itself, but to the country; and he hoped that the Government would grant this Committee of Inquiry. By so doing they would have the credit with the public at large of acting in the best interests of the nation.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the working of the Commissariat and Transport Services of the British and Indian Armies in the recent Egyptian and Afghan Campaigns, and to consider what changes, if any, are required to secure increased efficiency in these Services,"—(Dr. Cameron,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, I will not discuss whether the Afghan War is a Party question or not, but will answer the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), with reference to the Afghan Campaign, leaving my hon. Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance to deal with the more contentious question of the Egyptian War. The facts of the case are much as they have been brought to the attention of the House. My hon. Friend has spoken of the outbreak of the War in 1878, and described the condition of the Transport at the time, as well as its condition on the second outbreak, after the massacre of Sir Louis Cavagnari in September, 1879. There is no doubt that, when the first period of the Afghan War had ceased, the Transport material had been dispersed. The Transport demand for the second period of the Afghan War was very sudden, very large, and required the utmost expedition. Sir Michael Kennedy, in his Report, pointed out the difficulties which occurred at the time. He says—
  "With regard to the Commissariat and Transport, this state of things was very undesirable. The disadvantages it involved were not unrecognized or under-estimated; but it could not he avoided if the operations were to he carried through at all. It was a race against time. The railways brought troops and supplies to the front; and it was absolutely necessary for political, military, and even economic purposes, to strike quickly, and nothing was ready at the commencement."
  DR. CAMERON: I rise to Order. The hon. Gentleman is quoting from a Report not on the Table. May I ask him to lay it on the Table?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member quotes from a Report no doubt he will lay it on the Table.
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I was going to say I would lay it on the Table. The extent of the operations which had to be performed is also very well described by Sir Michael Kennedy—
  "The amount of material which those considerable demands from first to last involved, for forces that numbered in the aggregate 42,600 fighting men, 40,000 followers, and 72,000 animals, was very great, when it is taken into consideration that the troops would necessarily depend to some extent on the natural produce of the country; and, like all armies operating in advance of a distant base, would be compelled
  894
  to draw bulky articles, such as grain and forage, from the districts occupied. There was, however, some occasional difficulty in obtaining local supplies; but it never lasted long, or pressed very heavily. The troops or followers never for a day suffered any want or inconvenience, although the animals were occasionally short of rations."
  That was the Report made after the second period of the Afghan War; and, though my hon. Friend alluded in strong terms to the troops being on half rations, the contrary is proved, so far as the second period of the war is concerned.
  DR. CAMERON: I was only quoting from a Paper on the subject.
  MR. J. K. CROSS: On the massacre of Sir Louis Cavagnari in September, 1879, on the unexpected investment of Sir Frederick Roberts at Sherpur in December, 1879, and on the Maiwand disaster in July, 1880, thousands of troops were pushed to the front, and tens of thousands of store and baggage animals—camels, mules, ponies, bullocks, anything that could carry a shot or a tent pole, had to be collected on the instant, as it were. The demand being so imperative, and the emergency so pressing, it was only natural that all kinds of animals should be pressed into the net; and, from the fact that efficient animals could not be got, inefficient ones had to be accepted by the Transport officers, even though it must have been known that a large number of them would fail. It should be remembered that, when Sir Louis Cavagnari's mission was peacefully settled at Cabul, the extra Transport Service used in the previous advance was scattered and practically broken up. On the renewal of the war, its re-organization was placed in the hands of Sir Michael Kennedy. From the Report of Sir Michael Kennedy on the Supply and Transport arrangements during the campaign in North Afghanistan and the Kurrum Valley in 1879–80, it is very clear that we had been caught in a state of unreadiness. Everything had to be improvised, and we were evidently without experienced Transport officers or Transport Service. It was arranged to separate the Transport from the Commissariat Establishment, especially in the field beyond the base, and to place it, giving it separate organization, more closely under the General Officer in command. This Report of Sir Michael Kennedy on the deficiencies of the Transport

  895
  is, perhaps, one of the most melancholy pieces of military reading ever published. But I think, if my hon. Friend will examine into the matter carefully, he will find that, as the war went on, Sir Michael Kennedy overcame all difficulty. Simultaneously with General Roberts's march from Cabul to Candahar, General Stewart returned to India; and on these two occasions the Transport seems to have been everything that could have been desired. General Roberts marched from Cabul to Candahar, by Ghazni, with 10,000 men, 8,000 followers, and 8,400 Transport animals. The distance was 313 miles, he did it in 22 days, or at the rate of 14½ miles a day, and out of his 8,400 Transport animals there was not more than 1,050 casualties. General Stewart marched from Cabul to Peshawur with 9,559 Transport animals, and had 1,023 casualties. The losses and troubles of the Transport, especially during the second period of the campaign, have caused the Government of India to organize a regular Transport depôt, based on a plan which is the result of the experience gained during this campaign, and the principle on which this plan is based is that a certain portion of the Indian Army should be equipped with one-half regimental transport. This force will embrace 46,000 men, of whom 24,000 are stationed on the frontier. The Transport will be distributed over a larger number of regiments than it will suffice completely to mobilize. This is done to familiarize a considerable number of troops with the management of Transport. Half this number, or about 23,000 men, can be put into the field in their respective districts, fully equipped with transport on the Cabul scale, without requiring additional carriage. For this Transport it is not proposed to employ officers of the British Veterinary Establishment. Experience of more than 25 years on the frontier has proved that regiments can be maintained in a state of perfect mobility, taking charge of their own Transport Establishment, and keeping it thoroughly efficient, without European advice; and there seems no reason to question that similar results would attend similar means on a larger scale. To increase the number and efficiency of the salootree class the Government has recently established
  896
  in Bombay, Bengal, the Punjab, and Burmah, Veterinary Colleges, presided over by three eminent veterinary surgeons. In 1881–2 the Government of India proposed a reduction of the British Veterinary Establishment in India from 73 to 49. Their reason was the intended introduction for the horses of the British troops of the station hospital system, similar to that which obtained for the men. Under this system the Government of India was satisfied that, while a smaller number of officers would be required, greater efficiency would be secured. The question of the establishment to be ultimately maintained, and its organization, is not yet settled. No reduction has yet been made, and, meanwhile, the actual number of veterinary surgeons in the British Establishments now employed in India is 64. There are 4 administrative officers—namely, 2 Bengal, 1 Madras, and 1 Bombay; 10 on Staff duties—namely, 6 Bengal, 3 Madras, 1 Bombay; and 48 on station and regimental work—namely, 26 Bengal, 10 Madras, 7 Bombay; and there are 2 officers on furlough. This is 15 in excess of the number proposed by the Government of India, and it gives a very efficient service. The total number of horses with the British troops in India is 10,837, including 1,000 mules belonging to the British Mountain Batteries. If you divide this number of animals among the 48 veterinary officers engaged in station or regimental work, it gives about 225 animals per officer. The four regiments of Madras Native Cavalry are in charge of our veterinary officers, and they have 1,273 horses, so these gentlemen have now an average of 300 animals each. The Bengal and Bombay Cavalry number 21,477 horses, and it may, perhaps, be that the men, being owners of their horses, and having a personal interest in their health, look well after them. There is no doubt of the thorough efficiency of the Indian Cavalry; that efficiency was, I believe, clearly demonstrated in the Egyptian Campaign. Although the veterinary hospitals of the Bombay and Bengal Native Cavalry never have been under British veterinary care, that is not supposed to have rendered them less efficient or economical; and, as at present advised, the Government of India have no intention of increasing the number of European veterinary officers in charge. The hon.

  897
  Gentleman proposes to have a Committee of Inquiry not only into what has happened in Egypt, but into what occurred during the Afghan War. I think I have shown that the Indian officers have taken the question of the Afghan War very much to heart, and have reorganized the Transport Department on the lines I have described. It therefore seems quite unnecessary that we should have an inquiry into this subject. I do not see how the Indian Government could be much bettered by any inquiry made in this country. At the present time, a very large number of officers, who are fully competent to manage the whole of the affairs of the Army, have taken this Report, and have examined it very thoroughly, and come to certain conclusions upon it. Therefore it seems to me, with all due deference to my hon. Friend, that it would be very much better that we should let the Indian Government alone, with the instructions it has received from the Indian Office to press on as much as they can the thorough organization of their Transport Department; and I have no doubt, if it is left to them, it will be arranged in the most perfect possible manner.
  COLONEL MILNE-HOME, in supporting the Resolution, said, he considered that an inquiry into what happened in the Egyptian Campaign, including the Afghan Campaign, in the scope of the Committee would not be thrown away. His hon. Friend had stated exactly what had taken place in Egypt. He had seen himself the excellence of the Indian troops, particularly the Cavalry; and he was convinced that we in this country might learn very many lessons from the management of those departments of the Indian Army. But with regard to Egypt he should be surprised—and the whole Service to which he had the honour to belong would be surprised—and disappointed if the Committee was not appointed. He thought the case had been so thoroughly made out by the hon. Member that the Government had no alternative. When he came to the House he certainly did not think it would be incumbent upon him to make any remarks; but the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India seemed rather to object, and he was afraid that the noble Lord might object to the other portion of the inquiry. Under these circus stances, he should think it wrong
  898
  to sit silent, for he was convinced the whole Service looked forward to the appointment of the Committee. He was glad his hon. Friend had got such a position on the Paper that he would be able to go to a Division; and, certainly, if he went, he (Colonel Milne-Home) would vote with him. He had no intention of repeating what the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution had said. It seemed to him his hon. Friend had entirely made out his case. If he had not, then it would be for the Committee which he wished appointed to brand him before the country for having brought before the House of Commons most unfounded charges. Therefore, upon that ground, having said that he was prepared to prove what he had stated, he (Colonel Milne-Home) thought the Government should grant a Committee to inquire into the management, or rather mismanagement, of these Departments in Egypt. His hon. Friend had received evidence from many quarters, and, from his knowledge of him, he had no doubt his hon. Friend had thoroughly sifted it. But with regard to the portion of the Service with which he (Colonel Milne-Home) was connected, he could say that every word that fell from his hon. Friend was perfectly true. It was perfectly true that the Transport and Commissariat were nowhere in Egypt. The Cavalry depended as long possible on the ships; and when they left Ismailia it was not owing to the Transport and Commissariat Departments and the management at home that they got any food at all—at the start at all events. It was the good fortune of the Cavalry, after taking the camp of Mahsameh, to find plenty of food for man and beast, which had been left behind by Arabi. Had it not been for that, they would have had to retire, and probably the Egyptian Campaign would have been much longer than it really was. Therefore, at the very outset, he would say, the Transport broke down completely. His hon. Friend had alluded to the regimental transport. They were told before they left this country that the desert, through which they were to pass, was like a paved road. But it was no such thing. The sand was so deep that the carts could hardly be drawn over it, and some of the carts of the regiment to which he belonged were left in the

  899
  desert to this day. It was quite true that transport horses were supplied to regiments; but he did not think those who understood the desire of the commanding officers to keep the best horses at home would be surprised to hear that the transport horses sent out averaged about the age of 20 years. Many of them had been in previous campaigns, and could not, therefore, be expected to be of much service. Then, as to the railway, it was true engines and immense appliances were sent out; but he knew there was no hoisting gear sufficiently strong to hoist them from the ships, and they had to remain there. What his hon. Friend had stated as to the matter of camels was also perfectly true. There was no doubt about it that the only machines fit to cross the desert were camels, and they found that out by experience by appropriating some stray camels. As he bad said, had the Cavalry not had the good fortune to find everything to their hand at Mahsameh, they would have had to return; and had not the Infantry and the rest of the Army who had attacked Tel-el-Kebir been equally fortunate there, they would have been compelled to retire, and the Army would have been driven back to Ismailia. As it was, they trusted a great deal to Arabi for their food by the way; and, as he had already said, through the campaign the Commissariat and the Transport were nowhere at all. These being absolute facts, surely the Government could not refuse to grant a Committee to inquire why and whence this state of things arose. Allusion had been made to the fact that similar previous inquiries had resulted only in Blue Books. He was old enough to remember what took place in the Crimea, and the mismanagement there of all sorts, especially of the Transport and the Commissariat. It was 30 years since the Crimean Campaign, yet we did not seem to be very much further on in these matters. If this Committee were appointed, he trusted they would have something more than Blue Books, and that they would see due effect given to the recommendations made, whatever Government might be in Office.
  MR. CARBUTTsaid, the country would never be satisfied until this question was cleared up. His contention was that nothing said by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India had any real bearing upon the
  900
  Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). The mistake made by the Government, in his view, was in employing on every possible occasion military men to perform duties which could be much better and more cheaply and efficiently performed by civilians, and in not taking sufficient advantage of the mechanical appliances and mechanical skill at their disposal, not only for the transport of war material in time of war, but in its unshipment when it reached the place at which it was intended to be used, or, at any rate, to be disembarked.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he had no wish to criticize harshly anything that had been done in the past in reference to the Transport and Commissariat Services; but he wished to point out that reform was necessary in regard to both of them, the existing state of things being an absolute scandal to the country. His own view was that, having regard to our experiences in the past, provision ought to be made for an Army Corps of at least 25,000 men, who should be fully equipped and ready at any moment to proceed on military service to any part of the world. England was the most wealthy nation in the world; but when war broke out where was she? They should insist upon the Government moving in this matter, feeling satisfied that the country would not grudge the expenditure.
  MR. BRANDsaid, the speech of the Mover of the Motion for a Committee was replete with assertions of a very startling nature, without any proof whatever being given, and without any authority for them. There were certain statements which the hon. Gentleman made which he (Mr. Brand) could more or less directly meet; and if these statements were examples of his other statements, then there was little foundation of fact in them. For instance, the hon. Gentleman stated that there were at Ismailia, when the troops disembarked, a quantity of camels for sale, and which could have been bought for £16 a-piece——
  DR. CAMERON: I beg pardon. I quoted a statement made by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot).
  MR. BRANDsaid, that only showed what he was endeavouring to prove—namely, that a great many of these statements

  901
  were founded on hearsay. Then the hon. Gentleman said the saddles sent out from England were bad. He (Mr. Brand) would admit only this as to the pack saddles, that they were not so well fitted for pack service as the Indian saddles. The hon. Gentleman said the advice of the Commissariat Department had not been taken in the purchase of a quantity of hay which had turned out bad; but the fact was the hay had been purchased in the usual manner, and was inspected by officers of the Commissariat Department. The hon. Member said that the Commissary General had published a Report in which he said that the Department was going from bad to worse. All that he could say was that that Report was not within his knowledge, although, undoubtedly, the Commissary General had recommended that certain changes should be made in the Department. The hon. Gentleman said there never was a war which had so clearly proved the insufficiency of the Medical Transport Service; and to enforce that statement he quoted the opinion of the principal medical officer at Trinkitat, to the effect that the Transport in the Soudan would not have sufficed for 300 wounded. They had no report whatever as to the Transport; but it was clear that 300 wounded out of so small a force as that engaged would have been a very large number indeed. His reply was that, under great difficulty, and after the first few days, the Commissariat Department in Egypt worked well, that the system was being remedied in a good many particulars, and that a Committee at the War Office was now inquiring into the whole matter of the organization of the Department. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the suffering caused to the troops in Afghanistan and Egypt; but Lord Morley's Committee had shown that in the case of Egypt there was plenty of fresh meat, biscuits, and minor comforts for the troops. With the exception of a small temporary difficulty on arrival at Ismailia, the patients were not in want of any of those supplies. There was no doubt in his mind, after reading the Report, that the suffering imposed upon the men and officers in Egypt was suffering which was inseparable, unfortunately, from active service in a hot climate. With regard to the conduct of the Veterinary Department, there
  902
  was no doubt that the horses and mules had suffered greatly from the heat, the flies, and the sand, as well as from the want of water, while they had been sent on active service before they had had time to recover from their long sea voyage. But what, he would ask, would have been the condition of those animals if the Veterinary Department had not been thoroughly efficient, and if its members had not done their duty in a most admirable manner? At the time when the cattle were landed, rinderpest was rife at Odessa, from whence we obtained slaughter cattle; but, owing to the precautions of the principal veterinary officer, who had them inspected and doubtful animals slaughtered, the disease was prevented. The glanders having broken out among one troop of the Bengal Cavalry, the principal veterinary officer ordered the infected animals to be destroyed and the remainder of the troop isolated, and thus this disease also was prevented from spreading. It must, therefore, be taken that the Veterinary Department in Egypt was thoroughly well organized. The hon. Member had arrived at the conclusion that the whole system of the Commissariat Department was wrong; and he directed his complaints, in the first place, against the way in which the Department was officered. He admitted that nothing was more important than that the officers of the Department should be well trained. But what were the facts of the case? At the present time the Department was officered by trained Departmental officers, and by officers who came temporarily from the regiments to the Department. The old class of officers was being gradually absorbed, and in course of time the Department would consist of officers temporarily engaged. In 1878 the late Government effected certain changes in the Commissariat and Transport; and if any mistake were made then, it was in not making it a thoroughly military Department. Giving his own personal opinion, the best plan to be pursued was to follow in the lines indicated by that change, and constitute the Department a portion of the regular Staff of the Army, imposing duties of transport and supply upon the Staff officers under the Commander-in-Chief. One condition was essential—that those officers should be thoroughly trained for

  903
  the work they had to perform. A Departmental Committee was now sitting at the War Office to inquire into this subject. It was often said when this country went to war it was unprepared in the matter of Commissariat and Transport. But the system in this country was identically the same as in other European countries. There was not a single instance in which any European country maintained in time of peace the transport necessary for a time of war. Even if it were desirable, it would be financially impracticable, as it was impossible to know what sort of transport would be required. In the Red River, in 1870, the transport was canoes and carriers; in Ashantee, entirely carriers, and no animals; in Natal, we had transport of oxen and mules; in Egypt, pack transport; and in Suakin, camel transport. That, he thought, clearly showed, even if they maintained in this country a large stock of transport and material, they would find, when they went to war, very possibly that they had not the materials required for the service. What was wanted was a knowledge of the countries where they could purchase the animals they required at the shortest notice; and they also wanted experienced officers to send out to buy those transport animals. Steps had been taken to get a nucleus of drivers, and a small nucleus of transport was kept in this country for the purpose of training; and, in addition, steps had been taken to have in hand, in case of necessity, a body of skilled auxiliary drivers. When the Egyptian War took place the Indian Government provided an organized body of drivers; and in the case of any wars in which they might have to engage in foreign countries, a body of men such as he had described would be of immense advantage. Upon what facts did the hon. Member rely in order to prove that there had been a breakdown of the Transport Service in Egypt? With regard to the flour, it was purchased under the best advice; it no doubt suffered from the excessive heat and from prolonged detention at Alexandria in the hold of the ship. But the hon. Member had failed to prove that even if it had been inspected by the Commissariat the same thing would not have happened. In future, however, they would take care to send flour, not in barrels, but, as far as possible, when
  904
  necessary, in tin cases. As to the hay, it was actually inspected and passed by the Commissariat. On the whole, he thought the House would agree with him that, considering the enormous amount of materials and stores sent out, very few mistakes, indeed, had been committed. He might remind the House that the Transport Service itself really had no real trial in Egypt, inasmuch as the war only lasted three weeks from the disembarkation of the troops till the day on which the battle of Tel-el-Kebir was fought. The transport was not disembarked for three or four days after the troops were landed, and that was for military reasons over which Transport officers had no control. The transport was organized on the assumption that they would have possession of the railway and Canal; but, owing to the action taken by the enemy, it was impossible to take advantage of the railway and Canal for several days. When, however, the obstructions were removed, the railway and Canal afforded sufficient transport. We should never have been able to take such prompt action in shipping supplies to the East if the late Government had not authorized the establishment of a reserve store at Woolwich, which had been of very great value in this crisis. The hon. Gentleman further complained of division of responsibility in the Department. In reality there was no division of responsibility whatever, and in practice there was no difference between the system in times of peace and during war. He maintained that the hon. Gentleman had not proved his case with respect to the Egyptian Expedition. In all recent wars there had been no breakdown in the Transport Service—he might even say no hitch. The Government did not admit that there was any necessity for the proposed inquiry; but still some good might possibly arise from having the statements of the hon. Gentleman verified, or otherwise, as the case might be. Therefore, on the understanding that this inquiry was to be confined entirely to the operations in the recent Egyptian Campaign, and that it was also to be confined to the working of the Commissariat and Transport Service—for the medical arrangements had already been inquired into by the Committee over which Lord Morley presided—the Secretary of State for War would not oppose the Resolution.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he did not like the debate to close, after the speeches which had been made and the references made to himself, without saying a few words. The hon. Mover of the Resolution had quoted him as saying that we could not put 30,000 men into the field. What he had said was that it would be impossible to send an Army Corps of that number into the field properly equipped, and it certainly would be impossible to send out a second such Corps. He had repeatedly called the attention of the House to that state of things, which was most unsatisfactory. His hon. Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance, while admitting our deficiencies in respect of Transport officers and drivers in case of emergency, had said that no country in the world kept up a Commissariat Service sufficient for its needs. No doubt that was so; but he felt sure that there were several Foreign Powers which could, on an emergency, put into the field an Army Corps of 30,000 or 40,000, or even more. It was the duty of the Executive to see that we were sufficiently provided in this respect. The Secretary of State for War should have the courage of his opinions. If it was necessary that a corps d'armée should be equipped at every point, and ready to proceed at the shortest notice, he thought the Secretary of State for War was bound to come to the House and say so, and at the same time ask the House to provide the necessary money. He had been on foreign service in the field, and was, therefore, quite ready to admit that it was not always possible for a person in that position to judge of anything more than what took place under his own observation. It was seen that, for some reason or another, a deficiency existed; but a person so placed was not sufficiently behind the scenes to know to what extent that deficiency existed. Some of the reasons for this deficiency had been indicated in the speech of the Surveyor General of Ordnance. He had stated, in addition to other matters connected with the Service, that the drivers of waggons were not sufficiently trained. He had admitted, in the most palpable manner, that a re-organization of the Department was judged to be necessary. He said that certain deficiencies had been considered, and that a Committee had been appointed by the War Office
  906
  to inquire into these deficiencies. Not content with that, however, the hon. Gentleman, much to his surprise, granted almost all that was asked in the Motion of the hon. Member who had brought the subject under the notice of the House. In his opinion, that showed how his hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for War were open to the influence of opinion, and that they saw a strong feeling existed in the House of Commons that an inquiry was necessary. He was not opposed to granting a Committee under the circumstances. He thought it would have a certain good result in calming the feelings of the public on the matter; but whether it would result eventually in any great change being introduced he, from his official experience, very much doubted. He had seen a great number of Committees and Commissions with respect to our Military Service; and the result had been, as a rule, that although the Committees had expended a great deal of time and labour in collecting much valuable information for the use of the Secretary of State for War, the advice of those Committees had not been followed generally, and very often it had been departed from. There was a recent case in point. A Commission was appointed not long ago to inquire into the whole system of recruiting. It was commonly known as Lord Airey's Commission. That Commission made an exhaustive inquiry into the whole subject, and after their labours had been completed they offered a large number of recommendations. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then, he believed, Secretary of State for War, had hardly followed a single recommendation of that Committee. This fact, he thought, showed that, although they might multiply Committees and Commissions, they did not necessarily insure the efficiency of the Service. He would much rather, under present circumstances, trust to the pressure of public opinion in keeping the Executive up to their duties, and in insisting that the Executive should take the House thoroughly into their confidence as to what was necessary to be done. The Executive should also not be afraid to come forward and ask for money where money was required. A great deal of complaint had been made with regard to waggons. There had been an error

  907
  made in sending out to Egypt large, heavy waggons, which, as they had been told, stuck in the sand. If they had a sufficient number of trained officers who at any moment could be sent into the localities, which were well known, where the best baggage animals might be purchased as speedily as possible, there would be little difficulty—provided the Government knew their minds and their policy—in finding a sufficient supply of transport and animals necessary for the small Armies sent abroad by this country. A remark had been made with regard to the change that had taken place in the military character of the Commissariat and Transport. It was true that that military character was given to the Service after a great deal of consideration in 1878. The Successors of the Conservative Government had approved that military character, which was done on the advice of the Military Department. The great difficulty, however, was to find a sufficient number of officers who would undertake these appointments. The officers were naturally anxious to stay with their regiments in time of war, and to take a share of the fighting if any was taking place. Difficulty was experienced in getting the officer who was temporarily appointed to the Commissariat to stay with the Commissariat instead of going to the front. The Conservative Government dealt with the difficulty to a certain extent by insisting that officers should have a temporary appointment on probation. Now, however, he understood from his hon. Friend opposite that the officers were never permanently appointed. If that was so, a change had been made upon the scheme as originally introduced. The idea of the originators of this change was that competent young officers of a few years' standing should come into the Department, and after a proper amount of probation—say of three, four, or five years—they were then confirmed in their appointments.
  MR. BRANDhere interposed, and was understood to say that the temporary appointment of these officers, as stated by the noble Lord, was not correct
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he was glad to hear that that was not the case. Aremark had been made—he thought by the Mover of the Resolution, to the effect
  908
  that he had expressed an opinion that no censure attached to the Commissariat officers, but that it was rather applicable to persons in the highest quarters. He certainly made a remark of that kind. He thought that the Commissariat officers were unjustly blamed, and that the General Officer commanding was really the person responsible. It would be remembered that Questions were asked at the time by Members sitting on that side of the House, displaying some alarm at the fact that several Chiefs of Departments in the War Office had been appointed to commands in Egypt, and were allowed, nevertheless, to retain their appointments in the War Office. The Surveyor General of Ordnance, Sir John Adye, for instance, was appointed Chief of the Staff in Egypt, and his Office here was put in commission. He had very able officials under him at the War Office, and these all did their duty to the best of their ability under circumstances of considerable pressure; but the inconvenience of such an arrangement was manifest, and if we had been engaged in such a war as that in the Crimea, instead of being at war in Egypt, the consequences might have been serious.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL, resuming, said, he was endeavouring to point out the inconvenience of officers of high position in the War Office being given commands in the field and being allowed to retain their posts at home. This threw a considerable amount of extra work on the Departmental officers that remained at home, and a great pressure of work fell on the Secretary of State for War. In these observations he had no desire to reflect on any individuals. He believed that one and all did their duty thoroughly, and laboured in a way seldom surpassed. It would be remembered that in the case of one ship that was sent out to Egypt with stores, everything was found to be at the bottom that ought to have been at the top, and everything at the top that ought to have been at the bottom. In order to avoid contingencies and accidents of that kind, which sometimes occurred owing to the want of proper supervision, it might be well if a supercargo was put on board

  909
  each ship going out with provisions to the seat of war, who would be able to point out where everything was packed. He hoped that the Secretary of State for War and the officials of the War Office were alive to the state of things, and that they were doing something towards remedying the defects that existed. The hon. Member who introduced this Motion had brought a large number of important facts to the attention of the House; and the result of making these public would, he hoped, lead to their being thoroughly inquired into by the Government. The hon. Member had good reason for being satisfied with the result of his Motion, which, it might reasonably be hoped, might lead to increased efficiency in the Public Service.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONexpressed his gratification at the fact that the Government had consented to appoint a Select Committee.
  DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he must congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow on the success which had attended his Motion. He hoped the Committee would make an inquiry into the conditions which attended Army medical transport. They knew that the difficulties which attended the Army medical transport in Egypt were almost entirely due to the fact that that transport was diverted to other purposes. He held a very strong opinion that the Department would never work well in time of war until it had a separate and inalienable transport of its own. He would like to ask the Surveyor General of Ordnance whether that very important question would be taken into consideration by the Committee?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that if the Committee was to be productive of good, it would be desirable that the inquiry should be devoted to very definite and, at the same time, limited objects. He did not think that a Committee, wandering over the whole sphere of the operations in Egypt, and going into controversies which were more or less discussed by Lord Morley's Committee on a previous occasion, would be likely to be productive of much good. He did not deny that some good might come from an inquiry directed to the object of obtaining the results of the latest experience as to the working of their system of transport in the field. The medical transport, of course, formed
  910
  a part of the transport of the Army, and could not be separated from it; and anything of that nature would, he conceived, come strictly within the terms of the Reference to the Committee. In granting that Committee, he hoped it would be very distinctly understood that they did not at all assent to the accuracy of a great many of the statements which were made impugning the working of the administrative Department in the recent campaign in Egypt. Still less did they admit that anything whatever had been proved as to any shortcoming on the part of individuals. All he understood to be alleged was that there were defects in the system which might be improved, and if the Committee could point these out it would have done a very great service. He thought the most convenient course on this occasion would be for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) to withdraw the Motion he had made, and to move it in the amended form.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the working of the Commissariat and Transport Services of the British Army in the recent Egyptian Campaign, and to consider what changes, if any, are required to secure increased efficiency in these Services,"—(Dr. Cameron,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the working of the Commissariat and Transport Services of the British Army in the recent Egyptian Campaign, and to consider what changes, if any, are required to secure increased efficiency in these Services.
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.—(Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883 (PATRONAGE).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND, in rising to call attention to the recent appointments

  911
  to Official Receiverships in Bankruptcy; and to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the manner in which the patronage conferred on the President of the Board of Trade by the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 has been exercised by him,"
  said, he could assure the House that it was with a deep sense of responsibility that he rose to move the Resolution; and nothing but a sense of duty would have persuaded him to do so, as it was practically a Vote of Censure on one of the Ministers of the Crown. He trusted, however, that he would be able to convince the House of the necessity of appointing a Committee to inquire into this matter. While the Bankruptcy Bill was in Committee a great deal of anxiety had been expressed as to the danger of giving to a Minister the large and extensive patronage conferred by that Bill. The question was brought forward over and over again, and every time an assurance was given that it should not in any way be used unfairly. Unfortunately, the proceedings in the Standing Committee were not reported, so he could only state what he knew as a Member of the Standing Committee to which that Bill was referred. But the matter came again before the House; and the President of the Board of Trade, in the course of the debate upon the Report, on the 14th of August, 1883, said, speaking after the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets—
  "He agreed with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ritchie) that if the Bill was to be a success, that result would be obtained entirely in consequence of the choice which would be made, in the first instance especially, of the officials who were to carry it into effect; and he could not conceive any policy on his part more suicidal than to allow Party feeling to influence him to such an extent as to prevent him appointing the best men."
  Again, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "He proposed, in the first instance, to make a rough selection, and then to refer the matter to a Departmental Committee, and, to a large extent, found his action upon the recommendations of that Committee. Although he should reserve to himself some control, he hoped to avoid any suspicion of anything like improper Party considerations entering into the selections of the officials."—(3 Hansard, [283] 525.)
  He (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) had, therefore, to ask the House whether the facts which existed at present were in accordance with that pledge? A general feeling had existed during the Recess in
  912
  the country that the posts were being filled up in such a way as to further Party ends, and that they were given away as rewards to strong partizans; and on a former occasion he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was true that out of 67 appointments 51 had been conferred on Liberals, 13 of whom were election agents; and whether he considered that a fulfilment of the pledge he had given to the House? To that Question he received the most extraordinary answer ever given in the House, for, in the first place, the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to shield himself behind a Committee of his own appointment; and, in the second place, said he had fully carried out the pledge given to the House. He was, however, bound to admit, and to apologize to the right hon. Gentleman for it, that his Question was not strictly correct. The real facts were that for the 67 appointments 51 Liberals were selected, 19 of whom, instead of 13, were election agents. Of these 19 four were agents of the present Ministers of the Crown. Did the House, then, consider the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman had been fully carried out? Even if that Committee had been an independent one, the right hon. Gentleman could not shield himself from responsibility, and still less when that Committee was of his own appointment. But what was the composition of that Departmental Committee? Two of its Members, Mr. Giffen and Mr. Stoneham, were permanent officials of the Board of Trade, with whom the right hon. Gentleman had been in daily communication for three or four years, and one of them had been rewarded for his services by the appointment of his own son as an official receiver. The other two Members of the Committee were Mr. Harding and Mr. Smith—the one a Conservative and the other a Liberal. He agreed that those were two good appointments; but both these gentlemen were at the time under a deep debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore they would naturally be only too glad to reciprocate the kindness by falling in with his views. He thought that was common sense. But could such a Committee, he asked, be called independent? It would not be a satisfactory answer if the President of the Board of Trade were to say that he did not know

  913
  the politics of the candidates for the post of official receiver, because, having given a pledge that he would take care that the appointments should not be affected by political considerations, it was his business to make himself acquainted with the politics of the candidates, so as to make sure that his pledge should not be disregarded. Either the right hon. Gentleman had been careless about the appointments which were made, or he had been false to the pledges which he had given. There was no doubt somebody had been extremely well informed as to the politics of the gentlemen appointed. Could it be believed that out of 1,900 applications for 67 appointments 51 of them should fall to Liberals, 19 of whom were Liberal agents? No man in his senses would believe so. He knew that in many cases persons who recommended candidates were asked what were the politics of their nominees. [Cries of "No!" and "Name!"] Gentlemen who came before the Departmental Committee were positively asked the question, though they were told that it was of no consequence. [Cries of "Name!"] He would give the names by-and-bye. He held that if the matter were investigated by a Committee it would be found that the appointments which had been made constituted a very grotesque commentary upon the promises made to Parliament. The President of the Board of Trade said the appointments were submitted to the local Chambers of Commerce where they existed. He (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) did not know what took place in every case; but in many instances what was done was this. A letter was sent stating that Mr. So-and-So had been appointed, and asking whether there was any objection to the appointment. But was it to be expected that any Chamber, after an appointment had been made, would perform the invidious task of registering objections to the appointment? Many Chambers acted with a due sense of their own dignity, and refused to say whether they approved or disapproved of the selections that had been made. Why were not the names of all the candidates submitted to the local Chambers of Commerce before the appointments were made? They would then have had an opportunity of recommending the best men. Had that course been followed, a
  914
  very different class of men would have been appointed in the place of the motley crew of chemists, tailors, and drapers who were now official receivers. He would give the House a few instances to show the necessity for the appointment of a Select Committee. In the borough of Ipswich a person named Messent was appointed. He was at one time so successful in business as a tailor in Birmingham that he was obliged to ask for the indulgence of his creditors; but he belonged to the Birmingham Eight Hundred. Soon after the return of the present senior Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) Mr. Messent went to that town, giving up his flourishing business in Birmingham, and he was then made an official receiver. Was not that a political appointment, and could that be called the appointment of the best possible man? At York, where a contested election was fought in the Recess, a draper named Wilkinson acted as the agent of Mr. Lockwood, the Liberal candidate, his services being given almost gratuitously. The result was that after the election Mr. Wilkinson was rewarded by being made Receiver in Bankruptcy for the City of York. From that city came up four candidates of the highest standing, one a Doctor of Civil Law at the University of Oxford and a Liberal; but he had not done the service of Mr. Wilkinson, and consequently his qualifications were overlooked. The next case to which he (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) would ask the attention of the House was that of the City of Hereford. A Petition was presented to the House against the return of the two Members who had been returned; but that was at the last moment withdrawn, and an agreement, which he held in his hand, was drawn up. This agreement was to the effect that one of the sitting Members should apply for and accept the Chiltern Hundreds before Easter, 1882; that the vacancy should be filled up by the unopposed return of a Conservative; that thenceforward each Party should have one Member to the end of the present Parliament; and that at the next General Election each Party should only nominate one candidate. That agreement was signed on behalf of the Liberals, amongst others, by Mr. Scobie, who, having taken so prominent a part in these proceedings, was appointed Official Receiver for the City of Hereford.

  915
  There could be no doubt about his being a strong Party man, and it was on that account that he had obtained this appointment. Then, at Taunton, the Attorney General's confidential agent who kept his canvass book had been appointed official receiver; and at Sheffield the gentleman appointed was the election agent of the President of the Board of Trade himself when that right hon. Gentleman contested Sheffield in 1874. In Oxford the gentleman whose name was mentioned in the Election Petition which was to be found in the Library of the House, and who was one of the Home Secretary's agents at that time, was selected for the office. It appeared to him that the Home Secretary's agents had had more than their fair share of the plunder, because when he turned to Derby he found that the election agent of the right hon. and learned Gentleman there was also appointed to the official receivership of that city. He held that the appointments which he had brought to the notice of the House presented a primâ facie case for the appointment of the Committee for which he asked. The appointment of a Committee would give the President of the Board of Trade an opportunity of explaining away the charges, which were generally felt to be true. It was usual to grant Commissions which were asked for upon subjects in which the conduct of Ministers of the Crown was impugned, and as statesmanship should always show a subjection of political partizanship to the interests of the State he trusted the Government would not oppose his Motion. The rewards given after successful election campaigns by political Parties had done more than anything: else to corrupt political life in the United States. It would be a bad day for England when the cry of "Spoils to the victor "became a Party watchword. Believing that the Liberal Party had done more in this matter to corrupt our political life than anything against which the Corrupt Practices Act was directed, he begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.
  MR. TOMLINSONseconded the Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the manner in which the patronage conferred
  916
  on the President of the Board of Trade by the Bankruptcy Act of 1883, has been exercised by him,"—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. M'INTYREsaid, he was quite certain that neither Her Majesty's Government nor the President of the Board of Trade would have anything to fear if this Committee were granted; but he was surprised that while the hon. Member had travelled over the whole of England he had carefully abstained from going into the county in which the borough which he represented was situated. If he had done so he would have found that the persons who were most opposed to the Government were those who had received the appointments. The hon. Member must have known that the gentleman, able as he was, appointed for Worcester and the district around, was one who had denounced Her Majesty's Government on every possible occasion. [A laugh.] The late Home Secretary might jeer at him; but he could not alter the fact, and the fact was that the best men had been selected by Her Majesty's Government without reference to politics. If the right hon. Gentleman would look fairly at all the appointments, He would see whether a man was a tailor or a confectioner, one, at all events, who was able to do the work had been selected, without reference to politics at all. It was remarkable that where the hon. Gentleman must have had local knowledge and experience he had abstained from impugning the appointments, but had gone far away, where his information must have been given by prejudiced persons. The hon. Member, therefore, depended upon hearsay evidence. He would oppose the Resolution of the hon. Member, and he hoped the House would acknowledge that the President of the Board of Trade had been actuated by the purest motives, and had selected the best men according to the evidence brought before him.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, he had hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would have risen at once to meet the grave charges that had been brought forward, and he did not think that the hon. Member who had just spoken had at all mended the case. The hon.

  917
  Member had dwelt very much upon the City of Worcester. But the charge was not that in some solitary instances Conservatives had been appointed, but that 19 official receivers were actual Liberal election agents, and 13 were election agents of Liberal Members, and that four were election agents of Members of the Cabinet. That charge was a most serious one, because these gentlemen had been appointed to carry out a most important Act; but there were rumours throughout the country that the Act had not been carried into effect successfully. [Cries of "No!"] Rumours to that effect were continually reaching him from Liverpool and from other parts of the country. The success of the Act would depend very much on those who occupied this position. He was one of those who were very anxious to carry the measure through the House, and he did attach considerable importance to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that it would be fatal to its success if it should ever be supposed that in making appointments the Minister of the Crown should have been actuated by Party motives. Not only Gentlemen on that side, but Gentlemen on the other side also, must have been surprised to hear that 51 out of 67 of the persons appointed belonged to the Liberal Party. He had rarely heard such a grave charge made against a Minister of the Crown, and it was one of those charges which ought to be met at once. If the Departmental Committee had deceived the right hon. Gentleman because he said he made the appointments in consequence of the Reports of that Committee, they had ill performed their duty to the House and the country in thus exposing the right hon. Gentleman to the grave charges which had been brought against him. The right hon. Gentleman might say that he had the confidence of the Chambers of Commerce; but his hon. Friend (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) had explained what that meant. The same line of argument was adopted some time since by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson). That right hon. Gentleman made certain gentlemen, all Liberals, Justices of the Peace, and then submitted their names to the Council of the Corporation of Liverpool to pronounce judgment upon them. The Council of the Corporation, however, he was proud
  918
  to say, stated that they always considered the appointments of Justices no Party question, and declined to pass any judgment on the names submitted. If it was to be assumed that the Minister of the day could manipulate Acts of Parliament for the benefit of a political Party there would cease to be that confidence in the persons appointed to carry out the Acts which had hitherto been reposed in them. The observations of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. M'Intyre) were utterly beside the question. It was no answer to say that a Conservative had been appointed. The charge was—and it was a very serious charge—that the Government had appointed as official receivers several election agents on the Liberal side, but had not appointed a single Conservative election agent. He did not mean to say that a tailor or draper might not be competent. What he did say was that many men might be appointed who were far above all suspicion. He should have expected that the hon. Member for Worcester, in his desire to exculpate the right hon. Gentleman, would have said that these charges were utterly without foundation, and therefore would have supported the Resolution of his hon. Friend. But the hon. Member did nothing of the sort, but limited himself very wisely to one place of which he had a knowledge. His hon. Friend admitted that 16 of those appointed might be classed as Members of the Conservative Party; but his charge was that many persons were appointed who were not entitled by their former position to occupy a very important office, and that they were so appointed because they were members of the political Party opposite. He would have thought that instead of those who had been referred to, it would have been possible to select men of high position as accountants or solicitors to act as official receiver—men who would have been above the suspicions and charges which had been brought forward by his hon. Friend. Hon. Members who took exception to these appointments spoke not as Members of a political Party. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He, at all events, spoke as the Representative of a great commercial City—a City upon which the Bankruptcy Act would have a most important influence—and he maintained that whether the Bankruptcy Act was to be successful or

  919
  not depended very much upon the character of the official receivers, and that the charges brought forward that night, unless disproved, would do much to lead the commercial community to believe that sufficient confidence was not to be placed in those gentlemen. He felt that very little confidence could be placed in some of these official receivers, which would do very much to spoil that legislation upon which so much time was spent last year. He had great pleasure in supporting the Resolution; but he did so not in the interests of Party, but in the interests of the country and the commercial Classes
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down complained that he did not rise immediately after the speech of the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland); but he would bear in mind, and the House would bear in mind, that this was an impeachment of an individual. There was only one person in the House, he was sorry to say, who was in a position to make a reply to the charges brought forward by the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken, and to other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who might be prepared to speak. He thought it was, therefore, natural that he should show some little hesitation in rising too early, and until he had heard what was the full case against him. He must say that if hon. Members on the other side were animated by the spirit just shown by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley), he had very little reason to hope that anything he might say would have the slightest effect upon them. The hon. Member for Liverpool had said that whatever the President of the Board of Trade might say he had made up his mind that the Bankruptcy Act was not likely to produce any satisfactory results. The hon. Member also said that this was a very serious charge. It was a very serious charge; but the sense in which he felt it to be serious was that it was a charge made against men to whom had been in trusted the administration of the Bankruptcy Act throughout the country. If it were a fact that he had misused the powers in trusted to him, and that he had appointed bad men, then, of course, the Bankruptcy Act would be a failure; and the charge was that he had appointed
  920
  bad men. The charge was not that he had appointed a number of Liberals; but that the men appointed, whether Liberals or Conservatives, were not the best men that could have been appointed. While these men were endeavouring to gain the confidence of the commercial classes, hon. Members had come forward and condemned them, without knowledge, as absolutely unfit to undertake the work with which they had been in trusted. That was the serious part of the charge. He did not entertain the pessimist view of the operation of the Bankruptcy Act which he was sorry to see was entertained by the hon. Member for Liverpool. All the information he had received on the subject went to show that the Act was working most admirably, to a degree altogether beyond his most sanguine anticipations. The average number of bankruptcies under the old system varied from 10,000 to 15,000 a-year; and in all the calculations of the Board of Trade with respect to the working of the new Act, they assumed that the number would be reduced to 9,000 a-year. As a matter of fact, the number for the two months past averaged less than 3,000 a-year. He had obtained the opinions of various persons in a position to judge of the working of the Act. The answer he had received from one of the Judges with reference to the cause of this extraordinary reduction was that it was "no longer an advantage to a dishonest debtor to become a bankrupt." One of the County Court Judges gave the opinions of several of his colleagues—gentlemen who were impartial in this matter. One, at least, of those gentlemen was a Conservative, and his opinion, he thought, would be considered important. The first gentleman whose opinion was quoted was the Judge of the Halifax, Dewsbury, and Huddersfield district. He stated that the Act was working admirably so far; that "fraud was nipped in the bud, instead of being allowed to fall into the sere." The County Court Judge of the Hull district bore similar testimony. Mr. Mottram, the County Court Judge of Birmingham, who was opposed to himself (Mr. Chamberlain) in politics, said that he anticipated before the Act was passed that it would work well as far as Birmingham was concerned. He had never faltered in

  921
  that opinion, and he was now more than ever confirmed in it. The Judge of the Sheffield County Court—one of the Courts referred to by the hon. Member for Evesham—said that attempts had been made in various quarters to discredit the Bankruptcy Act; but he saw no reason to apprehend anything else than that we should have a successful Bankruptcy Act for the first time. He bad mentioned these instances to the House to show that the rumours to which the hon. Member for Liverpool bad referred had no foundation in fact. The charge in regard to these appointments had been described as a serious one; but it would appear that the hon. Member who brought it forward did not think so, because, when an attempt was made an hour ago to count out the House, he walked out behind the Speaker's Chair, instead of waiting for the purpose of helping to form a quorum. The charge was a serious one, and he regarded it as such. The hon. Member based the charge on this—that he, having pledged himself that he would endeavour in every case to secure the best man for the post of official receiver throughout the country, had been swayed in these appointments entirely by political considerations, and had appointed, out of 67 official receivers, 51 Liberals, of whom 19 had been agents for the Liberal Party. How did the hon. Gentleman know that? What authority bad he for that charge except an anonymous letter in The Sheffield Daily Telegraph? He (Mr. Chamberlain) was totally unable to answer the charge, because he did not know the political opinions of the great majority of the men whom he had appointed. He could not say whether it was true that he had appointed 51 Liberals or 51 Tories, because he did not know. But he asked the hon. Gentleman who brought this serious charge and impeached the conduct of a Minister of the Crown, what authority he had? What right had the hon. Member to come to the House and state as a matter of fact that 51 out of these gentlemen were Liberals? The course be took in carrying out his pledge to the House that in making these appointments he would endeavour to secure the best men was this—he bad told the House that he intended to make a sort of preliminary selection, and then refer the matter to a Committee. He found
  922
  the applications so numerous that it was absolutely impossible for him with any success to make any kind of selection, and he abandoned the idea altogether of a personal selection, or even of reading the vast number of testimonials which came to him. What he did was to make at once, on his own responsibility, four or five appointments. The first was that of the Official Receiver of London—Mr. Harding—who was doing his work admirably, to the entire satisfaction, he believed, of the commercial community of London. At the time he made that appointment he did not know Mr. Harding's political opinions. He had heard since that he was a Conservative. He did not know that Mr. Harding was a Conservative at the time, and he was very sorry subsequently to find that he was one. The best appointment, valued at £2,000 a-year, had, therefore, been given to a Conservative. The second appointment was that of the Inspector General in Bankruptcy—Mr. Smith, who was well known to everybody who had taken the slightest interest in this subject, as having had a larger acquaintance with bankruptcy practice and Bankruptcy Law than any other commercial man. Mr. Smith had also been managing director of one of the London banks. When that gentleman was appointed he knew nothing of his political opinions. As a matter of fact, Mr. Smith was a Liberal, and he was glad to hear it. The third appointment was that of the Official Receiver for Birmingham. During the preparation of the Bill, among other gentlemen he saw Mr. Luke Sharpe, who gave him most valuable information upon the subject. That gentleman had a most extensive practice, and he was very much impressed with his shrewdness and ability. He determined to offer him the appointment, and he would frankly tell the House that he wrote to a friend in Birmingham asking him what were Mr. Sharpe's politics, and was told that he was a Conservative. He was very sorry, but still offered him the appointment; and, as a matter of fact, he had been appointed on his merits alone. He made two other appointments of gentlemen who were officials under the old Bankruptcy Act, and whose politics he did not know even now. He had told the House the whole of the personal part that be

  923
  took. Having made these five or six appointments, he then asked a Departmental Committee to deal with the subject, and this Departmental Committee consisted of gentlemen who would be hereafter responsible for the administration of the Act. Two of them were—Mr. Giffen, who was at the head of the Commercial Department of the Board of Trade; and Mr. Stoneham, at the head of the Financial Department of the Board of Trade, in whose office would be vested the management of all the financial part of the administration of the Bankruptcy Act, the control and audit of accounts, and so on. The other two were Mr. Harding, the Chief Official Receiver, and Mr. John Smith, the Inspector General in Bankruptcy, one of whom would have the control of receivers in the Metropolitan district, and the other the control of receivers in the country. Was it possible he could have appointed gentlemen who had more interest in getting good men? He protested against the attack made upon this Committee, and especially against the imputation that they would be influenced by improper motives, and likely to pander to the supposed improper propensities of their official Chief. The credit of the permanent Civil Service of the Crown was really a matter of national concern. Whatever might be the case in the United States, with which the hon. Member appeared to be familiar, there had never been any imputation cast upon the honour of the members of our Civil Service, who discharged their duties without regard to politics. Having appointed this Committee, he thought it right to trust them, and he handed over to them the applications and testimonials, and asked them to prepare a scheme for dealing with them. The method they adopted had been described in a Report which had been laid before the House. In their Report these gentlemen said—
  "In the papers before the Committee there were no recommendations of the candidates on political grounds or referring to their political opinions, and in prosecuting their inquiries, they took care to have regard solely to the fitness, qualifications, and characters of the candidates before them. They relied chiefly on inquiries made of neutral persons occupying responsible positions in each district, and did not think it any part of their duty to inquire into the political opinions of the candidates. The Committee were thus entirely unacquainted with the politics of the candidates selected, and
  924
  this ignorance continued during the subsequent proceedings, except in one or two instances, where the candidates themselves inadvertently referred to their politics. ['Oh!' and laughter.] Such reference, of course, received no attention from the Committee."
  He could not understand the meaning of that laughter. It was perfectly natural that some would think of recommending themselves by declaring their politics; it was also certain that some, from a scrupulous sense of honour, thought that they were bound to declare their politics when they were opposed to the Government. He had one or two such instances brought to his knowledge by letters addressed to him privately. The Committee distinctly said that whatever statements were made they were put aside, and such statements did not influence the selections, which were made solely with regard to merit. The Committee went on to state, what was the fact, that in every case he accepted their recommendation. He might stop there, simply showing that he had taken every precaution he could to secure the best men. But he was not satisfied with that. He felt that in dealing with this vast number of applications from strangers to himself and the Committee, it was possible to fall into traps, and mistakes might be made; a man might have been a bankrupt, or made a composition, and that would be a disqualification. He, therefore, asked the Committee in every case to communicate with some public official or body—as County Court Judge, Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of Agriculture, or Town Council—asking whether the proposed appointment was approved of. To have laid before these the full list of candidates would have been to have evaded any responsibility for the making of the appointments, and Parliament had thrown upon him and upon his Department the duty of making the selection. In the vast majority of cases no objection was raised to the appointments. In two or three cases public bodies either declined to give an opinion, or expressed a preference for another candidate. In these few cases he impressed upon the Committee the necessity of making further inquiry; and they did not rest until they had satisfied themselves by the fullest inquiry they were able to make in the locality that the appointment was not fairly questionable. In all cases,

  925
  the further inquiries justified the original recommendation, which was accordingly acted upon. Having stated the general principles on which they proceeded, here he might fairly stop. It was specially difficult for him, in the circumstances, to go into individual cases. When the Notice of Motion appeared upon the Paper he caused a letter to be written to the hon. Member to say that if it was his intention to bring particular cases before the House, it would be convenient if he would furnish the names beforehand, in order that he might refer to the Departmental Committee for information. After the lapse of some time, the hon. Member wrote to say it was his intention to question the appointment of political agents. Another letter was sent to him to say that the President of the Board of Trade did not know who were political agents and asking for the names. To that letter there was no reply.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he only received the letter that morning.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was much surprised at that; he thought it was sent out two or three days ago.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he believed that that was so; but, being out of town, he did not receive it till this morning.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the original application was sent two or three weeks ago; but no reply was received till three days ago. Another letter was sent immediately, and the list of names could have been furnished even that morning—if it had been, he could have been prepared with a fuller statement. But it appeared that the hon. Member was more anxious to make a charge on anonymous information than to obtain accurate information. The hon. Member said that Mr. Messent, who had been appointed at Ipswich, had been a tailor, and had had to ask for the indulgence of his creditors. He should like to know upon what authority the hon. Member made that statement. The Committee laid it down, with his full approval, that, as a general rule, no man should be appointed who had been in such a position; he believed that in every case a direct question was put to the candidate himself; if an appointment had been made under a misapprehension in this respect he would reconsider it; and unless the hon. Member
  926
  was prepared to make the assertion as to the one case on his own knowledge, he must say that he did not believe the statement. A strong case of alleged political duplicity was that of York; it was said that the gentleman appointed was the agent of the Liberal Party; he dare say that was true; but, so far from having been anxious to make this political appointment, he did all he could to put York in the same district with Scarborough, and he protested against a separate appointment; but this aroused so much local feeling from both Liberals and Conservatives, that he was compelled to yield in order to secure the smooth working of the Act. The gentleman appointed might have been a draper, but he was now studying for the Bar. There was every reason to believe that he was a fit person to hold the appointment. Then the hon. Member referred to the case of Hereford. He knew nothing about it, nor did he understand what was the gravamen of the charge. At Taunton it was alleged that the agent of the Attorney General had been appointed. On that he would only say that another rule laid down was that, although the fact that a man had been an agent for a political Party was not to be held to exclude him from being appointed as an official receiver, it was made a condition in every case that the person appointed was to abandon all political appointments. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General gave him the information, which, thanks to the neglect of the hon. Member for Evesham in not furnishing him with the ground of his attack, he had not before—that that gentleman was not his election agent at all, and that he was the Deputy Registrar of the County Court. Ex uno disce omnes. The House might judge of that tremendous impeachment of the hon. Member for Evesham from that one case, which they were fortunately able to bring to a conclusion. But he thought it highly probable—inasmuch as the great majority of these appointments had been from solicitors—that they had been political agents on both sides. [A laugh.] He did not say the same men had acted for both sides. What he meant was that in those country towns they could hardly find any solicitor holding a prominent position and fitted for such work as they proposed to in trust to him who

  927
  had not at some time or other been a political agent either for Conservatives or Liberals. Then the hon. Member said that at Sheffield he (Mr. Chamberlain) appointed a gentleman who was his political agent when he was a candidate for that borough. Now, he did know something about the case of Sheffield, because it was brought prominently to his knowledge by the fact that the Chamber of Commerce of Sheffield objected to the nomination that was submitted to their consideration. The gentleman appointed there was Mr. Clegg. When he was candidate at Sheffield his political agent was Mr. Herbert Bramley, who had since been a political agent for the other side. Subsequently, in the course of the election, his candidature was united with that of his right hon. Friend, and that nominal connection—for it was really little more than that—had escaped his memory, and when Mr. Clegg's name was put before him he did not recognize the fact that that gentleman had been his agent in conjunction with Mr. Herbert Bramley. Mr. Clegg had been originally selected as a gentleman who was in every way qualified to fulfil the appointment given to him; and all the information since received from local sources showed that, if not the very best, he was a very good candidate for the office. The other day there was brought to him the completion of a case under the new Bankruptcy Act, and it so happened that that first bird fell to the gun of Mr. Clegg. He had been able to wind up that bankrupt estate under the new Act, and had paid 20 s. in the pound with a very moderate percentage of expenses. If that experience was general they would have no reason to complain of the operation of the Bankruptcy Act. Then the case of Oxford had been attacked. It was very similar to that of York. The Committee recommended that Oxford should be attached to another district. Originally it was proposed that an official receiver for Banbury and Oxford should be appointed, and the person to whom it was first offered happened to be a resident in Banbury. He declined, and they were obliged to take the person who had since been appointed, who, he believed, was perfectly qualified for the post, and who might have originally been—although he knew nothing of it—the agent of the Liberal Party. But it was impossible
  928
  to allege that that was an instance of political corruption, because it was the original intention to appoint a Banbury and not an Oxford man. He had now gone through the individual cases as well as he could at short notice, and without the special information which common courtesy would have suggested that the hon. Member for Evesham should have afforded him. He had also stated to the House the general principles on which he had proceeded; and he submitted to the House that there was not the remotest shadow of a case for the charge which had been brought against him.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he regretted the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), who had opposed the second reading of the Bankruptcy Bill. [Interruption.] He must suggest that the hon. Member for Stockton should behave himself. It was disorderly for the hon. Member to interrupt a Member who was addressing the House. He had made no observations of an offensive character; and, therefore, it was not too much to ask the hon. Member for Stockton to restrain himself. His hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire had opposed the Bankruptcy Bill on the second reading on the very ground that it would put an undue amount of patronage into the hands of the Government; and the President of the Board of Trade met that objection in a straightforward manner by giving the assurance that the best men should be appointed irrespective of their political opinions. Now, the facts which the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) had brought forward that hon. Member said he could substantiate before a Committee. ["No!"] He asked for a Committee; and who was most likely to be in the right, he who sought for an inquiry or those who refused it? The hon. Member said he could produce witnesses and evidence that he believed to be incontrovertible, and he denied that he had accepted any anonymous statements. The hon. Member said that out of 67 appointments 51 were given to Liberals. He did not attach much importance to that fact if it was one, because he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it was impossible for anyone in his place to know the political opinions of every individual who was appointed. But the

  929
  gravamen of the charge was that 19 out of the 51 were Liberal political agents.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: How many were Tories?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he understood that there were only 16 Tories appointed in all.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: How many are agents?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, there might have been some, but he knew nothing about that. What his hon. Friend asserted was that 19 out of the 51 Liberals appointed were election agents. If that was so the defence of the President of the Board of Trade failed. It was simply absurd to suppose that so high a proportion as that fact implied of the whole available talent for the discharge of these official duties under the Bankruptcy Act could only be found in the ranks of the Liberal election agents; and if his hon. Friend's statement was correct it was strong primâ facie ground for inquiry. He dared say that the President of the Board of Trade had adopted the steps which he thought adequate to carry out the solemn pledge he had given to the House in regard to the exercise of that patronage; but the right hon. Gentleman could not take shelter behind a Departmental Committee, and if the pledge which he had given had unfortunately been broken the right hon. Gentleman must be held responsible. Let them dismiss from their minds all animus in the matter, and let them look at the Ipswich case. There was a gentleman who had been a tailor at Birmingham, who had not been very fortunate in his business, and yet who had, on the recommendation of Mr. Jesse Collings, who was at once Member for Ipswich and a prominent member of the Caucus, been appointed to that town, with which he had no connection whatever.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. Mr. Messent is now resident in Ipswich. It was represented to me that Mr. Messent was a gentleman living upon his means in Ipswich at the time of his appointment. I do not believe the statement that he has compounded with his creditors.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that what he understood his right hon. Friend to assert was that Mr. Messent spent a great part of his life in Birmingham. If it was true that this Birming-
  930
  tailor became connected with Ipswich through the hon. Member for Ipswich, might they not arrive at the conclusion that he was appointed simply because Mr. Collings happened to be Member for that town? Then, again, let them take the case of the appointment in York. The President of the Board of Trade said he had not wished to make the appointment; he had thought it unnecessary, but he had yielded, and had appointed a gentleman who had almost gratuitously discharged the duties of a Liberal agent. It was evident that that gentleman had been appointed because he was a Liberal agent. Then there was the instance of Taunton. The Attorney General had denied that the gentleman was his election agent, but he had kept the canvass-books. All these were matters which ought to be cleared up. If the statements made by the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) were true, it was clear that the precautions taken concerning these appointments had been insufficient. There had always been a suspicion as to the manner in which this extensive patronage would be used, because the President of the Board of Trade was the head of the Caucus, an institution which had done so much to degrade the Civil Service in America. In America the great object of all reformers had been for years to dissociate the Civil Service from the electoral machines, and yet here they had placed an exceptional piece of patronage in the hands of a Minister who, by its means, placed persons who got it in an exceptional position to obtain information as to the affairs of other people. This patronage should have been conferred on persons who were free from suspicion, and not given to anyone for political services. Complaint had been made that sufficient information had not been given beforehand to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the charges made against the Department; but the House must bear in mind that these charges had been repeated over and over again in newspapers during the Recess. In The Sheffield Daily Telegraph there had appeared a detailed list of all the persons appointed and their antecedents, and the attention of the President of the Board of Trade must have been called to this, because he (Lord George Hamilton) had seen a letter written by the right hon.

  931
  Gentleman's secretary to the effect that the President of the Board of Trade declined to take any notice of the attack in the newspapers, but would be ready to defend himself in Parliament.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not know that the hon. Member was the mouthpiece of The Sheffield Daily Telegraph.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman did not know it even then; it was not the ease, as the hon. Member for Evesham stood, so to speak, on his own bottom. At the same time, with the charges made publicly in the Press before him, the right hon. Gentleman was hardly justified in complaining of want of information. The hon. Member for Evesham had collected from various sources information which he considered justified the statements he had made. The charge made by the hon. Member had in no way been met by the President of the Board of Trade. If these statements of the hon. Member for Evesham were true, and the hon. Member was quite prepared to substantiate them, it was clear that the pledge made to the House had been broken, and they had a right to inquire how it was this came about, and all his hon. Friend asked was an opportunity of proving it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was willing to acquit hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite of any desire to make a Party or personal attack on the President of the Board of Trade; but some unpleasant language had been used that night, which ought to have been avoided. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) spoke on the authority of a newspaper—for no other authority had been given in that House—to induce the House to consider the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the conduct of a Minister of the Crown. Even in a criminal case there must be some primâ facie ground of the truth of the charge, and hero some evidence must be given before asking for a Committee of Inquiry.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I stated that I had investigated every case myself, and written 600 letters on the subject.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could only have wished that the hon. Member had written
  932
  601, and that the last had been a letter to his right hon. Friend informing him of the charges he was going to make. What did the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex say? He had said that there had been a promise that these appointments should be made for no political causes, and then he had proceeded to admit that the right hon. Gentleman had delegated these appointments to a Committee; that they were the persons who made these appointments, and, therefore, they had misled the right hon. Gentleman. But of what politics were these men? Did the noble Lord suppose that they were not reasonably loyal to their office? But if that was true, these were the persons responsible for those appointments, although he admitted his right hon. Friend was responsible to the House. His right hon. Friend had omitted to state one matter. He had the power to make the appointment of every one of these 67 gentlemen for life, and, with the exception of eight of them, he had appointed them from year to year, so that they could be dismissed by his Successor at one year's notice. That was his right hon. Friend's individual action, and quite distinct from any obligation cast upon him. Let them not be mealy-mouthed. This was a charge of corruption against a Minister—and on what sort of evidence was it based? As regarded the case of Taunton, the legal political agent, who was one of the candidates, had not obtained the appointment, but the person who was Deputy Registrar of the County Court, and was recommended in the most earnest way by the County Court Judge, on account of his experience in dealing with bankruptcy cases, had been appointed. It was true that the gentleman in question had accompanied him on his canvass, but He was not in any way his agent. From first to last, until the hon. Gentleman had made the charge against his right hon. Friend and himself, no one human being had denied that that appointment was the very best that could be made. There was a time, perhaps, when political animosity got the better of that chivalry which was usual among men, and he feared that such was the case now; for when they heard the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex tell the House that he abhorred those who had anything to do with the Caucus, it was

  933
  not difficult for hon. Members to trace the spirit in which these charges had been made—charges which, as he had said, had so utterly fallen to the ground.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, He thought the right hon. Gentleman, when He gave his pledge to the House, must himself have felt that he never would have got the Bill passed unless the House had placed implicit confidence in that pledge. No one could deny that there had been a most uneasy feeling throughout the country—["No, no!"]—a very strong feeling, even among the Friends of the right hon. Gentleman—as to the way in which these appointments had been made. That was not to be wondered at when the results were looked at in broad figures; they were sufficient to warrant at least a suspicion in men's minds that that pledge had not been fairly fulfilled. Everyone had a right to expect, and did expect, that the particular officer of the Government who had charge of the appointments would see that pledge strictly and liberally carried out. At all events, the figures were quite sufficient to arouse public inquiry in the matter.
  MR. CAUSTON: Are they correct?
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSremarked that they had not been denied by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CAUSTON: He does not know anything about it.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the figures had not been revised by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but they had been stated to the House on the authority of a Member of the House, and, primâ facie, the authority and word of a Member was to be believed when he said he had made strict inquiries into a matter. What were the results of the figures? There were 67 appointments in all, 51 of whom were Liberals; 19 of the 51 were election agents, and four out of the 19 were election agents for Members of the present Government. It was for the honour and credit of the Government that this statement should be met, for if there was the smallest suspicion that this patronage had been wrongly used the country was entitled to inquire into it. The hon. Member who brought the matter forward said he would not mention more than six of the names of these gentlemen; and the right hon. Gentleman had said, in reply, that he ought
  934
  to have had full knowledge of the names in the cases that were to be brought forward, in order that he might be enabled to answer. It was very remarkable, however, if the names were perfectly new to him, what an intimate knowledge the right hon. Gentleman displayed of the majority of them. Without referring at length to the cases in which these appointments had been made, he might refer to a few of them as typical of the rest. The first he would mention was that at Ipswich, where the gentleman appointed came from Birmingham, and was one of the 800 or 900, or whatever the number might be, who controlled the elections in that borough in the Liberal interest. This gentleman went down to Ipswich with the present senior Member for that constituency, and assisted in procuring his election.-A few months later this gentleman was appointed Official Receiver for the district in which Ipswich was situate, and it was scarcely possible to doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was aware of his antecedents before the appointment was made. He was sure that hon. Members below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House, who so recently cheered the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, were as strongly opposed as he could be to the perpetration of a job, and he asked them to bear in mind the facts which he had stated. It ought to be the highest object of this House to see to it that these and all other appointments in the Civil Service of the country were beyond suspicion, and that the Service should be maintained in a state of purity, which was its pride, and in which it transcended the similar Services in every country of the world. The next case was that of a draper who was appointed Official Receiver at York, and who was an active agent, acting on behalf of the Liberal candidate for that city—a fact which, if it was not within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman before the appointment was made, might have been easily ascertained by him, and, being ascertained, ought to have had weight in the question of making the appointment. As far as this gentleman was concerned, it was admitted further that he was not the strongest among the candidates; and, even if he had been, it would surely have been better not to make a selection

  935
  which could give rise to an idea that in future—no matter what Party might be in Office—political services were almost as a matter of course to be rewarded by appointments in the Civil Service. In the case of the appointment to Hereford, the gentleman selected for the office was not only a strong Liberal partizan, but he had also been party to a questionable compromise which was effected between the rival political sections in the case of an Election Petition which was presented and tried. Then, in the case of Taunton, the Official Receiver was a gentleman who had care of the canvass books of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, this was not so. The gentleman had not care of his canvass books, but accompanied him from house to house in his canvass, and was in no way responsible for the management of the contest.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was clear that if the gentleman was not an election agent, he at any rate assisted the hon. and learned Gentleman in his canvass. Then, again, it was admitted that the gentleman who was appointed at Sheffield had acted as an election agent; and in Oxford and Derby the appointees were gentlemen who had on occasion acted as the election agents of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who was now Secretary of State for the Home Department. When the hon. Member had shown that out of 67 gentlemen appointed 51 had been Liberals, of whom 19 had been Liberal electioneering agents, and four the agents of Members of the Government, he thought that a sufficient case had been made out for inquiry; and it was for the credit of the Government and of the right hon. Gentleman himself that some further answer should be given, because, without such answer, the country would not be satisfied.
  MR. DODDSsaid, the general question had been so fully entered into by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that he should not have risen unless he had had some personal experience of the matter in dispute. The first of the cases alluded to in connection with these appointments was that of York. It had been said over and over again that Mr.
  936
  Wilkinson had been the Liberal election agent for York; but that statement was an entire misrepresentation, and was not true. [Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Members might cry "Oh!" as much as they pleased; but he had not risen to say anything that he was not thoroughly acquainted with, and he was fully acquainted with all the details of the York appointment. There were residing at York a Liberal agent for that city and a Liberal agent for the North Riding of Yorkshire, but neither of them was Mr. Wilkinson. Mr. Wilkinson was a draper of the highest respectability in the City of York. [A laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh, but there had been other respectable drapers in York, one of whom not very many years ago became a Member of that House, and a very distinguished member and ornament of society. He referred to the late George Hudson. Mr. Wilkinson was not an unworthy representative of the City of York; he had retired from business some time ago on a competency, and, having retired, he was anxious to fill up a portion of his time with some active employment. Mr. Wilkinson made an application for this appointment at a time when he had not acted as election agent in anyway. [Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Members might say "Oh!" as much as they pleased, but he repeated that Mr. Wilkinson had not acted as election agent in any way whatever at the time he applied for this post. When, however, the Corrupt Practices Act came into operation, it became doubtful how far paid agents might be employed; and at a recent bye-election for the City of York, when Mr. Lockwood, a barrister on the Northern Circuit, became a candidate, Mr. Wilkinson acted as his honorary election agent. He could see no reason why that fact ought to disqualify Mr. Wilkinson from being appointed to this office. He believed that pressure had been put upon the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade by leading Conservatives in York and others in order to induce him to alter his determination as to appointing a Receiver in Bankruptcy at Scarborough instead of York. A deputation, composed of gentlemen belonging to both political Parties, waited upon the right hon. Gentleman, and he (Mr. Dodds) knew that the President of the Board of Trade yielded to their representations

  937
  under great pressure. One of the leading Conservatives in York told him (Mr. Dodds) how the right hon. Gentleman had relieved the city from a a great difficulty. Inconsequence of his own personal knowledge of both political Parties in the North of England, and the professional position he occupied in that part of the country, he had received more applications for recommendations in connection with these appointments than probably any other man in that House. Perhaps the House would allow him to state what had happened in his own immediate neighbourhood. Among the applicants was a leading Conservative agent in the borough of Middlesborough, who had acted as agent for the junior Member for the North Biding of Yorkshire (Mr. Guy Dawnay); and he (Mr. Dodds) had endorsed the application with a statement that the gentleman in question was a good man. Before, however, the appointment was made—as soon as the application became known to the Town Council of Stockton and the people of Middlesborough—there was a great outcry from both of these boroughs against the appointment of a Conservative to the office. Representations were accordingly made to the Board of Trade, and the answer returned by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was this—"We have not considered politics at all in making these appointments; we only consider the fact that the gentleman we propose to appoint is a good man, and we, therefore, intend to appoint him." He had been appointed accordingly. He (Mr. Dodds) spoke of these matters as having occurred within his own personal knowledge. He had happened to go to the Board of Trade to see Mr. Giffen with reference to another of these appointments—[Cries of "Name!"]—and he had found from the beginning to the end that political considerations were never allowed in the smallest degree to interfere in the matter. As a matter of fact, in his own borough and in his own district a Conservative had been appointed, proving conclusively the truth of the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that political considerations had nothing whatever to do with these appointments.
  MR. ECROYDsaid, that, in the few remarks he intended to make, he should
  938
  endeavour to avoid all Party animus. He had acted as one of the Members of the Grand Committee on the Bankruptcy Bill last year, and at the commencement of the sittings of that Committee there was a natural anxiety that the patronage created by the Bill should not be used for the furtherance of Party and political objects. They were all glad, therefore, to receive the positive assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that any such course would be avoided. He did not for one moment dispute the correctness of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that he had endeavoured, and that the Committee entrusted with the important task of making these appointments had also endeavoured, to select only the best men; but in most, if not all, places there must have been several men of equal ability and fitness for such appointments, and the present complaint was that, there being a choice of competent men, a great preponderance of gentlemen of one particular Party had been selected. In regard to his own district, the person who had been appointed was a gentleman at Preston, against whose fitness and capacity not a word would be said by him, and he believed not a word would be said by anyone; but it so happened that Preston was a town where Conservatism was exceedingly predominant, and if this gentleman was eligible for the appointment he must maintain that there were men equally eligible in the other political Party who were passed over. This was not a matter which ought to be discussed in regard to mere Party and personal considerations, and if that were the only meaning of it, he, for one, would certainly decline to take any part in the discussion. The Bankruptcy Act, however, was an important measure in regard to which he had entertained sanguine hopes that it might tend to the promotion of commercial morality in the country. How essential, therefore, even from the beginning, to avoid any possible imputation of Party objects in connection with the appointments made under it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, no doubt with perfect sincerity, asserted that he had not allowed himself to he swayed by political considerations in making the appointments; but, in his

  939
  (Mr. Ecroyd's) opinion, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have laid down as a rule for the guidance of the Committee which he had appointed to act in conjunction with the Board of Trade this simple principle—that no man who had occupied the position of election agent in connection with either political Party should be eligible for the appointment of Official Receiver. It was perfectly absurd to say that such a rule would have narrowed the choice so much that eligible appointments could not have been made; and certainly, if such a principle had been laid down for the guidance of the Committee, the most grievous suspicion in regard to the furtherance of Party and political aims would have been avoided. He did not, for one moment, believe that the right hon. Gentleman had consciously departed from the pledge which he gave; but he did believe that there had been a serious and lamentable misadventure which had created grave doubt in the minds of many people as to the safety of measures of a centralizing character such as the Bankruptcy Act. The fact was now patent to the country that out of 67 appointments 51 had been made of gentlemen who were closely connected with the political Party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged, and it was even more lamentable that of those 51 no fewer than 19 had been Liberal election agents. The appointment of a Select Committee was now necessary to reassure the country in this early stage of the operation of the Bankruptcy Act that there was no danger of the development of officialism or centralization, or of the institution of a system which had proved most disastrous in the United States of America. They knew perfectly well that the principle of conferring the spoils upon the victors had been worked out in the United States in a manner highly detrimental to the best interests of that country; and he was sure he might appeal to Gentlemen of the Party opposite who had been Members of the Grand Committee on Trade last year to confirm him in stating that there was a feeling not confined to Gentlemen of one political Party, but freely expressed by both, that this great political danger should be avoided. He believed, if a full inquiry were made into the whole matter, and if it could be proved that every endeavour had been made to avoid
  940
  attaching the slightest Party interest to these appointments, such a result would allay much legitimate anxiety now felt throughout the country. For himself, He believed that the right hon. Gentleman himself had the greatest interest in assenting to the appointment of a Select Committee, and he entertained a confident expectation that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to show that he had not intentionally failed to fulfil the pledge he had given upon this subject.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he thought it was a remarkable circumstance that of the four hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who represented very large centres of population, and who had taken part in this debate, not one had made any complaint whatever in regard to the operation of the Act, or the distribution of patronage under it in those parts of the country which they respectively represented. Of those four hon. Members three came from the county in which he also had the honour of representing a constituency. The fourth was the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), and not one of them, in dealing with the subject, had made a single representation in regard to the maladministration of the Act in the district with which he was most intimately connected. He thought it would have been much more to the credit of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) if He had made some reference to the distribution of the patronage in the county which he himself represented. In that county there was a population of 4,000,000, and it was a matter of the greatest importance that the Act should be properly administered. What was, therefore, incumbent upon the right hon. Gentleman was either to allege against the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade or the Government that the Act was not being properly administered in Lancaster, or that its administration in that county had failed. It was well known to the right hon. Gentleman that in the chief town of Lancashire—namely, Lancaster—a Conservative solicitor had been appointed, to the great dismay of the Liberal Party. The hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) informed the House that in making these

  941
  appointments the Government had paid regard to the political opinions of the different candidates for the office. All He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) could say was that, to his own knowledge—and he believed the Members for Manchester would make the same representation—although the Representatives for Manchester and Salford had recommended the applications made by several persons, they were perfectly ignorant of the politics of these persons; and there was this additional fact, that not one of the applicants recommended by the hon. Members for Manchester and Salford had received any appointment whatever. There was only one accusation which had been made that evening which deserved attention, and he was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had directed his attention to it. The hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hart-land) said that one of the gentlemen who had been appointed to this office had made a composition with his creditors. [Mr. DIXON-HARTLAND: No.] The hon. Member had stated, at all events, that the gentleman in question had been in an unfortunate position with regard to his creditors. He regarded that as an unfortunate statement, and he would on no account be in the position of the hon. Member for Evesham, who, having received a letter from the President of the Board of Trade asking him for the names of the persons whose appointments he intended to question, had neglected to answer that letter, and had, nevertheless, made a statement seriously affecting the credit of persons who were now officially connected with the State, without having done his utmost to ascertain whether the allegations he made were well-founded and correct. He regretted the Party and political animus which the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had imported into the debate when he talked about the Birmingham Caucus, and the political influences which had been brought to bear upon the matter. The question for the consideration of the House was one of a plain and simple character—namely, the desirability of the appointments which had been made; and he thought the debate might have been confined to that simple point. He thought the judgment of the House
  942
  would be unanimous. The statement of the President of the Board of Trade did him great honour; it not only acquitted him from the charge made against him, but it showed that in circumstances of great difficulty and delicacy he had used his best endeavour to discharge his duty to the State with the utmost conscientiousness.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would only detain the House for a few moments while he gave the reasons why he should refuse to support the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee. The Motion was—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the manner into which the patronage conferred on the President of the Board of Trade by the Bankruptcy Act of 1883, has been exercised by him."
  If the House were to agree to that Resolution, it would express dissatisfaction with the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade, and would declare that that statement was altogether insufficient to acquit him of personal responsibility in the matter. Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, he would ask the House what more could any man have done than the President of the Board of Trade had done? He did not think that any man could have done more than had actually been done by the right hon. Gentleman to shield himself from all suspicion of favouritism in making these appointments; but, while he said that, he must be allowed to express regret that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to accede to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry, not into his own appointments, but into the selections which had been made by his own Departmental Committee, because it was impossible not to see, whether consciously or not he would not say, that those who had the management of the selection had given a most extraordinary proportion of the appointments to persons who belonged to the political Party now in power. It was perfectly incredible, as the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench (Lord George Hamilton) had remarked, that all the available talent, or even to the extent of 30 per cent. was concentrated in the small ring constituted by Liberal electioneering agents. It would strike a blow at the political life of the country, if such an example was to be

  943
  set without any inquiry being made. He could not forget that this was not the first occasion on which appointments under the Bankruptcy Act had been criticized. He could not for a moment suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, for the sake of his own good name, which was indissolubly connected with this measure, would allow that name to be associated with anything like favouritism. The right hon. Gentleman would be judged as a successful politician and statesman by the success of the Bankruptcy Act, and he was far too great a man to jeopardize the Act by appointing men to important judicial offices whose only recommendation was to be found in the activity with which they had promoted Party movement among the borough constituencies. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had thought it necessary to make this statement in order to show why it was that he should vote against the Resolution in the case of a Division, and he would only repeat the expression of his regret that some inquiry was not to be instituted.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had come down to the House under the idea that they were going to discuss the Estimates; but he found the House engaged in an idle and profitless discussion upon the bankruptcy appointments. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) said there was primâ facia evidence in support of the charges of the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland), and, therefore, a Committee ought to be appointed; and he knew that hon. Members from Ireland were constantly asserting that the appointments made in connection with that country were monstrous. Would, however, the right hon. Gentleman get up to support a Committee of Inquiry into every one of them? Now, what were the facts of this case? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had appointed a Departmental Committee, and had told that Committee to find the best men for Official Assignees who could be found. It did not at all surprise him (Mr. Labouchere) that out of 67 appointments it had been discovered that in 51 cases the best candidates for the appointments were Liberals. That was precisely the result he should have anticipated. While the hon. Gentlemen
  944
  opposite had been complaining of the conduct of the President of the Board of Trade, he (Mr. Labouchere) had been sitting there nearly boiling over with indignation, because he also had a complaint to make against the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had appointed a Committee, and had actually told them not to ask whether a candidate was a Liberal or a Conservative. He strongly protested against the right hon. Gentleman having given so many as 16 of these appointments to Conservatives. It was a falling away from all the old traditions of political life. He quite agreed with the remark of Lord Palmerston when that noble Lord said—" The best man is the man I like best." Hon. Gentlemen opposite when in Office always appointed Conservatives to desirable posts, and never appointed Liberals. He, therefore, did complain of his right hon. Friend for having, in this instance, appointed any Conservative at all; and he did so because there was no principle of give and take in the matter. The Conservatives never appointed Liberals or Radicals; but yet the Liberals were perpetually appointing Conservatives. Look at the Bishops and the Judges. A Liberal Government were continually appointing the Rev. So-and-so to a Bishopric, and when any inquiry was made as to his political principles it was found that he was a Conservative. He held that a Liberal Government should never appoint a Conservative until they discovered that no sound Liberal was prepared to take the place. His notions might be old-fashioned; but they were the notions which had made England what it was, and they might depend upon it that they would gain nothing by altering them in this objectionable manner. The hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) said that when a man asked him for his aid in getting an appointment, he never thought of inquiring whether he was a Conservative or a Liberal. Now, if a man asked him (Mr. Labouchere) to aid him in getting an appointment, the first question he put to him was—"What are your politics?" And if he did not find that his politics were sound he invariably said—" Wait until your friends come in and then you may get what you want." He hoped, if the hon. Member for Evesham intended to take a Division, he would do so at

  945
  once, so that the House might be able to enter upon some more practical question.
  SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he should be glad to learn whether the Government adopted the extraordinary argument contained in the speech to which they had just listened, because it would simplify matters very much. If it was upon that ground that the Government was to be defended, then the case was clearly proved. There was, however, one slight element forgotten in the speech to which they had just listened—namely, the pledge that had been given that no such considerations as that referred to should affect any of the appointments. Of course, the hon. Gentleman might think that an immaterial circumstance, but most hon. Members would regard it as of some importance. He (Sir Hardinge Giffard) had been a little surprised to hear the concluding portions of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), because, although the hon. Member stated that he could not support the Motion, it appeared to him (Sir Hardinge Giffard) that he gave cogent reasons for supporting the appointment of a Committee. There was one reason given by the hon. Gentleman which he heartily sympathized with—namely, that they must accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that he had nothing to do with the matter. He had no doubt they would all receive that assurance on both sides of the House. At the same time, however, it seemed to him that a serious principle was involved in the assumption that when a Minister was intrusted with a Parliamentary duty, he could not only shield himself, but everyone else, from responsibility, by simply saying that personally he had had nothing to do with it. He should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman had something to do with it, and that it was his duty to see that the pledge which he had given to Parliament was not broken. They all accepted what the right hon. Gentleman said; but let them see what the facts of the case were. He did not propose to deal with the argument that 51 out of 67 were Liberals; but he would like to know what a learned Judge would say if he were dealing with the appointments which had been made in this
  946
  instance, and whether a candidate at an election had been guilty or not of corrupt practices when he gave certain appointments to persons who happened to be supporters of his own political Party? He had been glad to see the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) on his feet—they often heard the hon. Member without seeing him on his feet. The hon. Gentleman had given the House a remarkable example. He told them that one of the appointments had been given to a gentleman who had assisted a very distinguished member of the Bar at a recent election for the City of York, under these peculiar circumstances—that since the Corrupt Practices Bill passed, it was impossible for any election agent to receive remuneration from the candidate, and, therefore, he ought to receive remuneration from the Ministry. So far as he (Sir Hardinge Giffard) could see, that appeared to be the only justification for this particular appointment. What was it they were now asking for? It was not for condemnation, but for inquiry—an inquiry that would satisfy everybody that there was no ground for the accusation, or, if ground was shown, that then they might act upon it. He did not intend to treat seriously the trifling which the question had received at the hands of the last speaker; but how did the public regard the question? An hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to verify the accusations which had been made public in various parts of the country, and he said—"I have satisfied myself that these accusations are true, and I undertake to prove them, if you will give me a Committee." What was the answer given to that statement? Did the Ministers say the accusations were not true? No. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) said he did not know anything about them, and that he certainly was not aware that any gentleman appointed was a Liberal agent. That, however, was not the question; but whether these appointments had been very largely given to prominent Liberal partizans as a reward for their political action? It certainly appeared to be a questionable transaction which it was very necessary to inquire into, and especially one incident which had been mentioned—namely, the withdrawal of a Petition and a bargain between the two political Parties in a borough. That seemed to

  947
  him to be a very serious charge; and so far he could not understand that there had been any denial of it. All that his hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) asked was that he should be allowed to prove these accusations. With reference to the cases that had been mentioned, he thought it would have been better if the names of the gentlemen whose appointments it was intended to call into question had been given to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade; but, at the same time, it was quite true that these were not things that were heard of now for the first time. All the names had been published, and the nature of the cases also. If the names had been given that morning—and he thought it would have been better if they had been—it would not have decided the matter "Aye" or "No" that night; but there must have been a question either of adjournment or of allowing the case to go to a Committee of Inquiry, and that was what his hon. Friend asked for. He (Sir Hardinge Giffard) did not say that the charges were true, or, at any rate, every one of them; but he should be glad to know that there had been no such malversation as was suggested in the accusations which had been made. The matter ought not to be passed over without inquiry, either for the sake of the gentlemen who were concerned, or for the sake of the right hon. Gentleman himself. It would be most unsatisfactory to let the matter stay where it was now. No one could doubt that it would be the subject of accusation throughout the country hereafter if an opportunity were not afforded of having it cleared up now.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that the adoption of the Motion would not involve any censure on the President of the Board of Trade. He had never yet heard of an instance in which a Committee had been moved for except on the ground that a primâ facie case of misconduct on the part of the Minister had been made out. If this Committee were granted, those who now said it could be granted without any censure being passed upon his right hon. Friend, would go through the country saying that the House of Commons had condemned
  948
  him for the way in which he had exercised the patronage of the Crown. He knew something himself about the way in which persons went about the country making accusations upon no better foundation than that. To appoint a Committee to inquire into the mode in which the patronage of the Crown had been exercised by a Member of the Government would have the further disadvantage of discrediting the officials who had been appointed. They could not appoint such a Committee or have such an Inquiry without a certain amount of discredit being attached to the officials, and in that way the working of the Act would be materially impaired. That being so, it required a very strong case indeed to justify the appointment of such a Committee. He knew personally something about the course which had been taken in making those appointments. Of his own knowledge he was aware that for months past his right hon. Friend, in conjunction with those who had acted with him, had considered these appointments with au earnest and anxious desire to select the best men who could be obtained. He said no more than the truth when he said that his right hon. Friend was anxious only for the success of these appointments; that they should have nothing to do with politics, but that the country should get the best men who could be obtained in order to insure the satisfactory working of the Act. He hoped the House would look at the matter from a common-sense point of view. The reputation of his right hon. Friend depended to some extent upon the way in which the Act worked. What evidence was there, on the other hand, that any improper political motives had entered into the making of these appointments? It was suggested that his right hon. Friend had appointed more Liberals than Conservatives, and that the proportion was grossly unfair. Was it at all likely that his right hon. Friend would have allowed such a consideration to influence his mind? He had the strongest reasons for acting in a totally different spirit. If he had been foolish enough to do anything of that kind he must have known that the work in which he was engaged would have been known in the course of a month, and that his own political reputation must be sacrificed. Political objects

  949
  in making the appointments never once entered the mind of his right hon. Friend; but his only thought was how to get the best men. His right hon. Friend appointed a Committee to save time in the work of sifting every case. They did sift every case. He knew of his own personal knowledge that the object had been to ascertain who were the best men, and that no politics whatever had entered into the matter. It had been said that a great many more Liberals had been appointed than Conservatives. First of all, the statement rested entirely upon the assertion of the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland). They had that statement, and they were asked to take it as evidence of an improper motive on the part of the President of the Board of Trade in making the appointments. In making the appointments his right hon. Friend was guided by the action of his Departmental Committee, whose Report was before the House. His right hon. Friend might have made these officials permanent officials, so that they could not be displaced when the other political Party came into power, but he had not done so; he had merely made temporary appointments, every one of which could be set aside if right hon. Gentlemen opposite came into power. Surely that was very strong evidence of the good faith of the right hon. Gentleman, and showed that he was really anxious to get the best men he could. The House had before them, under the hands of the Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman, a statement that they had recommended the men who appeared to them to be most fitted, and they had never concerned themselves about the politics of the applicants, and that in the vast majority of cases they knew nothing whatever about the politics of the candidates. That statement was signed by Mr. Giffen, Mr. Harding, Mr. Storeham, and Mr. John Smith. Was the House going to say that that statement was false? And if it was not false, was the mere statement of an hon. Member of that House to outweigh the statement made by the Members of the Departmental Committee and signed, in which these Gentlemen pledged themselves that politics had never entered into their consideration? Was that statement false?—because, if it was not false,
  950
  there could be no ground for an Inquiry. It was said that the majority of those who had been appointed were Liberals; but all the appointments were based upon a Report from public officials, and he challenged hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that those officials were not public servants of the highest honour and integrity. Some of them had been for many years in the Public Service, and they pledged themselves to the truth of the statement they had made. If that statement was true, there could be no ground for an Inquiry. There might have been a blunder, but, to the best of the knowledge of these gentlemen, they had selected the best men; at any rate, they had not allowed themselves to be actuated by political motives. If hon. Members pressed for an Inquiry they necessarily suggested that the statement made by these gentlemen was false, and in that way they cast the most serious imputation upon men who had been long in the Public Service, and who were men of as much honour and integrity as any Member of that House. So far as he could make out, no one had said that the appointments were improper or that there were better men in competition. What the charge amounted to was that so many Conservatives had been appointed against so many Liberals; but, unless the signed Report of the Departmental Committee was absolutely untrue, there was no ground whatever for saying that political considerations had entered into the appointments. It was impossible for the House to appoint a Committee without involving an accusation of that kind; and he asked them in all seriousness whether a primâ facie case had been made out? Had any Member ventured to say that any one of these appointments was an improper appointment? No such charge had been made, or was attempted to be substantiated. The real charge was this—that, although the best men might have been appointed, they were not Conservatives. That was what the case came to; and was that a ground for appointing a Committee of Inquiry? Hon. Gentlemen opposite admitted that they had no case; at any rate, they had not brought one forward. What they said was, there ought to be an Inquiry, because it was wrong to appoint men, even if they were the best men, if they happened to be Liberals. But, as he had pointed out,

  951
  there was a far more serious matter involved in the question than the mere appointment of a Committee of Inquiry—namely, the fact that a Committee could not be appointed without casting a serious imputation upon valuable public servants, two of whom were gentlemen exercising most important functions under the Bankruptcy Act—namely, the Chief Administrator in Bankruptcy, and the Chief Official Receiver in London. What was proposed by the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) was to upset all the valuable work they were doing, and to cast upon them the stigma that they had been influenced by improper motives. He submitted that he had made out a very much stronger case in the public interest against the appointment of this Committee than anything that had been made out in its favour.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he always listened with attention and interest to his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, especially when his hon. and learned Friend endeavoured to argue a question rather than to carry away the House by the mere force of declamation; but he would remind his hon. and learned Friend of a case that occurred before he (the Solicitor General) became a Member of that House, and in which he (Mr. Raikes) was personally concerned. Therefore, he could speak from positive recollection. The case he referred to occurred as far back as 1871 or 1872. It became his painful duty at that time to move for a Committee of Inquiry into the conduct of a Minister who was a Member of the last Liberal Administration with reference to certain proceedings in connection with his Department, and the Motion he made was at once seconded by the Minister himself whose conduct the House was invited to inquire into—at any rate, if he did not formally second it, he rose and said he was sorry that someone else had done so, because he had been anxious to have that opportunity himself. That was the way in which a Minister of that day met charges of this nature. What a change had come over them since. That night a Motion had been made for an inquiry into the conduct of the President of the Board of Trade in the administration of the powers conferred upon him by the Bankruptcy Act of last Session, and they had had speeches of great anima-952
  tion, but not very much argument, from Gentlemen of the Long Robe who adorned the Treasury Bench. All of them deprecated the Motion; but he could not help being reminded of the words—
  "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."
  He thought that hon. and learned Gentlemen who had seats on the Treasury Bench should confine themselves more to argumentative statements, and not appeal so much to the feelings of the House. His hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General) was of opinion that if any inquiry were granted a terrible slur or stigma would be cast upon three or four most respectable members of the Public Service. That was the gist of the argument of his hon. and learned Friend, and the hon. and learned Gentleman attempted to draw the House aside from the responsibility which necessarily attached to the Head of the Department, in order to induce them to abstain from inquiry out of consideration for the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman's subordinates. He did not suppose that any Member on that side of the House would yield to his hon. and learned Friend in the respect he entertained for the gentlemen whose names had been mentioned; but, although they respected those gentleman, there was no particular reason why they should not inquire into the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman whose course of action in this matter was impugned. He thought they were going to hear something about another document which appeared in the public Press in close connection with that which had been referred to. He remembered reading that document with feelings almost of awe. It was a Minute of the Lords of the Council. He had always been accustomed to treat with proper respect a document emanating from so distinguished and so respectable a source, and he had seen occasionally the names of two or three distinguished Members of Her Majesty's Government placed at the head of such a document as having been present when those Minutes were being propounded. On that particular occasion he felt that the document which had emanated from the Council Chamber, and which bore the name of the right hon. Joseph Chamberlain, was one which deserved the consideration of the House and the

  953
  country. That document, however, did not have a place in the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor General; but he thought it formed part of the question which would come under the consideration of the country and the House in connection with the matter raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Evesham. He would advert for one moment to the result of the Motion which, 10 or 12 years ago, he ventured to make in that House for inquiry into the conduct of a Member of the Administration. As he had said, in the first instance, the Government met him with extreme willingness to grant that inquiry; in fact, he might say that the Gentleman who then managed the Business of the Government in that House came to consult him as to the persons who should form the Committee. But after the statement made on that occasion by the Minister into whose conduct the inquiry was asked for, he was desirous of withdrawing his Motion. The zeal, however, of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, always the depositories of purity, prevented his withdrawing the Motion he had propounded, and it was negatived by the House. Three days afterwards the Minister resigned. He thought this was a matter worthy of the attention of the House in connection with this subject, though he did not wish at that moment to refer more particularly to the Gentleman whose conduct was then the subject of the Motion for Inquiry. He thought, himself, that the speech which that Gentleman made in the House was a fair answer to the charge which he brought against him, and he was anxious to withdraw his Motion. He mentioned the subject to show how such questions were then dealt with by a Liberal Government. He had not heard the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Evesham; but he had had the advantage of listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and he could not but think that if any speech were required to prove the case of the hon. Member for Evesham, that hon. Member's speech had made it absolutely necessary that a Committee should be appointed to investigate not only this subject, but the question of other appointments made by Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Member for Northampton was the
  954
  enfant terrible of the Liberal Party—he said what he thought, and the House was always indebted to him for the light which he brought to bear on questions of this kind. He (Mr. Raikes) would not express an opinion upon the charges which it was sought to submit to a Committee of that House; but he was confident that if Her Majesty's Government could desire by any means, or in any way, to shake public confidence in the distribution of patronage by the Liberal Party, or in any way to expose themselves to attack as to the use they had had made of that patronage, they could not do so more effectually than by meeting this Motion with a direct negative. He had been in hope that a different answer would be forthcoming than that which had been given by the Law Officers of the Crown to the Motion of his hon. Friend. There was another point which deserved the attention of the House in connection with this subject—namely, that the Bankruptcy Bill, under which these appointments were made, came back to the House from the Standing Committee on the 13th of August last, and it was absolutely impossible to raise, at that time, a fair discussion as to whether it was desirable that the appointments should be vested in the President of the Board of Trade, or in any other person or persons enjoying official positions. Therefore the Government, by bringing in the Bankruptcy Bill late in the Session, in pressing it on the House and in securing its enactment in the last days of the Session, had assumed a responsibility for the measure which did not ordinarily attach to measures which were fairly debated in that House. The House of Commons had had no opportunity of discussing fully, fairly, and freely the propriety of these appointments being vested solely in the President of the Board of Trade, and, that being so, he should have thought that the President of the Board of Trade would not have acted unadvisedly had he himself moved for an inquiry as to how this patronage had been distributed. There had been a great deal of vain talk of imputations being cast upon Members of the Government in consequence of such a Motion as this being accepted by the House. But the Members of the Government were not made of sugar-candy, and they must be prepared to have their conduct

  955
  considered and discussed like other people. As he understood the Motion, his hon. Friend prejudged nothing; there was no assertion that any of the information which had reached him was matter of proof; and he only asked the House to take the opportunity which this Motion afforded of instituting an inquiry which he (Mr. Raikes) should be happy to find resulted in whitewashing the President of the Board of Trade.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he viewed this matter, more or less, from the standpoint of an outsider. Irish Members, of course, came to that House expecting a considerable amount of instruction; but what did they find? They found an Assembly of the first Gentlemen in Europe, members of a superior race, blackguarding one another with charges of venality and corruption. [Interruption.] Why, the President of the Board of Trade, in one of his recent speeches, was good enough to taunt Members of that House with using language tantamount to the employment in warfare of poisoned wells and explosive bullets. If he were the right hon. Gentleman, he should say that a Motion of this kind was a great deal worse than the so-called poisoned wells and explosive bullets said to be employed by Members from Ireland, because they had never charged the Members of the Government with corruption. If he voted with the Government it would be because he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had only been able to appoint 16 Conservatives. He only wished, with regard to Ireland, where nine-tenths of the population were Catholics and Nationalists, that out of 67 appointments even one had been given to a gentleman of the persuasion and politics of Irish Members on those Benches. He should tender the President of the Board of Trade the homage of his support on that occasion for the extraordinary liberality he had shown to the Tory Party. One hon. Member had said that it was extraordinary that all the talent of the country should he on the Liberal side. They were continually told that the Tory Party was the stupid Party. In saying that, he was only using the language of Englishmen; and when he contemplated the equation of talent as between Liberals and Conservatives, he
  956
  would say that the ratio was probably as 60 to 16. No one doubted for a moment that, if the Tory Party in that House had anything like common ability or leadership, the Members of the Government would not be occupying their present position. There could be no talent in the Tory Party, or its Leader would not have made a fool of himself in the North of Ireland. [Interruption.] He was not applying that term to anyone as a Member of that House; but he was entitled to express his opinion as to what went on outside the House. He believed this Motion was levelled at the President of the Board of Trade because he was the spokesman of the Radieal Party, and, further, that if he were not so outspoken this outcry would not have been made against him. Looking at the way in which the government of Ireland was conducted, and seeing that not a single Catholic had been appointed in that country, where nine-tenths of the people were Catholics and Nationalists, he congratulated the President of the Board of Trade on having made 16 Conservative appointments out of the 67 at his disposal, and for that reason he should vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Evesham.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 53: Majority 48.—(Div. List, No. 28.)
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
  SUPPLY,—Committee upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  Select Committee on Public Accounts nominated:—Sir WALTER BARTTELOT, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. GORST, Mr. LAING, Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Sir CHARLES MILLS, Mr. RYLANDS, Mr. SALT, Mr. SEELY, and Mr. SHAW:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  DUBLIN MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND ART,
  Select Committee on Dublin Museum of Science and Art nominated:—Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. DAWSON, and Mr. PLUNKET:—Two to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

  EAST INDIAN RAILWAYS.
  Select Committee on East Indian Railways nominated:—Committee to consist of Nineteen Members:—Mr. BERNHARD SAMUELSON, Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE, Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Mr.

  957
  BAXTER, Mr. DALRYMPLE, Mr. BOLTON, Mr. BRODRICK, Mr. SLAGG, Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR, Mr. WILLIAM FOWLER, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. WODEHOOUE, Mr. ONSLOW, Mr. CARRUTT, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SHITH, Mr. JUSTIN M'CARTHY, Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL, Mr. GORST, and Mr. KYNASTON CROSS:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Seven to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock till Monday next.