Commons Sitting of 15 March 1884

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.
MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1883–4)—CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN).
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Before the Order of the Day is read, I should like to know from my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, If the Government have received any further intelligence from Egypt; and I will also ask, if he can explain how it is that at 12 o'clock there were no Members of the Government in the House?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, in reply to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I may say that Her Majesty's Government have received no information from General Graham since the telegram received last night, which appears in the newspapers this morning. I think also that no further information—or, at any rate, no recent infor-
  1652
  mation—has been received from Khartoum. It appears that the telegraph service has been interrupted for two or three days between Khartoum and Shendy. A steamer arrived either yesterday or the day before at Shendy from Khartoum, which had been fired at on the way and it is, therefore, assumed that some of the tribes in that part of the country have risen.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Can the noble Marquess say what is the date of the latest communication received by the Government from General Gordon?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think the last communication was received on Thursday.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Has any information been received from Assouan? I want to know what is going on there.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No; there is no intelligence whatever from Assouan, and nothing that I am aware of is taking place in that part of the country. In reference to the other Question put to me a short time ago by the right hon. Gentleman, as to the presence of Members of the Government when the House met, I may say that the House was formed not very long after 12 o'clock, and there were a considerable number of Members of the Government present at the time.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the noble Marquess give the House any authentic list of the numbers of officers and men killed and wounded in the recent engagement?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The telegram published this morning from General Graham contains, I believe, an accurate account of the officers killed and wounded in the recent engagement. I am not certain yet whether the list of men has arrived. If it has arrived, it has not been published, because the numbers have not yet been identified. Every information of that sort will be published in the newspapers as soon as possible.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Has the British regiment sent up the Nile gone to Assouan or Assiout?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I believe the British battalion sent up the Nile has gone to Assiout.
  MR. RAIKESasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, If it was not the fact that there was not a single Member of

  1653
  the Government in the House when he (Sir Thomas Brassey) entered at 20 minutes past 12?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEYsaid, he believed there were several in other parts of the House.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

EGYPT (EASTERN SOUDAN)—MILITARY OPERATIONS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT, in rising, according to Notice, to call attention to the enforced abandonment of Khartoum, and of the Eastern Soudan; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it will he highly discreditable to this Country if Her Majesty's Ministers, who are responsible for Egypt, abandon these territories to slavery and barbarism, and that the only satisfactory settlement of the disorders in the Soudan will be the appointment of a British Governor General to restore order and to develop civilization in those Countries, in friendly co-operation with the Sovereign Power,"
  said, that he had had this Resolution upon the Paper for two successive Friday nights, and it was only for the convenience of the Government that he had not brought it forward. In view of the present condition of affairs in Egypt, the question was, if possible, of more gravity than it had ever assumed before. The importance of the news from Khartoum could hardly be exaggerated. The House had been made aware, from the statement just made by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, that the communications between the Government centre of the Soudan and Her Majesty's Representatives in Egypt had been cut off for some days; and he, therefore, desired to call attention to a remarkable statement, almost prophetic in its character, which came from General Gordon upon this subject a few days ago, and in regard to which he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had endeavoured in vain to obtain a declaration from the noble Marquess. On the
  1654
  6th of this month, General Gordon told the Correspondent of The Times, who was also Agent General of Her Majesty at Khartoum, that—
  "The emissaries of the Mahdi would succeed in raising the tribes between Khartoum and Berber. That was not owing to discontent, but to fear, caused by the announcement of the policy of the Government in regard to the abandonment of the Soudan."
  The Correspondent said—
  "We cannot blame these people for rising when no definite sign is shown of establishing a permanent Government here;"
  and he added these important words—
  "If Her Majesty's Government do not act promptly, General Graham's victory will go for nought, and with the useless expenditure of blood the effect of it will evaporate."
  He begged the attention of the Government to the concluding sentence—
  "I do not believe we shall send any more telegrams, for it is no longer a question of days, but of hours."
  The telegraph wire was now broken, and communication between Khartoum and Cairo was at present impossible; and, for all Her Majesty's Government knew, a grave catastrophe might have happened in that region. The Resolution he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had placed on the Paper, in his judgment, afforded the only means of escape to Her Majesty's Government from the embarrassments in which they had involved themselves and the country, and the only hope in the future for the people of these vast regions now depending upon us. It would be in the highest degree discreditable to this country if Her Majesty's Ministers, who were responsible for the Government of Egypt, were now to abandon the Soudan to slavery and barbarism. The only satisfactory settlement of the disorders would be the appointment of a British Governor General to restore order, and to develop civilization in those countries, in friendly co-operation with the Sovereign Power. His proposal was perfectly feasible, and had practically been resorted to before. Both Sir Samuel Baker and General Gordon in previous years had held, for a brief period at any rate, complete command in those regions, and that complete command had been exercised with the most beneficial results. The gravity of the situation was not confined to the Soudan. Another newspaper Corre-

  1655
  spondent, the Correspondent of The Standard—telegraphed on Thursday that the serious state of affairs in Egypt was causing the gravest apprehension—
  "A steady downward movement towards chaos having set in. Not only were brigandage and crimes of violence largely on the increase, but the collection of taxes was becoming daily more difficult; dissensions existed in high quarters, which gave rise to great discontent; officials refused to work; and the people, left to their own devices, were rapidly acquiring a lawless and reckless spirit hitherto unknown in Egypt."
  The Correspondent went on to say that the result of his own observation enabled him to echo the universal cry of discontent which came from all parts of Egypt as to the remarkable and manifest failure of our attempt to introduce judicial and other reforms, and at the absence of a fixed and steadfast Government. That was a most deplorable picture. General Gordon was in extremis at Khartoum, finding that his Slave Proclamation was completely useless, and that the Administration of Egypt itself was falling into a state of utter and ruinous chaos. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) asked the House, and through the medium of the House he asked the country, what possible alternative there was for Her Majesty's Government but to declare their policy, and, as he suggested, to announce to the world that they intended to undertake the entire Administration of Egypt, and to bring about order, good government, and civilization in the Soudan? It was the uncertainty which prevailed with regard to the policy of Her Majesty's Government that was creating the present state of confusion and disorder in Egypt, and that had brought about the recent disasters. The distinguished Prime Minister of Egypt—Cherif Pasha—whom the Government had driven from Office not long ago, while still in power, although he was at the time dependent upon Her Majesty's Government, and knew that his fate rested in their hands, was bold enough to state to Sir Evelyn Baring—
  "I earnestly beg you to submit these views to Lord Granville in the name of His Highness the Khedive and of His Government, and to request an early reply, which will put an end to our present state of uncertainty—an uncertainty which exhausts us by increasing every day the difficulties we have to overcome."—[Egypt, No. 1 (1884), p. 174.]
  That was very strong language, indeed,
  1656
  for an Egyptian Minister completely in the hands of the Government to use, and it was just as applicable now as it was on the 2nd January, when Cherif Pasha used it. Yet that Minister had been driven from Office by the deliberate action of Her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had stated that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the Soudan, or with regard to Egypt generally, had been a policy of grievous uncertainty. He had carefully examined their policy, and he had been able to make out six different phases of policy—or rather six different policies—pursued by Her Majesty's Government within the last 16 months. The first was the policy of drift and shirking which was pursued after the battle of Tel-el-Kebir-up to the 4th of January, 1884. Her Majesty's Ministers tried to disclaim responsibility; they refused to give advice which would have been beneficial and have saved thousands of lives; they kept screaming over and over again that they were not responsible. That policy of shirking came to an end on the 4th of January last, when, in their now famous Note to the Egyptian Government, they drove Cherif Pasha from Office in the most offensive way, and proclaimed what might be termed their responsibility in word, though not in deed. The next policy, even more disastrous, was a policy of reckless, helter-skelter withdrawal or scuttling out of the Soudan anyhow. The Egyptian Government was ordered to get away as fast as it could; regardless of the consequences, caring nothing for the garrisons, for the Egyptian soldiers, for the civil population, or anything else. That policy lasted until the 17th or 18th of January, when they made up their minds to come to the third phase, which was to send out General Gordon to conduct the withdrawal of the garrisons. In the first instance, their policy was one of absolute withdrawal; but, on the 18th of January, they decided to send out an English Governor General to superintend that withdrawal. That policy, however, was modified very soon afterwards by the course of events, which rendered it impossible to carry out a naked policy of withdrawal, even under the direction and with the help of General Gordon. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, decided upon attempting a sort of

  1657
  reconstruction of the Administration of the affairs of the Soudan, while, at the same time, they intended to withdraw as quickly as possible. That was the fourth phase of their policy. One part of this attempt at reconstruction, upon which the Prime Minister had waxed very eloquent, was the installation of petty Sultans upon their ancestral Thrones; and to that end Proclamations were issued at Khartoum in reference to domestic slavery and the Slave Trade. But the petty Chiefs could not be discovered, or, when discovered, they were found to be incapable of conducting the ordinary affairs of Government. That policy having failed, a fifth period followed—namely, a period of hesitation and dispute in the Cabinet as to the extent of military operations to be undertaken. This was from the 4th to the 12th of February. After the news of Baker Pasha's defeat arrived, Ministers began to discover, what all the world knew before, that there was a dangerous Arab revolt, and that armed interference was necessary; but before that the Mahdi had been made Sultan of Kordofan, and all that region had been abandoned to barbarism. No doubt, at that period, certain remonstrances had been made to England by the Governments of Prance and Turkey, as to the danger which would arise to Turkish and French Possessions if the Arab revolt were allowed to spread, and the whole Press of the world was deprecating their abandonment of this region to slavery and barbarism. The Government accordingly came to the conclusion that this Arab revolt must be put down by warlike operations. That was the fifth period, and the fifth period was partly altered and extended by a sixth policy, which was declared by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War the other day, to the great pleasure of the House, and to the utter confusion of a considerable portion of his Colleagues in the Cabinet. That policy amounted to the indefinite prolongation of the period of General Gordon's Governorship of the Soudan.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he would not say an indefinite; but, at any rate, an undetermined period. He had certainly put that construction upon the language used by the noble Marquess on Monday last.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: My noble Friend said nothing of the kind.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the noble Marquess distinctly stated that it was better General Gordon should remain for a longer period than was contemplated, rather than adopt the alternative of appointing Zebehr Pasha; and he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) thought he was justified in terming that an indefinite prolongation of General Gordon's Governorship. He wished now to suggest a seventh policy—namely, his own policy, the one which was involved in the Resolution he had placed upon the Paper, and which he thought was the only satisfactory and complete solution of the difficulty. This was a solution into which Her Majesty's Government were most certainly drifting, and one which for their own interest and credit, and for the repute of the country, they ought to adopt as soon as possible. Events were marching on faster than the Government could control them. Already the Ministry had found themselves unable to abandon Khartoum and the greater part of the Soudan. They had drifted on from struggle to struggle, from war to war, from massacre to massacre, from the expenditure of £200,000 to the expenditure of nearly £1,000,000 without any reasonable cause, and without any possibility of excusing themselves. It would be far better to acknowledge openly to the country that their policy hitherto had been unfortunate through circumstances which they alone had not foreseen; that they now perceived they had been led into a mistake, and would at once repair it; and that now they found themselves obliged to adopt a distinct and resolute policy. The Government had exaggerated the misgovernment of the Soudan for the purpose of debate. If Egyptian oppression had been so gross and atrocious as Her Majesty's Government said it was, why was it they had not forbidden the expedition of General Hicks and any attempt to reconquer the Soudan in 1883? They used no steps to prevent that reconquest; and by so doing, according to their own showing, if the government of the Soudan by Egypt had been atrocious, Her Majesty's Government stood convicted of having lent their support to the attempted re-imposition of one of the most hateful tyrannies in the world, which they had themselves so frequently

  1659
  denounced, of an oppression worse than anything practised by the Turks. The effect of the policy of abandonment by Her Majesty's Government had been most unfortunate. The mere announcement of it cost the lives of a large number of persons on the Red Sea Coast. The House would remember that a very able authority at Suakin told them that the news had come like a thunderclap upon all who were interested in that district, and that it had utterly paralyzed General Baker's efforts. Friendly tribes who were wavering had actually made an advance half-way to Sinkat for the purpose of relieving the garrison. Their action was paralyzed at once by the news of the intended abandonment of the Soudan. These Arabs felt that they could not run the danger of continuing the expedition, without being satisfied that England intended to stand by them. The House heard now, from information which came from General Gordon, that he also was paralyzed at Khartoum in the same way, by the announcement that we intended to abandon the Soudan. And what was the town of Khartoum, which the Government proposed to give up to barbarism and slavery? It was the great commercial entrepôt of Central Africa; it stood at the junction of the two Niles, in a position of rare value, not only with regard to commerce, but also for the defence of Lower Egypt; Khartoum enabled the Power who held it to control the Slave Trade from the regions Southward and Eastward, and it had a population of about 40,000. It was also a position of great strategical and political value; and while he spoke of the importance of Khartoum he ought to add one word as to Kassala—a town of 25,000 inhabitants, only second in importance to Khartoum—the centre of a district of unsurpassed fertility, rich in every kind of grain, and abounding in cattle and wild animals. It was easy to retain, because it was close upon the Abyssinian Frontier. There were 6,000 civilians in Kassala; and he wanted to know what the Government proposed to do with them if they were removed to Egypt? Ministers had directed compensation to be paid for the injury inflicted by our Fleet in the bombardment of Alexandria, and also for the destruction occasioned by the incendiaries; and he presumed that the least they could do would be to support
  1660
  the unfortunate people whom they forced against their will to remove from the scene of their natural avocations. A good deal had been said as to General Gordon's opinion in the matter. Gordon was a remarkable man, and at times expressed remarkable opinions; but, with the greatest deference to General Gordon, there could not be the slightest doubt that the opinions of the gallant Officer were not always the same. General Gordon, before he came under the unfortunate influence of Her Majesty's Government, was undoubtedly strongly opposed to the abandonment of the Soudan; and he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) believed that, in his heart, General Gordon was still opposed to its abandonment, and if he could have his own way would not abandon it. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) believed it would be far better for the Soudan and for Egypt if the Government would proclaim General Gordon, or some other capable Englishman, Governor General, with full powers to restore and sustain order. If the Government sent a telegram to that effect to General Gordon, and General Gordon then replied that he was not of the same opinion, he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) would be satisfied; but he would be satisfied with nothing short of that. He believed that General Gordon was still in favour of retaining the Eastern Soudan—a vast district stretching from the White Nile to the Red Sea, and from the Nubian Desert to the mountains of Abyssinia—a territory from 700 to 800 miles in length, and from 400 to 500 miles in width. It was a district not to be despised—not a mere barren waste, but of astonishing fertility, as Sir Samuel Baker had testified. These regions were of the utmost importance to us—their trade was considerable, amounting to £2,000,000 exports into Egypt alone. Sir Samuel Baker's opinion was that if the Soudan were in English hands, in a few years we should be entirely independent of the United States both for cotton or corn. Many other high authorities, among them Lord Dufferin—one of those remarkable men whom the Prime Minister was so fond of praising in the House—had said that—
  "Some persons were inclined to advise England to withdraw altogether from the Soudan; but she could hardly he expected to do so. He had pointed out that these territories were

  1661
  capable of producing au almost inexhaustible supply of cotton and sugar; and that, instead of being a burden to the Egyptian Exchequer, they might, by good management, be a source of wealth to the country, and not cost it one farthing."
  Moreover, all Continental countries combined in condemning the course of abandoning the Soudan. He also had to complain of the neglect of which the unfortunate Tewfik Bey had been the victim; and must be allowed to express his firm conviction that 28,000 lives sacrificed since August last might have been saved had the Government acted with energy and promptitude. As to slavery, nothing for a long time had caused so much dismay as the declaration in favour of slavery by Gordon. Gordon was compelled to take that step by the conduct of the Government. Taking Sir Evelyn Baring's version of the Proclamation, there could be no doubt that the Proclamation had endorsed not only slave-hunting, but the buying and selling of slaves. He did not blame Gordon for that Proclamation; he had been sent out with nothing but a walking-stick, and he had been coerced by the conduct of the Government into the sanction of slavery. He was amazed that so little notice had been taken in that House of the Proclamation of the Mahdi as Sultan of Kordofan—a savage, sensual conqueror, whose hands were red with blood of General Hicks and his 10,000 men—while the Government was on the Eastern Coast fighting the Mahdi's lieutenant and slaughtering his followers by thousands. He asked what sort of policy was this? He did not wish to be understood as pressing the despatch of British troops to Khartoum; but General Gordon's advice to Sir Samuel Baker was that 4,000 Turkish reserved troops or Indian troops should be sent there, and the whole placed under the command of an English General, and also that Sir Samuel Baker should be proclaimed Governor General of the Soudan. He protested against the policy of Her Majesty's Government as being misleading; as being cowardly and humiliating, injurious to the interests of trade and commerce, and encouraging to slavery. It was dealing a deadly blow to the interests of civilization. He protested against the wavering and craven spirit which animated that policy, and against the Government's denial and abnegation of their responsibilities. He
  1662
  did not believe these responsibilities were too heavy for the spirit and genius of the English people. There was plenty of enterprize and energy and governing power left in the people of this country to undertake the burden of setting matters in order on the banks of the Nile—enough, if need arose, to deal with an Empire twice the size of the one we possessed. It was this new policy of retreat and denial of responsibility which made the task so difficult, and involved pain and disgrace on this country, and caused nothing but loss of life and suffering and ruin to the unfortunate people with whom we were brought into contact.
  MR. LABOUCHERE, in rising to move the following Resolution of which he had given Notice:—
  "That this House is of opinion that the necessity for the great loss of British and Arab life, occasioned by our Military operations in the Eastern Soudan, has not been made apparent,"
  said, he did not know if the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) represented the views of the Conservative Party as regarded the matter under notice; but if he did, all he (Mr. Labouchere) could say was that the policy advocated by them could only be expressed by the one word "grab." Still, there was some excuse for the hon. Gentleman. On one pretext or other we were to take every country that we considered rich and beneficial to us. We were to take Egypt and the Soudan, and then go forward and take other countries, until at length we came down to the Atlantic and South Africa, the whole Continent being one great Empire. That, fortunately, was not the policy of the Government. But while the Opposition criticized the action of the Government in this way, the Radical Members had also a complaint to make against them. The Vote of Censure was rejected in consideration of certain pledges, or rather assurances, being given by the Government with regard to the limitation of their military operations near Suakin. It was understood with regard to that port that we had entered into some general pledge to maintain the independence of Egypt against any attack from the Soudanese, not only in Egypt Proper, but in what were called the ports of the Red Sea. Soon after that, they were told that that was not

  1663
  the only reason operations were undertaken at Suakin, but that another object was to prevent that place being used as a port from which to carry slaves across the Red Sea. But Consul Moncrieff had expressly stated that Suakin was one of the places from which there was no slave traffic. Later on the holding of Suakin was stated to be necessary in order to prevent the Turks from being attacked in Arabia by the Soudanese. Up to the Vote of Censure it had been a policy of rescue and retire on the part of the Government; but, at that period, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, in explaining that policy, went further, and declared that, to all intents and purposes, we were now going to establish our own sway in the Eastern Soudan and the ports of the Red Sea—not against the Soudanese, but against Foreign Powers. That was, in effect, the policy proclaimed by the noble Marquess. It was a new departure; and then the Government fell back upon our old friend the route to India. Ships were sent to Suakin; troops followed, the object of these operations being declared to be one of humanity—to relieve the garrisons of Sinkat and Tokar. Well, Sinkat fell before this small service to humanity could be performed; but Tokar still remained. The battle of El Teb ensued. The country were horrified at the loss of life which occurred on that occasion—they did not know what the aim and object of the slaughter was. In the ranks of the Arab Army we found the very persons fighting who it was said we were to relieve in Tokar. The Radicals had protested against this policy of the Government, but had protested in vain, being in a small minority. The battle of El Teb was then described as a defensive operation, in the sense that defensive operations were necessary in order to defend a part. He (Mr. Labouchere) had not thought much of the explanation; but he had understood the meaning of it. But what was the plea for the next advance—was it the defence of Suakin, or was it not? The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, when questioned on the matter, had been unable to give a full reply. He had simply stated that he did not think the instructions which had been sent to General Graham had been altered in any material respect. If
  1664
  that were so, then General Graham had no authority to advance on Berber, and it was perfectly easy for the noble Marquess to say so. The Prime Minister had already said so—that there was no intention to engage in offensive operations. Well, but an advance of 275 miles across the Desert could hardly be called defensive operations to prevent the Arabs taking Suakin. They had a right to learn distinctly what were the present policy and intentions of the Government, and what were the present orders given to General Graham. Were they simply going to defend Suakin for a month or six weeks, or were they going to advance into the country, involving themselves in hostilities against those with whom they had no quarrel? He did not know what quarrel they had with any of these tribes. They sent Gordon to Khartoum to evacuate the Soudan, and the Prime Minister told them that the Soudanese were to be left to enjoy themselves in their "ancestral homes." These ancestral homes appeared to be their tombs. How were these men to understand that they were to have their ancestral homes; but that for some mysterious cause a large number of them were to be slaughtered first? At the recent battle 4,000 Arabs had been killed, and 6,000 wounded. How were these Arabs, who had been fighting for the independence of their country, to understand our policy and their own position? They had a perfect right to go to Suakin. Suakin was in the Soudan, they were Soudanese, and had a much better right to enter the place than the Egyptians or the English. The Soudanese had a perfect right to rebel against Egyptian rule, according to our own Proclamation, and yet we slaughtered them. What did we slaughter them for, he asked? He should move his Resolution, and, though he might not get many to follow him into the Lobby, yet do not let the Government be deluded by that. These massacres were most horrible and repugnant to the feelings of humanity of the people of England, who remembered that when the Liberals came into power it was not to carry out a policy of war. They wanted a distinct understanding why these Arabs had been killed, and a distinct undertaking that no more should be killed. It really seemed to him that they were serving the God Moloch, and that to him they

  1665
  felt themselves obliged to sacrifice a certain number of human lives every year and then retire. One year they had sacrificed to him in Afghanistan, and when they had killed enough they had gone away, saying they had no right there. Another year, they had sacrificed to him in Zululand, and had afterwards sent back to the Zulus their King. Another year, it was in the Transvaal, and there they killed a number of Boers. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: No; they killed us.] At least, if we lost our own men, we had done our best to kill the Boers. Then we went to Egypt on a mission of civilization, the force of which the Egyptians did not quite see. We killed a few thousands more, and made the General who performed the feat a Peer with a pension. That was not enough, however. Now it was the turn of the Soudan, and they went there and sacrificed 10,000 or 20,000 more lives. Why did they do that? The Government would not say—they appeared to desire to shirk all responsibility. They first sent General Gordon to the Soudan, saying—" He is a good and capable man. It is perfectly true he changes his opinions every day; but what of that? So do we." The Pall Mall Gazette, the other day, had stated that whenever Gordon was in doubt as to what course to pursue, he pitched a coin in the air and left the result to Providence—head or tail. Did the Members of the Cabinet pitch a coin in the air to decide their policy? Was it the fact that one Minister said one thing, and another another thing? The noble Marquess was a sort of Moltke in this matter. He would tell them nothing, and General Graham did not seem anxious to gratify curiosity. The noble Marquess never received any information; but it never occurred to him to ask for anything. He left it all to General Graham, and then he told them it was perfectly monstrous for the House of Commons to interfere in the military operations. If the Government did not know what course General Graham was expected to pursue and what course he intended to pursue, was it not easy enough to ask him? Let it be distinctly understood that there was no desire on the part of the Radicals to interfere with essentially military operations; but there were always political considerations connected with these operations,
  1666
  and it was like laughing at the House to say that they had no right to make inquiries as to probable operations at Berber, which was 275 miles away from the port Her Majesty's Government declared to be their object to defend. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. RICHARD, in seconding the Resolution, said, he was anxious to take that opportunity of recording his indignant protest against the horrible butcheries going on in the Soudan, and on pretexts which, in his opinion, without testing them by any high ideal of Christian principle, but on the ordinary principles of justice, humanity, and sound statesmanship, were wholly without adequate justification. If there were any class of persons in that House who were entitled to look back with some satisfaction to the course they had taken in regard to this miserable Egyptian business, it was that small minority, of which he was one, who, from the first, deprecated and denounced our armed intervention in Egypt as being unjust, unnecessary, and unwise, and as likely to involve us, as it had involved us, in vague and vast and dangerous responsibilities, the end of which no man could foresee. Unfortunately, hon. Gentlemen opposite could not share that satisfaction, because they, as a body, with two or three individual exceptions, were so far from disapproving of armed intervention that their quarrel with the Government was, and is, that they did not intervene soon enough, or decisively enough, or on a sufficiently large scale. And even now, so far as he could make out, though they were very chary of betraying their own notions of Egyptian policy, they were the advocates of a policy of intervention that should be unlimited both as to time and space. He held the same views that he expressed at the beginning of this business, that it was a fatal mistake on the part of the Government to invade Egypt, for it was an invasion, and an unprovoked invasion. But when he looked at the people who now most loudly condemned the Government, he found among them those who sanctioned, who encouraged, who stimulated them into the course they took, and he held that those who had backed the Government in this enterprize must more or less share their

  1667
  responsibility for all the consequences that had ensued. He considered that the true friends of a man were those who, seeing him enter upon a false and dangerous path, warned him against the first step, and pointed out to him the perils he must incur in that direction, and not those who stood by to goad him on, some by flatteries and some by reproaches, and who, when he had become implicated in the difficulties and embarrassments of which he was forewarned, joined to taunt and upbraid him. The Government, in his opinion, had committed two capital errors—the first, by going into Egypt; and the second, by going into the Soudan. He did not scruple to say that he was one of those, referred to the other night with so much disdain by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing), who regarded our presence in Egypt as a crime and a calamity—a crime, because he held it to be criminal to attack a friendly nation who had done us no wrong, to bombard its forts, to slaughter thousands of its people, to take possession of its country, usurp its government, and lay upon it heavy financial burdens, merely because it suited our convenience to do so. The hon. Member for Orkney made, on that occasion, a most open and cynical avowal of pure national selfishness as a sufficient and satisfactory foundation for our foreign policy. He said, or plainly implied, that we wanted Egypt; that it was necessary and convenient for us to have it, on account of our Indian Possessions; and therefore we had a right to seize and to hold it. Why, that would be a justification for any act of spoliation, and reminded him of the words of one of our poets—
  "So may the ruffian who, with ghostly glide, Dagger in hand, steals close to your bedside; Not he, but his emergence forced the door; He found it inconvenient to be poor."
  It seemed to him that there was a certain number of Englishmen who held this principle—that if anything was supposed to be conducive to British interests, we had a right to do that thing, whatever violation it might involve of the principles of morality or the law of God. But he ventured to declare his conviction, which might perhaps astonish and affront some hon. Gentlemen, that there were greater and more sacred things in God's universe than British interests, and those were the
  1668
  interests of truth and justice and humanity. The second capital error the Government had committed was going into the Soudan. Having disclaimed all responsibility in regard to that country, they ought to have adhered to their policy. It was understood that the expeditions of Hicks Pasha and Baker Pasha were undertaken without their sanction and against their advice. It was true that the Commanders of those expeditions were, or had been, British officers, but they were not in British service; and, for his part, he had no respect for those mercenary soldiers who sold their swords to whoever would buy them, and were ready to fight anywhere, or for any cause, without the smallest concern as to whether it was just or unjust. These men went at their own risk, and, of their own accord, placed their lives on the hazard of the die, and he protested against our being called upon to protect them when living, or to avenge them when dead. Moreover, he could not see what obligations lay upon us to relieve the beleaguered garrisons. The plea urged was the plea of humanity. Well, he had no faith in promoting philanthropy by war. He could not see what "humane" objects could be attained by wholesale slaughter and devastation. And, in this case, he doubted very much whether the interests of humanity would not have been better served by our abstinence than by our action. Take the case of Sinkat. Judging by what took place at Tokar, the probability was that if the garrison had surrendered, they would have been perfectly safe; but we had encouraged them to hold out, and they had attempted to cut their way through the foe, and so were slaughtered; furnishing another illustration of the saying, for which there was good authority, that "They who take the sword shall perish with the sword." But he wished especially to call the attention of the House to the reductio ad absurdum of the argument of fighting for humanity afforded by the case of Tokar. The only object of the forward expedition was to relieve the garrison of Tokar. So said the Prime Minister, so said General Graham; for, after the first battle, he issued a proclamation in which he said—"The object of the expedition is achieved—Tokar has been relieved." But Tokar needed no relief.

  1669
  It had surrendered nearly a fortnight before we went near it, and a portion of the garrison was found afterwards fighting con a more with the enemy against us. And when we took possession of the town, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War told us that there were some 700 persons within its walls, who apparently were dwelling there safely and contentedly under the protection of Osman Digna's army, their only danger having arisen from our appearance there, as shown by the remarkable telegram cited by his (Mr. Richard's) hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), which stated that, after the battle, the Arabs were threatening to massacre them in revenge for their defeat. So that it came to this, that we slaughtered 2,000 or 3,000 Arabs to relieve Tokar, which needed no relief, and to rescue 700 persons, who were in no danger save from our intervention, and we called that rendering a service to humanity. He had no doubt as to the perfect sincerity of the Prime Minister, when he said that we went into the Soudan in the interests of humanity, nor did he doubt that it was that prospect and hope which reconciled him to the expedition. But when the control of events in that country was placed in the hands of naval and military officers, it was not difficult to predict the result. He was not going to say anything disrespectful of the Military Profession. It was not a profession that he admired. To his feeling it was a dreadful profession; but it was a profession—the business of the soldier was to fight, and it was no wonder if he liked to have an opportunity of fighting; but it was difficult to conceive of anything more mischievous than to place the issues of peace and war at the discretion of naval and military officers, who had placed before them some of the strongest temptations that could assail the human mind in favour of fighting. They knew that if they were victorious, however great might be the odds in their favour and against the enemy, they would be hailed as great conquerors; they would be covered with the most extravagant eulogies; that all kinds of honours—decorations, titles, pensions, would be lavished upon them in unmeasured profusion; that they would become the idols of society, feted and feasted, flattered and
  1670
  caressed; and in the hands of men so tempted we put the issues of peace and war, upon whose decision the lives of hundreds or thousands of human beings depended. And so, in this case, of course, when the discretion was left with the military, they fought. He never spent a more miserable day than he did last Sunday week. As he watched the crowds of men and women flocking into our churches and chapels—churches and chapels professedly dedicated to the worship of Him whose special and characteristic title was the Prince of Peace—another picture obtruded itself on his imagination in spite of himself, that of scores, hundreds, thousands of men lying weltering in their blood in that remote Arabian country, many of them doomed to prolonged and lingering agony; and all this havoc was committed upon them by the hands of English Christians, and for no offence that he could find except that they were defending their country against invasion. He regretted more than he could express that the present Government had got itself involved in this tremendous fiasco. It was impossible to see where this business would end; but he took this opportunity of recording his solemn protest against our invasion of Egypt in the first place, and then against our entering the Soudan, and still more against any further military operations when every pretence for them had been removed.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is of opinion that the necessity for the great loss of British and Arab life, occasioned by our Military operations in the Eastern Soudan, has not been made apparent,"—(Mr. Labouchers,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that, in the two speeches with which the debate had commenced, the House had had the advantage of hearing a clear statement of two opposite schools of foreign policy, which had at least this in common, that they were both schools of extreme thought. On the one side they had the speech of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), who placed before the House

  1671
  the most far-reaching schemes of policy. The vision of the hon. Member seemed only to be bounded by the limits of the Continent of Africa. The hon. Member appeared to be anxious, as far as he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was able to follow him, that this country should undertake the responsibility of the government of the Soudan in its widest sense, and that, hardly satisfied with that, we should step further than the limits of the great watershed of Central Africa, and should arrogate to ourselves extensive rights over regions upon the banks of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic; for the hon. Member thought fit, in that wide and comprehensive style with which the House was so familiar, to allude to matters not only in Egypt and the Soudan, but also on the Congo; and he seemed to think that these questions ought to be treated together, and that the influence of England ought to be made predominant on the banks both of the Nile and of the Congo. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) really must ask the permission of the House to leave the Congo alone for the present, and to confine whatever observations he might have to make to the subject immediately before the House, which in itself was quite far-reaching and wide enough. So, on the other side, in reply to the hon. Member for Eye, there was the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who moved a Resolution to the effect that the recent military operations had not sufficient justification, and criticized Her Majesty's Government for having originally gone too far, and for being inclined to go too far now. The two speeches, to a very great extent, answered each other. He thought that it must occur to most hon. Members that when there were two schools of thought like those respectively represented by the hon. Member for Eye and the hon. Member for Northampton, in all probability political truth lay somewhere between them, and that the course advocated by neither school was really that of real wisdom. He wished to call the attention of the House to the actual words of the Motion which the hon. Member for Eye had placed upon the Paper, but which he did not move. The hon. Member had intended to call attention to the enforced abandonment of Khartoum and of the Eastern Soudan, and to move—
  1672
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it will be highly discreditable to this Country if Her Majesty's Ministers, who are responsible for Egypt, abandon those territories to slavery and Barbarism, and that the only satisfactory settlement of the disorders in the Soudan will be the appointment of a British Governor General, to restore order and to develop civilization in those Countries, in friendly co-operation with the Sovereign Power."
  The House must see in a single moment what a very large and comprehensive plan that Notice of Motion unfolded. The effective portion of that Motion was that there was to be a British Governor General appointed for the whole of the Soudan. He ventured to ask the House whether that was a subject which it would, on a Saturday afternoon, and at a Sitting called more for the purpose of discussing certain Votes in Supply, be willing even to enter upon, much less to decide? The empty condition of the Benches of the House was a sufficient answer to such a question. After the long debates that had recently taken place upon the Egyptian Question, the House could not be anxious to plunge again into this large question, more especially when the large proposition of the hon. Member had not, in the main, been supported by any new argument, he having contented himself by again bringing up those allegations and assertions which had been prominent in former debates, and which made him (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) think that he was listening to a second edition of the speeches which the hon. Member also had made in the discussion upon the Vote of Censure and in Committee of Supply, when the whole Egyptian Question was fully gone into. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) desired to notice, and take exception to, one assertion which the hon. Member was fond of repeating in his speeches, not only this but last year—he meant his repeated assertion that this country was not upon good terms with the German Powers, owing to the policy of the Government. As on former occasions, so again he begged now most clearly to contradict the truth of the hon. Member's assertion. He believed that at no time had the relations between this country and the two great German Powers been more friendly or more cordial. The hon. Member appeared to have gathered his information on this point from foreign newspapers which

  1673
  did not hold the highest position abroad. Not only were our relations with those Powers most cordial, but Her Majesty's Ministers were fully sensible of the very great importance to this country of maintaining the most friendly relations with those Powers. The hon. Member had spoken of General Gordon as being in extremis. That was one of the hon. Member's characteristic phrases, phrases of exaggeration, with which the hon. Member liked, as it were, to deafen his own ears and to alarm himself. It was perfectly true that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War had informed the House just now that a steamer had been fired upon near Khartoum, and that the telegraph wires had been cut. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) did not wish to make out that that intelligence was not the cause of anxiety to Her Majesty's Government; but there was no need for the note of alarm sounded by the hon. Member, in order to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the fact, the importance of which they were fully aware of. The hon. Member for Eye, as on a former occasion, had thought fit to justify his proposition by quoting the authority of Mr. Power, whom he described in one part of his speech as Her Majesty's Consul at Khartoum, and in another as Agent General. Mr. Power was a man of distinguished bravery, and he had remained at his post at Khartoum, notwithstanding that he had had full permission to leave, when the town appeared to be in danger. That being so, it was all the more unfair to bring up alleged quotations from conversations, when, in reality, a good deal would turn upon particular words, the exact character of which could hardly be known to hon. Members, which quotations might place Mr. Power in a very unfair position. In these circumstances, he must protest against such quotations being brought forward. Then the hon. Member went on to refer to the internal condition of Egypt. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was sure it was not the wish of the House to enter on that subject; and, until the question was gone into thoroughly, he did not think there was much use in entering upon individual points. The hon. Member also referred to the position of Kassala, and as to what was being done with regard to a possible advance
  1674
  upon Berber. With regard to that point, General Graham's present instructions did not admit of such an advance. With regard to Kassala, Her Majesty's Government had no reason to suppose that that garrison was being hard pressed; but, even if it were, they believed that when the moment came to withdraw the garrison, the withdrawal could be easily accomplished, because of the friendly disposition of the neighbouring King of Abyssinia. On the Vote which would shortly be moved there appeared a part of the expenses of a mission, which was to attempt to come to terms with the King of Abyssinia in regard to those various points which, for some time past, had been causing a difference between the Government of Abyssinia and the Government of Egypt. The House was aware that the Governments of Egypt and Abyssinia had long been separated by certain difficulties—frontier difficulties regarding the possession of the inland districts of Bogos and Galabat and the commercial access to, and sovereignty over, the Port of Massowah and the adjoining coast. There were also certain religious difficulties in regard to the facilities for the consecration of the dignitaries of the Abyssinian Church by the representatives of the Coptic Patriarch, all of which awaited settlement. The Abyssinian Church, he need not remind the House, was a Christian Church, a fact well known, he believed, from the interesting account of it in the work of the late Dean Stanley on the Eastern Churches. All these points it was hoped to settle, and it was clear that if a settlement was arrived at, the retreat from Kassala and the neighbouring garrisons would be greatly facilitated. Reference had been made to what his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War had said the other night, and the hon. Member for Northampton had attacked the Government for alleged inconsistencies in their policy relating to the Red Sea Coast. The hon. Member said that the first allegation on the part of the Government was that the possession of parts of that coast would facilitate operations with respect to the Slave Trade, and that the Government had since dropped that line of argument and adopted another. That other he called "our old friend—communication with British India." No doubt, those two arguments were different,

  1675
  but they were not inconsistent. There was nothing upon which the House was more unanimous than the suppression of the Slave Trade; and what the Government maintained was that the Red Sea Coast ought not to he in the hands of any Power which might desire, either openly or secretly, to encourage slavery. The suppression of the Slave Trade was a British interest, and there were no places, as his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton had pointed out, where greater facilities existed for running in cargoes of slaves, than certain points on the shores of the Red Sea. The coast, therefore, must be closely watched, if the Slave Trade was to be be put down at all. Only last night, the Committee of Supply voted the money for an increase of the Slave Trade grant; and as he stated, in the debate on the Vote of Censure, the arrangements with regard to the suppression of the Slave Trade which were in future to be carried out would cover the whole Eastern Coast of Africa from Zanzibar to Suakin. The Zanzibar Agency had been re-organized, and the whole cost of it taken over by the Foreign Office; a considerable increase in the Consular Staff had been made on the Coast from Zanzibar to Suakin inclusive, although, owing to the Consul at Suakin, Mr. Baker, receiving, though only temporarily, the Khartoum salary, he had not had to include the cost of that Consulate in the Vote at present. It was also an incident in the contract made, and now paid, by the Foreign Office, instead of by the Post Office, with the British India Steamship Company, that they were to give special facilities for the movements of these Consuls South of Aden; and by the activity of those gentlemen, combined with that of the Consul at Suakin in the Red Sea, they believed that, along the whole East Coast of Africa, they would so trouble the movements of the slave dealers as to accomplish that which had been universally recognized to be so desirable—namely, to cut off the access of the slave dealers to the slave markets; and there would be that constant supervision of the coast which would be the cause of great trouble and annoyance to the slave traders, because they would never know when they would be pounced upon. The result would be that the operations of the slave traders would be
  1676
  exposed to such uncertainty and trouble that the Government believed that the trade would rapidly decrease. Therefore, from a Slave Trade point of view, there was a great deal to be said for the statement of the Government, that it was most important that the Red Sea Coast should be under the control of some civilized Power. Another argument in connection with the Red Sea Coast, which was put forward by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board and the Secretary of State for War, and which he himself did not shrink from, was that the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, like the Suez Canal, were British interests also, because they were the road to British India. The communication between the Mediterranean and British India was a matter of interest to this country, and would always be so. This country, as he had explained in some detail in the debate on the Vote of Censure, had always asserted an interest in those seas. Aden was one of the most valued possessions of the British Crown; and the maintenance of the lighthouses in the Red Sea had always been treated not merely from a commercial point of view, but also as a political question of great moment. The acquisition of the Island of Perim had always been regarded as a bright ornament in the history of British naval enterprize. He would again remind the House that this country owned the two small islands of Moussa and Aubad in those seas. Lord Salisbury, when Secretary of State for India, had also, with great sagacity, made a Treaty in regard to the Island of Socotra which prevented any other Foreign Power acquiring it. The possession of those islands was a proof that they desired that the possession of the land and territory in the neighbourhood of the Red Sea, and especially about its mouth, should be a matter in regard to which this country should have a voice. All these facts showed that, quite irrespective of Party, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden were regarded as British interests, and had been so for years. In conclusion, he would say that he had listened also with great interest to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Merthy Tydvil (Mr. Richard). He welcomed the hon. Member on his return to take part in their debates; for whether or not any

  1677
  Member of that House agreed with his hon. Friend, he was sure that all regarded him with respect and sympathy for the perfect consistency which he had always manifested in the expression of his principles. It was not the good fortune of the Government al-. ways to be in agreement with his hon. Friend, deeply as they sympathized with his principles; but he would none the less hope, although his hon. Friend had on that occasion expressed the intention of voting against the Government, that he might long be spared to promote that great cause of peace which, let him assure him, was valued deeply by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, he was sorry that the noble Lord who had last addressed the House (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was not in his place at that moment; but he had no doubt he would return before very long, as, of course, he (Mr. Bourke) would have liked to have addressed the few observations he he was about to make more to the noble Lord himself than to any other person in the House. The speech of the noble Lord was remarkable both for what it did contain and for what it did not contain. It certainly did not contain one scrap of information on those points on which the House wanted information. Neither did it deal with the very exhaustive and powerful speech of his (Mr. Bourke's) hon. Friend the Member for Eye, and only very slightly with the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). The noble Lord did refer to some of the points of the speech of the hon. Member for Eye; but they were by no means the most important part of the speech. They might be said to embrace only the fringe of the subject. The same remark applied also to the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton. The noble Lord said that the two speeches to which he had just referred represented two different schools of thought, and that the policy of the Government steered a course which lay between the two.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that what he had said was that political truth probably lay between the two extremes.
  MR. BOURKE: Exactly; and it was only natural to suppose that the Government had followed what they conceived to be the political truth. As a result,
  1678
  this country, Europe, and the people of Egypt believed that "political truth" and Her Majesty's Government had fallen between two stools. What they quarrelled with the Government for was, that they had adopted one policy—representing one school of policy—at one time, and another, representing another school, at another time. The natural result was that disaster and confusion and the condition of things in which they found themselves at the present time. The noble Lord must have amused the House by his concluding remarks addressed to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard). The hymn of peace in the future which the noble Lord sung at the conclusion of his speech was strangely inconsistent with the action of Her Majesty's Government from first to last, and particularly with the events now taking place near Suakin. The noble Lord was, no doubt, perfectly sincere in the observations which he addressed to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil; but if he spoke in the same strain to his Colleagues, he might well say, in the words of the Psalmist—
  "I am for peace, but when I speak
  They are for War."
  Certainly, that had been the result of the deliberations of the Government. When the noble Lord put forward the policy of the Government as a policy of peace, one might say with Hotspur—
  "Never did bare and rotton policy
  Colour its workings with such deadly wounds."
  For every step they had taken had brought them into deeper and deeper difficulty. From the time they had thrust the Sultan out of authority in Egypt every step they had taken had been marked by blood and carnage. The only subject which the House had been anxious to hear discussed by the Government was that of slavery; and as that was the last opportunity on which they would be able to discuss the policy of the Government with regard to Egypt, he thought it was desirable before the debate closed that they should have some further explanation of their future intentions than they had at present. The noble Lord, however, had told them nothing. He had certainly told them something with respect to the Slave Trade—that they had come to an arrangement with the British India Steam Packet Company which would enable them to go to the places where the trade

  1679
  was carried on; but he (Mr. Bourke) thought that the contract with the Company which was lying on the Table did not apply to the Red Sea Coast at all. The only contract which existed was for ships to go between Aden and Zanzibar.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURIC:: What I said was, that the number of Consuls on the East Coast of Africa had been increased, and that it was a particular article of this contract that the Company should give facilities for carrying these Consuls about. I also stated that arrangements had been made, by which one one of the Consuls was to have been sent to the neighbourhood of Suakin, but that Consul Baker, who was the Khartoum Consul, was brought down to Suakin, so that the particular appointment did not figure in the arrangements.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, the noble Lord took credit for making the contract; but that did not alter his point at all, because the contract did not apply to that part of Africa—the Coast of the Bed Sea—which was the subject of their discussion. But it seemed to him to be a small point, and he should not have alluded to it if the noble Lord had not made so much of it. These Consular matters were of no importance whatever, for now that a Proclamation had been issued legalizing slavery in the Soudan, there would not be the same carriage of slaves across to Arabia as there had been, because the slave traders, now that the status of slavery had been recognized, would find a sufficient market in the Soudan itself. The great and urgent question was, what steps were they going to take to protect those responsibilities which they had undertaken in the face of Europe with regard to the protection of the ports in the Bed Sea? They were responsibilities such as were absolutely new and unknown to this country, and had been enforced upon them because they would not undertake lesser ones. He had no faith whatever in the policy of keeping these ports in the littoral of the Bed Sea being effective, either in preserving the peace of the Soudan, or of stopping the Slave Trade under the conditions upon which Her Majesty's Government had now placed slavery. By their Proclamation they had legalized the Slave Trade in the Soudan. The Government had made a capital error in their Soudan policy. No Government
  1680
  could ever exist in Egypt without a peaceful Soudan; and he had no faith in the arrangements which the Government said they were making for the government of the Soudan. The restoration of the Sultans, if there ever had been any, would lead in the end to anarchy. He could not believe, neither did he believe the people of the Soudan would, in a policy which proclaimed the Mahdi Sultan on one side of the Soudan, while his first lieutenant, Osman, was attacked and his people slaughtered on the other by the British Forces. It was a state of things, moreover, which he did not believe the people of the Soudan would ever understand, and until Her Majesty's Government changed their policy, he did not believe they would ever have peace in the Soudan. The Prime Minister had stated that General Gordon's mission was a peaceful one; but the country was utterly unable to understand what his policy was, for it was an assertion which bewildered this as well as other countries. The operations at Suakin and Tokar had been carried on with the consent and approval of Gordon, and the Government were clearly responsible for that policy. It was upon that question that the House wanted information. Her Majesty's Government had made themselves responsible for his policy, and the House wanted to know something about it, and he hoped that before that debate concluded they would have some information as to what that policy was. Apart from the question of the Slave Trade, they wanted to know, was the Government of the Soudan to be given back to Zebehr Pasha, or to somebody whose views differed from Zebehr Pasha's? He believed that the country was utterly deceived and dissatisfied with the policy of Her Majesty's Government; and that, if things did not alter, it was perfectly clear that for the whole of that Session the House would be in a state of irritation with regard to Egypt. In his opinion, the time had come when Her Majesty's Government ought to declare that they were met by such difficulties in their Egyptian policy in Parliament that they ought to say that it was impossible for them to carry on the Business of the country. What he said, therefore, recognizing the fact of an irritated House of Commons, and that questions would be constantly arising with

  1681
  regard to Egypt, was, that the best thing Her Majesty's Government could do was to take that Constitutional course which every other Government would take under a similar circumstance—to appeal to the people of the country as to whether they ought, or ought not, to change their policy in Egypt. He was quite satisfied that the Legislative Business of the country could not be satisfactorily carried on under the present circumstances, or until they had a satisfactory policy in Egypt. Things were steadily getting worse and worse. When he (Mr. Bourke) had spoken previously of the dissatisfaction in Egypt, the Prime Minister had said he spoke from unauthentic information; but every report they had from that country showed that the people were getting disgusted with us, and were very much dissatisfied with our government. Those who had formerly looked upon us as friends, now regarded us as enemies. No reforms had been carried out in Egypt—[" Hear, hear!"]—hon. Members might say, "Hear, hear!" but, considering our vast interests there, that was not a question to be trifled with. The President of the Local Government Board had said that we were in Egypt for three reasons. From necessity, in consequence of Treaty rights, and on account of our interest in the Suez Canal. Those were vital interests which it was the duty of the Government to preserve, but which they had gravely imperilled. He was confident that he had never said as much with regard to the anarchy which prevailed as he might have done. Beyond all this, however, there were the assertions with which the Government went to Egypt—that they would put down anarchy, restore order, and give to the Egyptians all the blessings of a free people. How had those assertions been borne out? Every step they had taken in that direction, and especially the miserable Constitution they had given the country, had proved an utter fiasco. Lord Dufferin had told them it would be so unless they supported it, and they had utterly failed to support it. They had swept away one system of government and had not substituted any other for it, leaving the country with no system at all. He did not know what the intention of his hon. Friends was; but when he read the words of the Motion he said it was
  1682
  a truism, and he for one would not vote against it. He trusted that the Government would tell the House that they meant to restore peace to the Soudan, and that they meant to stay in Egypt until they had established a very different government from that which was carried on now by the puppets who were in nominal authority, and that they would support such a government so long as British Forces were in the country. With respect to the Motion before the House, which affirmed that the necessity for this recent taking of life was not apparent, it was impossible, from the scanty information, and from the want of justification which the Government had given in that House for the enormous sacrifice of life on the part of the English and the dreadful massacre of the enemy—it was impossible for him to say "No" to the Resolution.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, there were two sets of opponents to the Government's Egyptian policy. The objection of hon. Gentlemen on the other side was intelligible and consistent. That of some of his hon. Friends near him was scarcely so. Three weeks ago they voted, with alacrity and enthusiasm, confidence in the Cabinet, and approval of its policy. Now, they refused to ratify that confidence, and they wanted a day or two since to deny Ministers the means of giving effect to their policy. When the Israelites were in Egypt, they were required to make bricks without straw. The English being now there, they were required by his Friends to make war without money. His hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) detested war. So did most men. But war was often a voluntary self-sacrifice for the holiest centres of human affection. He (Mr. Cowen) was for peace. So were they all. So, too, to utilize his hon. Friend's simile, were thieves, provided they could retain possession of their plunder. There was something more sacred than life—justice; something more precious than riches—freedom. And war was often requisite to win and maintain both. He abhorred the cowardly selfishness that would wall out the circling world from their efforts and their sympathies, or that would only fight for the lowest needs of existence, and not for the nobler elements of national purpose. Honour was before interest, and duty before

  1683
  danger. But to go to the Resolution before the House, were the operations referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) necessary and commendable? War was honourable and indispensable when civilization had to be preserved, national rights upheld, and their native country defended. Did their doings on the shores of the Red Sea come under such a category? What were they for? The Government had repeatedly pronounced the Soudan to be a costly and dangerous appendage to Egypt. They commanded—for no other word expressed their action—the Khedive to abandon it to the unchecked dominion of the slave holders and slave hunters. They despatched General Gordon to Khartoum to effect its evacuation, and to coax the tribes into allowing the garrisons to retire. Our Emissary had confirmed the Mahdi's conquests, and made him a Sultan at El Obeid. Yet we slew the Mahdi's men at El Teb and Tamanieb. By what process of political legerdemain did they reconcile scattering shot and shell amidst the Soudanese by General Graham, and peace proclamations by General Gordon? If they meant to keep the country, their dual operations might be defensible. If they meant to leave it, the fighting a week past Friday, and on Thursday last, was unmitigated murder, the stain of which no Party whitewashing would ever be able to erase. These dauntless Arabs were not our enemies. According to the Ministerial hypothesis, they were our particular friends—men they would wish to save and to serve. How, then, did they justify drenching their land with tears, and manuring it with corpses? Was there no bloodguiltiness in this sanguinary carnage? What availed their maudlin moralizing, if it could not stop such tumultous slaughter—the heart-borne anguish that, while they wrangled in wordy conflict, was stunning with the cries of death many a gentle home? Had all their holy horror of fighting for prestige evaporated, or was it all cant—intolerable cant? Attempting to rescue the beleaguered garrisons was right; but when one was slaughtered, and the other had surrendered, what need was there for further bloodshed? To protect Suakin, say the Ministers. But Suakin was never seriously menaced. The tribes should have been told that
  1684
  we meant them no harm. The form of sending such a message was kept, but adequate opportunity for reply was not given. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!] Bring every explanation of Ministers to the test of fact, and they were resolvable only under two heads—either they intended to keep the Soudan, and they had fought for that purpose; or they intended to relinquish it, and they had fought for that illusory entity, military glory, a motive which, when the Liberals were in Opposition, was denounced by every adjective in the vocabulary of vituperation. The Government were desired to define their policy. That was almost a work of supererogation. The Prime Minister defined it years ago, when he foretold that the first site we secured in Egypt, be it by larcency or by eruption, would be the certain egg of a North African Empire. The right hon. Gentleman was fulfilling his own prophecy. The site had been got—got by larcency—and a new Empire was being founded. Annex Egypt! Why, it was annexed as tightly as India. The marvel was, that men versed in affairs should have ever dreamed when we once went there, overthrew the Government, and destroyed its defences, that we could leave as easily as a crowd leaves a public meeting. Whenever England planted her authority amidst a semi-civilized people, she maintained it. ["No, no!"] He said "Yes, yes." Once there, every step she took fastened her more firmly. From the character of the two races, retention and advance on our part was inevitable. It was our destiny and theirs. We could no more escape from it than a man could escape from his shadow. Civilization marched at the rear of conquest. This experience was as universal and unvarying as cause and effect. The Government were either deceiving themselves or deceiving the country, when they fostered the hope of acting differently. Many Liberal Members bemoaned the situation. It had brought the Government embarrassments that were serious, and might prove fatal. They now realized the possibility that the Reform Bill might be strangled, not by the House of Lords, but by Egypt. But if such should be the case, who would be to blame? They would; and for this reason. It was an open secret that at least 30 Liberal Members were

  1685
  opposed to the original Egyptian enter-prize; but they had not the manliness to say so, when their saying so might have stopped it. They saw their Friends drifting to the rapids, and they had not the courage to warn them of the danger. They were afraid to speak their minds. It might have disconcerted their Chiefs, and that would have been Party profanity. Or it might have displeased the Caucus, and that would have been treason. Now, all remonstrances were unavailing. The Government could not recede. There was no armour against inexorable fate. Circumstances, which they could neither create nor control, would guide their course. The Army of Occupation might be diminished, or increased, or withdrawn; but British supremacy was as surely settled on the banks of the Nile as on the banks of the Ganges. Its form might vary, but its essence was assured. The Prime Minister's metaphorical egg had been hatched, and the brood had taken wing. What the Government was desired to do was to acknowledge this—to shake themselves clear of the atmosphere of mystery and doubt, and apply plain words to palpable facts. Why all these Delphic deliverances, and these equivocations, about obvious and self-evident truths? If we were not the Rulers of Egypt, who were? The Khedive had no more initiatory power than the Mahdi—in some respects not so much. What did we do there? or, rather, what did we not do? We made and unmade Ministries, contracted loans, controlled the Exchequer, and decreed Constitutions. We waged war, surrendered Provinces, broke Treaties, and abrogated Conventions. We superseded Judges, supervised Courts, pardoned prisoners, and pensioned rebels. We raised, equipped, and officered a Native Army, organized a mercenary gendarmerie, and stiffened the two by British troops. We commanded the whole as directly and peremptorily as we did the garrison at Gibraltar, or a brigade at Aldershot. We planned public works, constructed roads, designed irrigation, abandoned railways, re-organized prisons, reconstituted schools, suspended newspapers, and appointed sanitary inspectors. In a word, we directed the external policy, regulated the internal administration, manipulated the finances, constrained the judicature, requisitioned the military, enacted laws, dictated the
  1686
  political and devised the social mechanism of the country. There was not an official, from the meanest subaltern to the most pretentious Pasha, who did not hold his post at our pleasure, and whom we could not order or admonish, coerce or command at will. If that was not government, what was it? But we did all that vicariously, by men in buckram, behind whose clumsy and forbidding lineaments we worked like a showman moving marionettes. This duplex action was costly, confusing, complicating, and deceiving. Let the Government throw off their vizor, and frankly assume responsibility for what they had done, were doing, and proposed to do. They, as his right hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) had said, had destroyed the Dual Control, and established a Dual Administration, which was even more mischievous. They had unsettled every institution, for no perceptible advantage, and produced a chronic irritation, which was only kept from warming into passion by the presence of English soldiers. Let them dispense with the hampering interference of sulky, incompetent, and corrupt intermediaries. Every irresolute and enigmatical utterance of Ministers only added to the prevalent Pertubation. Every rumour of remaining increased the stability. Men of ability would rally to our rule, if this uncertainty was removed. They would not do so while it remained, as they feared they might suffer for supporting us. There were matters respecting General Gordon's mission that required to be, but had not been, explained. No sensible man complained of his not having initiated a Quixotic crusade against slavery. Slavery was embedded into every fibre of the social life of the Soudan. It could not be extirpated by an Army, much less by a Proclamation. But ignoring slavery was one thing, and according it plenary indulgence for the past, and open sanction for the future, was another and a very different thing. That General Gordon had done. The Prime Minister was, at first, so shocked by the Proclamation, that he said he did not like to admit even to his own mind that it had been issued. Now, however, its publication was not only admitted, but endorsed. It might bring us untold troubles. It would surely be cited against us when we came to deal with other slave-patronizing countries. It was

  1687
  trifling to tell us that the Proclamation had only reference to domestic slavery. The words used were "slave traffic." There would be no traffic in slaves without there was slave holding. By an incomprehensible but common inconsistency, the Government were checking the Slave Trade at Suakin and legalizing it at Khartoum. The British people would endure a great deal from the Government; but they would not stand the instalment, at their instance, of a state at the junction of the two Niles based on the grossest and most degrading vices of civilized life. It would be a standing menace to Egypt and to liberty. What authority had General Gordon to tell the Soudanese that the exalted Sultan—these were his own words—was going to send an army of the Faithful to the Soudan to reconquer the country? Had he, or had he not, warrant for making such a statement? "Was his announcement that English or Indian troops were to be sent to help him untrue, or only premature? Would the same reason that had driven us to hold Suakin not drive us to retain Khartoum, either as a protected State, or an integral part of Egypt? They might resist it, but events might again be too strong for them. Certainly, they were setting in that direction. But whatever we might do, or we might not do, the worst thing that could be done was to drift into additional responsibilities. An English poet who travelled over Egypt 150 years ago, and afterwards wrote a history of the country, which might be consulted even now with advantage, described in homely verse the danger of dallying. The Ministers might usefully apply the advice it conveyed—
  "Tender-handed stroke a nettle,
  And it stings you for your pains;
  Grasp it like a man of mettle,
  And it soft as silk remains."
  Let the Ministers grasp their nettle, and many of their difficulties would crumble up. But if they did not do so their difficulties would be increased, and the danger would be augmented.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that he was sure that the attention of the House and of the country ought to be drawn to the fact that during this important discussion the House had not been favoured with the presence of Her Majesty's Ministers.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir—["Order, order!"]——
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that doubtless the right hon. Baronet would take part in the debate later on, when he would have an opportunity of giving such an explanation of the state of the Treasury Bench, as regarded the absence of his Colleagues, as he might think fit.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that a Cabinet Council was then being held.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: A Cabinet Council! What did he (Lord Randolph Churchill) care for Cabinet Councils? Who cared for Cabinet Councils? A solemn agreement had been made between the authorities on the other side of the House and the authorities on his side of the House—an arrangement that was extremely inconvenient to many hon. Members—that the House should have an opportunity—the only opportunity they would have for many days of doing so—of discussing certain very important Votes connected with Egypt at 12 o'clock on a Saturday, when the subject might be properly and adequately discussed; yet of so little importance did Her Majesty's Government consider that agreement to be, so thorough was their contempt for the present House of Commons, so little did they care for the opinions of the country, so little for the opinion of their followers or for the reproaches of their opponents, that they had fixed upon the very time when this discussion was to be entered upon for holding their Cabinet Council.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, it had been perfectly open to the Government to have held their Cabinet Council at some other time. In fact, he ventured to say that the country would not have been a bit worse off if they had indefinitely postponed their Cabinet Council. A Cabinet Council at which the Prime Minister was not present was not likely to lead to much.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: He was there.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that the House was beginning at last to get a little information. The House had the satisfaction of knowing that the Prime Minister's indisposition had terminated, and that he was able once more to give his mind to the consideration of public affairs, although he was not able to come down to that House.
  SIR CHARLES W. DLLKE: The Cabinet Council was held at Mr. Gladstone's house.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that, in any case, what an awkward position the House of Commons was in. Here they were discussing the affairs of the Soudan, and the only Representative of the Government was the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice)—at least he had no reason to suppose that the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board represented the Government on Foreign Affairs—and they were discussing those affairs on certain information of a limited kind, and on certain suppositions. The Government were in Council, and until the House was informed of the determination at which the Cabinet had arrived it was almost useless for them to discuss this question, and the time that was being occupied in discussing it was merely being wasted. The speech of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was the most startling proof of the incompetence, the incapacity, and the inutility of the present Government. The noble Lord, in his speech, gave them one, and only one, piece of information. He gave them, indeed, the history of two Judges, and also one of the Abyssinian Church, and had elaborately reviewed in a favourable spirit Dean Stanley's work upon Eastern Ecclesiastical Establishments. The noble Lord had also informed them, in the most solemn manner, that it was his duty to remind the House that there were lighthouses on the Red Sea; a remark that had reminded him (Lord Randolph Churchill) of the observation of Mr. F.'s aunt in Little Dorrit, who had interrupted a most interesting conversation by remaining that there "were milestones on the Dover Road." There was only one grain of wheat, one item of information, in the noble Lord's speech—namely, that General Graham was not to be permitted to advance to Berber. [Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE: He had no instructions to do so.] If a certain matter was not within the instructions of the General, it was clear that the General had not power to act in that matter; and he said that they had, at last, obtained from the Government what they refused to state last night—namely,
  1690
  that General Graham was not to be permitted to advance to Berber. At present, that was what the Government said; but, for all they knew, the result of the consultation they were now holding was that General Graham would be permitted to advance to Berber. Let the House observe the way in which the Government treated the public. When they wanted to get Votes, either of Confidence, or of Money, they had never the slightest hesitation in leading the House of Commons into a delusion, and allowing it to remain under that delusion. He said they brought that criticism on themselves. They were endeavouring to get a Vote from the House of Commons in the teeth of some opposition, whether bonâ fide or not he did not know, from their Radical Supporters, by endeavouring to induce them to believe that General Graham was not to be permitted to advance to Berber, and yet they had reason to suppose they knew that the force of circumstances would be so strong, the appeals of General Gordon so irresistible, that General Graham must advance to Berber. [" No, no!"] He had been right once or twice in these matters, and he might be right again. He was right about the relief of Tokar, and hon. Members opposite interrupted him then, as they did now. He said it was perfectly monstrous, that the House of Commons should be called to vote money for operations which might lead the country into enormous expenditure and to an immense amount of liability, and perhaps danger, while, at the same time, they were not only refused information, but the Government took themselves off from the House of Commons in order to avoid inconvenient questions. He did not know whether the Representatives of the people ever before received such treatment from the hands of a responsible Government. They were told that General Graham was not to advance on the road to Berber, and the House of Commons must take that statement for what it was worth, and deliberate upon it. If that were so, it simply came to this—that Her Majesty's Government had ordered to be fought two sanguinary battles, in which the killed and wounded were to be counted by thousands, battles in which their soldiers had been butchered by the savages of the Soudan; and, in consequence of the determination

  1691
  of the Government not to go further, these battles had been fought for no purpose whatever. No doubt, it was stated by the Prime Minister that these battles were fought for the defence of Suakin; but they knew, from what fell from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, that, within a few weeks' time, the British troops were going to evacuate Suakin. Then, their guilt became double; for those two battles had been fought for the defence of a place which was to be evacuated. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: No.] He heard the noble Lord say so. Was the noble Lord so stupid as to say that they were going to remain indefinitely at Suakin? The climate would prevent them doing so. It was these continual reservations, evasions, and concealments on the part of the Government of which they complained; they were obliged to draw information out of them as it were with a corkscrew. Two bloody battles had been fought, not for the purpose of relieving General Gordon and opening the road to Berber and enabling the garrison of Khartoum to escape, but for the purpose of protecting Suakin, which was now to be evacuated, and Her Majesty's Government asked the House of Commons to give them money for that. The House, he would submit, had no answer to make, except one of a direct negative. He agreed with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere)—that the necessity for the great loss of British and Arab life in the Eastern Soudan had not been made apparent. [The Marquess of HARTING-TON here entered the House.] The Cabinet Council had been unusually short; and the noble Marquess would, no doubt, in the course of the afternoon, inform them of the results of the Council. To go back to what he was saying, he hoped hon. Members who supported the Government would insist upon a clear statement of their policy. It was the duty of the House of Commons, before they voted a single penny, to insist upon that. In his opinion, not only had no necessity for that great loss of life been demonstrated, but they had every reason to believe that a further loss of British and Arab life must be incurred, in order to extricate the Government from the position in which they had allowed themselves to get. In the Estimates to be placed before the House,
  1692
  there was a Vote of £1,500 for the Mission of General Gordon. He thought they had a right to call on the Government, before they voted that money, to state clearly to the House what had been the acts of General Gordon up to Thursday, when they last heard from him—what despatches they had received, how far he was carrying out his plans, and what were their hopes. It was perfectly impossible that the Government could allow the public mind to remain in the state of anxiety in which it now was about General Gordon. They knew that his original plans had been abandoned. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War threw some doubt on the conversation reported by Mr. Power, Her Majesty's Consul at Khartoum, with General Gordon, and said that conversation was imaginary, and rested on no evidence. He did not know what the noble Marquess called evidence. Her Majesty's Consul at Khartoum hold a conversation with General Gordon, and, by the authority of the General, telegraphed it to The Times, in London, and the noble Marquess said that it was not evidence. Till they got some information from the Government, they must be satisfied with the information thus telegraphed home. They knew that General Gordon was in great danger; they knew that he had sent away a part of the garrison of Khartoum; they knew that the tribes were in revolt between Khartoum and Berber, and they wanted to know what progress General Gordon had made, up to the moment when the Government had heard from him last, with respect to the relief of the Egyptian garrisons in various parts of the Soudan? The Government must remember that General Gordon was sent out with unlimited powers, and that the Prime Minister had distinctly said—"No matter what he does, we are responsible." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) said he would not vote with the Opposition, because it would be giving a blank cheque to Lord Salisbury. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) was bound to say he would sooner give a blank cheque to Lord Salisbury than a blank cheque to General Gordon. Her Majesty's Government had given that blank cheque to General Gordon; but, before the House endorsed that cheque, they must know what he was

  1693
  doing. He must have been at Khartoum three weeks at least, and he had been in constant communication with Her Majesty's Government. They wanted to know the purport of those communications before they voted money; and, if it was inconvenient to make any statement as to General Gordon now, then let them postpone the discussion. Now as to the Slave Trade question. The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had alluded to the Slave Trade, and had talked of the money that had been voted last night in connection with the suppression of the Slave Trade, taking considerable credit to himself for having put down an increased Estimate this year for that purpose. But what a waste of public money it was for the House of Commons to be voting the sums proposed by the noble Lord for the suppression of the Slave Trade, and to be, at the same time, allowing General Gordon at Khartoum to encourage and permit the Slave Trade. General Gordon had stated very deliberately, just before he went out, that the Slave Trade must be stopped at its source, and the view which had been taken up by Her Majesty's Government, that it could be put down by a few vessels along the vast extent of the coast of the Red Sea was not only absurd on the face of it, but was directly opposed to the views of General Gordon. They knew that General Gordon, with the sanction of the Government, had issued a Proclamation which authorized and encouraged the Slave Trade; and if they voted the money now asked on account of General Gordon's Mission, the House would be sanctioning his Proclamation allowing the Slave Trade. The Government had not condescended to answer any of the questions addressed to them about the Slave Trade. There could be nothing more powerful than the appeal made to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), one of their own Supporters, who always gave them a friendly lift whenever he could, imploring them to relieve the House from its anxiety about the Slave Trade in the Soudan. Of course, no notice was taken of the right hon. Gentleman's appeal; no notice would be taken of the eloquent and powerful speech of the hon. Member for Newcasle (Mr. Joseph
  1694
  Cowen). They could get no information. The Government gave a blank cheque to General Gordon, and the House of Commons was called upon to give a blank cheque to the Government. The noble Lord said they were going to hold Suakin, in order to prevent the Slave Trade being carried on by the Red Sea, and that they were to give up the place after holding it for some time to the Turkish Government. Now, he found that Lord Granville, in his original despatch to Cherif Pasha, stated that it was the intention of the Government that the littoral of the Red Sea should be restored to the Sultan. So that they were now to place the littoral of the Red Sea in the hands of the Turkish Government, he supposed for the purpose of suppressing the Slave Trade, while at Khartoum, where they were going to establish Zebehr Pasha as Governor, Proclamations giving encouragement to that trade were issued. These were things which only required to be stated to show their absurdity; but they knew there was very little use in stating them in the House of Commons. While the House was discussing, the Government were holding Cabinet Councils; but let not hon. Members who objected to these things be discouraged, for there was a public out-of-doors who were watching those discussions—[" Hear, hear!"]—with a keen and intelligent sympathy, and who wished to be informed, as well as a few isolated Members of the Radical Party, what were the purposes and the policy of the Government. When he thought of the events which had recently occurred in the Soudan, and of the slaughter and bloodshed which had overtaken our own troops, and the savage tribes who had resisted them, he was reminded—and he also wished to remind the House—of a speech made in 1880, at Dalkeith, by the Prime Minister to certain ladies of Scotland, who had made a presentation to Mrs. Gladstone. He would quote that speech now, simply because it exactly described the present situation, and put before the public in the clearest, most intelligible, and most forcible manner, what was the position of Her Majesty's Government in the Soudan. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I speak to you, ladies, as women;"
  and he then went on thus—

  1695
  "Of all these words—peace, retrenchment, and reform—the one word upon which I will say a few more special words on this occasion is the word peace. Is this, ladies, a time of peace? Cast your eyes abroad over the world. Think what has taken place in the last three or four years. Think of the events which have deluged many a hill and many a valley with blood; and think, with regret and pain, of the share, not which you individually, but which your country collectively, has had in that grievous operation."
  The right hon. Gentleman continued—
  "If we cast our eyes to South Africa"—
  but he (Lord Randolph Churchill) for that would now substitute the words "North Africa"—
  "What do we behold? That a nation whom we term savages have, in defence of their own land, offered their naked bodies to the terribly improved artillery and arms of modern European science, and have been mowed down by hundreds and by thousands, having committed no offence, but having with rude and ignorant courage done, and done faithfully and bravely, what were for them the duties of patriotism. You may talk of glory, you may offer rewards—and you are right to give rewards to the gallantry of your soldiers, who, I think, are entitled, not only to our admiration for courage, but to our compassion for the nature of the duties they have been called to perform—but the grief and the pain none the less remain."
  Perhaps the House might have noticed in the telegrams that morning a statement that General Graham had burnt the villages he had occupied. Might he venture to give the House one small passage of the speech from which he had been quoting, which would explain, in a very graphic manner, what that meant? The Prime Minister, still addressing those Scottish ladies, said—
  "But I am trying to point out the responsibility of the terrible consequences that follow upon such operations. Those hill tribes had committed no real offence against us. We, in the pursuit of our political objects, chose to establish military positions in their country. If they resisted, would not you have done the same? And when, going forth from their villages, they had resisted, what you find is this—that those who went forth were slain, and that the village was burned. Again, I say, have you considered the meaning of these words? The meaning of the burning of the villages is that the women and the children were driven forth to perish in the snows of winter."
  In the case of the Eastern Soudan, then, they might say that the women and children were driven forth to perish amid the and rocks and wild wastes of that country. Was it not a little extraordinary that those words, used by the right hon. Gentleman when he was endeavouring
  1696
  to destroy the Government of the day which was opposed to him, described precisely the military operations in which the present Ministry were engaged? After that speech to the ladies, they were told that—
  "A vote of thanks was, on the motion of Mr. Tod, accorded by acclamation to Mr. Gladstone, who then left the town, passing down rows of torch-bearers drawn up to illuminate the streets in his honour."
  He would ask the Prime Minister to go back to Mid Lothian, to the locality where he addressed those ladies, and to deliver that speech to them again. He would ask him to deliver that speech again to the House of Commons in his own manner before he called on them to vote Supplies for military operations. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, in his opinion, could not possibly be resisted. Nothing but those receiving official salaries could possibly vote against it. That Amendment asserted that the necessity for the great loss of British and Arab life in the Soudan had not been made apparent, and he should certainly support it, and he did not see how the House of Commons could do otherwise.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, at the beginning of his speech the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) called attention to the fact that my Colleagues were absent from the House; and I thought it only right and just to him to state that they were attending a meeting of the Cabinet which was then being held. The noble Lord then asked whether the Prime Minister was present at that meeting, and it is, perhaps, better that I should at once tell the House that the meeting of the Cabinet had been called at the Prime Minister's house; but, in consequence of this Motion to day, the meeting was held here, Ministers having first seen the Prime Minister, and then come down to this House. But I am sorry to say that the illness from which the Prime Minister has been suffering for some days past is by no means over. The noble Lord blamed the Government for having fixed the holding of a Cabinet Council for the very time at which it had been settled to take the discussion upon the military expenditure in Egypt. Now, I would ask the House to observe how singularly reckless was the statement of the noble Lord as to the time settled by the House

  1697
  for taking the discussion on the Egyptian military expenditure. This afternoon, Sir, was not settled by the House for any such purpose at all; and, at the time the summonses were sent out for the Cabinet Council, we had no reason to believe—certainly I had none—that any such discussion would take place. The Motion before us is an Amendment on the Order to go into Committee of Supply, and Supply (Civil Services, remaining Supplementary Estimates for 1883–4) is the only Order on the Paper for to-day. On that Motion for Supply there stand a large number of Amendments. I notice that there are no less than 10 Motions down upon the Paper on going into Committee of Supply. The first Amendment is with regard to the Business of the House; the second refers to the Treaty with Portugal; the third relates to the British Museum; the fourth concerns the duties on Gold and Silver Plate; the fifth deals with the Census and the population of Scotland and various other parts of the United Kingdom; the sixth, which was brought forward by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), but was not actually moved, relates to the Soudan; and the seventh, which we are now discussing, is an Amendment of which Notice was only given at a very late hour last night. So much for the noble Lord's allegation that the Cabinet Council was called for to-day in order that Ministers might be absent from this discussion. The noble Lord proceeded to remark upon what he considers our decided policy in regard to the evacuation of Suakin. He must, I think, have known that the statement to which he referred was a statement as to the evacuation of Suakin by the expeditionary force under General Graham, and he represented to the House that the statement was that Suakin was to be evacuated by the naval force as well, for he said that we were for giving up Suakin altogether. It is the case that Suakin is not a place in which it would be desirable to keep a large force of British troops for several months, nor, indeed, in which it would be desirable to keep them a week or a day longer than is absolutely necessary even at present. The climate is not one in which it is desirable that a British force should be employed at all if it is possible to avoid it; and the very reason
  1698
  for these operations was that the force should not be kept at Suakin at this season of the year. The House approved the policy of General Graham's expedition being sent to Suakin. General Graham's forces being at Suakin, they could not have been withdrawn if Osman Digna's camp had been allowed to remain within 10 miles of that port. The noble Lord speaks as though these unhappy Arabs were in the place where they habitually dwelt. That, however, is not the case. They were collected together from various quarters for the purpose of menacing or attacking Suakin; and, as a matter of fact, less than 200 Arabs usually live in that particular valley. It would have been, therefore, necessary, I repeat, for General Graham's force to have remained at Suakin if Osman Digna's troops had been allowed to remain in the vicinity of that town. The noble Lord went on to speak about the Slave Trade, and he quoted General Gordon's well-known words, that the Slave Trade ought to be stopped at its source. Was it candid of him to endeavour to lead the House to believe that the source of the Slave Trade of which General Gordon spoke was in the Soudan? ["Oh, oh!"] That source is on the Upper Congo. General Gordon has stated, over and over again, in documents that are before the House, that if he is allowed to carry out the policy of the evacuation of the Soudan and to leave the Soudan, then it is his ambition to proceed at once to the upper waters of the Congo. ["Oh, oh!"] It is not for me to say where the source of the Slave Trade is. I myself know nothing about it. But General Gordon, who has much more knowledge of the matter, says that that source is the Upper Congo; and he has informed the public that if he is allowed to complete the evacuation of the Soudan, he then wishes to devote the remainder of his life to the suppression of the Slave Trade on the upper waters of the River Congo. The noble Lord told us that the public out-of-doors are watching this discussion, and that statement was cheered by some hon. Gentlemen on this side, who must think that if the people out-of-doors have been in the habit of watching the utterances of the noble Lord, they cannot have received any strong impression of his consistency. The noble Lord loudly cheered the statement made by the hon. Member

  1699
  for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), in his vigorous speech, that the Arabs were not warned that we were going to attack them; or that, if they wore, we did not wait for any reply. The statement of the hon. Member for Newcastle was inaccurate, because we did wait to receive a reply, and we received two replies to the communication we made to them. But the noble Lord went far beyond that statement which he cheered; for he accused General Graham of corresponding with these Arabs in the English tongue. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I merely asked the question.] The noble Lord smiled as he made that explanation. I have before complained that he always makes his boldest assertions in the form of a request for information. His suggestion in this instance was that General Graham had written his letters to Osman Digna and the Arabs in the English tongue, there having been no statement whatever in any of the newspapers to justify the putting of such a question. The noble Lord's serious contributions to our debates are few and far between, because he takes an inconsistent line for attacking the Government. Any stick is good enough to beat a dog with; and any argument is good enough for the noble Lord when he wishes to throw something at the head of the Government. He told us the other day that the fighting at Suakin involved the most atrocious massacre ever witnessed in the history of the world. I allude to the extremely dramatic speech he made a few days since. He called it anti-Christian.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I used no such expression.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The noble Lord said "anti-human."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The noble Lord repudiates the expression "anti-Christian," and the hon. Member by his side (Mr. A. J. Balfour) says the words used were "anti-human." Well, I have not his speech with me; but, at all events, he spoke with the greatest excitement, and he applied the most violent language to the military operations which have taken place. That is a matter which I leave the noble Lord to settle with the Gentleman who is to stand as his Colleague in contesting the representation of Birmingham at the next General Election—Colonel Burnaby.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Colonel Burnaby was acting under the orders of the military authorities. [Cries of "No!" and Order!"]
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: He has been thanked by the General.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I was under the impression that he was visiting Egypt as a traveller. [Cries of "No!"and Interruption.]
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: He was not.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to proceed without interruption.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I believe it is the fact that Colonel Burnaby himself asked that he might be attached to the Army in a nominal capacity, and that he was not sent out by the Government from this country to act with the Army, but went to Egypt as a traveller, and was attached in some honorary capacity to the Intelligence Department; but it was not necessary that he should have taken part in the fighting at the battle of El Teb by firing on Arabs with a shot gun. As to the policy of keeping the troops at Suakin, I can only say that the House has approved of the policy of General Graham's expedition. In the last debate in which that policy was questioned, we were distinctly asked if any attack would be made on Osman Digna's fortified position in the event of his remaining in the neighbourhood of Suakin. Our reply then was the same as before. We asked—Does, or does not, Osman Digna's force threaten our position at Suakin? We stated that it could not be allowed to do so; but that if his force dispersed it would not be followed. The same statement was made to Osman Digna himself, and that the information reached him is proved by the fact that the letters sent by General Graham were replied to. But I say that, as Osman Digna's forces did not disperse, but continued to threaten Suakin, if General Graham's expeditionary force was not to remain there indefinitely, it was necessary that Osman Digna's troops should be dispersed. The hon. Member for Newcastle asks us whether we are fighting for military glory? I ask my hon. Friend to believe that nothing in the world would ever induce me to be a party to fighting for military glory; and if I did not believe that the position of Osman Digna, in a fortified camp,

  1701
  within 10 or 12 miles of Suakin threatened our position at Suakin—if I did not believe that a fair opportunity would be given to the Arabs to leave their position, nothing would induce me to support, by vote or speech, the military operations which have taken place. The hon. Member for Newcastle said that Suakin was not in danger, and that the town could have been defended against attack.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: After General Graham's first victory.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Even then, it must be remembered that Osman Digna's force was encamped in the same position. Whether it was quite as large as it was three days before I cannot tell; but that Osman Digna, with several thousand men, was encamped at that very spot we knew, and that was reported to us. I come now to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke), who attacked my noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) for what he said about slavery and the Slave Trade. The right hon. Gentleman said that the only subject the House was anxious at all about was that of slavery.
  MR. BOURKE: I said it was the only subject attended to by the noble Lord.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: But the right hon. Gentleman attacked my noble Friend for what he said about slavery and the Slave Trade. I failed altogether to gather from the right hon. Gentleman's speech what policy on that subject he wished to recommend to the Government; but I do not believe that the House, as a whole, whatever may be the case with any individual Member—and I know there are some who are prepared to face it—nor do I believe that the country, as a whole, will be prepared to see the establishment of a Slave Power on the Coast of the Red Sea. He asked us, also, how we were to carry out the duty we have undertaken of protecting the ports of the Red Sea. The permanent protection of the ports of the Red Sea, when there is no large hostile force in the vicinity, is not so difficult or so dangerous as some persons may suppose. Those ports are very few in number. The greater part of that coast is an iron-bound coast, with only some small creeks and ports into which none but the smallest dhows can enter. The
  1702
  considerable ports on the Coast of the Red Sea are but two in number. It is true there are three opposite Aden; but they are perfectly tranquil, and as to them there is no reason to apprehend danger. The two considerable ports to which I have referred are—first, Massowah, which is quite tranquil; and, next, there is Suakin, which can beheld in ordinary times without much difficulty. Probably a force of 100 Marines, or even an English ship of war, would be sufficient to hold it if necessary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn, in referring to the general policy he would recommend, at the conclusion of his speech revealed the whole policy of the Opposition. The policy of the Opposition, it appears, according to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman, is to make the government of this country impossible in circumstances of very great difficulty. [" Hear, hear!"] I do not wish to overstate what was said by the right hon. Gentleman, and I will repeat the actual words he used. He said that—
  "The time had now come when Her Majesty's Government ought to declare that they are met by such difficulties in their Egyptian policy in Parliament that they ought to say that it is impossible for them any longer to carry on the Business of the country."
  And then he told us that it was our duty to appeal to the people. The phrase "appeal to the people," which was the invention in England a few days since of Lord Salisbury, has been long the property of the Bonapartist Party in France, who have used it as their sole policy, and who said it was the sole policy they had to offer to the people of that country. The right hon. Gentleman asks that we should appeal to the people upon the sole point of our Egyptian policy, on the ground that he and his Friends would make it impossible for us to carry on the Business of the country. [" No, no!"] They may make it very difficult for us to carry on the Business of the country; but I doubt whether, from the support we shall receive, they will make it impossible; and I can only tell him that, so long as it is possible for us to carry on the Business of the country, we shall do our best to carry it on. But if he should have his way, and if the Party opposite should make it impossible for us to carry on the Business of the country, then I

  1703
  say to the right hon. Gentleman he must be aware that we shall not appeal to the country only upon the Egyptian policy of the Government, but also upon those measures the carrying of which, he told us, is to be rendered impossible by the Party opposite repeatedly delaying them by discussing and rediscussing over and over again the policy of the Government in Egypt.
  MR. BOURKE: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks; but I think it is necessary to state what I really said. What I said was, not that we meant to make the government of the country impossible, but that the conduct of the Government respecting their policy in Egypt, and their reticence with respect to it, and the many observations which they have made, have made the government of the country impossible in this House.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he would not imitate the example set by the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in treating the House to an electioneering speech. He had listened very carefully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to see if it contained any answer whatever to the questions put by his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), or to the question which had been urged over and over again in the House. He must say that he was very much disappointed at the extreme poverty of excuse which the Government had exhibited. Whenever they were asked to give an account of the military operations at Suakin they were only able to repeat the old story which they told the House after the bombardment of Alexandria. That bombardment was carried out because the Fleet was menaced; but it never seemed to occur to them that the Fleet could withdraw; and, in the same way, the late engagement had taken place because Osman Digna's force menaced our troops, who were about to embark and evacuate the town. Would the Government tell the House of Commons what was the real object of the military operations which had taken place at Suakin? They said they went to Suakin for the purpose of relieving the garrison at Tokar; and yet, when Tokar had fallen, they still persevered in advancing to Tokar, and in
  1704
  slaughtering an immense number of Arabs, for the purpose of relieving a garrison which had surrendered. What was their policy and purpose in continuing these military operations? The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said that they had called upon Osman Digna to disperse. What business, he should like to know, had the Government to call upon him and his troops to disperse? If they were not at war with these Arabs, and merely went to the Soudan for the purpose of rescuing the garrisons which were now rescued, and afterwards intended to withdraw the forces from Suakin, what right had they to ask Osman Digna to disperse? Yet, because they would not disperse, they were slaughtered. The Government had made a great point, as they thought, by having issued Proclamations. In his opinion these Proclamations were all moonshine. They were not bonâ fide Proclamations. They were issued, not for the purpose of producing any impression upon those to whom they were addressed; they were simply issued for the purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of the House of Commons. They were carefully prepared and carefully recorded, and an account was sent home to this country, in order to persuade people who knew better that the purport of those Proclamations found their way among the people to whom they were addressed, in order that they might have an opportunity of complying with them, and before our troops were sent against the people. In his opinion no such thing occurred. He would guarantee that of all the thousands of men who had lately been fighting these battles at El Teb and Tamanieb, and whose homes had been burned and destroyed, not one knew that any such Proclamations had ever been issued, much less that they had ever seen them. He could not understand how a Government which denounced the policy of their Predecessors in the Transvaal on account of its "blood-guiltiness" could reconcile to their consciences or their logic the conduct they were pursuing in regard to Suakin. The Government spoke about Osman Digna menacing the safety of our troops at Suakin; but when the Boers were actually threatening the Colony of Natal, and within its territory, why did they not attack them? They said they would

  1705
  not attack them because they refused to be guilty of "blood-guiltiness;" but those men who said that were the very persons who, two years ago, bombarded Alexandria because it was threatening our ships at sea; and they had now slaughtered between 3,000 and 4,000 Arabs because Osman Digna was encamped 14 miles from Suakin, and could not, therefore, prevent the peaceful embarkation of our forces.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had stated that the House had approved of the expedition to Suakin. He (Mr. O'Donnell) was anxious to know upon what occasion the House approved of the expedition to Suakin in the sense referred to by the right hon. Gentleman? He certainly understood that the House of Commons had approved the expedition to Suakin for the purpose of rescuing the garrison of Tokar, but with no other object. He wished to know, therefore, by what authority a Cabinet Minister came forward and claimed that the expedition for the relief of Tokar had attained a scope and significance which were never contemplated when the House consented to the expedition? It was a mere juggling with words—and juggling in a sense not creditable to the right hon. Gentleman, or to the straightforwardness of an English Minister—for a Cabinet Minister to state to the House that the expedition to Suakin was authorized to carry on an aggressive and offensive campaign, when, in reality, it was only authorized to land at Suakin as a basis from which to carry out rescuing operations for the benefit of the Tokar garrison. The Tokar garrison had surrendered previous to the battle of El Teb; and it was a matter of notoriety in this country that the garrison had so surrendered. The slaughter at El Teb, therefore, was a gratuitous slaughter. The right hon. Gentleman had also laid great stress upon the alleged necessity of holding Suakin. He (Mr. O'Donnell), however, wanted to know not only where the necessity existed for holding Suakin, but the necessity for being there at all? The reasons for being at Suakin were pure assumptions on the part of the Government. Where was the necessity of suppressing the Slave Trade? In the first place, it would be necessary to suppress
  1706
  the Slave Trade on that side of the Soudan where General Gordon held sway, before any suppression of the Slave Trade could take place in the Eastern Soudan. Who said that the possession of Suakin was necessary for the suppression of the Slave Trade? The Slave Trade in the Bed Sea could only be suppressed by cutting off the communications between the Soudan side and the Arabian side of the Red Sea. That, however, was a matter of maritime police. All the Government had to do was to strengthen their squadrons in the Red Sea sufficiently to supervise, in an efficient manner, the passage of the Red Sea by the dhows laden with slaves. He would go much further than that. If the Government desired to suppress slavery, the first thing they had to do was to restore the Abyssinian sea coast to the Abyssinians, for it was at the expense of the Abyssinians that a large and most valuable portion of that Slave Trade was being carried on by the slave traders in the Soudan. Had they gained anything, however, even on the assumptions of the Government, by the recent operations? He found that The Times Correspondent, in a telegram published in a stop-press edition that morning, stated that—
  "The troops are now returning to Suakin, and it is to be hoped the expedition is at an end. We can do no more. If we advance into the mountains, we can but fight the rebels when they choose to fight us, and for as long as they choose to hold out. Should we go to Berber, even under these circumstances, we could accomplish nothing, for when once the army had passed, the road would be no safer than it was before. We have now two cards left—first, negotiation, which may probably fail, Osman Digna being apparently a thorough fanatic: then a thorough supervision of the Red Sea ports and all the other outlets both on this and on the Djeddah side, by which means we can, if we choose, put an absolute stop to slavery, and thoroughly check Osman Digna and his friends. As to thoroughly subduing the rebels, who are ready to fight us wherever we may meet them, it is altogether out of the question."
  But had they not that resource before slaughtering these thousands of Arabs for the purpose of stopping slavery? They had not obtained a single advantage to-day, after all this horrible and cowardly massacre, that they did not possess before. And these people whom the Government were slaughtering were said to be rebels, for The Times Correspondent said—

  1707
  "As to thoroughly subduing the rebels.…. it is altogether out of the question."
  Rebels against whom? Against Her Majesty's Government? The Government were the lords of the Soudan. Against the Turk? Was he to understand that the Members of the Ministerial Bench were only the Viziers of the Sultan of Turkey in the Soudan? Was the great humanitarian deliverer of Bulgaria now nothing more than the Pipewallah of the unspeakable Turk? Therefore, on the pretext of defending Suakin and defending the expedition to Suakin, which was never sanctioned in the sense now arbitrarily assumed by the Government, and on the pretence of suppressing the Slave Trade, which could only be suppressed to-day by exactly the same means which were in their power previous to the slaughter, the Government had committed wanton butchery after wanton butchery, and in the history of murder and rapine there was no page more foul than that which told of the action of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt. Negotiation, it would seem, was all that the Government had now to rely upon. They had now to resort to negotiation with Osman Digna, whom they had exasperated a thousand-fold by slaughtering his followers and by the destruction of his villages. Why had they not recourse to negotiation previously? The placing of a white flag on a stick in the sand was the method of negotiation according to Liberal interpretation. They published a Proclamation, forsooth ordering Osman Digna to disperse his forces. Had they not read another Proclamation, published in the newspapers, purporting to proceed from the heads of the Military and Naval Forces of the Government at Suakin, and addressed to the tribes in the Soudan, ordering them to abandon Osman Digna, on the ground that he was a man stained by every kind of crime? Osman Digna, in this conciliatory Proclamation, was denounced to his people as a scoundrel, and then the Government published another Proclamation calling upon Osman Digna's forces to disperse. Why, the thing was a hideous hypocrisy; it was a sanguinary hypocrisy; it was leading this country into a trap, out of which there was no exit except the exit of massacre. He knew the object of this policy. It was to monopolize the Coasts of the African Continent, in order
  1708
  to secure the central portion of Africa, with its vast population, as a market for Lancashire and Yorkshire. It was not a wise way to set about carrying out that object. For a time they might succeed in sending into the interior of Africa sized cotton goods over a pathway composed of the corpses of the Arab population; but, in reality, they were playing a dangerous game; they were playing the game of their commercial and political rivals. In Egypt, if they had acted with discretion, they could have ruled by the love of the people. But Her Majesty's Government cast aside their opportunity. Had they endeavoured to obtain the goodwill of the Natives by conciliatory and fair means, they might have succeeded; but they had thrown away their chances, and adopted the narrow and short-sighted policy of looking only to the immediate dangers of the day. A few years ago, the heads of the National Party in Egypt were inclined to seek for a friendly alliance with the English; but their advances were contemptuously rejected. We cast aside the chance of reigning in Egypt by the love of the people; we cast down the National Party; we allied ourselves with the Tewfiks, Nubars, and other adventurous scum which had collected in Egypt for a generation, just as we were now allying ourselves in the Soudan with the slaveholders instead of the people. As a consequence of the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government, Egypt was now a difficulty on their hands, and the Soudan was a still greater difficulty; and when, in a year or two, French diplomacy had carried out its objects, Abyssinia would prove another difficulty to be confronted. France was our foe in Africa, and every slaughter of the Natives by British troops would strengthen the hands of France. What was the policy of Her Majesty's Government at the present time? Were they going to withdraw from Suakin, or march on to Berber? The right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board had told them little or nothing. It was to be regretted that the Prime Minister had so severe a cold; but, at the same time, everyone who had a particle of sympathy with that illustrious individual—and even he (Mr. O'Donnell) might sympathize with him at the present moment—must feel glad that he had been spared the shame

  1709
  of that repudiation of all his professions which had been carried out by his Colleagues within the last few days. Were the professions of the Premier definitely thrown over, or were we once more to have a temporary return to the policy of ostensible humanitarianism? The right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board objected to this discussion, because it interfered with the progress of Public Business. Her Majesty's Government thought it was no concern of the British public that the British name should be associated with rapine and slaughter, contrary to the solemn declarations of the Government. He, however, declined to accept the right hon. Gentleman as a safe guide upon policy in the Soudan, because he remembered that he was not a safe guide upon policy in Egypt. The door between the right hon. Gentleman's memory and his imagination had been too often left open—he presumed entirely by accident—to accept him as a safe guide upon the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman told them that if they did not remove their discussions of the foreign policy of the Cabinet from the path of the progress of Public Business, then the Government would appeal to the country. Though the right hon. Gentleman "aid that the Government would appeal tomorrow, he (Mr. O'Donnell) should still hesitate to accept his assurance. On what ground would the Government appeal to the country? What were the soaring pinions with which they would swoop down upon the constituencies? The pinions were those of a carrion vulture, gorged with its meal of massacre—[Laughter.]—massacre that was the horror of all honest men, but the object of amused laughter to the Radical Party. He congratulated that Bashi-Bazouk Government upon having transplanted Bulgarian horrors into the Soudan. He must again say that among all the bloody pages in a history of world-wide rapine, there was no page more red and more foul than that which recorded the policy of assassination which the Government were carrying out in Africa.
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, there was nothing but truth in the assertion that the discussion then going on was initiated for no other purpose than the humiliation and embarrassment of the Government. At the same time he was
  1710
  free to confess that recent events in the Soudan had produced a feeling of great regret and horror throughout the country, and that feeling he entirely shared. But he was now asked to pass a disguised Vote of Censure on the Government. He was asked to say that he had more confidence in hon. Members opposite than in the Government. He could not say that. He had heard of these massacres with the greatest horror; but he was not, therefore, prepared to say that he had confidence in hon. Members opposite. The Opposition were greatly responsible for what had occurred in Egypt, and he did not forget what happened two years ago, and the meeting at Willis's Rooms. When the war was carried on, as hon. Gentlemen opposite urged that it should, they then turned round and said it was an unnecessary war. So, recently, the Opposition had hounded on the Government to undertake these operations which they now condemned. That was very inconsistent—not to use a stronger and less Parliamentary word. If he voted for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) it would be because he wanted to put hon. Gentlemen opposite into power. He would not be led astray so as to give a random vote.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, that after the remarks of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) he felt bound to say a few words, for he intended voting for the Resolution of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He did not regard it as a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government. He regarded it as partly condemnatory of the particular action to which it referred, but much more as an expression of protest as to the reserve of the Government in respect to a point which he considered of vital importance. His hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Joseph Cowen) was bitterly discontented with the attitude of the Government, because he was in favour, apparently, of an annexation which he regarded as inevitable—an annexation not only of Egypt Proper, but also of the Soudan. As he (Mr. John Morley) was resolutely averse to the annexation of a single inch of the Soudan, he should have been glad if his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had taken the opportunity,

  1711
  which he had been challenged to take, of telling the House, once for all, what was to be their policy in reference to the Soudan, and what steps Her Majesty's Government were taking, or were going to take, in order to carry out that evacuation for which they professed to send General Gordon to Khartoum. His right hon. Friend thought, if they wanted to put a stop to the African Slave Trade, they must, in General Gordon's view, get to work at the Upper Congo. He (Mr. John Morley) believed there was nothing General Gordon would rather do than, at that moment, be allowed to go from Khartoum, and betake himself to what he regarded as the serious centre of his great work. He kept asking himself what it was Her Majesty's Government were waiting for at Khartoum. General Gordon had done the best part of what he was sent to do; and he saw no method, at present, being pursued by Her Majesty's Government for facilitating the rest of that work; and when the House was told, as they were the other day by one of the Leaders of the Conservative Party, that their policy was the holding of Khartoum, then the time had come for the Leaders of the Liberal Party to tell the House that their policy was to abandon Khartoum. That might be a right policy or a wrong one; but it was, at least, the policy in respect of which Her Majesty's Government, in the first instance, sent General Gordon to Khartoum. On the 15th of January, Lord Granville, speaking to the French Ambassador, said—
  "It seemed clear that the Egyptian Government were incapable of holding Khartoum, or of reconquering the country by themselves, and whatever the feeling might be here (in London) at the moment, he was convinced that public opinion would not countenance the considerable expenditure of money, or the risk of loss of life, which must be attendant on an expedition of English troops with that object."—[Egypt, No. 5 (1884), p. 15.]
  That was Lord Granville's statement, and he should be glad if some hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench would tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government still held to the policy of leaving Khartoum and of leaving the Soudan. He must be excused for being a little suspicious. He was the last person to wish to say a word, or give a vote, that would embarrass Her Majesty's Ministers; but the House had a right to be on its guard, because, in reference to Suakin, the
  1712
  Prime Minister, in reply to his hon. Friend's (Sir Wilfrid Lawson's) exclamation, that the sooner we were out of Suakin the better, said he thought so too; but we were there in the interests of peace and humanity, and not in our own interests. But a very few days after that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War got up and said that we were there in pursuance of British interests, because it was on the line of our communications with India. If such arguments were going to re-appear on the Liberal side of the House, he was at a loss to know why his right hon. Friends had come into Office at all. As he had already said, he was as much in favour of British interests, in their true sense, as any hon. Gentleman opposite; but he had yet to be persuaded that the holding of Khartoum, or the annexation of the Soudan, was, in any shape, conducive to British interests. On the contrary, he thought it would be a supreme British disaster. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bourke) had called on the Government to remain in the Soudan, because, if they left it, there would be anarchy in their place. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War was not afraid of that reproach when he deliberately abandoned Candahar—and wisely and prudently did so, in his (Mr. Morley's) opinion. When the Government determined on the retrocession of the Transvaal, they did not then allow themselves to be frightened our of their policy by the prospect of anarchy. When they sent Cetewayo back they knew that anarchy might possibly, and would probably, follow. But they did not refrain on that account. They thought of higher interests than the pacification of a barbarous land, and took a line which he thought then, and thought still, to be a wise line. He, therefore, hoped Her Majesty's Government would lose no time in announcing that they proposed to adopt the same course in the Soudan. Something was said by his hon. Friend about public opinion. In his view, the Government were in danger of mistaking a shadow and a phantom for public opinion, and of accepting for real public opinion an odious compound of financial cupidity, bastard Imperialism, and, worse than all, truculent philanthropy. He had only one other remark to make—and for him it was a

  1713
  serious one. He would go no further on this road until he was informed, on good authority, where that road was leading them to. Therefore, he would support the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, this debate appears to be considered by hon. Gentlemen opposite as only a means of embarrassing the Government and impeding Public Business. But I think, when the country comes to read what has been said to-day—especially by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard), and both the hon. Members for Newcastle—it will be felt that there is some truth in our assertion that Her Majesty's Government have failed in their duty of disclosing their policy to the House of Commons. Again we ask, and we shall persist in asking, what the Government propose to do, not in the far distant future, but during the next week or 10 days; and, in my humble opinion, we ought not to allow this Vote now put down in Supply to be taken until we get some answer to that question. The Prime Minister, a few days ago, told this House that, in his judgment, it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to arrive at any decision upon their policy in regard to Egypt Proper until this chapter of the Soudan had been in some degree closed. But what is it with which we are now face to face? Two battles, which have been well called massacres, have been fought on the Coast of the Red Sea. It may be that those battles were not only justifiable, but absolutely necessary, to promote the policy which the Government have adopted; but nothing is told us by the Government but this—that what has been done at Suakin and in the neighbourhood has been done in defence of Suakin, and in order to enable the earlier withdrawal of British troops from the seaboard. I want to know what is to come of this? Those two battles have been fought. Osman Digna and his people have been defeated with terrible slaughter. Are the British troops to be immediately withdrawn from Suakin, or are they not? If they are going to be withdrawn, what are you going to put in their place in order
  1714
  to carry out the policy announced in the House the other evening by the noble Marquess opposite the Secretary of State for War? If they are not to be withdrawn, what is to be the further step in the policy which the Government are pursuing? Do they propose to protect the Red Sea littoral, according to the extraordinary statement of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, by telling four or five Consuls to take periodical voyages in the ships of a Company plying between Aden and Zanzibar?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what I said. He is speaking of that part of my speech entirely referring to the putting down of the Slave Trade.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: What interest have we on the Red Sea littoral except to put down the Slave Trade? That, at all events, is what I understand to be the main object of British intervention in that region. But everybody knows that the Red Sea Coast is of very great length, full of creeks and harbours; and can it be supposed that by anything which the noble Lord has told us this evening the policy of the Government can be carried out? We are to hold Suakin and these other ports. How? We have had no information on this point. If it is the unsuitability of the climate that makes the difficulty, how do the Government propose to occupy these places in the summer now coming on? I cannot believe that the Government have allowed these battles to be fought, and have left the direction of affairs purely at the option of the military commanders on the spot, without some instructions as to the contingencies before them, and the necessities that may arise in another part of the Soudan. And what is the position of General Gordon at this moment? We have been told more than once that Her Majesty's Government consider it impossible, in the interests of the Public Service, to give us full information as to the position, views, and object of General Gordon at Khartoum. That is an excuse which, for a time, Parliament has been ready to admit. But for a time only. General Gordon has now been at Khartoum for three weeks. He went there with a definite statement of his own ideas as to the manner in which the evacuation of the Sou-

  1715
  dan was to be carried out. As we know, the Representatives of the old reigning families were to be restored as rivals of the Mahdi. But we now hear that nothing of this sort has been done. The Mahdi has been made Sultan of Kordofan. General Gordon went to the Soudan the determined enemy of slavery and the Slave Trade, and yet he has issued that Proclamation of which we have heard so much. All this would be unaccountable but for the presence of some overpowering necessity in regard to which Her Majesty's Government will tell us nothing. General Gordon went to Khartoum as the ambassador of peace. He commenced by declaring all arrears of taxes to be forgiven, and by opening the prison doors. But we have since heard that expeditions have been made up the Nile, and threats have been made that troops will be sent to subdue those who will not submit to his authority. What is the last news that has come to us from General Gordon? The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs almost laughed at any credit being given to the remarkable telegram from the Consul at Khartoum.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Then I suppose he docs attach some importance to that telegram. The following are the words attributed to General Gordon:—
  "There is a certainty that as time advances the emissaries of the Mahdi will succeed in raising the tribes between Khartoum and Berber. This is not owing to disaffection, but to fear, caused by the pronounced policy of the abandonment of the Soudan. … We cannot blame them for rising when no definite sign is shown of establishing a permanent Government here."
  And this expectation is already being realized, for the telegram read by the noble Lord at the beginning of the Sitting was to the effect that the tribes were rising, that the telegraph wires were cut, and that steamers had been fired upon. Are the Government too late again, and is General Graham's victory to go for naught? What is the position of General Gordon at present? The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs denied that General Gordon is in extremis. I truly hope he is not; but how does the noble Lord know that? The news that the tele-
  1716
  graph wire is cut is three days old; but, looking at the opinion of General Gordon expressed in this telegram, which, until the Government say otherwise, we are justified in considering bonâ fide, I am bound to say that it seems to me that Her Majesty's Government are incurring the gravest responsibility in connection with the position in which they are leaving Gordon at Khartoum. Do they mean to do anything? Do they mean to utilize these victories of Graham in the neighbourhood of Suakin, in order to attempt that march on Berber which Gordon has recommended? The recommendation may be right or wrong; but it is the advice of Gordon, to whom they have committed all authority in the Soudan. If they are now going to disregard it, why are they going to disregard it, and what are they going to do in its place? What is their policy? I do not usually agree with the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). On the contrary, I hold very different opinions as to the policy to be pursued in the Soudan; but I must say that, so far as the terms of the Amendment are concerned which he has placed before the House, I do agree with him. If these battles and the loss of life which we all deplore have no better result than the immediate withdrawal of British troops from the Soudan, I say they are in no degree justifiable. We ought to have some clear and definite statement from the Government; and, if we do not get such a statement, I shall certainly support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he was not surprised to hear that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) approved of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), for he (Mr. Bryce) looked upon it as being cleverly framed with the view of endeavouring to unite the votes of those who differed on every other point. He would ask his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) whether he could think that giving a vote which might turn out this Government and bring in the Leaders of the Opposition would accelerate either the withdrawal of England from Egypt or the restriction of our responsibilities in the Soudan? He trusted that the Liberal Party in

  1717
  that House would decline to be led into the trap that was prepared for them.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I think it is impossible for the House to go to a Division on this question with any satisfaction after the manner in which Her Majesty's Government have treated us. Some question has been raised as to what was the expectation of this discussion coming on to-day. I can only say that on Thursday night, and again last night, when arrangements were made for the course of Public Business, it was distinctly understood that this would be given as a special opportunity for discussing this subject—a subject of most pressing public importance, one as to which the House has shown Her Majesty's Government the greatest indulgence, and upon which it is really impossible that we can allow the course of Business to proceed without some clear and satisfactory explanation being given by the Government. We find, however, that the Government have absented themselves from the Treasury Bench during a great part of this debate, and we are told that this is owing to the fact that they were holding a Cabinet Council. But we all know—many of us have experience of what Cabinet Councils are—that it has been the universal practice, I think I may say, that when a special Sitting of the House has been appointed for a Saturday for the discussion of Business of special importance, the Cabinet Council, if held at all on that day, must be fixed for such an hour as not to interfere with the Business of the House. And we find that, when the Ministers who have absented themselves do come into the House, they leave us just in the same position as we were before. Certainly, the least that we can expect is that, when attention has been challenged to any subject, Ministers will come into the House to listen to what we have to say; and the treatment we have received today is, I think, an abuse of our patience and good nature. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) has been labouring all through the Session to obtain from those who agree with him something like an expression of their agreement with him, and dissatisfaction with what was going on on the Bench occupied by their Leaders, and one after another those hon. Members have confessed that the
  1718
  Government does not satisfy them. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) seemed to think that he settled the matter in a couple of sentences, when he said he disapproved of a good deal that the Government had done; but he knew that this Motion amounted to a Vote of Want of Confidence, and that, therefore, he would not support it. But I would ask him what is the value of that sort of confidence in Her Majesty's Government which is so easily satisfied? What is the state of the case? We see battles fought, one after another, each entailing enormous slaughter of the enemy and very serious suffering and loss upon our own part also; and yet we receive from Her Majesty's Government absolutely no guidance or indication as to the object they have in view in all this. We do not ask that Her Majesty's Government should tell us all the steps that they intend to take. We want to know what they are fighting these battles for. Is it, or is it not, for the purpose of opening the road from Suakin to Berber, and possibly to Khartoum? That would be a perfectly intelligible policy; but we have never been told that that would be their policy. And now to-day we are told, in an irregular way, as far as we can understand it, that it is not intended that that should be the policy of the Government. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), I think, used the expression that it was not within the instructions of General Graham to advance to Berber. Some hon. Members understood from that that it is his instructions not to go to Berber. We want to know what is the exact meaning of that? Is the matter entirely left to General Graham's discretion? Is General Graham furnished with any scheme of a policy which he is to carry out; and, if so, what is the general object of that scheme? Is the object to evacuate Khartoum, or is it to reopen up the way to Khartoum? I do not say anything about annexing Khartoum. We do not ask to annex Khartoum at all; but we say that it is of the greatest importance that you should provide, in some way, that Khartoum should be furnished with a stable and a satisfactory Government. You cannot allow the matter to drift into chronic anarchy, as I expressed it the other day, and we want to know what is your view with regard to that point? Have you

  1719
  still the intention to withdraw from Khartoum? Are you fighting all these battles and killing all these people to facilitate that withdrawal? I am bound to say that I think the Government have no right whatever to plead the necessities of military policy for silence upon such a question as that. "We do not ask them to tell us anything inconvenient to their military policy; but we wish to have some light on these points; and we have a right, and are bound, in the discharge of our duty to the country, to inquire what the policy of the Government now is. Hitherto they have put us off with various excuses. At one time we were told, in regard to General Gordon, that the Government were not responsible for what was going on, and that, therefore, they should not be questioned; at another time we were told by Her Majesty's Government that they were fully responsible, and that, therefore, they should not be questioned; and now the Government put us off with the assertion that answering such questions might lead to inconvenience. I cannot help thinking that there were passages in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) which threw a new light upon the position and attitude of the Government. Knowing the ability of the right hon. Gentleman, and how conversant he is with all questions of this character, we naturally expected that some light would be thrown on the subject when he rose to take part in this debate. But we received very little information from him in regard to the matter in hand. His speech, however, contained some very significant hints of another kind. I do not know whether it was meant for an electioneering speech or not; but I do know I never heard such very remarkable topics as were introduced in it, just as if it could be intended for no other purpose than that of creating prejudice. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about an appeal to the people, which we say ought to be made upon such a new policy as this, he talks of it as "Bonapartist." That is the sort of language that he uses, and it is a new view for a Member of the Government like the right hon. Gentleman to take. And then there was one thing I was sorry for, and I think, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will be sorry for it too,
  1720
  and that was that the right hon. Gentleman should have descended in the middle of his speech—should have gone out of his way, in fact, to make a little electioneering attack on my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and that at the expense of a gallant officer whose name there was not the slightest occasion for introducing, and whose conduct was no part of the subject for discussion. Colonel Burnaby, he said, had been in the Soudan; and he suggested that Colonel Burnaby had no business to be there. But Colonel Burnaby, while in the Soudan, was under military authority, and I understand he was publicly thanked for his services there. Under these circumstances, I do say that a more ungenerous, a more uncalled for, and a more extraordinary reference to an individual in no way connected with the subject before the House, I never heard. We have before us a Motion upon which we are prepared to vote, and I have thought it right to say a few words before the Question is put, hoping that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War may be able to tell us something that will be more satisfactory than anything we have yet heard. The Motion that has been brought forward by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) is precisely the same as the Motion of which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley) gave Notice. It is not intended to stop the Supplies, but it demands an explanation before the Supplies are granted. That is a demand which I think we have every right to make.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not intend to detain the House, in replying to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, for more than a few moments. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman has said, at the beginning of his speech, that there has been a general understanding in the House for the past two or three days that a discussion upon this subject should be initiated at the Morning Sitting of to-day. I do not know what understanding may have existed between the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who has initiated this discussion; but this I can say—that, so far as I and my hon. Friends who sit on this

  1721
  side of the House and the Members of the Government are aware, there was no understanding of the kind.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), at the previous Sitting of the House, at 20 minutes before 1, had asked hon. Members to withdraw their Motions from the Paper, pointing out the advantage it would be to all parties to bring them on at the Saturday Sitting, when Supply stood as the first Order.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I cannot quite see the relevance of that observation as regards the explanation of the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition. What I wish to point out, in the first place, is that I am prepared distinctly to assert that no one in this part of the House had any idea, until late last night, that this matter would be brought on at all to-day. In the next place, I would call the attention of the House to this circumstance—that last night I appealed to hon. Members who had Notices on the Paper that they should withdraw them, in order that Supply might be taken at once, and a Saturday Sitting obviated. That suggestion, I think, was only coldly supported by the right hon. Gentleman opposite at the time. He admitted that it would be convenient if that course were taken; but he seemed to have some doubt whether he would give it his warm support or not. It now appears that he all along intended that a Saturday Sitting should be taken, and that it should be devoted to a discussion of this subject. I think it would have been better, more convenient, and more in accordance with the ordinary practice of this House, if the right hon. Gentleman had yesterday stated the intention of himself and his Friends. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has also made some observations, following upon those of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), upon the action of the Members of the Government; and the right hon. Gentleman says that when it is found necessary to to hold a Cabinet Council on days when the House sits, the Government ought to take care to fix upon an hour which will not interfere with the other Business of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman will explain what very convenient hour for holding a Cabinet
  1722
  Council could be fixed before 12 o'clock in the day, especially when the Prime Minister is suffering from indisposition, I shall be very much obliged to him. As the matter stands, I can only say we probably might have made other and better arrangements, if we had had the slightest idea that a serious debate of this kind was going to be raised; but, as we were left in ignorance of that, it was impossible to do so. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) and the right bon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition have repeated their demand for further information as to the intentions of the Government; and they have, under cover, as I understand it, announced their intention of voting for the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton, in the same spirit and in the same intention as they had in supporting the Motion which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley) intended to move the other day. Now, Sir, I wish to point out that although the effect may be the same, and, if the Motion is carried, may prevent Supply being proceeded with, yet the Amendment is one of a very different character indeed. This Amendment is not one calling upon the Government to give further information, and it is not one proposing to defer the grant of Supply until further information is given; but it is one which asserts that the necessity for the expenditure of life in those military operations has not been made clear; and, therefore, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Gentlemen opposite, are prepared to pass a Vote of Censure upon the military and naval officers, and, consequently, upon the Government, for having undertaken these military operations. If that is their intention, I do not think the country will support them. I do not in the least complain of that course being taken; and I hope it will be thoroughly understood and appreciated, not only in the House, but throughout the country. All I desire to point out is that it is much to be regretted that hon. Members opposite did not make up their minds to take this course at an earlier moment. The hon. Member for Northampton gave them an opportunity last week of condemning these operations, when, although hon.

  1723
  Gentlemen opposite did not see their way to support the Government, at the same time they did not see their way to support the hon. Member for Northampton. Well, Sir, this demand for further information may, I think, be pressed somewhat too far. I endeavoured to give, on Monday last, all the information which I thought it in my power to give then as to what was going on in the Soudan; and I really do not know that events have advanced so far, during the course of this week, that it is possible or right for any Member of the Government to make any declaration or announcement of policy very much in advance of that I made last week. Speeches have been delivered, in the course of this debate, by my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), and by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and they stated on the part of the Government what, in our opinion, it is possible to state; and, however violent may be the appeals addressed to us for further information, those appeals, I can assure the House, shall not draw from me, at any rate, or from any Member of the Government, any statement of policy, or any information, which we think would be injurious to the interests of the country—those great interests we are endeavouring to secure under such difficult circumstances. Sir, we are asked what is the object of the force which is still in the neighbourhood of Suakin. I maintain that that force has already probably—for we have no certain information—accomplished one of the main objects of its mission, and the safety of the port of Suakin and the coast of the Red Sea in that neighbourhood is now probably entirely secured; and I maintain that it could not have been so secured while the large armed force assembled under Osman Digna was still in the immediate vicinity of Suakin, not only threatening it by their presence, but openly and distinctly avowing their intention to attack it. That great object has probably been accomplished, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) wants to know whether the English force is going to be immediately re-embarked. But, Sir, before a decision is come to upon that point, we think it would be desirable that the Government should
  1724
  have some more certain information as to the state of the country, and as to whether there is still any hostile gathering of the tribes threatening the security of Suakin. I am also asked whether this force is now going to march to Berber, and whether that course has not been suggested by General Gordon. My noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his speech to-day, has already stated that the march to Berber is not within the limits of General Graham's instructions; but when I am asked whether, in any circumstances, General Graham will be allowed to advance on Berber, that is a question which I distinctly decline to answer. If it were intended that General Graham should attempt to advance on Berber, or, equally, if it were absolutely decided that he should not do so, I consider that an announcement at the present time in either of these cases would be extremely prejudicial to the success of the objects in view, and also to the success of our policy. Then we are asked as to our general policy in the Soudan, and what will be the outcome of General Gordon's mission. Sir, the information we have received from General Gordon from Khartoum has not been by any means full or detailed. General Gordon himself said, long before he reached Khartoum, that he thought the important operation in which he was engaged would be one of very considerable length, and that, above all things, it would be necessary to have patience. I do not think that such a time has elapsed as to enable us to gauge it in a sufficient manner as to warrant our despairing of the success of General Gordon's mission in the manner in which he proposed to carry it out. General Gordon has been in communication with some of the leading Chiefs in the neighbourhood of Khartoum itself. He has been endeavouring to open communications with the Chiefs of the other garrisons, and he has been taking such measures as he thinks best fitted to carry out the instructions which were given to him. The Government have been greatly surprised with the recommendation or suggestion which has come from General Gordon in reference to a proposed successor in the person of Zebehr Pasha. That was the subject of communication between Sir Evelyn Baring and General Gordon while the

  1725
  telegraph was open, and is still the subject of communication between the Government and Sir Evelyn Baring; but until a final and complete decision on all these subjects has been arrived at by the Government—a decision which I have promised shall be communicated to the House when, in our opinion, it can be communicated without detriment to the Public Service—I absolutely decline to make any partial statement. Under these circumstances, it is open to the Opposition and the House to refuse to grant the funds necessary for carrying on the Public Business; but let them distinctly understand that, in doing so, they will raise the issue of confidence in the Government. The Government have stated, as fully as they think their duty requires, or as it is possible for them to state, what their policy is on these subjects; but if you insist on knowing that which we think we are unable, consistently with our duty, to make known, you are taking a course which deprives us of the confidence of the House of Commons, and will make it impossible for us to conduct the affairs of the country.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 94: Majority 17.—(Div. List, No. 39.)
  Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. Just after you had announced the numbers, I heard the Secretary of State for the Home Department say, from his place—"This dirty trick has not succeeded." I ask you, Sir, whether that is language which ought to be used in this House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Language of the kind described by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), used publicly in this House, would undoubtedly be a great breach of the Privileges of the House. But I do not know under what circumstances the expression was used—whether it was used in private conversation, to what it was intended to refer, or whether it was intended to be heard. I, therefore, wish to draw a distinction between words used in the confidence of private conversation and words used in a debate in this House. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the
  1726
  Secretary of State for the Home Department will offer an explanation.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have no hesitation in saying that I should never have thought of using words of this character, as you, Sir, have expressed it, in public debate in this House. As to the expression of my own private opinion to my own friends upon transactions of this character, I consider myself free.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I think, Sir, that whatever may have been the character of the expression—whether used publicly or privately I will not enter into—but as it is before the House at this moment, the right hon. Gentleman has no right to bring forward charges of such a character. Under the circumstances, to allow such an expression as that, in the present day, to go by unchallenged would be the grossest possible insult to those sitting on this side of the House, and we should be guilty of the gravest possible dereliction of duty if we did not call attention to it. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) was good enough to say, a little time ago, something of the same sort, but in perfectly proper language. [Cries of "Order!"] I believe I am perfectly in Order. The noble Marquess, I say, in more correct language, implied a somewhat similar charge. I can only say—and the noble Marquess may not have been informed of what had passed—that when I spoke of its having been understood that today would be a day on which we should have a discussion on the question of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in reference to Egypt, I spoke of an engagement entered into, first of all in this House, by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was perfectly well understood when we were discussing the course of Business on Thursday. If the debate had not gone on yesterday, of course matters would have been different; but it was clearly understood that these four Votes would not be taken late on Thursday evening, but might be conveniently taken on Saturday morning. That is the understanding to which I referred, and if anybody characterizes that as an arrangement otherwise than a perfectly straightforward one, I shall be glad to hear what he has to say. The observations of the Secretary of State for

  1727
  the Home Department were observations which gave pain to those who heard them on this side of the House; but it is clear that the accusation which they conveyed is an accusation altogether untenable.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) has alluded to an understanding to which I was a party on Thursday evening. That understanding I will describe literally. It was that we should endeavour to get through the Votes in Supply that night, except five; and that, failing to get these five on Friday, we should devote to their discussion Saturday morning. The suggestion was never made that Saturday should be given up to a Motion which, practically, amounts to a Vote of Want of Confidence.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I want to say a word or two of explanation in consequence of a phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote). He has, I am sure, spoken with the courtesy which always characterizes him, and he has said that the words I used have given pain to himself and hon. Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House. Now, however much we may enter into conflict in political contests, I wish to state that that was not my intention; and I regret that my language, which I certainly thought was private, reached the ears of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that it has been regarded by them as offensive. I am sorry that they should have so considered it, and I would venture to withdraw it.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: In order that there may be no mistake as to what was arranged between the Representative of the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Opposition, I may say that it was arranged on Thursday night that the discussion on General Gordon's Vote and the Soudan expenses in Khartoum and Suakin should be taken at 12 o'clock on Saturday. Last night the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked, at the hour of 10.30, if that arrangement held good; and the right hon. Gentleman certainly said that if the House did not get into Committee before 11 o'clock that arrangement would hold good. I want to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
  1728
  that arrangement must have been within the knowledge of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) when he stated that no such arrangement had been entered into; or else that the noble Marquess, although the responsible Leader of the House, is in the habit of allowing his Colleagues to conclude arrangements to which be is not a party. Further, I wish to say that it is not the Opposition who have prevented the Government from getting into Supply; but my own impression, and I believe that of every other Member of the House, is, that the discussion would be taken on going into Supply.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to remind the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock and the House that the Question before the House is that I do now leave the Chair; and the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) is in possession of the House. Before the hon. Member for Mallow rose, the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) rose to a point of Order, and that point of Order has been decided. It is not in Order to continue the discussion. The Question is, that I do now leave the Chair.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I only wished, Sir, to make a statement in the nature of a personal explanation, which the House is usually kind enough to allow. [Cries of "Order!"] Mr. Speaker will tell me if I am out of Order.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the noble Lord wishes to make a personal explanation, by the indulgence of the House he will be permitted to do so.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I merely wished to explain that there had been an arrangement that the discussion should take place to-day. The noble Marquess gave a flat contradiction to that. I think that, under these circumstances, I have a right to make a personal explanation as to what the arrangement was, and to point out——
  MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is exceeding the limits of a personal explanation. I call upon Mr. O'Brien.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I failed to hear that there was any decision on the point of Order.
  MR. SPEAKER: The point of Order was settled when I called upon Mr. O'Brien.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I failed, Sir, to hear your decision on the point of Order.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CAPTAIN PLUNKETT, CORK DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. O'BRIEN, who had the following Motion on the Paper, which he was prevented from moving by the Forms of the House:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, Captain Plunkett, Special Divisional Magistrate of the Cork District, by repeated and unconstitutional invasions of the right of public meeting, and by the imposition of arbitrary and unjust burdens on the people, has abused his authority and created wide spread discontent and ill-will, and that, in the interests of good government and of respect for the administration of the Law, it is expedient that he be dismissed from his office,"
  said, he was sorry to be obliged to turn the attention of the House from the exciting and burning regions of the Soudan to a no less interesting part of Her Majesty's Dominions, called Ireland. The Resolution which he had intended to move was put on the Paper with the object of drawing the attention of Parliament to the conduct of one of the Special Magistrates in Ireland—Captain Plunkett—and he wished to do so because he thought he could show that Captain Plunkett's office was an unnecessary and a vicious one, and that, while he was supposed to be preserving the public peace, he was, in reality, a common disturber of the peace, and a scourge to one of the most peaceful districts in the whole of Ireland. The whole of the County and City of Cork was included in Captain Plunkett's district; and, perhaps, before he proceeded further, it would be well to show what was the condition of the district that this man was treating as if it were a hotbed of crime, and in a state of smouldering insurrection. During the past six months, while Captain Plunkett's reign of terror had full swing, besides threatening letters—which, of course, were of no importance as showing the condition of a place when not followed by crime, and which they all received, and sometimes had to pay the postage on—besides threatening letters, there were in the East Riding of the County Cork in August last only two outrages, and one in the West Riding; in September, five in the East Riding, and two in the West; in October, two in the East Riding, and two in the
  1730
  West; in November, one in the East Riding, and none in the West; in December, one in the East Riding, and again a virgin record in the West; and in January, one in the East Riding, and two in the West. The only serious case reported during the time was the manslaughter of an unfortunate man named Spence. That occurrence, however, was altogether of a non-agrarian character, Spence's death having arisen out of a family dispute; and yet the Chief Secretary was not ashamed to quote the other day this case as justifying the suppression of the right of public meeting in the district for 15 miles around. In the entire of that six months, in a district of 500,000 inhabitants, no single murder took place—not a single case of manslaughter, robbery of arms, or any other offence of such a nature occurred, the only outrages perpetrated being the outrages perpetrated by Captain Plunkett himself, in order that a condition of things would be produced which would keep: Dublin Castle alive to the necessity there was of retaining him and his expensive establishment. Now, he would like to ask any intelligent English Member—if they wished to know anything of this subject, which, of course, they did not—what would English people do if in a district equally free from crime a semi-military Governor was planted, and if he had the right virtually to proclaim a state of siege, and to bayonet and bludgeon any persons who dared to assemble in public meeting to discuss his proceedings? That was exactly what Captain Plunkett was doing for the last six months, and doing with the connivance and the apologetic ingenuity of the Chief Secretary. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Deasy) was living for a time under Captain Plunkett's rule, and was, he believed, on a few occasions in rather unpleasant proximity of being bayonetted. He dared say the hon. Member would tell himself what sort of a man Captain Plunkett was. There in Cork he had his head-quarters; and his place there, he believed, swarmed with detectives and villainous-looking hangers on. He had his staff and his armed escort and his parades, until the unfortunate men were worked off their legs. At night the city was patrolled by immense bodies of armed men, as if

  1731
  there was a danger of some attack or revolt. Now, he would venture to say that Captain Plunkett was not able to establish a shadow of justification for all these extraordinary proceedings. He made one attempt, by means of Star Chamber inquiry, to prove that a murder conspiracy existed in Cork; and notwithstanding all his threats and intimidation he failed utterly to prove anything of the kind. One agent of the dynamite conspiracy attempted to establish a footing in Cork—as he supposed they attempted to do in every city in the Three Kingdoms; but Captain Plunkett's infamous attempt to connect the Nationalists of Cork with these proceedings utterly broke down; and he did not give up the attempt until four of the most respectable men in Cork, some of whom the House might have an opportunity of seeing for themselves, owing to Captain Plunkett's proceedings, not until four respectable men were made prisoners, week after week, because they refused to submit to the indignity of being cross-hackled at these secret inquiries, just as if they were participators in abominable crimes. Having failed to show any grounds for the measures he adopted by proving that a murder conspiracy existed in Cork, Captain Plunkett deliberately attempted to create a murder conspiracy and suppressing the right of public meeting by putting down public opinion. Every meeting proposed to be held by the National League in Cork was suppressed, and suppressed in many cases with violence; and not only were they suppressed, but invariably their proclamation was delayed until the very eve of the meeting, in order, no doubt, that the people might fall into the trap that Captain Plunketthad prepared for them. He charged now that these proclamations were wickedly and deliberately delayed by the instrumentality of Captain Plunkett, in the hope that the people might be tempted and exasperated into doing something that would justify Captain Plunkett's office; and he charged, furthermore, that the proclamations were enforced with a violence on the part of the police, and an insolence on the part of the magistrates in charge, deliberately calculated to create riot and disturbance in ordor, as he had already said, that Captain Plunkett might be able to hold power a little longer. Having described at length the proceedings
  1732
  at the suppressed meetings at Inniscarra and Ovens, the hon. Member proceeded to call attention to the treatment of the Conna and Tallow band at Castlelyons meeting. The proclamation of the Castlelyons meeting was delayed to the night before the people of Tallow and Conna, 12 miles off, could know nothing about the suppression of it; and yet without any notice this band, immediately on its arrival, was set upon with fixed bayonets by the police and chased over the country. Contrast that treatment with the deference and tenderness of Captain M'Ternan at Rosslea, to Lord Rossmore and his Orangemen, who, instead of coming to a peaceful meeting, came as a body of armed men determined to create riot and do murder. If the Tallow men happened to be Orangemen, or if they had arms in their hands to defend themselves, perhaps Captain Plunkett and his police would not be quite so free with their bayonets that day. The Chief Secretary gave an excuse for the suppression of that meeting. He said that the parish priest had been lately evicted from his house, and that public feeling was very much excited. He (Mr. O'Brien) should say it was a nice way Captain Plunkett had of allaying that excitement. Having referred to the meetings at Lissarda, Dononghmore, and Aughabollogue, the hon. Member proceeded to speak of the suppression of the meeting at Killavullen, which he said was a good illustration of the force, and fraud, and mixed system of lying and tyranny which characterized Captain Plunkett's proceedings. Captain Plunkett's favourite device—an old device with tyrants—for putting down disturbance which he himself had created, was the quartering of the police on the people, and the levying of enormous imposts. Captain Plunkett first attempted this system in Cork; but he believed he was sorry now that he did so, for in the Cork Town Council Whig Knights and Deputy Lieutenants—men who were indebted to Dublin Castle for most of the glory they enjoyed in this world—joined with the Nationalists in protesting against this tax, and refused to present for it, as Captain Plunkett, in order to justify the continuance in districts of large police forces, in order, too, to justify his own continuance in his salary, attempted everywhere he went to foment disorder. He tried that

  1733
  system in Kerry, but had to drop it, and he was now practising on Monanimy. There Captain Plunkett had imposed a tax of £500 a-year to pay for the protection of a ruffian named Hallissey, whom he found to be a serviceable instrument in his operations. When he took the liberty, last year, of exposing and denouncing Hallissey, the Chief Secretary defended the man; and, of course, the English House of Commons regarded the fellow as an injured, innocent victim of some frightful conspiracy. What had turned out since? Captain Plunkett had been told to his teeth by one of the local magistrates (Mr. Hickey) that Hallissey's story about his being fired at was a fabrication. And did Captain Plunkett venture to deny it? On the contrary, he was reported in the Cork papers, and though Captain Plunkett might now find it convenient to deny that report—he was informed that it was supplied by an official shorthand writer brought down by Captain Plunkett himself—he was reported to have said that the police were originally placed on the district on account of the "Boycotting," the "Boycotting" consisting, according to Captain Plunkett himself, in a few people in the district refusing to deal with Hallissey. It came to this, therefore—that the district was now paying £500 a-year for a ruffian who ought to be put in the dock for perjury. But Captain Plunkett could not long do these things in Cork if he had not an apologist in that House to put a nice aspect upon things which, when seen in their colour, were ugly and hideous. The hon. Member then referred to the suppression of the Killavullen meeting, County Cork, and to the incidents which took place on the spot. The police struck the people with the butts of their guns, and two women sustained severe injuries, one of them having a rib broken. In regard to these proceedings he had put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and his reply was that Mr. O'Connor had not been assaulted; that the police had not been assaulted; that the police did not charge; and that there was no crowd there to be charged. He had received numerous letters from persons who were present on the occasion characterizing the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in terms which he wished he could quote; but they were more natural than
  1734
  Parliamentary. The right hon. Gentleman, however, seemed invariably to act upon the belief that the statement of one police official was worth dozens of statements from priests and laymen. He quoted at length from statements of Mr. John O'Connor and others in support of the charges he had advanced against the police. All this was dismissed by the right hon. Gentleman with the cool statement to that House that the police never charged the people. He did not believe there was a race of slaves who would not rebel against treatment of that sort. Here were people loaded under false pretences with this tax, and when they attempted to make any public protest against it, they were assaulted at their own doors, even in their own houses, by the police with the butt ends of rifles; and after all this an English Minister told the English House of Commons that the people were never attacked; that they were not there to be attacked; and that the whole thing was an hallucination; and that Captain Plunkett and his policemen could do no wrong. These things the Government had the power to do in Ireland; and he supposed they would go on doing them until some hour of weakness or disaster taught them better sense. He and his Friends had no hope whatever that the House of Commons would be moved by any exposure of Captain Plunkett's tyranny and mendacity. He expected in a few minutes to hear the right hon. Gentleman shielding and defending Captain Plunkett as before. The Irish people had only themselves to look to. Thank God, they had taken this matter into their own hands, and had refused, in Cork, Limerick, Loughrea, and Monanimy, to pay a penny of this police tax. He hoped sincerely they would continue refusing to pay a penny of it until it was wrung from them at the point of the bayonet. He only referred to the subject here because it was well to saddle Englishmen with the knowledge of what was going on in Ireland. Now, at all events, the few Englishmen who were present knew how Captain Plunkett was oppressing and belying as peaceable a district as could be found in the world. If there was to be no redress here, and if the result that night should be like the result on every previous night when they complained of the conduct of officials in Ireland, all he

  1735
  could say was the English people must, be very unreasonable if they did not understand why the minds of the Irish were filled with hatred and resentment to England. He verily believed Irish-men would welcome the Mahdi or the Grand Turk if he came to deliver them from English rule. He could not move the Motion standing in his name; but he would divide the House on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair as a protest.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the hon. Member for Mallow had made a very strong attack upon a public servant, one of the officers employed by the Irish Government. He thought the hon. Member for Mallow would have mitigated his language, or directed it else where, if be had known that the main charges he had pressed against Captain Plunkett ought to have been addressed to the Irish Government. He had differed from Captain Plunkett in certain small matters, none of which had been brought forward to-day. It was impossible that one should always agree with every recommendation that Captain Plunkett made, and on one occasion he had not quite agreed with certain proceedings which that gentleman thought right to take. But, considering the enormous number of decisions that Captain Plunkett had had to make, and the circumstances under which he had had to make them, he knew of no public servant whom the Irish Government thought more fit for the sort of work he had had to do, and he knew of no public servant who had been more severely tried, and, on the whole, had been more successful. He desired to take upon himself and Lord Spencer the full burden of all the criticisms made upon Captain Plunkett by the hon. Member for Mallow; because all those criticisms had been directed against actions of Captain Plunkett, which had been always enjoined upon him by the Irish Government, and had always been approved of subsequently by them. The hon. Member for Mallow did not generalize in his charges. He was extremely specific. He was very glad to think that in the County Cork generally crime was very much reduced. But that would not be the point of his observations to-day; because the charges of the hon. Member would be found to refer, not to the County Cork in general, but to certain
  1736
  very limited districts, and with regard to those districts he could not endorse the statement of the hon. Member that they were not in a serious condition. Seven meetings had been stopped in County Cork since Parliament separated last year. No doubt seven meetings was a very large number to stop in a single county; but on examination they would find that five were in the immediate vicinity of the police district of Ballincollig. Thus they were dealing with a particular district in which one meeting had been stopped. The promoters of these meetings were not satisfied with the decision of the Government, but announced meeting after meeting; so that the action of the Government resolved itself into having stopped meetings in this particular district.
  MR. HEALY: No; Conna is 60 miles from Ballincollig.
  MR. BIGGAR: Irish geography!
  MR. TREVELYANheld that, in any ease, the district of Ballincollig was in an extremely critical state. First, there had been a most terrible murder there. The hon. Member described it as a manslaughter; but he (Mr. Trevelyan) thought he had never heard a more complete misnomer. A man was done to death by a violent mob on account of an agrarian dispute. It was very much more serious as regarded the general peace of the district, than if he had been killed by two or three men in a lonely lane. It was sad that an immense number of people witnessed this brutal murder; and the description of the attitude which was shown by the apathy or sympathy of those persons clearly rendered it necessary for Captain Plunkett to take most careful measures in order to preserve the peace of the district. There were two incendiary fires, four threatening letters, and one other very serious case—the case of a band of armed Moonlighters who stopped a man named Connell, whom they mistook for a man named M'Carthy, who had taken an evicted farm. This was a very large party, indeed, of armed men, and there was every reason to believe that this agrarian dispute might result in more outrage.
  MR. O'BRIENasked when that outrage was committed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Within the last six months.
  MR. KENNY: Is it reported?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, it was reported in the Reports of the Government officials. The first of the meetings to which the hon. Member had referred was at Inniscarra. It was stopped on account of the District Inspector believing that outrages would follow, and that a man named M'Carthy, who had taken an evicted farm, would be injured. A man was going to Cork on October 4, when two men jumped over a wall and asked him if he were anything to M'Carthy. He said "No," and was allowed to pass; but he saw about 50 men behind the wall, some of them armed. The authorities believed if M'Carthy had been present at the moment he would have met his death. Under these circumstances, the authorities stopped the first meeting, and all good citizens ought to have refrained from attempting to hold violent meetings in the same district. Then came the meeting at Crookstown. In that case some evictions had taken place, and others were about to follow. That might be said to be an insufficient reason for stopping meetings; but if outrages followed from the taking of farms from which others had been evicted, he thought that the fact of evictions being about to occur in the neighbourhood was a fair reason for stopping the meetings which were about to be held.
  MR. HEALY: Why not stop the evictions?
  MR. TREVELYAN: What does that mean? It means that you will tell the landlords of the country that they are not to exact rent for their own property; and hon. Members can hardly believe that any Government in a civilized country can, in order to avoid the risk of breaking the peace, consent that the ordinary obligations of citizens should not be fulfilled. In the case of Castlelyons, the Rev. Mr. Ferriss, the parish priest, had been evicted for nonpayment of three years' rent, and on that occasion the people for miles around had been greatly excited. The rev. gentleman made a very violent speech, and after the eviction the mob rushed into the house and damaged property to the extent of £400. He wished to ask why places of this kind were chosen for the holding of National League meetings? There were hundreds of other villages and towns in Cork where such meetings could have
  1738
  been held, and where the Government would be very willing to see them held. Why was it necessary to go where another eviction had taken place, where a parish priest had been evicted under very exciting circumstances, and where the burning question of Hallissey was in progress? The object of hon. Members opposite was to spread their political opinions, and a very legitimate and honourable object it was; but why choose for that purpose those places where the Government, rightly or wrongly, thought meetings should not be held? He thought that those who had thrust the unfortunate people on the point of the bayonet, according to the expression which had been used, were those who had insisted upon holding a meeting where there was obvious danger of life; whereas, if it had been held 30 miles off, it would have been exactly the same political fact, and would not have risked the same danger of a collision between the people and the police. [Reverting to the Castlelyons meeting, the right hon. Gentleman read a portion of the speech of Father Ferriss, which was loudly applauded by the Irish Members.] Resuming, he said, the remainder of this violent speech was of the same character as that which hon. Members opposite cheered so loudly, and would produce the same effect upon the minds of English Members. The hon. Member asked what would the English people say if an English incumbent had been treated like the Rev. Mr. Ferriss? His answer was that if the English incumbent owed his landlord three years' rent, and if because the landlord demanded what was his due the incumbent denounced him as a land thief and a robber, then he would say that the sympathies of the English people would be with the man who was asking for the natural produce of his property, and not with the man who was trying to hold that property without paying a farthing for it. [Mr. WHITWORTH: Hear, hear!] Unfortunately, in this case, the sympathy went the other way, and the result of the violent speech he had just read to the House was that property to the extent of £400 was damaged. There were a good many Members who had remained in the House to hear him who had heard the speech of the hon. Member for Mallow; and he would ask them whe-

  1739
  ther they did not think that if the hon. Member were to go down and make the speech which he had made that day, and in the same tone, there would be a danger of the peace of the district being disturbed? [Mr. WHITWORTH: Hear, hear!] He now came to the case of Hallissey, which rested on a different basis, and for which the hon. Member for Mallow always reserved his choicest and most formidable epithets. Hallissey was a blacksmith, earning 35 s. a-week He became unpopular because he worked for a farmer named Carton, who had been "Boycotted." "Boycotting" notices had been posted up, and Hallissey's trade went from him; several people who tried to employ him having had their property destroyed. He and his family had become quite destitute, and had received assistance from Government. This state of things had continued until August, 1882, when it had been endeavoured to counteract "Boycotting" by proclaiming the district under the Prevention of Crime Act, and sending police at the expense of the locality. Soon after this Hallissey reported that he was fired at with a revolver, and at the magisterial investigation Mr. Hickey, J.P., stated that he disbelieved the story. It was said Captain Plunkett concurred in that view; but Captain Plunkett's remarks had reference to no doubt of his own as to the truth of Hallissey's statement, but as to the doubt expressed by Mr. Hickey in believing Hallissey's story, and in that view he was supported by two other magistrates, Messrs. Longan and Butler, who were of opinion that the man had been fired at. The right hon. Gentleman then referred to the proposal of a subscription to emigrate Hallissey, which was originated, he said, by the District Inspector, and supported by the parish priest, Father Ahern. He could imagine nothing in which a parish priest who really loved his people could more willingly engage in than thus assisting an innocent man.
  MR. BIGGAR: Oh, oh!
  MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member for Cavan interrupts me. What charge has the hon. Member for Cavan against him?
  MR. BIGGAR: A charge of perjury and fraud.
  MR. TREVELYAN: It was not because of perjury or fraud he was "Boy-
  1740
  cotted." He was "Boycotted" because he worked for a "Boycotted" farmer. [Mr. WHITWORTH]: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Cavan has given no grounds for stating that the man is not an innocent man.
  MR. O'BRIEN: If I might be permitted to interrupt, I would reply by saying that the right hon. Gentleman himself used these words—"Whatever doubt there may be about Hallissey being fired at." Now, why should there be a doubt if he was an innocent man?
  MR. BIGGAR: The right hon. Gentleman says that Hallissey is an innocent man. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that a man who is guilty of perjury and fraud is an innocent man?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I say that it was not proved in any sense that Hallissey was guilty of perjury and fraud. Out of the three magistrates who were present at his examination, one did not believe it, and two did. That was not a state of things on which he could be charged with perjury and fraud. [Mr. WHITWORTH: Hear, hear!] He regretted very much that the subscription for Hallissey was not successful. [Ironical Irish cheers.] It was much to be regretted that hon. Members took up the case in that House in the spirit in which they did. He thought it might be the case that, owing to the way the question was made a ground of battle in that House, the benevolent object he had referred to fell through. [Irish cheers.] He was very sorry for that; because he thought it would be a good thing if the man had been emigrated, and the district might well have made some amends to him for the loss he had sustained as an honest tradesman. Subsequently a Memorial was again sent to His Excellency by certain inhabitants of the district, with Father Ahern at their head, praying to be relieved from the tax, and expressing their abhorrence of crime.
  MR. O'BRIEN: How many?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Fourteen. I am sorry that not more than 14 people in the district could be got to express abhorrence of crime.
  MR. HEALY: HOW many of the 14 repudiated their signatures afterwards?
  MR. TREVELYAN: If they did so it was under the influence of intimidation. The Lord Lieutenant would much

  1741
  rather foster a feeling of abhorrence against crime than run the risk of checking it by the imposition of an unpopular tax. That was the policy of His Excellency, and he acted under the ad vice of Captain Plunkett. It should, however, be borne in mind that both His Excellency and Captain Plunkett were carrying out a statute passed by Parliament, and they were bound to put it into practice where necessary. He could not see, looking at the figures he had quoted, that Captain Plunkett could be said to have recommended His Excellency in the direction of severity in the matter. As regarded stopping meetings, he could not find that Captain Plunkett had recommended any meeting to be stopped, except in the single district of Ballincollig, where some circum stances had occurred which rendered such a step advisable. In one district a meeting had been stopped on account of outrages in another district; one had been stopped on account of the violent speech delivered by a Catholic clergy man. In another a meeting had been stopped on account of proceedings with regard to Hallissey. It was no cruelty to prevent a meeting being held in a place where a murder had been committed. He deeply regretted that in their anxiety to challenge the Government, the National Party should assert that the Government put down free speech. He also regretted that the promoters of these meetings insisted over and over again in trying to hold meetings in such districts as these. He was sure that it was impossible to persuade the Irish people that the Government wished to put down freedom of speech—[Mr. BIGGAR: Oh!] The hon. Member for Cavan alleged that they did put down freedom of speech. He would like to read some extracts from the speeches of the bon. Member for Cavan about Earl Spencer and him self, and then ask whether Ireland was a country in which there was not speech the very freest of the free? The most extreme and violent speeches had been made in Ireland——
  MR. O'BRIEN: At our own risk.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Freedom of speech has not been stopped in Ireland.
  MR. HEALY: Then what did I get six months in gaol for?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was not speaking of that period. If in some
  1742
  limited districts freedom of speech had been stopped, that was not because it might produce possible annoyance to men in high station, but because it might lead to crime and outrage against humble residents in the neighbourhood. Those districts had now become very few; but as long as such districts were there, the Government would continue to pursue the same policy. With regard to the charges which had been brought against Captain Plunkett, he thought the hon. Member very willing to strike a blow at Captain Plunkett and likewise against the Irish Government. [Mr. BIGGAR,: Hear, hear!] He (Mr. Trevelyan) held that the fact of being engaged in a very powerful political movement might have the effect of distorting a man's judgment; but be believed that the great body of the people of the country, and a large number of people in Ireland, would believe that he had not exceeded his duty. In conclusion, he believed he had vindicated the conduct of the Irish Executive, and answered all the charges made against it.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that the sentiments of the Chief Secretary with regard to freedom of speech in Ireland reminded him of the utterances of another distinguished Englishman, Oliver Cromwell. That individual had once said—"You may have freedom of worship, but while I live you shall not perform the Mass." The right hon. Gentleman boasted that he allowed freedom of speech; but they all knew, from personal experience, that when they said anything unpalatable in flavour to the Government, freedom of speech was only in the perception of Dublin Castle. He asked them to look at the condition of the Tory Benches, which were deserted by all except the indefatigable hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). The Tory Party, having driven and deluded the Government into the adoption of this miserable coercion policy towards Ireland, now left them to defend themselves as best they could. [Cheers.] He heard a mocking cheer from the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth); but, recognizing the meaning and animus which prompted that cheer, he would proceed no further than to say that the intelligence of the Irish people would enable them to recognize what they got from those Representatives who joined the English ruling

  1743
  Party. He was glad to observe that the hon. Member was about to transfer his affections from the uncongenial scene of Drogheda to the more congenial region of Marylebone. The people of Ireland would be able to form a conception from the course of the debate of the method of Government in steering an "even keel" in Ireland. Had the people of Cork been accorded by Captain Plunkett the polite and exquisite treatment which had been extended by Captain M'Ternan to Lord Rossmore, when he endeavoured to violate the public peace and provoke civil war? They remembered the fact that Major Robert Hamilton, who had signed a murderous placard, urging an attack upon a peaceable meeting in Ulster, had endeavoured to break through an armed force of the Crown. Not only was no attempt made to repel him and his party at the point of the bayonet, as was done in Cork, but he was treated with civility and courtesy, and the next day he was permitted to go upon the Bench of Justice and denounce a servant of the Queen for having caused the death of the Orangeman Giffen. The debate upon the question of the conduct of Captain Plunkett had, from the facts disclosed, proved the evil of appointing such a class of persons who, having received a large salary, high dignity, and extensive power, then endeavoured to create disturbance, in order to show that there was a necessity that they should be retained in their position. He observed with pleasure the presence during the debate of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone). They all knew that to the keen perception of the hon. Gentleman they owed the declaration of his belief that the Government existing in Ireland was the worst in Europe. He believed that the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of Ireland was much less than that of the Chief Secretary, but he believed that his frankness was much greater; and he hoped that the knowledge he had gained would have an influence upon future English policy. The whole system pursued by Captain Plunkett had been sinister. Its aim and its real objects were apparent. He had conducted a secret inquiry at Cork into the landing of dynamite agents at Queens-town; and he had endeavoured to implicate persons of the highest standing and
  1744
  respectability—men whose public life was well known, and who were as far removed from such transactions as Hell was removed from Heaven. Men of the most blameless character had been summoned and examined and cross-hackled by Captain Plunkett, who showed by his conduct that he desired to continue in his employment by disturbing the public peace within his district. Such men as John O'Connor, of Cork, so far from tending by their presence to crime and disorder, possessed the confidence of the people, and inspired them with a sense of tranquillity. It appeared from the arguments of the Chief Secretary that because a crowd had assembled on one occasion at a certain place, and because two men jumped across a hedge at another, these localities were to be regarded as dangerous ever afterwards. Why did the Irish people wish to give expression to their opinions? It was because they wished to ask for what had been promised by the Solicitor General for Ireland to his electors at Derry. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, if he was a leaseholder himself, would he not desire to be placed under the Land Act? And if he was not a leaseholder, he had a right to complain if he was required to pay rent upon his own improvements under the present law. The reason why the Rev. Mr. Ferriss was unable to pay his three years' rent was because it was excessive; and the Chief Secretary had passed over the case very lightly, because he knew so little of the difference between the condition of the oppressed Irish priest and the prosperous English incumbent. It appeared to him that the Government were willing to allow meetings in districts where they knew there was no particular reason why they should be held; but in districts where they were aware that the people had some grievance to complain of they prevented them. The Chief Secretary had passed by the infamous method by which the meetings were suppressed, and he alleged that Captain Plunkett had acted upon the spur of the moment. But why did he postpone the announcement of the suppression of a meeting until the very morning on which it was to be held, and then disperse the people with an armed force? Why did he keep his mind to himself for a fortnight or three weeks, and then after dark, on the

  1745
  night before the meeting, send round a policeman with the "omnipotent paste pot"? Clearly because he desired to give the people, if they had no one to advise or restrain them, what Napoleon called a whiff of grape-shot, and because he wished to administer to them brute force instead of law. All this was with the object of endeavouring to demonstrate the necessity for his continuing longer in Office. He would deal with the case of Hallissey in a few words. The Chief Secretary had, with the literary skill with which he was endowed, before he entered the House, in other walks of life, which, perhaps, for his own reputation, he would have done better to have confined himself——[Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!]—he had drawn a most pathetic picture of the blacksmith Hallissey's pitiable condition. Well, that worthy, he might inform the House, was one of these ill-conditioned persons of evil character and repute who were to be found in almost every community. For years before he had been "Boycotted" he was in the receipt of outdoor relief; but in times of suspicion and coercion this creature, who they had been told had been "Boycotted" and ruined, thought he could obain a more desirable occupation than beating an anvil all his life. He saw the sums of money paid to informers, who were then high in the market. He had then fabricated the story which two magistrates declared themselves convinced was a falsehood, and in which declaration even Captain Plunkett himself was obliged to concur. The result of his fraudulent scheme of perjury was that an oppressive burden of £500 per annum, in the shape of a police tax, was imposed upon the people, who were then advised to subscribe £50 or £60 in order to transport him to happier climes. No doubt the country could well afford to dispense with him; but he would ask the Government were there not many steam-packets for the conveyance of distinguished persons at their disposal? Hallissey was now a very distinguished person; and could not the Government, who could give £50,000 to the Tuke Emigration Committee to ship away people who were valuable to the country at £5 a-head, send him off in one of these packets? He might as well, however, frankly tell the Government that Hallissey would wait till his hair grew gray, and till the palsy of old
  1746
  age came upon his limbs, and until he occupied six feet of Irish ground, before the poor people of Monanimy would subscribe this money in order to satisfy the arrogance and despotism of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. DEASYsaid, he would not have intervened in this debate but for the disingenuous way in which the Chief Secretary had met the charges of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). He wished to reply to his defence, for the reason that he was one of those who had been favoured with considerable attention from Captain Plunkett, both in the County and City of Cork. He was well aware of many little acts of which probably the Chief Secretary had never heard. He was surprised that one of the most important points brought forward by the hon. Member for Mallow, the tax for the extra police force, had not been met, or attempted to be met, by the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the reason for the suppression of the meeting at Castleisland was because the parish priest made a violent speech on being evicted. He (Mr. Deasy) was sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not read that speech in full; because he thought it was an able and clear exposition of the state of things in Ireland, and a speech every Member sitting on the Irish Benches would endorse, and which would be endorsed throughout the length and breadth of the country. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that, if the parish priest of Killavullen was evicted for nonpayment of rent, there were evictions also convenient to where they were at present, in the county of Kent, for the non-payment of tithes, and violent meetings were held there, but the Government did not interfere with or suppress them. As to Hallissey, there could be no doubt at all that he succeeded in obtaining a sum of money from the Government by pretending to be "Boycotted." As for the meeting at Inniscarra, it was miles away from Coachford, the scene of the murder, which the right hon. Gentleman alleged to have taken place in the neighbourhood. Mr. Justice Johnson, who tried the case, declared emphatically, in his opening Charge to the Grand Jury, that there was nothing of an agrarian character in it, and that it had no connection whatever with the present or past agitation in the country. He did not know

  1747
  whether the right hon. Gentleman was disposed to believe Mr. Justice Johnson or Captain Plunkett. Evidently Captain Plunkett was the favoured one. As to the meeting at "The Ovens," which was also suppressed, he did not believe that there was a quieter district in all Ireland, or a more peaceful district in England, than "The Ovens," But on that day Captain Plunkett had his men posted at every cross road and lane in the parish, who prevented any three men coming together for any purpose; and what was the result? It was the custom with the farmers of the surrounding country to meet the labourers every Sunday after Mass, and engage them for the coming week; but, owing to the tactics of Captain Plunkett, the poor labourers of the neighbourhood were not able to get work, because they were not allowed to go to the men who would employ them. The right hon. Gentleman did not assign any reason for suppressing the Donoughmore meeting at all. It was 13 or 14 miles from the scene of any outrage, and for the last 10 or 15 years there had been no outrage committed in that part of the country. The meeting was to have been held for the purpose of establishing a branch of the National League, and the National League had not the effect of producing outrages, but had the contrary effect. In proof of this, he would mention that previous to the suppression of the Land League one of the most flourishing branches was in Donoughmore. The right hon. Gentleman also said that an attack was made on a man named Connell in some other part of the county of Cork within the last six months. If such an attack took place, nobody ever heard of it except the Irish Government and Captain Plunkett. He would not dwell any further on these meetings, except to say that he was present at most of them himself. He was present at Donoughmore, and he could not step from one side of the road to the other without being followed by three or four policemen, or go into the house of a friend without its being taken possession of by four or five policemen; and the people who went to the house with him were carefully noted by the police. During his canvass of the City of Cork, he was followed by the police from meeting to meeting. They took notes of the observations which fell from him; and at
  1748
  his meeting every night in the City of Cork, the crowds were mixed with a large number of detectives, who probably took notes of his speeches and also those of his supporters. Was that the way in which they treated his opponents? Violent meetings were held in the Protestant Hall, at which people were incited to murder and violence by gentlemen holding high positions in the City—by magistrates and Deputy Lieutenants. Two evenings before the election took place, a gentleman, the Master of an Orange Lodge in the City and County of Cork, Captain Sarsfield, made a violent speech; and what was the result? That within two hours a Catholic church was wrecked in the city. Now, he asked, where were the Government note-takers from that meeting; and he asked, furthermore, where were the extra police who ought to have been on duty, and ought to have prevented the perpetration of that sacrilegious act? The scene of the outrage was within a few hundred yards of a police barrack; it was visited next morning by the police authorities and a number of magistrates; but no one was made amenable. There was, however, a strong belief in Cork that not only the police, but that the authorities, were aware of the names of those engaged in the commission of the crime. There was no secret inquiry held as to who did it; and it would take all the eloquence of the Irish Government to persuade a single man in the City of Cork that Captain Plunkett could not name the gentlemen who were concerned in the perpetration of this sacrilege. It was an evening on which they had a great deal of rain, and there was a great deal of mud about the chapel which was wrecked; and it would have been very easy for the police to have traced the parties who committed the deed to their mansions in the vicinity of that church; but they took care not to do so. They appeared, however, to have given them private information that they would be proceeded against sooner or later; and the result was that certain young gentlemen of high position had left the city in a day or two after. Many other instances of this sort he could bring before the House; but he would not do so, because the charges made by his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow had not been met at all. But he would refer to the tax for extra police, amounting to £15,000,

  1749
  which had been levied on the citizens of Cork. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary explained, at the end of last Session, that the Government had placed extra police there because the Corporation of Cork had requested the Lord Lieutenant to permit them to remain, on the ground that it was necessary for the peace of the city. No sooner did this announcement appear in the Cork Press than an indignation meeting of the Corporation of Cork was held, and a Resolution was moved by Mr. Lane stating that such was not the fact; that the only application that was ever made by the Town Council was an application to remove the police force, or that if they were not removed that the cost of their maintenance should be defrayed out of the Imperial Exchequer. Immediately after that a presentment was made to the Corporation for £465 4s. 10 d. Mr. Lane moved the rejection of the vote as the most emphatic denial the Council could give to the statement of the Chief Secretary in the House of Commons. He was seconded by the present High Sheriff of Cork and ex-Mayor of the city, and by a gentleman who, he should say, had often made the acquaintance of the right hon. Gentleman, because he was a constant attendant at Dublin Castle, Sir George Penrose, J.P. He said that for 13 years the Corporation objected to the imposition of the tax for extra police, and years ago they brought the matter before Parliament; but they were unsuccessful. Mr. Harris, a Conservative member of the Corporation, said he had no doubt if a Conservative Government were in power the burden would be removed. One thing was certain as the result of the action of the present Government, and that was that what was regarded as one of the most Liberal and Whig cities in Ireland did not possess a gentleman of that political persuasion at all. The present Mayor said, in his speech during the discussion, that from his extensive knowledge of the city he did not think there was the slightest necessity for the police force. They should resist the payment of this tax the best way they could; and if it was to be paid, it should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. They were not required, and the fact should be strongly placed before the Government. He was followed by Mr. Kennedy, J.P., who spoke in the same
  1750
  strain. The only crimes committed in Cork which would justify the presence of this extra police force were committed by the police themselves. The most serious charge he had to bring against them was the murder of a tramp by two detectives. A sort of mock trial was gone through, at which Sub-Inspector Newell, Sub-Inspector of jury-packing fame, was prosecutor, and they were defended by the ablest solicitor in Cork, with the result that the magistrates refused to grant informations against those detectives. The Crown, it appears, sent up a bill against them to the Grand Jury; but the County and Sub-Inspectors refused to go on with the prosecution, and absolutely declined to give any information as to how the bill found its way to the Grand Jury. This extra police force had been quartered in the city so far back as 1867, and ever since the citizens of Cork had been petitioning the Government to withdraw them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, who had been again reminded that this police force was a crying grievance in Cork, would take some steps to remove, or, if he would not remove them, would relieve them from the unjust tax they had to pay for their maintenance. If not, and if by this means he hoped they would make the people of Cork loyal, he never made a greater mistake. He did not expect that the right hon. Gentleman would have taken upon himself all the acts of cruelty and injustice perpetrated by the Hon. Captain Plunkett in the City of Cork, and he was rather inclined to think that he had spoken in absolute and utter ignorance of this man's conduct. [Mr. TREVELYAN dissented.] If not, he did not envy his present position. He told them there were hundreds of places in which they might have held Nationalist meetings in Cork if they liked to do so. [Mr. TREVELYAN: In the county of Cork.] As one of the organizers, he must say that he was not aware of that fact; and he believed that if they had attempted to hold meetings anywhere in the county they would have been suppressed, just as they were suppressed in other places. The only meeting they permitted before the opening of Parliament was at Bandon, at which two Members of Parliament attended; but they had their revenge, for the police invaded the hotel and prosecuted every gentleman who entertained

  1751
  the two hon. Members (Mr. T. D. Sullivan and Mr. T. P. O'Connor). He would like the right hon. Gentleman to map out the districts in the county of Cork where meetings could be held; and, if so, he assured him they would endeavour to meet his views in some way. He really did not see that there was very much truth in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought he had been misled in this matter. If not, it augured very badly for the future relations between the English Government and the Irish people.
  MR. PARNELL: Sir, I confess I have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary with a great deal of surprise and a great deal of disappointment. I had hoped that he would have chosen the occasion of the Motion of my hon. Friend to make some favourable announcement, and hold out some prospect with regard to this question of the extra police in Cork, which would have been satisfactory to the suffering citizens of that town.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. PARNELLresumed: The City of Cork, which I have the honour to represent, was distinguished, during the whole of the great agrarian movement which resulted in the passage of the Land Act, by its entire absence from agrarian or political crime of any kind, and that state of affairs has continued to exist up to the present moment. During the last four years, and for a number of years previous, there has been an entire absence of agrarian or political crime of any kind in the City of Cork; and it is a city such as that that the satellites of the Irish Government choose for the practice of deeds which have not been paralleled in any part of Ireland. They have inflicted on the citizens of Cork an extra police tax, which since it was first inflicted amounts to the enormous sum of £15,000. They have held secret inquiries under the Prevention of Crime Act, and they have hauled respectable citizens, entirely innocent of any crime, before the magistrates, and sent them to prison because they were unable to give any information. They have endeavoured to blacken the fame of individual politicians, not
  1752
  because they believed these persons could give them any information about anything, but simply because their general political course had made them obnoxious to magnates such as Captain Plunkett. When at last all parties in Cork united together, and asked that those extra police might be removed, they got a reply from the Chief Secretary which I do not wish to characterize as shuffling, but which entirely evaded the point put forward, and leaves the subject in a most unsatisfactory state. I wonder that the right hon. Gentleman, when he found that this city, containing a population of 100,000 inhabitants, was perfectly peaceable, and had been perfectly peaceable before he ever came into Office—I wonder that he did not signalize his appointment, and show his appreciation of such a peaceful state of things, by some such act of grace and justice as that asked for on the present occasion, and not only asked for on the present occasion, but asked for persistently ever since the right hon. Gentleman held Office in Ireland. I wonder that he did not tell us that the question would be taken into consideration. But what will be the result, and what has been the result, of the attitude assumed by the Irish Government in this matter? Why, this. The Corporation of Cork, in reference to this matter, have determined that they will not pay the tax, and the Corporation of Limerick have followed their example. Now, does the right hon. Gentleman ever consider what would be the effect of a general strike in Ireland, not against paying rent, but against the payment of this police tax? Has he ever considered whether the difficulty of his administration would not be enormously increased if the ratepayers who are being mulcted, and who have been mulcted for a number of years, for the cost of extra police in the different districts and counties of Ireland were to say—" We will not pay this tax, but we will allow you to collect it." Suppose the example of the City of Cork and the example of the City of Limerick were to be followed generally throughout Ireland, does the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell me that he could collect the tax? He could collect the tax perhaps; but it would cost him ten times as much as the tax itself to do so, and he would excite such a state of political feeling in Ireland in the attempt to do so

  1753
  that the right hon. Gentleman would be obliged to admit that the remedy was a great deal worse than the disease. I recollect when the farmers of Ireland were advised not to pay rent. A great many people thought that movement would be successful, and they brought forward to show that the resistance to the tithes in 1832 and 1833. I never thought so myself; but I do believe this—that a resistance of this payment for extra police and for blood-money would be just as successful as the resistance to the tithes in 1832 and 1833. The situation is precisely analogous. Why did the movement against the payment of rent fail? That failed because the tenants and their families could be turned out of their homes; but that was not so with regard to the police tax and the blood tax. The cost also of the collection of this tax, which would fall on the ratepayers, is very insignificant; while the heavy law costs which result from the ejectment and from sales of stock by the Sheriff, in satisfaction for a judgment obtained in the Superior Courts for non-payment of rent, can be inflicted on the tenant who refuses to pay. In view of the attitude that the right hon. Gentleman has exhibited tonight, and has exhibited with regard to the infliction of this tax from the beginning, I give it as my deliberate judgment that the farmers of Ireland are fools to continue to pay this tax any longer. They have the remedy in their own hands; and if they choose to exercise that remedy they will very soon put an end to those crutches that the Irish Government is leaning on in the shape of the levy of taxes for blood-money and extra police. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that we have the utmost freedom of speech in Ireland. I should not care to go to Ireland, I must say, and exercise my right of free speech. I do not believe in the freedom of speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The fruit-growers of Kent are allowed to summon tumultuous meetings, and mob the officers of the law, and collect crowds, and refuse to pay extra tithes. Persons are allowed there to advise, to aid, and abet to incitements against those tithes without any interference from the Executive. These things will not be permitted in Ireland. But a spontaneous movement on the part of the farmers of Ireland against the payment of this unjust tax
  1754
  is perfectly possible, and, in my judgment, would be successful. Now, Sir, we have the utmost freedom of speech in Ireland according to the right hon. Gentleman. Some freedom was afforded, no doubt, to Nationalist speakers last winter for the first time; but would it have been possible for the Government to have set in motion the Prevention of Grime Act against the moderate language of the Irish Nationalists, while at the same time they allowed to pass unnoticed the deliberate and direct incitements to assassination and outrage which the Orange speakers were indulging in? The right hon. Gentleman also told us that we might have held 100 meetings in the county of Cork, and that we would not be interfered with. Now, I doubt whether there are 100 places in the county of Cork in which we could have held meetings; but every district and every portion of the county was tried, and nowhere, except in the town of Bandon, and one in Charleville, would the right hon. Gentleman and Captain Plunkett permit meetings to be held. Well, Sir, we will take the right hon. Gentleman at his word. We will search out every place in the county where it is possible to hold meetings, and we will announce them. We will make up for the lost time, and we will test the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman by taking him at his word. I confess I think the right hon. Gentleman might have noticed some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). He might have explained how it was that the notices of the suppression of the meetings in Cork, and throughout Ireland generally, were only sent down at the last moment, and posted in the dead of night, so that the people, coming often from great distances, only knew of the proclamation when they arrived at the place of meeting, and found the platform in possession of large bodies of police and military. I cannot help thinking that with the military soul of such men as Captain Plunkett this method of suppressing meetings suggested itself, in order that they might make a display of armed force before the people, and endeavour to provoke a breach, of the peace; and it is very creditable to the people that, notwithstanding the great excuses given by the Government, not the slightest disturbance was attempted

  1755
  by them. And if the people have disappointed the good intentions of those military gentlemen, certainly it was not because of any foresight on the part of the Executive Government. It need hardly be said that the Prevention of Grime Act conferred most extraordinary powers on the Irish Government. It gave powers of summary punishment such as never before were given even to an Irish Government. It gave powers of changing venue; powers with respect to juries and trials by Judges; powers to levy blood taxes and extra police taxes; powers, in fact, that the Irish Government consider sufficient, and more than sufficient, for all purposes. But Captain Plunkett, in a district almost entirely free from crime during the agrarian agitation, did not think these powers sufficient, and so he set his inventive genius to work to discover new powers; and what was the plan he hit upon? It was a plan to intimidate the people of Monanimy into getting up a fund for the emigration of an obnoxious blacksmith named Hallissey. I would like to know what would happen to one of us if we told a farmer—"You must subscribe to this testimonial, and if you do not, something else will happen to you." Yet this was practically what Captain Plunkett said to the ratepayers of Monanimy. He went to the parish priest, knowing him to be an easy man, likely to be taken in, and perhaps intimidated, and he said—" Subscribe to this testimonial to Hallissey, the blacksmith, you and your people; if you do not, we will flood your district with extra police; we will have night searches. Your flock will be visited; in the dead of night their doors will be battered down with rifles; their humble furniture will be overturned in search of documents; their daughters and their wives will be dragged from their beds; their haystacks will be pulled about; and the whole district will be exposed to all the torture and infamy and hardship which it is possible for police and magistrates to inflict; but if you subscribe to my testimonial—for it is as much Captain Plunkett's testimonial as Hallissey's—those things will not take place, and your district can continue to bear the peaceful character that distinguished it—free from crime and outrage." Fortunately, however, the majority of the ratepayers were not to be
  1756
  frightened by Captain Plunkett's threats, and he was defeated in his little plan; and now, whether he likes it or not, the police tax will have to be removed. But, notwithstanding the great force of police in Cork—notwithstanding that the extra force cost the citizens £15,000 in a time of great depression—the police were unable to protect the citizens from outrages from those who were often spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman and his Predecessor in Office as upholders of law and order. During the election of my hon. Friend (Mr. Deasy), after some inflammatory speeches had been delivered at an Orange meeting, the Lough Chapel was wrecked, every window of it broken, the altar, sacred furniture, statues, and so forth, destroyed, and largo stones found next morning on the floor. The right hon. Gentleman talked about his "even keel;" but what had he done to discover the perpetrators of this outrage? What value had the citizens of Cork received for their payment of £15,000 as regarded the perpetrators of this outrage? Have any secret inquiries been made under the Prevention of Crime Act? Had any reward been offered by the Government? Nothing had been done; although it was believed by the general public, upon very good foundation, that Captain Plunkett and the police could place their hands to-morrow upon the perpetrators of the wrecking of the chapel. The outrage remains still unavenged by the majesty of the law, and yet the Government have the temerity to come to this House and say their desire is to administer justice evenly. The right hon. Gentleman had shown that, whatever his private desire may be, he is unable to administer justice. It was, undoubtedly, a great temptation to the right hon. Gentleman, when he entered upon his Office, to spread abroad the belief that a great crisis still existed in the country. A great crisis might have existed in Dublin; but outside Dublin I deny that there was any conspiracy existing in Ireland for purposes of outrage, or for any illegal purpose, although the right hon. Gentleman made no difference in his treatment of Dublin, where there was a conspiracy, and the rest of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to trade upon the Invincible conspiracy, and to represent in his speeches that the whole

  1757
  of Ireland was seething in one vast conspiracy, instead of insisting that his officials throughout Ireland should learn to govern the country without reliance upon exceptional methods, so as to prepare for a return of the time when they would have to do without them, a time which is very fast approaching. The right hon. Gentleman had taught these officials that it would be practically impossible for them to govern the country without exceptional measures. Recourse to coercion is like recourse to opium—the more you have, the more you want. While the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was content with the power of imprisonment, the present Chief Secretary had used every clause of the most stringent Coercion Act over and over again, although there was practically no crime and no movement of any importance to disturb his peace of mind. I want to ask the Irish Government a question. The Coercion Act has not very much more than 18 months' longer existence. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think he ought to see that that Act should be so administered as to prepare for a return then to Constitutional Government? So far as the right hon. Gentleman has gone, he has been adding fuel to fire, exasperating the people, depriving moderate politicians and moderate advisers of the people of all power and influence. I myself have always strongly desired the absence of coercion in Ireland. I think it is not good for the cause of reform, nor for the people, nor the Government. But I cannot help saying that the whole course of conduct of the Irish Executive is directly leading up to the renewal of the Act which was passed in 1882. I regret this exceedingly, and trust that, limited as the time is for the Government to turn over a new leaf, they will make some attempt to dispense with this excessive and stringent enactment, and will endeavour, during the next 18 months, to rely upon the honour of the Irish people that they will check and restrain the zeal of their permanent officials in the use of these keen-edged-weapons, so that they may return to what is alleged to be the traditional policy of the Liberal Party. The consideration of what will happen when the Prevention of Crime Act expires is well worthy the attention of the Irish Executive.
  1758
  I do not know the intentions of the Government. I do not know that at the time the right hon. Gentleman came into Office there was a desire on the part of the leaders of the people, and of the rank and file, that any movement should be of a temperate and Constitutional character; but I think the administration of the Prevention of Crime Act has very much changed that spirit; and if the course which has been pursued be followed out to the end, I do not see the least chance of any English Government governing Ireland without a renewal of the Coercion Act, supplemented, perhaps, by more stringent provisions. I should be glad to hear what the Solicitor General for Ireland has to say in reference to this matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman, as Representative of an Irish constituency, must know that, so long as the minority—the landlord class—was able to rely upon such instruments as Captain Plunkett for checking Constitutional liberty, the land improvements which he so eloquently advocated in his address to his constituents would be perfectly impossible; and I should hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to agree with me in the opinion which I venture to express to the House to-night, that it is high time for the Government to commence the governing of Ireland as if they were not going to rely upon a Prevention of Crime Act perpetually for that purpose.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he hoped the Government would take seriously to heart the admirable speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). When he heard the Chief Secretary defending the Irish Administration, he did not believe the right hon. Gentleman's heart was in the matter. He could not believe that the Gentleman who had written the life of Charles James Fox could really be a supporter of a man like Captain Plunkett. Who was Mr. Plunkett? He believed he was the brother or the son of a lord. Well, did being the son or brother of a lord put brains in your head? Did that invest you with extraordinary powers of government? What was there in being a lord, or being a son of a lord, that entitled him to fitness for government? Why, he had seen a good many lords who were fools, and he had seen a good many people who were not lords who

  1759
  were very clever people; and he was inclined to say that the mere fact of Mr. Plunkett being the son or the brother of a lord—he did not know whether he was an honourable something or another—was not sufficient to entitle that gentleman to be made a Resident Magistrate, and to ride rough-shod over the people of Ireland. A lamer defence than that of the Chief Secretary of Mr. Plunkett he had never heard; but that was not the fault of the Chief Secretary, but the fault of his case. When he had a good case, no man could handle it better, and his admiration of how he handled a bad case was becoming greater every day. He said to himself—"When he can make so much out of a bad case, what could he not do if he had a good case? "The right hon. Gentleman had told them they had only suppressed seven meetings. First and foremost, the Government did not know how many meetings Captain Plunkett had suppressed. He (Mr. Healy) was a native of the County Cork, and he had had several applications from that county to attend and address meetings; but he had said—"No; what is the use in them going to the expense of getting out placards and making preparations for a meeting, when they knew very well that Captain Plunkett would cry 'Open Sesame,' and a proclamation would issue from Dublin Castle, and the whole thing would be prevented? "This gentleman boasted publicly that he would not allow a single meeting to be held. Therefore, it was no use for the Government to say that they only suppressed seven meetings. Then, again, why did the Government wish to have meetings suppressed? In order to be an advocate of Land Reform in Ireland you must be a Solicitor General, for the Castle would not allow any other persons to point out the defects of the Land Act; and the reason the Government did not wish others to address meetings on the subject of Land Reform was because they thought it would fill the farmers of Ireland with the notion that they were going to get Land Reform; but when they heard the Solicitor General for Ireland say it, they would say—" We know very well that he is going to break his word when he gets into the House." The Government were quite willing that the Solicitor General for Ireland should tell the people of Ireland about Land Reform, because they knew very well
  1760
  that they would discount what he told them. He did not know if there was a map in Dublin Castle. If there was not, he was prepared to put down a small subscription to provide the Office of the Chief Secretary with a map of the country he governed. With one exception, all these meetings, they had been told, had been held in the neighbourhood of Ballincollig.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Except the meetings in reference to Ferriss, and the Monanimy meeting.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he accepted the right hon. Gentleman's correction. Then four meetings had been suppressed because they were in the district of Ballincollig. Now, he entirely traversed that statement. A number of those places were 15, 20, or even, he might say, 35 and 40 miles from one another, and had just about as much relation to Ballincollig as the county of Middlesex had to the county of Kent and the county of Dorset; and he wondered that the Chief Secretary—of course, from his want of time to study Irish geography—had allowed Captain Plunkett to impose upon him in this manner. If he would buy one of Bacon's maps, and study the scale, and calculate with a piece of tape what the distance of those places was one from another, he ventured to say he would discover by that means the erroneousness of the argument which he had himself developed in that House. But grant, for the sake of argument, that these suppressed meetings were all in the district of Ballincollig, what was the reason that he gave for their suppression? He said a foul and horrible murder, "most strange and unnatural," had been committed in this district comprising 500,000 people. Take an English town where there were 500,000 people gathered together—such as Liverpool, or Glasgow, or Birmingham—you would think by this there should not be one slaughter in six months. In six months, out of a population of 500,000 people, there were 18 offences reported by the police, some of them of the most trivial description; and the central outrage, on which the case for the Government depended and round which the arguments of the Chief Secretary circled, was this murder. A family had a quarrel about a farm. There was no public feeling whatever about it. The murder was committed on a Sunday, after those

  1761
  persons who committed it had left a public-house. He would like to know whether there was in operation in Ireland an Act called the Sunday Closing Act; and would the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth), who so vehemently cheered the Chief Secretary and who was so ardent a Sunday Closer, inform the House how this public-house in Dripsey was open for the sale of liquor on that day? This family had a dispute about a farm; and in the course of the dispute, owing to the public-house being open on a Sunday by the favour of the police, they fell to blows, and one man hit another with a spade, or some other agricultural weapon of that kind. This unfortunate man got a blow and died, and the Chief Secretary described it as a murder. A Prevention of Crime Act jury brought in a verdict of manslaughter; and what then became of the argument of the Chief Secretary, that the public meetings of the whole county were to be put a stop to because of a manslaughter committed in a drunken brawl in a particular district? He got up that shrouded kind of mystification which the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) was fond of maintaining in that House, and said that after this murder two men jumped over a hedge and threatened a third man, and on another occasion a crowd appeared in some particular town and said to somebody else—"Are you John Smith? "and received for an answer—" No; I am John Brown," and the crowd thereupon dispersed. Was the House of Commons to believe that public liberty ought to be destroyed in Ireland at the beck of a Resident Magistrate because of flimsy phantasies of this description? What would take place in Glasgow, or in Liverpool, or in London, where they had murder, he would not say every 15 minutes, but he supposed murder, or manslaughter, or suicide, or something of the kind, every day—what would be said among their criminal population—and Englishmen could boast of being as criminal as any among the human race, so far as murder, and manslaughter, and robbery, and other acts of violence were concerned—what would be said if they were to be denied the right of public meeting because in six months there had been 18 crimes amongst 500,000 people reported to the police, one of which was manslaughter?
  1762
  They could understand frank despotism; they could understand Cromwell or Carhampton; but they could not understand Trevelyan. And what he de-tested in these Liberals was this—the pretence that it was being done for the honour and glory of civilization; and that, if he might say it without profanity, the Almighty could be brought down from Heaven to preside over their acts in uncivilized countries like Ireland. It was the pretence of horrible, hateful hypocrisy. The brigand who came out to rob on the highway did not carry a Bible in his breeches' pocket—the Briton did, and that was the difference between the two. The Chief Secretary suppressed meetings in order to put down crime. It was extremely remarkable that whether there was crime in Ireland, or whether there was no crime, meetings must be suppressed in the interests of the peace of the district. You pays your money and you takes your choice—you pays your taxes and you gets your British Government. But the Irish people were not be deluded in this manner. They had been trying it for 700 years, and they had not succeeded, and they would not succeed now. He hoped those people who had refused to pay the taxes would continue to make the opposition which they had been making against the payment of those taxes in the interests of scoundrels of the Hallissey type. He ventured to say that if the Irish people were as well armed as the Soudanese the Government would not be so very keen in putting blood taxes upon them. He ventured to say that if the policemen who were so fond of knocking down women and children indiscriminately in Ireland with the butt-end of their guns knew that the husbands or the fathers of these women possessed arms at home in the thatch, and that they would use them in defence of female honour, those policemen would not be so extraordinary anxious to bludgeon the women as they did at Killavullen and other places. The Government were dealing with a defenceless people, and they were acting as the Briton always acted. Wherever they saw the power of resistance, there an Englishman diplomatized and dealt in Circular Notes. That was their game, and they could not deceive intelligent people at that time of the day, for the people of Ireland were

  1763
  thoroughly alive to the situation. The Government might commit these outrages for a time. Let them commit them. Keep at them. The blood of the people ought to teach them to nurse their wrath to keep it warm; and by-and-bye the time would come, and perhaps even the unfortunate people would be able to get square with them. If they could not get square, they would hand down the quarrel to their children; and if their children could not succeed, they would hand it down to their children's children. So long as an Irishman existed in Ireland, and so long as a British satrap existed to oppress him, so long the battle of freedom and right would be continued in their country.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that the speech of the Chief Secretary had shown the Irish Members what he very much regretted to observe in the administration of Ireland—that persons who performed such functions as Captain Plunkett did in Ireland could always obtain the support of the Government in that House. Any oppression, any injustice, or any tyranny would not be merely condoned and defended by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, but in due time it would meet its reward. By-and-bye, Captain Plunkett would follow Mr. Clifford Lloyd, Mr. Blake, and every other despot in the country, to some foreign clime, to the Ruler of which he would be recommended by the Government. What wonder was it, then, that Captain Plunkett played such pranks when he knew that for the present he had pay, and, if he needed it, praise; and that, by-and-bye, he would receive a more substantial reward at the hands of the British Government, who could procure him employment under the Khedive or some other foreign despot, in order that he might practise in his service the arts of oppression and despotism in which he had been trained by the British Government in Ireland? They were now labouring on so that when the time came they could ask for a renewal of the Prevention of Crime Act on its expiration. No one who watched the state of affairs in Ireland would fail to see that this was part of a deliberate design on the part of the ruling classes and Orange faction to have a renewal of this Act for three or four years more.
  1764
  Mr. Justice Lawson at the Kerry Assizes, some time before, had admitted that the country was very peaceable. He could not, however, leave the matter there, as an English Judge would have done; but he had, as Irish Judges of his character did, added a few words with a view to their being adopted and quoted in the British Parliament. He would quote some of the Judge's words—
  "There was peace in the county, and there was an improvement in the condition of the people, but it was owing to the Prevention of Crime Act."
  It was absurd for any statement to be made as to the independence of the Irish Judges. Their Charges were made with a view to being quoted as a subject for political speeches from the Treasury Bench in the House of Commons. He ventured to say that this speech of Judge Lawson would be cited as a proof for the necessity of the renewal of the Prevention of Crime Act. A great deal was said about crime in Ireland; but they never heard of the crimes committed in England. A few days ago, an English newspaper had declared that—
  "Although only three months of the present year had elapsed the air was already heavy with undetected crime in England."
  But this, of course, was regarded as a matter of no importance, as it was stated that they were of a different class to those committed in Ireland. If owing to the acknowledged bad condition of the law, the poor peasants, suffering under gross injustice, actuated by the "wild justice of revenge," committed crimes which were, of course, to be regretted, a great outcry was made about it, and the name of Ireland was pilloried everywhere in England, whilst cold-blooded and cowardly crimes committed in open day in the English capital were utterly unnoticed. There was no connection between meetings in Ireland and the disturbances that had occurred; they were due to the misery of rack-rented tenantry, whose condition was without a parallel in any civilized country, and was a standing disgrace to the British Government. Lord Clanricarde drew £30,000 yearly from his property in the Loughrea district, and the rack-rented people were made paupers by a system of absenteeism. On Lord Dunsandle's estate the same evils resulted from rack-

  1765
  renting and absentee landlordism. General Gordon saw the misery of the inhabitants of some parts of Ireland; and in a letter published in The Times he stated that, although he had been in many lands, civilized and savage, he had never witnessed anything to equal the destitution and the suffering, and, at the same time, the patience, which existed among the people living on the rack-rented estates of Ireland. Was it to be wondered at that there should be disaffection in Ireland, when Captain Plunkett and every other pasha and bashaw like him were allowed to tyrannize over them? They feared to allow public speech to explode in Ireland, and they got explosions of another kind. He asked the Chief Secretary to consider, even at the eleventh hour, whether it would not be more manly and courageous to remove the grievances which the people complained of than to continue the system of oppression which he was carrying out?
  MR. O' DONNELLconcurred with the observations which had been made by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He thought it was of as little use to complain to the Government of the conduct of such men as Captain Plunkett as it would be to complain to Satan of the conduct of his imps. He heartily endorsed the sentimates of the hon. Member for Westmeath, whose songs of Irish patriotism had impressed him when he was a student in one of those Colleges which Her Majesty's Government founded in order to stifle in the minds of those instructed there any such sentiments. However, like many other institutions of the kind, it totally failed in its object. The hon. Member had then been one of their guides, and they still recognized him as the exponent of the sentiments which filled the breasts of the majority of the Irish race. A public meeting held under the suffrance of a Foreign Power was not less but more odious in consequence of that suffrance; and, for his part, he preferred that scores of those brutal tyrants like Captain Plunkett should act as they did than that they should have these expressions of hypocritical and pretended friendship of Ireland from the Government Benches. It was worse than the despotism of the Czar of Russia, for under even his sway equality
  1766
  was recognized; but under the rule of England neither liberty nor equality was recognized. Captain Plunkett had done everything to provoke the hatred of the people, and for that very reason he deserved the confidence of the Government. English tyranny in Ireland was only a part of that general system of the exploitation of suffering humanity which made the British Empire a veritable Slave Empire. Wherever there was oppression there they should find allies, and they should take up an attitude of defence commensurate with the area of the tyranny. The rule now maintained in Ireland by the Plunketts and the Jenkinsons and the suave Liberals on the Treasury Bench was no more for the true benefit of the masses of the English people than for that of the mass of the Irish people—it was in the interests of "caste" and clique that this legislation was upheld. The people of England claimed to have a modern Rome in London; but even Caligula granted equal rights to every citizen of Rome. He thought that Parliamentary agitation would not be very effective until the Irish people, crushed down under their present tyranny, effected a coalition with the oppressed Natives of India and other British Dependencies, and all regarded England as the common enemy. They would have the people who had been driven out of their country to remote climes formed together into one solid confederation, determined to obtain the rights which they sought in spite of all opposition. Until that day came Parliamentary agitation would be Parliamentary agitation, and nothing more. They would have every decade new reforms which would only result in increasing the dependence of the Irish people. Englishmen did not appear to awaken to the necessity for reform until they had been taught by the occurrence of catastrophes. As long as the present system continued nothing would prevent the people of Ireland from continuing the crusade against the accursed system which the English people supported.
  Main Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 15: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 40.)
  [10.20 B.M.]

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1883–4).
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £27,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Vote for Diplomatic Services in the Papers before the House showed a total of £28,000; but the Government only asked for £27,600, two sums of £200 each, for the International Commission for Revising Mixed Tribunals in Egypt and the Conference at Paris for the Protection of Submarine Cables, being omitted.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, there was a charge of £1,800, to cover Lord Dufferin's special mission to Egypt, which had been reduced to £1,600.
  MR. COURTNEY: No; the reduction is in connection with Sir William Hewett's mission to Abyssinia.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the charges for Sir William Hewett's mission to Abyssinia, Lord Dufferin's special mission to Egypt, and General Gordon's special mission to the same place, appeared to him to be items of account which required more explanation than Her Majesty's Government had given down to the present, so far as his knowledge extended. Lord Dufferin had gone on a special mission; and, so far as he (Mr. O'Donnell) was aware, the only net result of that mission had been a piece of literary composition on the part of Lord Dufferin, containing a great many recommendations. All those recommendations, or, at any rate, all the principal recommendations contained in Lord Dufferin's Report had been magnificently ignored by Her Majesty's Government. To the best of his recollection, Lord Dufferin had proposed that a bonâ fide system of Constitutionalism, or, at least, of popular Government, should be tried in Egypt. Could Her Majesty's Government afford the Committee any information as to how far the establishment of a Government in conformity
  1768
  with the wishes of the Egyptians had proceeded down to the latest date? In reply to a Question which had been put in the House, in regard to the appointment of a magistrate in Ireland to a high position in Egypt, it had been stated that that appointment had been made on the recommendation of Earl Spencer and Earl Granville; but he (Mr. O'Donnell) was not aware that the wishes of the Egyptian people had been in the slightest degree considered from beginning to end. If, then, Lord Duffer in had only been sent to Egypt on a sort of pleasure tour, without any particular object, he did not see why this country should be called on to pay the expenses. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the county of Waterford (Mr. Villiers Stuart) had imposed on himself a special mission in Egypt, and had written books on the subject, and published them; but the cost of these books and of these travels did not appear in the Public Estimates. What, he wished to know, was the object the Government had in view in sending Lord Dufferin to Egypt? If they had an object, and if Lord Dufferin had carried out his commission in conformity with the wishes of Her Majesty's Government, why had no attention been paid to his recommendations? At any rate, could the Government say at what particular point they commenced to disagree with the recommendations of their special Envoy? Manifestly, it would be simply tempting the Treasury to unaccustomed acts of extravagance if the Committee were to allow them to place any Vote they pleased on the Estimates, however notorious it might be that such Vote was represented by no practical result whatsoever. He was also anxious to know for what object Admiral Sir William Hewett went to Abyssinia? The Abyssinian question was one of great importance. No country in that part of the world had suffered more from the polity of the Government than that country. Was Sir William Hewett authorized to redress any of its wrongs? Were any negotiations entered into with the Abyssinian Rulers; and, if so, what was the object of those negotiations, and what had been the outcome of them? He did not wish to press Her Majesty's Government for information unduly; but when they were asked to pay large sums out of the public taxes, it was only reason-

  1769
  able to expect that some explanation of those sums should be afforded. Could the Government give him any information as to how far Lord Dufferin's recommendations had been carried out, or whether they were to be carried out, or with what object Lord Dufferin had been sent to Egypt?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, he hardly thought that the Committee would desire, after the debates which had taken place in that House, to go into the question of Lord Dufferin's mission to Egypt. The matter was fully gone into last year; and, with regard to any particular plan his Lordship might have recommended, the Committee should remember that full information had been laid before the House from time to time in the Parliamentary Papers. As to the institutions Lord Dufferin had recommended, the Papers laid on the Table at the beginning of the Session—"Egypt, No. 1 (1884)."—showed up to what point the representative institutions to which the hon. Member (Mr. O'Donnell) had alluded had been got into working order. No doubt, as he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had fully acknowledged in the debate on the Vote of Censure, recent events in Egypt had, to a certain extent, delayed the full working of those institutions; but the hon. Member's assumption that they had been abandoned was altogether unfounded. The Papers laid before the House showed that the first meeting of the Legislative Assembly had been held, that the President had been appointed, and that it was proceeding to business. As to Admiral Sir William Hewett's mission to Abyssinia, the hon. Member, he was afraid, must have been absent from the House during the discussion in the afternoon, because he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had particularly alluded to the subject in his speech, fully explaining the object of the mission, stating that he did so because the money to be asked for the mission was in the Vote the Committee were to be asked to pass. He had explained what the differences of opinion between the Egyptian Government and Her Majesty's Government were, what were the grievances of Abyssinia against this country, and what were the particular points on which it was hoped they would be able to make an arrangement. He did not suppose
  1770
  the Committee would wish him to go over the same ground twice in one day; therefore, he hoped the hon. Member would not insist on his repeating the explanations he had given. Had the hon. Member been present that afternoon, no doubt, he would not now have asked these questions.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he saw an item of £750 included in the Vote for "Expenses in connection with trials at Alexandria." What was this expenditure for—for prosecuting, or defending the prisoners?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the sum was for the expenses of Sir Charles Wilson and Major Macdonald, who watched the trials on behalf of the Government. He had already explained that Sir Charles Wilson was placed there to see that justice was done—to see that nothing unfair was done to the persons who were being tried; and Major Macdonald's position he had also explained.
  MR. MOLLOYasked, whether it was not the fact that, besides the sum in the Vote, Sir Charles Wilson and Major Macdonald were in receipt of salaries?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that that was so; but these gentlemen had been put to extra expense in the discharge of this special duty, which was one of a very onerous and trying kind. He must say that no one ever deserved greater credit for the performance of a difficult public duty than Sir Charles Wilson. This official had been remarkable for the great amount of skill, temper, and patience he had shown in the discharge of delicate and difficult duties.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, it was not denied that these gentlemen were in receipt of salaries. He wished to know what was the character of the expenses to which they were put, and that this £750 was supposed to cover?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, that these gentlemen had been put to special expenses on account of having to come away from their ordinary occupations, and having to go to Alexandria to perform these special duties, for which they received special remuneration. The ordinary salaries which they were receiving were simply the salaries of military men performing a particular kind of duty. The duty in regard to which this Vote was charged

  1771
  was a special one of an arduous kind, for which these gentlemen were especially fitted through their knowledge of the people and the circumstances of the country.
  MR. KENNYsaid, he wished to know whence these gentlemen had been taken—where they had come from? Who presided at the trials, and did the person who presided receive a salary, and were his expenses paid?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, that Sir Charles Wilson was first employed in the Consular Service in Asia Minor. He was originally sent out by the late Government; and he was selected for the duties in Egypt because of his great knowledge of Oriental habits and customs, and because it was not only felt that he would possess the confidence of the Egyptian and British Governments, but that everybody in Egypt would feel that, under his care, the interests of all concerned would be protected in the trials.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he wished for an explanation of the item—"Colonel Mansfield's expenses in connection with the celebration of the Bolivar centenary, £200?" What was the Bolivar centenary, and what had we to do with it?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, that it was held under these circumstances. Bolivar was a great patriot in South America, and a great celebration in connection with his name was held this year in Venezeula. It was looked upon as a celebration at which all the peoples of South America—who considered, and rightly enough, that they were under great obligations to that patriot—should be represented. There was hardly a single Government in South America who did not send a special mission. The United States were to be represented; and it was felt that England, having taken such a great part in asserting the liberty and independence of these people in the beginning of the present century, ought to be represented. An allowance was therefore made to the British Minister, to enable him to take his part with the other Ministers in the celebration.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had not clearly explained the nature of the transactions in respect of which Sir Charles Wilson and Major Macdonald received this money. He had not told
  1772
  them how long these gentlemen had been occupied at Alexandria, and where they had come from. He (Mr. Biggar) should like to know whether the trial of Suleiman Sami was one of those that these gentlemen had supervized; and, whether, or not, the noble Lord was thoroughly satisfied with the proceedings in that particular case? Did not the noble Lord think the conduct of these two gentlemen more or less deserving of censure for the part they had taken in that transaction?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the statement he had made as to Sir Charles Wilson was this—that he was employed in Asia Minor, and was sent to Egypt to perform certain duties in connection more especially with these trials. The trials were those which were the subject of the observations of several hon. Members, particularly of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson)—that was to say, of those who were spoken of as the political prisoners. Major Macdonald was employed more especially on the later trials, where the offenders were brought forward in connection with injury to person and property. Amongst these was the trial of Suleiman Sami; and, with regard to the employment of Major Macdonald in connection with that matter, people who took very different views as to the policy of the trial were at one in the opinion that this officer had performed his duties in a manner worthy of the highest credit.
  MR. KENNYsaid, that notwithstanding the assurance of the noble Lord, that Major Macdonald had discharged his duties in a manner satisfactory to everybody, it was beyond all question that these trials had given great dissatisfaction. No explanation had yet been given as to how the expenses had been incurred. Alexandria was not so far from Asia Minor that it would cost a large sum to get from one place to the other. He could not imagine how this money could have been spent by gentlemen who were already in receipt of a salary, and he therefore thought it his duty to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £750.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £26,850, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment

  1773
  during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."—(Mr. Kenny.)
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was certain the noble Lord opposite (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had intended the explanation he had given to be perfectly clear and satisfactory, and he could only attribute his failure to make it clear to the general obscurity which surrounded the whole of the Egyptian policy of Her Majesty's Government. They must regard the noble Lord as the victim of his surroundings. On the special question which had been raised by the Amendment, he (Mr. O'Donnell) must certainly express his entire concurrence with the objection raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny). Besides the fact that no case had been made out for the granting of this sum of money to officers who were already well provided for by their ordinary salaries, they could not close their eyes to the fact that these two gentlemen had lent the appearance of their impartiality to what was nothing more nor less than a system of judicial murder, carried out by a beaten tyrant, who had been replaced by British bayonets on the Throne of Egypt. These so-called trials—arrangements just about as deserving of the name of trials as certain drum-head exhibitions that disgraced the period of 1798 in Ireland—were held in the name of the Government of the nominal Khedive, Tewfik, who had no authority, nor power, nor right to issue any commission of the kind, for he had no authority, being merely a puppet of the English garrison. If these trials had been held openly, in the name of Her Majesty's Government, of course there would have been this odium arising, that Major Macdonald would have submitted to a form of trial prisoners of war, and executed those prisoners of war, for acts of war. In order to get out of that difficulty, Her Majesty's Government allowed their puppet, Tewfik, and his advisers—had instructed, ordered, or commanded him, for he had no initiative of his own—to set on foot the so-called tribunal for the trial of a certain number of prisoners of war captured in the recent rebellion. It was to be remembered that the rebellion was thoroughly successful, and that, according
  1774
  to every principle of British law, it was the Rebellion that was the Government. The Rebellion was the de facto Government, the authority of Tewfik having entirely ceased. Her Majesty's Government it was who caused Tewfik to set on foot this scheme of trials; and before a mock Court were arraigned a number of prisoners on charges of civil crime, such, for instance, as the alleged destruction of a portion of Alexandria, which was calculated, if left standing, to afford shelter to the invading army—an operation of war perfectly legitimate according to the laws of every civilized country. Matters of that kind were treated as crimes, and officers and soldiers accused of having a share in those operations of war were brought up before these mock tribunals like prisoners guilty of the ordinary offence of incendiaryism. That farce, which could not have existed a moment but for the countenance it got from the nominally impartial authority of officers like Major Macdonald, resulted in a most bloody tragedy; because, before these sham tribunals, officers of a recently successful National Army—successful against local tyranny, although not successful against a foreign invader—were tried and, in some cases, sentenced to death. Sir Charles Wilson and Major Macdonald might be said to have inaugurated this policy of make-believe which had resulted in such terrible consequences to Egypt at the present day. The House of Commons had not been consulted on the question of the appointment of these officers, or as to the institution of the tribunals at which they assisted. The House never even obtained an opportunity of considering the evidence upon which men were done to death by these mock tribunals. He remembered, very distinctly, a Motion being made in that House by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), pleading only for time for the House to consider the evidence against a prisoner of war—Colonel Suleiman Sami—who was about to be done to death by the defeated tyrant and his enemies, whom that same Suleiman Sami had helped to drive out of Egypt. As to the Vote, it was impossible to allow items of this kind to pass without protest. Of course, there was some credit due to the Government for not saddling Egypt with the cost of Colonel

  1775
  Macdonald's participation in this mock justice; but no mere recognition of the comparative honesty of openly laying the charge on the British taxpayer would have induced him to refrain from pressing, as far as the Forms of the House permitted, his opposition to this Vote. Sami, in reality, had been executed for doing his duty as a soldier in opposition to a Native tyrant, and, nominally, without his orders, against foreign invaders who, without the slightest colour of law or right, destroyed Alexandria. Suleiman Sami had a share in endeavouring to render Alexandria untenable by a foreign enemy, and in that he was only doing his duty. If, in a similar case, an English fortress were in danger of falling into the hands of a foreign enemy, it would be in the highest degree an English officer's duty, when the town was no longer tenable for defence, to destroy so much of it as might afford shelter to the invaders. At the most, Suleiman Sami only did an act of that description, and for doing that act, which it was within his right and his duty to do as a soldier, he was brought before a mock tribunal. The verdict of that tribunal obtained a certain air of respectability from the fact of an English officer like Major Macdonald sitting upon it. The very defence brought forward by the Government for Major Macdonald rendered it more incumbent upon upright and independent Members of the House to vote against an item of expenditure which was the final result of as black a proceeding as had ever been committed even in the assassination policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 71: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 41.) [11.10 B.M.]
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, why, in the Supplementary Estimates for the present year, there should be so large a sum as £7,340, for certain outfits payable on the retirement of three gentlemen from the Diplomatic Service? He observed that £4,000 was the amount of the original Estimate; how was it that, in a Supplementary Estimate, there should be so large a sum, nearly double the original sum; and, how did it happen
  1776
  that the information was wanting in the preparation of the original Estimate?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, this was a very natural question to put. The fact was, there was considerable movement in the Diplomatic Service during the autumn, and it was quite impossible previously to get at the exact extent of it; and, in consequence, it was inevitable that an unusually large portion of the sum payable on outfits should be charged in the Supplementary Estimate. No doubt, it was unusually large this year, owing to the numerous changes in the Diplomatic Service which had recently taken place. The whole subject of these outfits had been often discussed; and the rules in relation thereto were well known to the Committee, for a Committee sat in the Parliament before last in reference to the arrangements of the Diplomatic Body. The principal changes which had led to these payments were the appointments to Italy, to Vienna, to Japan, and Sir Evelyn Baring's appointment to Egypt, and the reconstruction that took place in the ranks of the Diplomatic Body in consequence.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) £155, Suez Canal (British Directors).
  MR. MONKsaid, before the Vote was passed, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question in regard to it. On Wednesday, last a meeting of the Suez Canal Company took place, when the Convention between the Suez Canal Company and the Shipowners' Association was confirmed by a very narrow majority. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question with regard to the vote on that occasion. There were, he believed, about 1,604 votes recorded then, and the majority was 82. The 1,604 votes recorded represented only something less than one-fifth of the whole of the number of votes that might have been recorded. Probably, the Committee were aware no one was entitled to vote at one of those meetings who did not hold 25 shares, and the holder of those 25 shares was entitled to one vote. But a most singular point in the statutes of the Company was that no person who was the holder of any number of shares, however large, was entitled to more than 10 votes, whether he was the owner of the shares

  1777
  himself, or held them by proxies from others. It was the most extraordinary rule he ever heard of in any Public Company. Usually Directors invited shareholders to send in proxies to the Directors; but, here, no shareholder was entitled to record more than 10 votes. At the general meeting 10 votes only represented 250 shares and when it was found that only a fifth of the whole number who were entitled to vote were represented, it was rather an extraordinary state of things. Of course, he did not take into consideration the 177,000 shares which were held by the Government of this country. What he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, whether there were not any facilities, or, whether the Government, through the Directors appointed by Her Majesty's Government, could not offer some facilities, for shareholders in this country to deposit their shares with those Directors, so that their votes might be available at the subsequent meeting of the Company? The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that, at the meeting the other day, one of the most important subjects brought before the meeting was unable to be put to the vote, because a majority of two-thirds was necessary to alter any of the statutes of the Company. Now, in order that the Company should have seven additional Directors, it was necessary to alter the statute. The original number was 32 Directors, reduced in 1871 to 21. In order that this country should be properly represented, more than the three Directors at present nominated by Her Majesty's Government were needed; and, with that view, it was necessary that the statute providing the number should be altered, and that could not be done without a majority of two-thirds voting in its favour. Therefore, he wished to ask, whether the Government could not, through their Directors, or in some other manner, offer facilities to shareholders, who were becoming very numerous in this country, to deposit their shares five days, or whatever interval was appointed, before the general meeting, so that this country might have the just weight and voting power to which it was entitled at the meetings of the shareholders?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS), in reply, said, he was not quite sure whether he was in Order in answering this question on a Vote
  1778
  which was only for the travelling expenses of the Directors; but, as the question had been asked, perhaps he might be allowed to answer it. The fact was that the ordinary rules of French Companies were quite different from those of English Companies, and the Suez Canal Company, though not technically a French Company, but an Egyptian, was framed on the French model. Under the French customary rule, a person holding a large number of shares would not get votes in proportion to his holding when compared with small shareholders. This was in the statutes of the Suez Canal Company, and he believed what took place the other day was in strict accordance with the statutes. The hon. Member (Mr. Monk) asked if the Government could facilitate any arrangement under which the English votes could be recorded. It was reasonable that those persons living in England should have the power to deposit their votes in the same way as those resident in Paris. He thought that might be done; but he would take care to inquire.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he desired to ask a further question in reference to the meeting last week.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he did not think that would be in Order on this Vote, which was simply for the travelling expenses of the Directors.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, but it was to enable the Directors to go to Paris to look after the interests of the British shareholders in the Suez Canal Company, and his question referred to that. What would be the position of affairs supposing, as seemed likely, the shareholders favourable to the arrangement with the British Shipowners' Association were not able to carry their measure by a majority of two-thirds? Would the scheme fall to the ground, or would another be substituted?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS), in reply, said, he was not prepared to say what might happen in this contingency.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The difficulty in this matter, I may point out, arises entirely from the difference in the Vote as submitted to the Committee and the statement contained in the Estimates on which the Vote is founded. The Estimate, as the right hon. Gentleman the

  1779
  Chancellor of the Exchequer has observed, is on account of the travelling expenses of the Directors; but the Vote put to the Committee is for "Salaries and Expenses" of the three Representatives of the Government on the administration of the Suez Canal Company. The Vote so put ought to be open to the discussion of matters involved in the salaries and expenses of the three Representatives.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £13,700, Supplementary sum, Colonies, Grants in Aid.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, there was an item in the Vote of £2,000, in connection with the judicial expenses of the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific; and he would like to have from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) some explanation of the precise object for which that Vote was required. He would also like Her Majesty's Government to tell the Committee, if they could, something as to their intentions in reference to this High Commissionership. There had lately been presented an able and interesting Report from a Commission appointed to inquire into the working of the Pacific Islanders' Protection Act. Looking at that Report, it would be seen how very much the Pacific Commission had failed in its proper work of suppressing the grave evils of the labour traffic in the Western Pacific. When the High Commissioner, Sir Arthur Gordon, was appointed, he was Governor of Fiji; but that post he subsequently resigned, and he was then appointed Governor of New Zealand, and remained so for some time. It was a most anomalous proceeding that he should be appointed Governor of New Zealand, and allowed to retain the office of High Commissioner of the Western Pacific. It was almost as impossible for him to fulfil the duties of both these offices as it would be for him to superintend the Pacific from Ceylon. He was not blaming Sir Arthur Gordon; he blamed the Government. He did not know if anybody else had been appointed to fill the office of High Commissioner since the time, more than three years ago, when Sir Arthur Gordon was appointed Governor of New Zealand. He did not know at the moment who
  1780
  was High Commissioner. [Mr. EVELYN-ASHLEY said, the Governor of Fiji.] Well, what did the Royal Commission report on this point? They reported that the operation of the Orders in Council was hampered by the union of the office of Governor of Fiji with that of High Commissioner, and they distinctly recommended the separation of those two offices; they stated that a sufficient number of Assistant Commissioners had not been appointed, and that the inadequacy of the staff was due to the insufficiency of the funds devoted to the maintenance of the High Commissionership. They said there were two points in the Pacific—the Friendly Islands and Samoa—where the operation of the Orders in Council were fairly successful, and these happened to be the places where Assistant Commissioners resided. The principal recommendation of the Commission was the appointment of a High Commissioner and a Judicial Commissioner, not hampered by other offices, who should reside in places suitable for the performance of their duty; and the appointment of additional Deputy Commissioners who should reside in different parts of the Pacific where their services were required, and be furnished with the proper means of travelling through their districts to see that the Orders in Council were properly carried out. They had a further recommendation as to the simplification of the Orders in Council, and the appointment of labour agents, and a better system of labour licences, so as to put down as far as might be the evils of the labour traffic. These recommendations should receive the very early attention of Her Majesty's Government; and what he hoped to hear from the Under Secretary of State was that the Report of this Commission had at once been taken into consideration, and that action on it would not be delayed pending the consideration by the Australian Colonies of the scheme of a Federal Council suggested by Lord Derby. Any such delay as that, lasting as it might for more than a year, would not be justified. The evils referred to could be dealt with entirely apart from any proposal with regard to the annexation of New Guinea, and the suggestion of Lord Derby as to concerted action by the Australian Colonies. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give some promise that it was the intention of Government, at the earliest

  1781
  moment, to deal with this most important subject.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he concurred entirely with his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) as to the inutility of uniting the office of Governor of New Zealand with that of High Commissioner; but he believed that had been altered, and that the Governor of Fiji was now High Commissioner. He understood, some time ago, that the view of the Government was that they could not act upon the Report they had received until they had learned and considered the result of the Federal Convention which had met in Australia; but, he should like to ask, why could they not proceed at once to appoint Deputy Commissioners in respect to Islands in which the High Commissioner had now the power to act? He was perfectly aware that the Australian Colonies desired the annexation of other Islands; but that was no reason why we should hold our hands in respect to Islands where an active trade was carried on, and in respect to which we had hitherto acted. He would ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to state more fully to the Committee why the Government should refrain from acting, in part, on the Report of the Commission, because they had not received the result of the Australian Convention?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he would first explain the item with regard to legal expenses. It was a case which arose when Sir Arthur Gordon was High Commissioner. He, acting under a clause in the Pacific Islands' Orders in Council, and having had brought to his notice that a man called Hunt was disturbing the Island of Samoa, and acting in a manner dangerous to the peace and order of that place, ordered his removal. Hunt was brought before the proper Court and fined £500. Still, this having no effect, he was forcibly removed by order of Sir Arthur Gordon; but Sir Arthur Gordon made a slip in that order. He was empowered under the clause to remove any such person in custody to any place named as in the Western Pacific Islands. By an error in the order, Hunt was taken to Levuka, and that was in Fiji, and not under the Western Pacific Orders in Council. On that, an action was brought against Sir Arthur Gordon, and given against him.
  1782
  There was a re-hearing, and the accumulated costs given against Sir Arthur Gordon. The costs, he was sorry to say, came to a very large amount—£2,600. Of course, Her Majesty's Government felt bound to bear the responsibility of their officer's action, and the expense; but this Vote would settle the matter, as there would be no further appeal. As to the general matter of the High Commissioner, he recognized, with Her Majesty's Government, the value of many of the remarks of the Committee, but did not agree with some of the recommendations. As to the appointment of a separate High Commissioner, apart from the Governorship of Fiji or New Zealand, Her Majesty's Government thought that was a recommendation of importance, and he hoped shortly to announce the name of a High Commissioner, apart from any Governorship. He would point out to the right hon. Baronet opposite, who wanted to know why this question was interwoven with the question of Colonial Conventions, how many points would be greatly affected by action which might be taken in consequence of a Convention. The first question was that of expense. Anything the Government might do at all commensurate with the demands of the Western Pacific would involve a large expense indeed; and if they had the Australian Colonies contributing, then pro tanto the Government could do a great deal more. One of the principal difficulties of the Pacific Commission was that they had no control over foreigners. Over British subjects and Natives they had; but over foreigners they could have none without some international arrangement. He need hardly point out how very much the whole position might be affected if the Australian Colonies federated and acted in co-operation with Her Majesty's Government. The Resolutions of the Australian Convention would be submitted to the respective Legislatures; and he was informed by the Agents General, that they hoped that Bills founded upon those Resolutions, if adopted, would be passed by next June, so as to allow Her Majesty's Government to introduce, in this present Session, an Imperial Act recognizing the binding together of an Australian Federation.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, this was a subject to which he had lately given a

  1783
  great deal of consideration, and he was greatly afraid that the sketch of policy which had just been made by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) was one which would be viewed with something more than doubt by every friend of the Native population in the Western Pacific. The Minister looked forward to legislation founded upon conclusions arrived at by the Australian Colonies; but it was exactly the Australian Colonies that were the great danger to the Native population of the Western Pacific. It was in order to supply the labour to the wealthy planters and employers in Australia that the Islands of the Western Pacific were being ravaged by traffic hunters, who really were the most odious description of slavers. What concurrence could they expect from the Legislature of Queensland? Throughout Queensland the Native witness, the imported Polynesian, was not considered fit to give testimony before a magistrate of the Colony; no matter what ill treatment he might receive from his employer, he was not considered competent to give evidence. Legally, he believed, it had been held that a Polynesian might give evidence, if the magistrate was satisfied that he was a person who had a moral sense of the obligation of truth-telling; but the point was that the employer magistrate of Queensland could not be persuaded that a Polynesian had the requisite moral faculty of testifying to his own ill-usage at the hands of his employer. The Minister hoped that Australia would bear a portion of the expense of maintaining the police of the Western Pacific. If Australia were to pay any share of the expenses of maintaining the police of the Western Pacific, that police would be exceedingly badly maintained. It was well known that the police were hand and glove with the labour traffickers; indeed, the Chargé d' Affaires in London complained that all kinds of outrages were committed on labour traffic vessels, with the full cognizance and connivance, forsooth, of the very men who were on board for the ostensible purpose of repressing them. The Commission recommended Her Majesty's Government to take upon themselves the whole burden of responsibility and expense of the police of the Western Pacific. What a mockery it
  1784
  was to be expending the hundreds and thousands of pounds in suppressing slavery in Oriental countries, while, in the Western Pacific, a most odious system of slavery was carried on by British subjects, and Her Majesty's Government shrunk from an expenditure of £50,000 or £100,000 which might be required to put the system down. The Royal Navy might be usefully employed in the police work of this Archipelago. The Minister also pointed out the difficulty of dealing with foreigners. If the British. Government dealt with the British subjects, so much of the evil would be removed. Her Majesty's Government might count on the support of Germany in putting down the slavery he complained of. Most of the Native outrages which called for the interference of Her Majesty's Government were outrages brought about by a feeling of revenge in consequence of the acts of slave dealers, the acts of British desperadoes from all kinds of British Colonies, engaged in making money by a practical system of slavery. If Her Majesty's Government put off dealing with this feeling until they could get the hearty co-operation of the Australian employers, in whose interest slave vessels were trading, Her Majesty's Government would be parties to the continuance of a horrible system, which was depopulating one of the fairest regions of the world, and which was cursing one of the most simple and peaceful Native populations with every cruelty and vice common to the very lowest kinds of civilized humanity.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYfeared the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. O'Donnell) spoke from imperfect information. So far from the Australian Colonies, with the exception of Queensland, being interested in the labour traffic, they would probably do much to discountenance and suppress it.
  MR. R. N. FOWLER. (LORD MAYOR)said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had alluded to one point which was well worthy of the attention of the Committee. The point was as to what weight was to be given to the testimony of the Natives. In dealing with these unfortunate people they were dealing with a class of men of no education and men whose testimony might, to a certain extent, require great sifting. It ought

  1785
  not to be assumed that, as a matter of course, a White man's story was right, while the Native's testimony was wrong. In that respect, he wished to emphasize the remarks of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. He hoped the attention of the authorities would be given to the question of how much credit was to be given to the testimony of Native witnesses.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) that, however erroneous his views were, they were not formed upon one-sided evidence or upon the evidence of the people of the British nationality. He was prepared to supply the hon. Gentleman with one piece of evidence, and that was to the effect that, to a considerable extent, the system of labour traffic, and, to a very large extent, the system of land occupation in the Native Islands, were bound up with the interests of the influential classes and persons in all the Australian Colonies.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYasked if the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was aware that the Australian Colonies had, at the Convention, passed a self-denying Resolution to the effect that they would discourage all occupation of land on the part of White people?
  MR. O'DONNELLasked if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) was not aware that every Colonial Establishment of the British West and every Legislative Assembly had passed Resolutions of the most exemplary virtue with regard to the treatment of Native races, but that, in practice, it was found that our Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific subjects required quite as much looking after as subjects of Her Britannic Majesty nearer home.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,327, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for certain Charges connected with the Orange River Territory, the Transvaal, Zululand, and the Island of St. Helena."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that when the question of the Transvaal Convention was last brought under the
  1786
  consideration of the House, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) made certain announcements which were somewhat gratifying to the House, and added that other matters to which he could not then refer would be considered, and a decision respecting them would shortly be arrived at. Now, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would only allude to two of those other matters. First of all, they found in the Convention, the text of which had now been presented to the House, that the debt due from the Transvaal Government to this country, which already had been reduced in the most liberal way by several concessions to the Transvaal Government, had been further reduced by about the sum of £130,000. He did not wish to quarrel with that further reduction; but he thought that they ought to know what was the ground for it, because the Papers which had been presented contained no argument whatever by the Transvaal Delegates which proved the inability of their country to pay the debt. No reason was given why the Transvaal should be excused the £130,000, and, so far as he could observe, no statement had been made of the grounds which had induced Her Majesty's Government to remit it. The second point was one of greater importance, inasmuch as it related to the position of the Natives within the Transvaal. The Committee would remember that, at the time the original Transvaal Convention was settled, Sir Hercules Robinson, by authority of Her Majesty's Government, announced to those Natives within the Transvaal, who had hitherto been Her Majesty's subjects, that it would be one of the British Resident's special duties to see that the provisions of the Convention in their favour were carried out, and that they might rest assured that, though the country was about to be handed back to its former Rulers, their interests would never be forgotten or neglected by Her Majesty's Government, or by Her Majesty's Representative in South Africa. What was the position of these Natives now? The Resident was absolutely gone. There was to be no one in the Transvaal representing Her Majesty's Government, or able to pay any regard to the interests of the Natives, except, possibly, a Consul or Consular Agent;

  1787
  and the sole provision in the new Convention affecting the matter was contained in the 19th Article, by which the Government of the South African Republic engaged faithfully to maintain the assurances given to the Natives as to their freedom to buy or otherwise acquire land, as to the appointment of a Commission to make out Native Locations, as to the access of Natives to Courts of Law, and as to their being allowed to move freely within the country, or to leave it for any legal purpose under a pass system. The special duties which, by the original Convention, were incumbent upon the Resident were of very material importance. It was provided that the Resident and the President of the Transvaal, together with a third person to be named by them jointly, should form the Native Location Commission. That Native Location Commission had not only to fix the boundaries of the Native Locations, but to act as a standing body of Trustees, through whom alone the Natives could hold land. Well, now, very little of the work of the Native Location Commission had been actually done. There was a statement in the Blue Books recently published, showing with what great success the Native Location Commission had given out a tract of land of something like 40,000 acres in extent, to one tribe in the Transvaal, and the prosperous circumstances in which, accordingly, that tribe was situated. As far as he was aware, that was the single instance in which the Commission had done any work. Was it to be left in future to a Commission appointed by the Transvaal Government alone, to settle the new Locations and to act as Trustees for Natives holding land within the Transvaal? If that was so, he thought an injustice would have been done to the Natives of the Transvaal, and that Her Majesty's Government had given up, in the new Convention, a matter which was of great importance to the interests of Her Majesty's former subjects, and had deprived themselves of a right, the exercise of which would have been most valuable to the Transvaal Natives. He also wanted to impress on the Government some points relating to that part of the Convention which was understood, when they formerly discussed this matter, to have been satisfactorily arranged. The House were then
  1788
  told that the Transvaal Delegates had agreed to exclude from the Transvaal territory the trade route from Cape Colony to the interior of the country, and also the whole of the territory belonging to the friendly Bechuana Chiefs who had formerly been our allies, and that that would be secured not only by the assurances of the Transvaal Government, but by a Commissioner, aided by a body of police, in British and Colonial pay, to prevent the raids of freebooters. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had then stated his satisfaction with this arrangement, although it imposed a great responsibility upon this country; but he certainly supposed that the agreement had been come to with the full concurrence of the Transvaal Delegates. It appeared, however, that Lord Derby originally proposed to the Transvaal Delegates not only that the boundary should be fixed as it had been fixed by the Convention, but that, after the boundary had been so settled, the Transvaal Government should take effective measures to prevent their citizens from trespassing beyond the frontier, and bear their fair share of the coat of repressing such outrages as had lately occurred. What was the reply of the Delegates to that proposal? They actually had the audacity to ask for the inclusion of the trade routes and the whole of the territories of the friendly Chiefs in the Transvaal. When Lord Derby proposed the terms of the Convention, together with the establishment of the Joint Protectorate of the Imperial Government, the Cape Colony, and the Transvaal, over the territory in question, and the division of the cost among them, they replied that the proposed arrangement would, in their opinion, cause new and more serious complications, and would be dangerous to peace and order in South Africa; that they feared it would cause new trouble and bloodshed; and they preferred that sooner than that boundary line should be taken, the old boundary line should be adhered to as one which, after much bloodshed, had been secured. They further said they were firmly convinced that the modifications recommended would cause more bloodshed, because the tribes would be again torn asunder, and the rights of some would be infringed by other tribes, and, therefore, they could not be accessory to the bloodshed which was easily to be fore-

  1789
  seen. That was not a free consent to the boundary line laid down in the Convention; and it was probably on this account that the Delegates, in the draft Treaty they sent to Lord Derby, said they were not possessed of full powers to complete a Treaty, but merely presented themselves as Delegates, and the Convention must be subject to ratification by the Volksraad. If any hon. Members cared to look back to the objections raised to the Western boundary laid down in the original Transvaal Convention, they would find them precisely the same as those now urged. What hope, then, was there that this new Convention would be observed? The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had informed the House that he had received a series of telegrams from South Africa, beginning on the 29th January, in one of which it was stated that the freebooters were actually marching to attack Mankaroane's principal town. They had actually heard from another source that the Transvaal Government declined to interfere to prevent the threatened outbreak on the Bechuana Frontier, on the ground that they were not in a position to recognize the new Convention. He did not wish further to dwell on this matter at that hour; but, looking to the opinion expressed by the Transvaal Delegates on the single point on which Her Majesty's Government had felt it necessary to insist, and seeing that the Government had taken no steps to appoint a Commissioner, or a force of police, on whose action the maintenance of the new boundary must depend, he could not attach much greater importance to the boundary laid down in the new Convention than to the boundary in the old Convention. He feared that what had passed did not warrant much hope that the new boundary would be observed, or that the rights of our allies among the Bechuana Chiefs would be respected, as they ought to be respected, through the action of the Government.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he felt that he owed some apology to the Committee for detaining them at so late an hour; but the subject was a very serious one, and full of difficulty, and unless the terms of the new Convention were now discussed, there might be no other opportunity of doing so before
  1790
  August next. As to the past policy of Her Majesty's Government, he would only refer to it generally, for the purpose of showing what lessons and guidance we ought to derive from it in our future dealings with the South African Republic. The Convention of Pretoria apparently—that was, in terms—protected our Native allies and the loyal Natives, both without and within the Transvaal. They were protected by the limitation of the boundary line, and by the retention of Her Majesty's Suzerainty. But he (Sir Henry Holland), and others, had pointed out that protection, if confined to writing and signing the Convention, and remonstrances of the Resident, would prove of little avail to the Natives, if, as was anticipated, the Boers disregarded the Convention. A Convention which one party was not prepared to enforce was not likely to stand in the way of the other party, if desirous to infringe it. He would venture to read to the Committee, upon this point, some pregnant words of Sir Hercules Robinson in a despatch of November 23rd, 1883, which would be found at page 107 of Parliamentary Papers [Transvaal C, 3845]. He writes—
  "I am bound to say that I do not think the Convention, under existing; circumstances, is of any real benefit to the Natives. The Transvaal burghers obviously do not intend to observe any condition in it distasteful to themselves, which Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to insist on, if necessary, by the employment of force. Her Majesty's Government, I understand, do not feel justified in proceeding to this extremity; and no provision, therefore, of the Convention which is not agreeable to the Transvaal will be carried out, whilst what is agreeable will be observed without reference to the Convention.
  There could hardly be a stronger condemnation of the past policy of Her Majesty's Government, and of their want of firmness in dealing with the Boers. What had happened in the past should serve as a warning for the future. Early in this Session he had asked for a declaration from the Government as to the course they would pursue if this new Convention were broken; but the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had declined to give any information, and said that we had no right to assume that the Boers would break this Convention. But, looking to the past, the country would not be satisfied unless the Government make some such declara-

  1791
  tion. Along with a condonation of past breaches, and with a statement, if the Government desired to guard themselves, of their own belief that like breaches would not occur again, let the country have a distinct statement of the intention of the Government, should breaches occur; and let it be a statement that due observance of this fresh Convention would be enforced. Such a declaration would tend to prevent breaches, while the absence of it would encourage the Transvaal Government to renew their former tactics. Looking to the past they might well doubt the future action of the South African Republic. The Transvaal Government were not satisfied with the Pretoria Convention; they remonstrated against it, and they broke it. The present Delegates were not satisfied, and it might be assumed that the Government which they represented would not be satisfied, with the new Convention. They would not be satisfied until the Sand River Treaty of 1852 was again recognized as the basis of a new arrangement—in other words, until they had complete liberty of action; nor would they be satisfied with the boundary even as altered; and, as had been pointed out, they seemed to prefer the old Convention Frontier line. Must we not then fear that, being dissatisfied with this as with the former Convention, they would again pursue the same tactics and line of conduct as heretofore; that they would foster trivial disputes, and connive at their subjects crossing over the frontier to assist one Native tribe against the other, and then to seize land and settle down on it beyond the frontier line, as in the case of Stellaland and Goschen? He (Sir Henry Holland) could not view the present state of things as at all satisfactory. In the first place, the chances of peace and order were greatly diminished by the establishment of the now United Republic of Stellaland and Goschen; a Republic composed of freebooters and adventurers from the Transvaal, Orange Free States, the Cape, and even Europe. Was that "robber" Republic, as Sir Hercules Robinson called it, to be recognized; or, even if it were not recognized, were these freebooters to be allowed to keep their stolen property, the land which they had seized from the Natives? "What check was to be kept, and by whom, upon their proceedings? Something
  1792
  could be learned from the Correspondence of the views of Her Majesty's Government. But there was nothing stated in the proposed Convention, although part of this Republic fell within the new boundary line of the Transvaal. He thought that some special and clear understanding upon these points should have been arrived at, and embodied in the Convention, if future complications were to be avoided. Would not the South African Republic, directly or indirectly, compel the freebooters—not very desirable subjects, but who would now be within the Transvaal—to cross over the border? If so, there would be great danger of disorder arising in the land outside the frontier, and great danger of ruin to the Native Chiefs, against whose territories these freebooters would surely move. Would the vague language of Article 2 of the Convention prevent that? He thought not. And it must be observed that there was no distinct engagement in writing by the Delegates to the reasonable understanding mentioned by Lord Derby in his letter to the Delegates, of January 25, 1884, which ran as follows:—
  "If, then, you accept the boundary offered by Her Majesty's Government, it must be understood that you do so without any reservation, and under an honourable engagement that the State will co-operate loyally with Her Majesty's Government by enforcing order within its own borders, and by preventing its subjects from making encroachments on the Native territories beyond the borders of the Transvaal State, as expressly provided in the 19th Article of the Convention of Pretoria."
  He would like to have seen some clause to this effect inserted in the Convention; but the Delegates evaded this point, and only assented to the three conditions which had been put forward by themselves. He (Sir Henry Holland) wished to know what Her Majesty's Government proposed to do under Article 2 of this Convention? He gathered that they assented to the suggestion made by Sir Hercules Robinson, to treat all land outside the frontier line as an independent Native territory under the joint protection of Great Britain, the Transvaal, and the Cape Colony. But he observed that the Cape Government only assented to assist in this joint protection, if the Transvaal Government consented to join. There were, however, no signs that the Transvaal Government had or would consent to join; and, indeed, the

  1793
  terms of the third condition above referred to seemed opposed to any operation of the Transvaal Government beyond the frontier. It was, then, quite possible that Her Majesty's Government would have the sole protection and responsibility for this territory outside the frontier line; and the Committee were entitled to have a clear answer from the Government to the following questions:—First, if the Transvaal Government and the Cape Government declined to assist in a joint protection, would Her Majesty's Government undertake alone to protect the territory outside the frontier; and, secondly, would such protection, whether sole or joint, extend to the territories of Mankoroane and Montsioa, or only to that large part of Stella-laud and Goschen left outside the frontier? Another unsatisfactory point in these negotiations was the position of our Native allies, Mankoroane and Montsioa. It was not merely that each had lost some part of his territory, be-cause such loss could well be borne, and would be amply compensated for, if peace and order were thereby secured to them in the territories left under their power. But would such peace and order be secured? We had stood by while Stellaland and Goschen were created, and now we had accounts that an attack was threatened, if not actually accomplished, against Mankoroane by persons from that Republic. This boded ill for future peace and order; and the more so, as the territory of the aggressive South African Republic would now intrude between these two Chiefs, and thus lessen their power of resistance, while exposing them more readily to attack. He contended that something more definite in favour of these Chiefs should have been inserted in the Convention. He would conclude by a reference to Zululand, which was included in the Estimate now under consideration; and he would ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the real state of affairs there; whether the Government intended to allow the present state of disorder and fighting to continue; whether they would allow Usibepu to be left to fight it out with the Usutos, who had been supported, and wrongly sent against him, by the Government protégé, Cetewayo; and whether they did not think it high time to intervene and
  1794
  restore order in that unfortunate country?
  MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, he wished to know whether the Government had any news confirmatory of the report of an attack upon Mankoroane? He had repeatedly called attention to the misdeeds of the Boers, and he was anxious for another opportunity. He had a Notice on the Paper dealing with the subject; but that was not likely to come to anything; therefore, unless he now made a few observations on the subject, he might find himself precluded from doing so for the rest of the Session. He wished to express his deep regret at the fact that Her Majesty's Government had entered into a Treaty with a body of men who were—and this, he thought, hon. Members would not dispute—amongst the greatest slaveholders in the world. On a former occasion, the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) was supposed to be a great advocate of these people; and he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had been glad to hear him confess that he was not their advocate, and was not prepared to stand up in the House and defend the misdeeds of the most atrocious slaveholders in the world. Her Majesty's Government had been unfortunately induced to enter into a Treaty with these people. His opinion was that if we had done our duty by them, and had never had anything to do with the Treaty of Pretoria, a great deal of the bloodshed they had been discussing in the earlier part of the evening would never have happened. That bloodshed had occurred through our having given in. It was supposed that, under the Pretoria Convention, we had gained a great point by getting the Boers to style themselves the Transvaal State, giving up the notion of calling themselves the South African Republic. The Boers had been prepared to pay us a certain amount of debt, and to allow a Resident at Pretoria to protect the interests of the Native races; but all these points had been given up. These people had entered into a solemn Treaty; but when they sent a deputation over to England, Her Majesty's Government gave way to them, and abandoned almost everything, including their interest in the Native races. Her Majesty's Government had lost prestige—a word he knew perfectly well they did not like—

  1795
  but, more than that, they had consented to give up a considerable portion of the debt due from the Transvaal State to this country. In what position did the Natives, whom we had undertaken to defend, stand at this moment? If the Government were prepared to send troops to their assistance, in the way they were doing in another part of the world, for what appeared to be a doubtful object, we and the Natives would stand in a different position; but, having given up all the points to which he had referred, if Her Majesty's Government remained inactive, what would be the position of our unfortunate Native allies? These people had trusted us, depending on the faith of Great Britain, depending on the honour of British officials. They had shed their blood for us, and all to no purpose. We had now abandoned them, leaving them at the mercy of their inveterate enemies. He was very much afraid that the history of the next two or three years would show that many of those who had trusted us had to pay for their implicit confidence by seeing—those of them who survived—their friends slaughtered or ill used, in consequence of our having handed them over to these slaveholding Boers. History would show that we had abandoned them to massacre and bloodshed, and that their misfortunes had all come upon them by trusting to the good faith of British Administrators. A Native Chief had been recently murdered, and he had a Notice of Motion with reference to the matter. [Mr. COURTNEY: Order!] The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury called him to Order for mentioning a matter about which a Notice of Motion had been given. The hon. Member would, perhaps, use his influence with the Government to secure for him (Mr. R. N. Fowler) facilities for discussing the subject at a time when he would be in Order. He most deeply regretted the fact that Her Majesty's Government had entered into a Treaty with a set of slaveholders, whoso word was not to be trusted. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He was glad hon. Members opposite "agreed" with him, and hoped they would make their views felt on the Front Ministerial Bench.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it seemed to him that if the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) proceeded to answer all
  1796
  the questions which had been put to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor (Mr. R. N. Fowler) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), they would have rather a prolonged Sitting before them. If they were to go into the circumstances of Zululand, the future policy of Cape Colony and Natal, and the frontier question as affecting the Transvaal and the neighbouring territories, and, besides that, were to consider the refurbishing of British honour in South Africa, and the rather complicated question as to how the Government proposed to make amends in South Africa for the disgrace of the Soudan campaign, he was persuaded that hon. Members would never be able to get away in time for Divine Service on Sunday morning. He therefore begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. It was a speaking commentary on the system of administration that prevailed in these days to observe that on a subject of this importance the only two Members who had addressed the House had been almost silenced by drowning cries of "Divide, divide!" and "Agreed, agreed!" coming from Benches which had been empty the greater part of the Sitting, but were now partly filled by hon. Gentlemen, who, apparently, would be much more comfortable than they were now if they were at home. The House had only been sitting five weeks; but anyone would think, looking at the fact that the Government had begun to take Saturday Sittings, and that Members were so impatient, that they had been hard at work for five months. There was a pretty general belief, which he believed to be well founded, that the manner in which Parliamentary Business was at present carried on did not admit of the affairs of Ireland being properly administered.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has intimated that it is his intention to move to report Progress. I must point out to him that the remarks he is now making are not relevant to that Motion.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was coming to that point. They were actually invited to continue sitting here to consider a Vote relating to the administration of Ireland; and he wished to know—for he presumed some

  1797
  Minister would speak on behalf of the Government—whether they were to begin considering the Vote when it was already Sunday? If the Government would agree to postpone the Irish Vote, he would not press the Motion for reporting Progress; but if the Government thought hon. Members were to sit there discussing the affairs of South Africa until 2 or 3 o'clock on Sunday morning, and then enter upon a long discussion of the affairs of Ireland, he should persist in his Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur O' Connor.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that on Thursday night he had shown, most conclusively, that it was absolutely necessary that the whole of the Supplementary Estimates should be taken on Saturday. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Not at all.] He had shown, step by step, that it was absolutely necessary that the Supplementary Estimates should be disposed of to-night. The Government and their supporters had done their utmost to economize time, and avoid speaking—to speak as little as possible—in order that they might get through the Supplementary Estimates. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies was prepared to reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor, and the series of questions which had been put to him relative to the affairs of South Africa. When this Vote was disposed of, it was proposed to take the one remaining Vote, which it was distinctly understood, by agreement with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), should be taken to-night. Under those circumstances, he must oppose the proposal to report Progress; and he hoped the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who, as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, knew how important it was that their financial rules should be observed, would withdraw his Motion and allow the Vote to be proceeded with.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would not follow the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer through his elaborate examinations of the arrangements of the financial year in reference to the Appropriation Bill; but
  1798
  he would point out to the Government that if they insisted on taking the postponed Irish Vote for the County Courts that night, it would be necessary for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to give a full and categorical reply to the questions which had been raised while the Speaker was in the Chair, and which remained unanswered. After his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had spoken, the Chief Secretary for Ireland and six Irish Members subsequently addressed the House in full and argumentative speeches. Several questions of importance were raised, and remained unanswered. They would use all the Forms of the House in resisting the taking of the Vote that night, unless it was accompanied by a full statement on the part of the Government.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Government were convinced yesterday they would not then be able to get the Vote. There were then a number of Motions before the Speaker could leave the Chair, and it would have been 6 in the morning before the House could have gone into Committee. Again, to-day there were a number of Motions, though all were not brought on. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might think it hard to be kept sitting so long, and so it was. He (Mr. Healy) had himself a Notice of Motion, which he did not bring on, in order that the Irish Vote might be reached within a reasonable time. But the whole of the early part of the Sitting was taken up with quite another subject; while for the Vote in which a small number of Irish Members were interested, they were kept until the end; and now, in about an hour's time, perhaps, they would get to the Vote, and there would be two or three hours of an Irish discussion, with Liberal Members endeavouring to howl it down in order to get to bed. Now, he offered a compromise, and would give an undertaking that they would not attempt to count out the House, if Liberal Members, not interested, would go home to bed.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he had not taken part in the discussion while the Speaker was in the Chair; but he would, with great pleasure, answer any of the observations made by hon. Members in reference to Irish grievances.
  MR. BIGGAR, said, he could not follow the explanations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the importance of getting the Votes that night; but he certainly understood from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington), in the course of discussing a Saturday Sitting on the previous day, that it was undesirable to take the Votes after to-night, or Monday at the latest. He certainly understood the Vote might as well be taken on Monday as on Saturday. Why, then, after sitting 12½ hours, insist on taking all the Votes? Why not finish the South African Vote, report Progress, and take the Irish Vote on Monday? There was no understanding that the Committee should be kept sitting until 2 or 3 o'clock on Sunday morning to finish the whole of the Votes. It might be possible for a Minister to put a quart into a pint bottle; but it would be exceedingly difficult. Seeing they had reached a time when it would be only decorous to go home, why not do so, when the Business would be properly got through by postponing the Vote.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, what his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) said last night was that he was quite correct in the computation he made and stated to the House, and that the last Vote in Supply must be taken to-night; but he said the Report of some of the Votes might be taken on Monday—the Report, not the Votes. That was correct. The Report of the Votes not taken last night might be taken on Monday.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he had Notice of a very important Motion for that evening; but he had not brought it on, in order to facilitate Public Business. What he had now to say was, to protest against the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom all admired and respected, following in the stops of the Prime Minister, and using arguments similar to those used three years ago, with a success all must remember. The Committee would remember all the arguments about the necessities of the law used on the 14th March, 1881, when the Prime Minister established, to his own satisfaction, that "Urgency" was required to fulfil the requirements of the law. With regard
  1800
  to this very argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his demonstration, it came to this—that the law required that certain Votes should be passed by March 31, so that everything might be done in order. But the one great failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was this—that he obliterated altogether two days from his calculation. He said the Treasury officials required a day for their own purposes; but the law did not give that, though the Treasury officials wanted it. More than that, the Treasury had Sunday to themselves; but the Government did not scruple to ask the Committee to sit on Sunday morning, in the opinion of many violating a sacred day. Another failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that he had left out of view that it was quite possible for the other House to suspend their Standing Orders, and take two stages of a Bill in one day. But the Government tyrannized over the House, after having taken up time with the nonsense of Grand Committees and Reform Bills, and then hon. Members were asked to sit on Sunday morning. He should support the Motion for reporting Progress, for it was conduct unfair to Irish Members, who were entitled to have a full discussion of the Vote in which they were interested.
  MR. KENNYsaid, at the time the arrangements for a Saturday Sitting were entered into, they did not foresee the discussion which had taken place early in the Sitting, and the proceedings which had been stigmatized by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in certain terms. The Irish Vote would give rise to considerable discussion; the debate on the question of the Irish magistracy, while the Speaker was in the Chair, referred to one instance only, and the range of discussion was limited; but the Vote would open up the action of the Government on several occasions, and the discussion, if continued, would probably last to 6 in the morning. If the Committee were prepared to go on, then let it be so. What did the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland think of discussing such a subject on a Sunday? He (Mr. Kenny) really hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to acquiesce in the very reasonable suggestion of his hon. Friend to postpone the Vote, and give Irish Members

  1801
  the opportunity of discussing what they considered a very important subject.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, if he really thought it was necessary for the Public Service that these Votes should be passed that night, he would have no hesitation in withdrawing his Motion; for, though he was not particularly concerned in promoting the object of the Prime Minister and his assistant in Ireland, he did not want to do anything unreasonable. But he objected to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that he had convinced the House that it was absolutely necessary to pass the Votes by the date he mentioned. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman he entirely failed to convince him. He did not attach the least importance to that statement of dates; indeed, it must be apparent to the Committee that it was misleading. His calculation was quite faulty as to the number of days the House of Lords required. Appropriation Bills had passed the House of Lords in much less time.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GUILDERS)said, he had allowed the same time—two days.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, what the right hon. Gentleman allowed for was that the Royal Assent should be given on some other day than Saturday; but he did not see why noble Lords should not come, with no more inconvenience to themselves than Members of the other House, who were required to meet at 12 on Saturday, and sit on into Sunday morning. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at least four days out in his reckoning, and he was perfectly certain that the Public Service would not suffer by postponing the Vote to Monday. But, as probably the Committee would continue to wrangle some time longer unless he withdrew his Motion, and as he did not see the use of keeping everybody out of their beds, he would, for the present, postpone his Motion, expressing a hope that when the next Vote was reached, the right hon. Gentleman would consider it reasonable to report Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, the first question asked him was in reference
  1802
  to the Transvaal Debt. They had taken a round sum, but to arrive at it they had divided the debt roughly into three portions—the amount the Government took over with the annexation; the amount contracted during the occupation; and the remainder—namely, compensation paid on behalf of the Transvaal. They retained the first and third portions, striking out the middle, the debt contracted during our occupation. Then he was asked about the Native locations. Of course, if we withdrew the Resident, we must leave these internal affairs to the Boers. It had been said it was not safe to trust the Natives to the Boers; but the fact was, if you ceased to govern the interior affairs of the country, you must get rid of ail those arrangements which, under the Pretoria Convention, allowed the Resident to interfere with them, which interference, upon the showing of hon. Gentlemen opposite, had turned out simply a failure. But he did not think, in these matters, there was any reason to distrust the Transvaal Government. They had never robbed the Natives of their land, except when they had been engaged in war; there were several locations of Natives which had existed for a considerable number of years. Taking the Convention as a whole, he would point out that it was all very well to criticize it; but the Government had done the best they could, and anyone who read over the Correspondence and negotiations would see how very much more the Boer Leaders asked for than they obtained. They, no doubt, tried to make the best fight they could; but Her Majesty's Government remained firm on the most important points. The hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) seemed to fear the alteration of boundaries. Stellaland and Goschen had been brought within the Transvaal Border, and would form part of the Republic; and that was done on the representation of Mankoroane himself, who said these territories might be placed in the Transvaal, if he were, at the same time, to a certain extent, protected. These two Republics would be within the Transvaal, and the South African Republic would join with us in repressing disorders. The conditions referred to as attached to the consent of the Transvaal Government must be read in connection with Lord Derby's despatch of the 25th of January, 1884, giving his

  1803
  opinion as to the construction to be put upon them now. As to how encroachment was to be prevented now that we had settled the boundary, he must first of all demur to the statement that the Transvaal Government, as a Government, had ever, by acts of commission, violated the Convention. What they charged the Transvaal Government with was neglecting to see that the Convention should be fully observed. What Her Majesty's Government had done was to take measures that the police arrangements should be effective. They had appointed a Major Lowe to the head of the police force. He, in conjunction with Mr. MacKenzie, the new Resident, would organize the force which, according to Mr. Scanlen, the Cape was ready to assist in maintaining. He hoped that, before many weeks were over, the police force would be in full operation. Of course, what would occur would be this—that as soon as any inroad was made by an individual or a body of men into the territory, they would be laid hold of by the police, and this would be a means of checking inroads. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said something about the Delegates not showing their sincerity by signing a ratification. He (Mr. Ashley) understood there was no legal power of ratification, except that possessed by the Volksraad. It would have been impossible for the Delegates to ratify this Treaty. He was not there to defend the Boers; but he protested against his right hon. Friend (Mr. R. N. Fowler) asserting that the Boers were the greatest slaveholders in the world. That was not so. Lastly, as to Zulu-land. He would not venture to follow the long speech of the right hon. Gentleman upon the condition of Zululand; but he would briefly say that the condition of Zululand had been powerfully modified by the death of Cetewayo; and the Government had under consideration what further new arrangements should be made. It could not but be noticed that the Reserve Territory had undoubtedly been a very great success—that was to say, it had been absolutely free from any disturbance, and that its frontier had never been invaded. It must also be borne in mind that the creation of this Reserve Territory, so far from being annexation, was a great means whereby annexation
  1804
  might be avoided. Whether the Reserve should be extended, or some other arrangement made, was matter for further consideration. Her Majesty's Government would not place over the Zulus anyone who might be distasteful to them; and his hope was that the Government would be able, by some extension or modification of the present state of things, to bring back a considerable amount of peace and quiet.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he rose to explain that a large part of Stellaland and Goschen was left outside the new frontier line, as appeared from the statement of Sir Hercules Robinson at page 105 of Parliamentary Paper [C. 3841], and from the fact that Vryburgh, the capital of Stellaland, was also outside the proposed new boundary. It was to this territory that his question to the Government applied.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and of the Revising Barristers of the City of Dublin."
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he would move to report Progress. It was now 1 o'clock on Sunday morning, and surely, at such an hour, the Government would not be so unreasonable as to expect the Committee to enter upon a new discussion. Already the Sitting had been very prolonged—13 hours—and, therefore, hon. Members ought not now to be asked to transact further Business. He need not remind the Committee that they had had several very late nights during the present week. Thursday night and last night the House did not adjourn until a late hour; and, as a matter of fact, the present would have been a very long Sitting, supposing they had commenced Business at 4 instead of at 12 o'clock. It was most unreasonable for the Government to expect them to sit longer.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Biggar)
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it was impossible for the Government to assent to the Motion; and he would suggest to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and the hon. Gentlemen sitting round him, that the Motion was hardly consistent with what they said a short time ago. He (the Marquess of Hartington) quite understood that hon. Members were willing to go on with this debate on the understanding that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) would be prepared to give answers to certain questions which might be addressed to him. He believed his hon. and learned Friend was willing to give the answers required of him. Certainly, there was no possibility of consenting to report Progress now.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to point out a second time, what it ought not to have been necessary to point out at all—namely, that the Government had not yet replied to the great bulk of speeches delivered when the Speaker was in the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) made a speech which was supposed to be a reply, but which, practically, was not a reply at all; because it left all the salient points of the weighty indictment brought by his hon. Friends unanswered. The Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) heard the speeches of the senior (Mr. Parnell) and junior (Mr. Deasy) Members for the City of Cork; he heard the speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and those of the hon. Members for the Counties of Monaghan (Mr. Healy) and Westmeath (Mr. Sullivan); he was an attentive listener to the charges made, and the allegations brought by those hon. Gentlemen; and if the Government really meant to go on with that discussion, he could not suppose they wished hon. Members to make their speeches over again before they answered. He called upon the Government to proceed with their answer.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the reason why he did not speak in the previous debate was, as he had already stated, that the Members of the Government were anxious, as far as possible, to economize time in order that there should be no excuse for not finishing the Votes that night. If this Vote were
  1806
  taken up now, he would answer any of the observations made by hon. Members opposite; he should be glad to give any explanation which occurred to him.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he would remind the Committee that if the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) did what he said he would do, he would occupy at least one and a-half hours' time, and that would bring them to half-past 2 on Sunday morning.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he would appeal to the Government whether they were in earnest in asking the Committee to commence a fresh discussion at that hour on Sunday morning? He had not the slightest doubt that there was some means of getting out of the difficulty; in fact, the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) did not say there was no means of surmounting the difficulty. It was only a technical difficulty after all. They might expect that the first two Army Votes would be obtained by 1 o'clock on Monday night; and, therefore, he maintained it would be much more convenient to all parties concerned to postpone this Vote until Monday.
  MR. HEALY(who rose amid cries of "Oh, oh!") said, it was apparent, judging from the condition of hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House who tried to howl him down, that they had not been in attendance since 12 o'clock on Saturday. If they had been, their spirits would scarcely be so gay and lively as they now were. He ventured to throw out the suggestion that it would be well if the Government engaged some Scotch Sabbatarian to maintain order during the Sittings of the House on Sunday mornings. What he particularly wanted to point out was the way Business had been conducted by Government during the past week. [Cries of "Question!"] If hon. Gentlemen who cried "Question" would give him half-a-minute, he should be able to prove, even to their intelligence, that he was talking to the Question. On Monday, they adjourned at 2.30 A.M.; on Thursday, at a quarter to 4; on Friday, or, in other words, Saturday morning, at 2 A.M.; and now here they were, on Sunday morning, sitting at 1 o'clock. He asked the Government whether they really thought hon. Members were in a condition to discuss Votes

  1807
  at the present hour? He fully appreciated the difficulties of the Government; and he believed that if the Government had treated the Irish Members more reasonably in many ways, they would not have been pressed so hardly by those Members now. He knew the Government were anxious to bring on the second reading of the Representation of the People Bill, and that that was the reason why they were so anxious to get these Votes. He was as anxious as the Government for the success of that Bill, and he would be happy to do what he could to facilitate its passing. It was not reasonable, however, to ask the Committee to go further that night. Hon. Members from Ireland had made several speeches concerning Captain Plunkett; surely they were not expected to repeat them before the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) replied. What they only wanted was an answer to what they had said at an earlier part of the evening.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy) had made a very fair proposal; and he noticed that when his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland spoke just now, and said he was quite ready to give any answers required of him, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) appeared to regard that also as a reasonable proposal. What he understood the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy) to say was that he and his hon. Friends did not want to make more speeches to-night on the Vote. ["Oh, oh!"] He certainly understood the hon. Gentleman to speak to that effect. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) would make a full statement in reply to the speeches which had been made. That would meet the case of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy), and would be a full and fair reply to the charges which had been made. Hon. Members must remember that it was not pleasant for the Members of the Government, or anyone who had hard work to perform in the daytime, to be kept in the House until this hour of the morning. He, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a servant of the House, was bound to repeat that, unless this Vote was taken that night, great confusion indeed would result in
  1808
  financial affairs. As it was, the House would sit on Saturday next. He trusted they would now hear the reply of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Walker), and then allow the Vote to be taken.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, unfortunately, misunderstood what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). What the hon. Gentleman wanted was that, first of all, they should have the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, and then discuss the Vote afterwards; and that was really what the Irish Members desired—they wanted a reply to their speeches from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and after that they would like to report Progress, and finish the discussion on the Vote on Monday next. He would really suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be to the convenience of all parties concerned that they should postpone until Monday not only the Vote, but the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It would be extremely unpleasant to report Progress immediately after the speech of the Solicitor General for Ireland, so that they would have to discuss the Vote after the hon. and learned Gentleman had done speaking; and then the hon. and learned Gentleman, or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, might require to reply to them; and then, again, they might require to reply to any further arguments they might advance.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped that the Government would bear in mind that they themselves were partly responsible for this waste of time. It was only the previous night that two distinguished Liberals took up six or seven hours which might have been saved. There was not one Conservative Member who brought forward any Motion on going into Supply.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that what he and his hon. Friends had endeavoured to convey was that they should desire to hear the Government reply before they spoke again. If the Government intended to accede to the request of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and had decided upon proceeding now, the Irish Members would listen, with all attention, to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor

  1809
  General for Ireland; and as he proceeded, and before he concluded, they would be in a position to decide how far they were to carry on the debate.
  MR. BIGGAR: I ask leave to withdraw the Motion to report Progress, so that we may hear the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), and then we will see what will happen after that.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he would proceed to reply to the speeches of hon. Members from Ireland with reference to the charges which had been brought against Captain Plunkett. [Cries of "Order!"]
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENrose to Order. He wanted the Chairman's ruling as to whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would be in Order in replying to observations made in a previous debate?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have not heard what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland is about to say; but I understand this Vote comprises payments to magistrates, and I believe Captain Plunkett is a magistrate; therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite in Order in commenting upon the charges brought against that gentleman.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he understood that the charges which were made by hon. Members in respect to these particular magistrates were, that they had prohibited meetings and imposed the police tax. It was not Captain Plunkett who had really proclaimed the meetings. It was his duty to furnish to the Government information bearing upon every meeting that was likely to occur in the district of which he had charge, and for the peace of which he was responsible; but when he had discharged that duty, and given the information he possessed, the responsibility of issuing the Proclamations rested with the Government, as well as the duty of deciding whether a particular meeting should or should not be held, as likely to be prejudicial or not to the public peace and safety. He was only the person who furnished the information
  1810
  which led the Government to adopt a certain course, and they had acted on that information with regard to certain Nationalist meetings. These magistrates furnished information perfectly impartially as to Nationalist and Orange meetings; that information was furnished at the request of the Government, and, having received that information, it was the duty of the Government to exercise their powers under the Crimes Act, and preserve the public peace. At the Enniskillen meeting, a man was savagely assaulted by a party of something like 50 persons, and was killed by what were called agricultural instruments. A man was tried for that murder, and the hon. Member knew that if a man was indicted for murder it was open to the jury to find a verdict of manslaughter; but the life of that man was taken away by a number of people—50 or thereabouts. That being so, and several of these meetings having been held, the Government felt it necessary to proclaim any further meetings. Other crimes had taken place, and the Government, having received information that these other meetings would be dangerous to the public peace, proclaimed them. It might be said that in those cases the Proclamations were only issued shortly before the meetings were to be held, and it might be asked why that was. That showed the care of the Government.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENrose to Order, and pointed out that the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring to a previous Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have heard nothing from the hon. and learned Gentleman which is not in Order with regard to the Vote.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he was dealing with the argument that the Proclamations did not appear until a short time before the meetings were to beheld. The reason was that before a meeting was to be proclaimed, the case was carefully weighed, and with a desire that free speech should not be forbidden. The first desire in the mind of the Irish Government was that free speech should not be interfered with, except where the public peace and safety were endangered. Therefore, in every case the reports were carefully weighed before the Proclamation was issued. He perfectly

  1811
  agreed with the assertion that was made by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) that in such a case as that of the Rev. Mr. Ferriss, of Castlelyons, County Cork, public feeling was excited. Public feeling would, undoubtedly, run very high when, as in this particular case, the parish priest having been evicted from his house, was living in the chapel yard. Now, in such a case as that, knowing the relations between the parish priest and his flock, knowing that there was a landlord who had asserted his rights—rights which the law gave him—he asked hon. Members opposite if any one of them had attended a public meeting and had used, in relation to the case of Mr. Ferriss, such language as they had used in the House of Commons, did they not think that language would have tended, or might have tended, in the hearing of excited people, to produce the very result against which those who had to administer the Crimes Act were working—namely, danger to the public peace and public safety? It was the duty of the Executive, in such a case, to protect the men who had legal rights; and he could well imagine, if such a meeting were held, that the landlord who had exercised those legal rights might, perhaps, be endangered if such a meeting were held under such circumstances. Take the meeting at Kiblicoll. That was held for the purpose of opposing the police tax which had been imposed on the district. Why was that police tax imposed? It was imposed on account of the opposition shown to the man Hallissey. That man, beyond all doubt, was "Boycotted" before any allegation was made as to a shot being fired. It was said he was poor; it was said he was a man receiving out-door relief. Was that man so low as not to be a care to the Executive; was his life to be of no concern to the Executive; and was it right that that man should be "Boycotted?" The information before the Executive was that he was an honest man [" No, no!"] He was speaking of the information before the Executive, and the information was not contained in Reports made by Captain Plunkett, but by others. ["Name, name!"] Hon. Members could not expect, when he was called upon to speak on a matter of this kind, that he should remember all the names. The facts were these—that Hallissey was
  1812
  a blacksmith; he was "Boycotted," and he was receiving, in consequence of having been "Boycotted," out-door relief; he had become a pauper, and the extra police were "Boycotted" in the district. It was said that £500 a-year was a crushing burden to place upon the people of the district. For the purposes of argument he would admit that that was so. What was the observation that had been made in that House by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien)?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he he thought the Chairman must have heard what the hon. and learned Gentleman had just now said. No one had preceded the hon. and learned Gentleman in the debate, so that he must now be referring to a previous debate. He asked whether the Solicitor General for Ireland, therefore, was in Order?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman will not be in Order in replying to any discussion which has taken place in a previous debate. I understood he was referring to the conduct of Captain Plunkett as magistrate; but he would not be in Order in referring to a previous discussion.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he would admit that he was travelling beyond the limits allowed him. Re-turning, however, to the police tax, he would ask if it would be right for anybody to say, or to argue, that the police tax was not to be paid? He had admitted, for the purposes of argument, that the tax was a crushing burden. Now, an idea was got up in the district, not originating with Captain Plunkett at all, that there should be a subscription, amounting to £50 or £60, raised in the district amongst the people who were bearing this crushing burden of £500 a-year, with which Hallissey and his family should be removed from the district. [Mr. HEALY: It originated with Lanyon.]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy) not to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Be it so, with Captain Lanyon. The idea, however, was not carried out, and the crushing burden remained. Recently, when the Lord Lieutenant was down in the neighbourhood a memorial was presented

  1813
  to him—he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) could not say whether it was signed by 14, or by any larger number—a memorial was presented by some people representing the district, as, for instance, the parish priest, who certainly would naturally be taken as a representative of the people. That memorial having been presented, the Lord Lieutenant, who was always desirous that the police tax should be removed as soon as possible, said—"Let it be paid up to the 31st of December, and let it be seen that there is no outrage and harm done to Hallissey. From the 31st of December that police tax shall cease." He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) regretted exceedingly that, in the course of this debate, he had not heard a single word spoken by hon. Members opposite which might have the effect of enabling this tax ceasing to exist as from the 31st December. When hon. Members had, as he hoped they had, at heart, the interest of the district, when they had represented this police tax to be a grievous and crushing burden upon the poor people of the district, they ought to be most careful not to let fall any word which would interfere with the merciful action of the Executive, when the Lord Lieutenant told them, through their parish priest, that on the 31st December the tax should cease, for the small consideration that Hallissey should cease to be "Boycotted." Now, what were the facts respecting the imposition of the police tax? Captain Plunkett was one of the magistrates for Kerry, Cork, and Limerick. Throughout the whole of County Limerick no police tax had been imposed. In Cork there was this district of which he had been speaking, and in Kerry there were several districts in which police taxes existed; but Captain Plunkett had more than once himself represented to the Executive that the taxes should be removed from certain districts over which he had charge. As a matter of fact, 95 of these so-called crushing burdens had been withdrawn, in consequence of the intervention and representations made by Captain Plunkett himself—["In Kerry?"] No; over the whole district. Such was the value of the charge against Captain Plunkett with respect to the imposition of police taxes. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had said already what course Captain Plunkett took in regard
  1814
  to the prohibition of meetings. No knowledge had come to the Government of any of the violations of the right of public meeting complained of; and, so far as the Government were aware, there were none—the people, in all cases, quietly dispersed when the Proclamation was read. Captain Plunkett had been charged under three important counts; and he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) hoped hon. Gentlemen would admit that he, in what he had just stated to the Committee, had endeavoured to discharge the duty resting upon him.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, that, after listening to the extraordinary statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Solicitor General for Ireland), he was not very much surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have observed modest silence during the earlier portion of the debate. He had taken a note of a couple of the points the hon. and learned Gentleman had made. The first was a somewhat extraordinary one—namely, that it was not Captain Plunkett who suppressed meetings at all. Why, the whole marrow of the case made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was that Captain Plunkett's advice was the advice that was taken by Earl Spencer on his going within that particular district. The right hon. Gentleman plainly intimated that the information of the Executive upon these topics was derived, and their decisions were framed, upon the advice that was given by Captain Plunkett. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to take credit to Captain Plunkett for not having done any worse than Resident Magistrates had done in the case of Orange meetings in the North. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) might have remembered what was the consequence when an Orange demonstration was proclaimed in the city of Londonderry, of which he should know something. Were the police and military filed in; were contingents met as they were met at Castlelyons, and chased through the country; were they dispersed unceremoniously and told they would not be able to hold a public or a private meeting? No; the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) was allowed, in face of the Proclamation, and in the presence of the police in Derry, to make an incendiary

  1815
  speech to a large crowd, which subsequently burnt Lundy's effigy. On the other hand, while Mr. O'Connor was Laving an interview with the Resident Magistrate, the village crowd who had collected to hear him were set upon by the police, and men, and women, and children were knocked down and bayo-netted. Such was the comparison which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had invited between the policy which was pursued towards Orange meetings in the North and that which was pursued towards Nationalist meetings in the South. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland harked back upon the one murder, the one lurid event which illumined the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was doubtful, however, whether it was a murder at all—whether it was not simply manslaughter. He (Mr. O'Brien) would tell them plainly what the facts of the case were. The thing arose out of a drunken squabble. People were coming out of a public-house, and the man who killed Spence had no more notion of committing a murder than he had of flying. The Judge took the same view; a Crimes Act Jury took the same view; and even in his Charge to the Grand Jury, Judge Johnson expressly stated that this manslaughter of Spence was not of an agrarian character, and had no relation to the agitation that was going on in the country; but, of course, Dublin Castle preferred the opinion of Captain Plunkett to the opinion of Judge Johnson, who, on one or two occasions lately, had had occasion to differ with the procedure of the Crown Prosecutor. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had the courage to touch a point which the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with a little more prudence, avoided. He attempted to account for the fact that the proclamation of meetings was invariably delayed up to the time when it was impossible that full notice could be given to persons who were coming to take part in the meetings. What excuse did he make? He said the delay showed the care with which the Government investigated the case of each individual meeting. Now, what was the case of the Chief Secretary for Ireland? That not only did the magistrates know that the meetings would be objectionable, but
  1816
  that the leaders of the National movement ought to have known it, for it was notorious. So the Nationalists in Cork were supposed to have such knowledge of the desirability, or the undesirability, of holding meetings, that they could have decided right off whether or not a meeting could be held in a given place; and the Government, with all its sources of information, with Captain Plunkett on the spot, could not decide until the eleventh hour, or half-past the eleventh hour. The care showed was the care to help Captain Plunkett in attempting to exasperate the people into some conduct that would give him the opportunity of being once more in evidence to justify his continuance in the district. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland referred, in a cursory way indeed, to another class of facts brought forward; but he once more prudently ignored altogether the violence and insolence with which the magistrates and police enforced their proclamation, and he almost hinted it was in kindness to the people that Mr. O'Connor was prevented from addressing the people. Was it kindness that the contingent from Connaught, after marching for 14 miles from a district whore they could not have heard of the proclamation of the meeting, were set upon without the slightest notice, without any formalities of the Crimes Act being complied with, no proclamation read, no summons to disperse, no time given to disperse, but instantly set upon by the police, and chased for miles through the country? Not only that, but the mendacity with which Captain Plunkett and his subordinates had attempted to cloak these facts had not, in the slightest degree, been accounted for. Nobody had given an explanation of the fact that the Chief Secretary for Ireland told him (Mr. O'Brien) that there was no crowd there at all; that they were never charged; that the whole thing, from beginning to end, was a delusion. He had quoted that night the evidence of man after man who was assaulted by the police, and who saw persons knocked down, kicked, and brutally maltreated. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had referred to the case of Father Ferriss, who had combined with others for a reduction of rents. These tenants claimed an abatement of 20 per cent on their rents; and Father Ferriss, having been

  1817
  most prominent in the combination of tenants to enforce this, was pitched upon for attack by the landlord, and driven from his home. What was the fact? Two other tenants went into the Land Court and got their rents reduced much below the rate for which Father Ferriss and others had combined. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland plunged into the case of a man whom he (Mr. O'Brien) believed was called Hallissey. He thought that name was pretty well impressed on the minds of the officials in Ireland; at any rate, he hoped after that night there would be no mistake about that name, and the facts of a case which had been grossly misrepresented until this discussion took place. The story of his being fired at was now given up entirely, and the only pretext for the fine of £500 a-year on this poor mountain parish was that he was "Boycotted." What was that "Boycotting?" One threatening letter, according to Captain Plunkett, was sent to him. Was not a man who was capable of inventing the story of his being fired at also capable of writing a threatening letter to himself? One fact had been very successfully put out of sight—that the "Boycotting," the threatening notice, and the alleged attempt to shoot him occurred about the same time, and very close together. This man had been utterly broken down in business, and was a drunken profligate; and he was thoroughly obnoxious to the people of the neighbourhood. What more likely than that a fellow of that kind, taking advantage of the time when the informer and the getter-up of outrages were having a good time under the Crimes Act, what more likely than that this man should write a threatening letter to himself, and back that up by a story that he had been fired at? Not only was there a possibility of such things, but a case of the kind actually occurred. A man named Ellis, or Elliot, in Armagh, shot his own horse, and told the police he had been fired at; he lodged a claim for £500 for malicious injury. He had an Emergency man for a confederate, and, some facts being discovered, he was brought to trial, and sentenced to six months' hard labour, as well as his confederate. And so should Hallissey have been treated, instead of being made the object of bounty, and a
  1818
  testimonial from the people he had tried to injure. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland said a mere sum of £50 was required to relieve these people from the crushing burden of the police tax. No doubt most thieves would be glad to compound with rich people for a few pounds, and rich people might agree to it, rather than be knocked down and garrotted. So it might have been said to John Hampden, when he resisted the imposition of ship money in England, that it was but a trifling sum; for his assessment was something like £1 16 s., and he was not a man to consider that an excessive burden. But the ship money of those days was a fair tax compared to this infamous imposition, made arbitrarily and capriciously, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland admitted, at the beck and will of a police officer in Cork, and made on the statement of a perjurer, for a perjurer he had proved. He need detain the Committee no longer. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland wound up his speech with something like a threat; he hinted that if hon. Members on those Benches continued to expose Captain Plunkett's dealings with Mr. Hallissey, then the Lord Lieutenant would have his vengeance by retaining the police in that parish of Monanimy. He [Mr. O'Brien) believed, if it was a safe same to play, Lord Spencer would play it; their confidence was not in his fair play, but his fears. Why did he remove that tax in Monanimy? He removed it in obedience to a memorial from 14 people. He was memorialized before by a large number of people, and the signatures included the name of Lord Listowel; of Mr. Eaton, a Resident Magistrate, who declared the police unnecessary. Mr. Hickey and Mr. Starkey, other magistrates, in giving the decrees for the tax, admitted it was unnecessary, and an unjust one; and Lord Spencer was little moved by this memorial. On the contrary, Mr. Foote, another magistrate, objected, and demurred to signing the memorial, and he was exempt from the levy. No; Lord Spencer gave heed to the memorial got up at his own instigation; and the decision, which was supposed to be the outcome of this memorial, was a sham to cover Lord Spencer's retreat from an impossible position. The

  1819
  people had risen up against the tax; they had shown that the collection of the tax was not so easy a matter as the collection of a landlord's rent. They had given to the rest of the country an example of how this tax was to be got rid of, and that example was beginning to tell all over the country; and Lord Spencer thought it wise to put an end to this evil example by pretending to relent to a memorial of 14 persons out of the parish, three of whom wrote three days after to repudiate the whole thing, and say that they signed under false pretences. He removed the tax, because he thought it was convenient to Dublin Castle. Well, he would not be likely to restore it, for that would be very inconvenient to Dublin Castle.
  MR. HEALYsaid, whatever the English people might think of getting important Votes at 2 o'clock on Sunday morning, he thought the Irish people would not quarrel with their Members, but would think they were engaged in a holy task in exposing the grievances of their country. He had listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) in the hope of extracting something like an answer to the case; but whether it was owing to the interruption of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Patrick O'Brien), or some other cause, they had only received a watered-down version of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was natural it should be so; for both spoke from the same brief, and knew nothing of the facts, except what Captain Plunkett chose to tell them. There might be 20 speeches from the Government, but none of them shed any new light; they were only Captain Plunkett over again, dished up with various changes of phrase in which right hon. Gentlemen furbished up their thoughts. But there was one extraordinary omission from both speeches—not a word of the police tax in the City of Cork. What was the case for it there? £1,000 a-year was imposed on that city, simply and solely at the behest of Captain Plunkett; that was the main charge of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork; and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland sat down without saying a single word upon that with regard to the tax. The hon. and learned Gentleman the
  1820
  Solicitor General for Ireland said they should have been delighted to have got Hallissey out of the country, and have escaped from the burden of £500 a-year by paying £50; but he must ask the Government why they did not put Hallissey on Mr. Tuke's fund? How was it they thought £5 enough to emigrate an unfortunate Irish farmer, while not less than £50 was required to furnish the travelling-bag and dressing-case of Hallissey—£50 for an impecunious blacksmith in receipt of out-door relief before he was "Boycotted," and £5 for an honest Connemara farmer ground to powder by his landlord? In fact, the emigrant ship, in their case, was done as cheaply as the coffins were done in 1848. He supposed that an emigrant was shipped across the Atlantic for £5, and the coffins was provided for the poor wretches in Ireland at 5s. a-piece. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, having abandoned the shooting at Hallissey, took refuge in "Boycotting." How was he "Boycotted?" The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland told them he was "Boycotted;" and now it was made a condition of the non-imposition of the police tax that he should not be further "Boycotted." Would the right hon. Gentleman venture to give the Committee a definition of "Boycotting?" If he (Mr. Healy) met Hallissey, was he supposed to take off his hat to him? If he wanted a horse shod, and there were two blacksmiths in the district, must he be obliged to choose Hallissey? The Government had got themselves into a complete mess, out of which they would find it hard to extricate themselves. They objected to any system by which the people showed their repugnance to a man who they thought had acted improperly, and that system they called "Boycotting." What was the particular species of action on the part of the people against which complaint was made? They were told that, in order to get rid of this police tax, every farmer in the district must send his horses to be shod by Hallissey. Why, they were told that the Lord Lieutenant, in response to a memorial of 14 persons, headed by the parish priest, promised to relieve the people of the tax. It was very strange that the remission of the tax should have signalized the hunting expedition

  1821
  of Lord Spencer in this neighbourhood. He presumed that if Lord Spencer had not gone down to hunt, the tax would still have been on; it was very strange that the reason the tax was taken off was that Lord Spencer and others of his kidney might hunt foxes in this district. Captain Plunkett had sworn to keep the tax in existence, and there was no doubt that if he had had his way that burden would still have been cast upon the people. That was the worst of this system of police Pashas. Fortunately for the people, Lord Spencer went down, and in the interest of fox-hunting took the tax off; in point of fact, the taking off of the tax was a slap in the face for Captain Plunkett; it was practically a declaration that the tax had been improperly imposed, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had not even said a word in favour of the imposition of the tax. Let him (Mr. Healy) point out what the imposition of this tax meant to the blacksmith Hallissey. He had the advantage of police protection. Other persons of Hallissey's class thought it a small gold mine to be guarded by the police; half the bankrupt landlords of the country were delighted to have police protection. It was not like the Chief Secretary for Ireland, to whom, of course, to be protected by the police was a nuisance; but Mrs. Hallissey received £2 a-week for lodging the police, and she supplied them with milk and other small necessaries; so that they not only got a subsidy from the Government, but made a profit by lodging the police who were guarding them. Hallissey had now achieved a sufficiently world-wide fame to induce Mr. Schnadhorst to put him up as a fit and proper person to represent some English borough in Parliament. It was no small matter for a man like Hallissey to have achieved European fame; he now was spoken of in the newspapers side by side with General Gordon and Count Bismarck; indeed, there were many men who would pay the price Hallissey paid for his fame. With regard to the statement that Captain Plunkett was very anxious for the removal of the tax, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that Captain Plunkett had taken off the police tax in Kerry-had nothing whatever to do with the
  1822
  subject. He had put his foot down in Monanimy, and sworn that, so long as he was Pasha, the unfortunate fellaheen of Monanimy should pay the police tax. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) make capital out of the remission of the tax in Kerry; but it was an extraordinary thing that Captain Plunkett withdrew the police from Castleisland the moment the people of Monanimy make a fight. Captain Plunkett put on his thinking-cap for a moment; he thought that resistance might spread, and that the people of Castleisland had shown themselves a people who were not to be trifled with. When Captain Plunkett found that the people of Monanimy resisted the police tax, he took it off the thorny district of Castleisland, he well knowing that they were not people to be lightly meddled with. A statement was made in the course of the day that the Prevention of Crime Act would soon come to a termination. He (Mr. Healy) viewed the termination of that Act with equanimity. Lot the Government renew it if they dared, and let them re-impose these taxes if they could; let the Government do their best; but let the Government understand this—that they in Ireland defied the Government to govern the country against the will of the people. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, while he was in power, might gain a little favour with his Party, and he might, while in Office, say—"I keep the country quiet; I am the man who, in face of danger and difficulty, remained steadfast to my post, and, with an honest heart and truthful spirit, I draw my salary quarterly." But whatever credit the right hon. Gentleman might take for his two years of the Government of Ireland, he (Mr. Healy) would not like to say when the men who succeeded the right hon. Gentleman would be able to take the same credit. In the ordinary course of time, if the Liberals remained in Office, the right hon. Gentleman would be called up higher; but he was now laying up a store of ill-feeling that would not die away. The little children of Monanimy, who were now going to school, were hearing from their fathers what was taking place. The Government might pass their remedial measures and their Land Acts; but the children of Ireland knew that their fathers

  1823
  had been made to pay, by a Liberal Government, a tax of £500 a-year, on account of a miserable, dissolute profligate, who was taken in by Captain Plunkett. The plague spot of Hallissey would remain for generations, and there was no district in Ireland in which there was not a similar fester which would keep the minds of the people open to hate and despise their rulers. Let them govern the country if they could, impose their police taxes, renew their Crimes Acts. The Government had done their worst. "What was it that they had done for the Irish people that they could have avoided doing; what was it that they had done to them? They had imprisoned them, they had hanged them, they had taxed them. What further infamy remained to be imposed? Would no ray of sense penetrate the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland? He was not even supported by the Tories. Was it nothing to the right hon. Gentleman that he was dealing with men who it could not be denied legitimately represented the Irish people, the people who hated the way they were governed, with an intensity and ferocity that would find vent in other ways, had they the means? Was it nothing to the right hon. Gentleman that, out of 103 Irish Members, he had not a single one, save his own Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), to support his policy? What were they governing the country for? Was it in the interest of the Irish people, or was it in the interest of the English people? What did England make out of it? Ireland was actually being turned into a milch cow for persons like Captain Plunkett to draw their salaries out of it. There would be some satisfaction if the money which had been, or was being, stolen, was turned to good account. Who was this man Plunkett? He was a man who was invariably to be found either puffing a cigar at the South Mall at Cork or playing billiards. What did the English Government gain by their government of Ireland; where was the gain to-night to the British Government by the imposition of this police tax? They had incurred the hatred of the Irish people; they had incurred the hatred of their Representatives; and, even from a Party point of view, how much better would it be for the Liberal Party at the present moment to go
  1824
  along with the majority, instead of the minority of the Irish Members? He and his hon. Friends had their duty to perform. Duty was a sacred talisman and watchword of the English; every possible kind of throat-cutting, extravagance, and confiscation had been justified by the Englishman from time immemorial under the sacred name of duty. Duty! What crimes are committed in thy name! The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would get up to-night and tell the House that it was absolutely necessary that in the case of Hallissey police protection should have been provided, and that the burden of £500 a-year should have been imposed upon the unfortunate people of the district. With regard to Mr. Hallissey, he was at least as respectable as many persons of that description whom the Government employed; and he would invite the Government to do something for Mr. Hallissey, so as to rid the people of him for a time. He might be made a Resident Magistrate, and then he would be able, when necessary, to invent threatening letters. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had referred to the case of the clergyman, Father Ferriss, and said he had had three years' rent, and, therefore, was not entitled to the sympathy of any honest man. The right hon. Gentleman's statement was rather peculiar with regard to rent. How did he know whether the rent was just or not? The Government were apparently satisfied that the rent was just, and argument was useless with the Government. There were, however, Ambassadors in this country who recognized the fact that the chief weakness of the Empire lay in the Island which locked up so many of its troops.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the question of these Resident Magistrates was one which, he thought, was entitled to attention, and one upon which he felt himself called upon to offer some observations. These gentlemen had no mercy for the people; and he thought, if the Government would take the trouble to inquire into the facts of cases beforehand, the House would be spared trouble afterwards. But the Irish Members were determined that so long as their people, be they high or low, rich or poor, were oppressed and ground down, so long they would endeavour in this House to

  1825
  get some satisfaction for them. That was their fixed and unalterable determination, and the Government would find that as the Parnellite Party was multiplied and reinforced oppression in Ireland would become more difficult. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland might be able to face 20 or 30 of them; but let him wait till they were 70 or 100 strong. What was the case with regard to the Black-lion meeting? The case was this. It would have been extremely inconvenient to have sent soldiers and police to the place to prevent a breach of the peace. There never was the slightest chance of a breach of the peace, because there was no opposition Party in the district. It was a Catholic district, and the people were all of one mind. Blacklion was 10 miles by rail from Enniskillen, a garrison town in which there were Infantry and Dragoons, so that, without the slightest inconvenience, a full supply of soldiers, horse and foot, and also of police, could have been drafted down by railway on the morning of the meeting, and could have returned safely the same evening. He mentioned these facts as an illustration of the absurdly false information supplied by the Resident Magistrates, and of the means by which the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland suppressed the right of freedom of speech in Ireland. One of the Resident Magistrates who appeared in Blacklion on that occasion, a Mr. Boulby, appeared a few days ago at a meeting where anti-Irish songs were sung, and that was the sort of gentleman on whose representations, he supposed, the Government suppressed the Blacklion meeting. He (Mr. Biggar) was refused an opportunity of addressing his constituents at that place, and some of his supporters insisted upon taking a private room in which he could address them. He did not wish to use strong language towards the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but he did not think he ever used a word that was sufficiently strong to mark his sense of the right hon. Gentleman's conduct in regard to the Blacklion meeting. Then, again, there was the Coote Hill meeting in County Cavan. Coote Hill was also a Catholic district, and it was a place where a murder took place. He did not believe the Government took any efforts to find out the
  1826
  perpetrators of the murder on that occasion of the unfortunate boy M'Guire. The Government would not give compensation to his relatives for his death, as they would have done unquestionably had he belonged to the favoured Party. What was the reason that the Coote Hill meeting was proclaimed? Because, he (Mr. Biggar) presumed, as there were to be two Orange meetings at Dromore, it would have been impossible for the Orangemen to make a decent show at both meetings, and the Lord Lieutenant proclaimed the Coote Hill meeting, so that the Orangemen could be drafted to Dromore on purpose to make a large show at one place. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland denied that there had been any interference with freedom of speech in Ireland. Why, he would not allow him (Mr. Biggar) on two different occasions to address the electors of the county which he had the honour to represent, electors whose confidence he had every reason to believe he possessed. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the case of Hallissey, and he made a most curious admission. He told the Committee that this man was "Boycotted," and that the Government had given him protection. The right hon. Gentleman called Hallissey an honest man; Hallissey, who was a convicted perjurer, and who was a thorough scoundrel, was, according to the dictum of the right hon. Gentleman, an honest man, simply because he told a flood of falsehoods to the right hon. Gentleman, and had given opportunities to the right hon. Gentleman to vilify the Irish people. Hallissey was a broken-down character; he was getting relief from the Poor Law Guardians before any "Boycotting" took place. He put himself in communication with the police; he became an informer, and did his best to get up fictitious charges. Such was the gentleman who was the confidential friend of the right hon. Gentleman. What he had said was an illustration of the way in which informers were originated in Ireland, and of the way in which the people were governed. With regard to the imposition of the police tax, his hon. Friends had impressed upon the attention of the Irish people what he thought was a very meritorious thing—namely, the holding out against the payment of this blood tax. The police tax was one of the

  1827
  many dishonest taxes the people were called upon to pay. The people who imposed it knew that it was not an honest tax, and no argument could possibly be advanced for its imposition. The people were bound, in their own interest and in the interest of right, to protest against the continuance of the tax by the only forcible way in their power—namely, by not paying it. Reference had been made to the question whether or not people did pay a dishonest levy, and he was disposed to think that there were illustrations in this country of classes of people refusing to pay dishonest levies. Quakers allowed their goods to be distrained upon for what they regarded as dishonest levies, and there was also the case of the tithe-payers, who refused to pay further extra taxation in respect of hops. It was not looked upon as unreasonable in this country to protest against taxes of an unfair and dishonest nature. From the same point of view, he thought the Irish people were perfectly justified in re fusing to pay this blood money; and he hoped they would, in every district, combine against its imposition. It suited Earl Spencer exceedingly well, because he belonged to the landlord class, and he wanted entirely to play into the hands of the landlords, whether the landlords were right or wrong. Some people might say that Lord Spencer belonged to a political Party; but his (Mr. Biggar's) experience went to make him believe that, in principle, there was no difference between Liberals and Con servatives, except that one sat on one side of the House and one on the other. Earl Spencer hated the Irish people——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan that there is no reference in this Vote to any of the questions which he is now discussing; he certainly will not be in Order in discussing, under this Vote, the conduct of the Viceroy.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it was avowed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that all these objectionable things were done upon the advice of this Captain Plunkett and his confrères; and his (Mr. Biggar's) object was to show that Earl Spencer and these disreputable magistrates combined together to victimize the unfortunate people of Ireland, to lay heavy taxes on them, and in other ways to misgovern the country. He wished to
  1828
  show that Earl Spencer and the Chief Secretary for Ireland were insidiously playing into the hands of outrages and disreputable characters.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must again point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is travelling beyond the limits of the Vote. In the first place, let me say that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has not spoken on this Vote at all; therefore the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan cannot be in Order in replying to any remarks the Chief Secretary for Ireland has made in a previous debate. The references the hon. Gentleman has lately made have no connection whatever with the Vote before the Committee.
  MR. BIGGARassumed he should have an opportunity of hearing the Chief Secretary for Ireland reply to his statement, and that he would have an opportunity of replying to the right hon. Gentleman. In the meantime, he begged to move that the Committee be counted.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. KENNYsaid, he apprehended that the Vote now before the Committee opened up considerably weightier questions than the mere conduct of Captain Plunkett. Captain Plunkett was merely one of a quartette of similar gentlemen who, as far as they possibly could, had been endeavouring to thwart the cause of popular loyalty in Ireland. Reference had been made, at considerable length, to the conduct of Captain Plunkett with regard to Hallissey the blacksmith. He (Mr. Kenny) had been astonished that the Government failed to procure for Hallissey employment which it had invariably procured for all its other instruments in Ireland; the different persons who came forward in all the capacities of informers were invariably handsomely rewarded by Her Majesty's Government. Nothing would seem simpler to him than that Her Majesty's Government should establish a position in Dublin Castle, such as a shoer of horses, which would suit Hallissey admirably. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), in attempting to defend the conduct of Captain Plunkett, no doubt, spoke from material which was supplied in common to himself and

  1829
  other officials in Dublin Castle. So far as he (Mr. Kenny) could, gather from the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, to which he had listened throughout with considerable attention, he could only come to the conclusion that he made the conduct and character of Captain Plunkett appear considerably worse than some of the Irish Members would appear to consider it was. He would like to give the hon. and learned Gentleman a little advice, or, in other words, refer him to a little incident which occurred during the famous Mid Lothian campaign. The right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister, in one of his speeches, said he had received that morning, amongst other telegrams, a telegram which he would read to the meeting. The telegram was from the Rev. William Sharman, of Plymouth. The Prime Minister said he did not know Mr. Sharman, and therefore the meeting must take it as he got it; but, in his opinion, the nature of the telegram was such that it must be substantially true. The telegram was as follows:—
  "Sir Hardinge Giffard stated last night in my hearing that you were in favour of giving hack Gibraltar, and that you entered into negotiations for its surrender."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The remarks of the hon. Member have no reference to the Vote before the Committee. He must confine himself to the Vote.
  MR. KENNYsaid, he was proceeding to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland that the character of his observations in defence of Captain Plunkett were of so weak a nature that, instead of securing or attaining the ends he (Mr. Kenny) presumed the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view, in vindicating Captain Plunkett, it really made it appear considerably worse, and he was about to express the opinion of the Prime Minister as to Solicitor Generals. The reply which the Prime Minister returned to Mr. Sharman was—" Errors, pardonable in private persons, are scandalous in Solicitor Generals." The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was a new Member of the House, and this advice from his Chief might be an advantage to him. And now he (Mr. Kenny) had to direct himself to certain occurrences in Ireland in which he was personally concerned, and brought into contact
  1830
  with some of the magistracy that served under the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in Ireland. He referred to the suppression of meetings in County Clare, one in the town of Milltown, near which he lived, and another in Ennis, which he represented in Parliament. At the first of these places a meeting was announced to be held, at which he and the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) would deliver addresses. There had not been a meeting in the town for a year; but, six months previous to the meeting held there, in 1882, a murder was committed in the district. The meeting in 1882 was addressed by the then hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy); and between 1882 and the date of the meeting he (Mr. Kenny) was announced to address, in conjunction with his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow, there had been no outrage of a serious character in the district. There had only been two or three in the parish during the whole time, and these consisted of alleged threatening letter-writing, and it was generally understood in the place itself that those who received the threatening letters wrote them. In the next parish there had been an outrage; the hay-rick of a clergyman had been set on fire; but this clergyman was held in general respect in the neighbourhood, and suspicion pointed to the fact that the outrage was committed by a person living 40 or 50 miles away. The police arrested a certain person staying in the locality, a respectable man of good position; but before the magistrate the charge could not be substantiated, and the man was dismissed. No suspicion attached to any resident as being concerned in the matter. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had not at any time given any reason whatever why this meeting was suppressed. There was no apprehension of disturbance, for the people were unanimous; there was no opposition; but representations were made by the local wire-pullers to the local magistrates, of course these were connived at by the magistrate at Ennis, the senior magistrate for County Clare; and, on the representations made to Dublin Castle, this meeting was suppressed. Mrs. Maroney was the principal landowner of the district, and was notorious for harsh treatment of her tenants. She could bring her influence to bear upon

  1831
  four or five magistrates to do anything I she wished. It so happened that the special magistrate at Milltown, who had satisfied himself of the peaceful character of the district, had got the soldiers removed, a serious thing for Mrs. Maroney, who was realizing a profitable rent from their presence. By her influence the meeting was proclaimed, though the Resident Magistrate had advised against this being done. The Hon. De Vere Perry was the magistrate at the time; but the meeting was prohibited, and in two months the Hon. De Vere Perry was dismissed. Now, the meeting was largely attended, there were some 10,000 people; but how were the people informed that the meeting was prohibited? He had left Milltown to go to Ennis to meet his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who was going to address the meeting, instead of the hon. Member for Mallow; and he knew nothing about the proclamation until he was informed, by telegraph at Ennis, that after dark the policemen were stealing round like thieves to post up the notices of prohibition. So the authorities connived at the bringing of the people into the district where armed policemen only needed the slightest word to have at them. Passing from that, he would refer to the meeting at which he was announced to address his constituents at Ennis, where it was also announced the hon. Members for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) and Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) would speak. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had already stated that the reason for the proclamation of the Ennis meeting was the prevalance of crime in the district. So far as the town was concerned, the right hon. Gentleman did not deny that it was peaceable. There had been a murder in the streets two months before, having nothing to do with agrarianism, and which Dublin Castle must have satisfied itself was the crime of a drunken man, who was in the service of a landlord, and who was sentenced to penal servitude, when another man would have been hanged. Another bailiff attempted to commit suicide. But the ingenuity of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not to be baffled—he included not only Ennis, but the country 10 miles round, and on this founded a claim to prevent him addressing his constituents. The day before the meeting he found published in The
  1832
  Freeman's Journal another reason, to which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not alluded—the un-Parliamentary nature of the placard convening the meeting. But he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was there objectionable in it? It was a simple announcement of the meeting, and wound up with "God save Ireland," and presented no reason for preventing a Member from addressing his constituents. The Chief Secretary for Ire land had distinguished himself more than once in preventing Members ad dressing their constituents. He had so prevented the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), and for Cavan; but those three hon. Members represented counties; and if shut out from one place might speak in another, while the Representative of a small borough like Ennis, being silenced at a meeting, could find no other platform from which to address his constituents. He looked forward to an explanation of this incident with considerable interest; and he wished to say, furthermore, that whatever might be the response of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he (Mr. Kenny) would take another opportunity of addressing his constituents, and he proposed, in con junction with the same hon. Gentlemen who were previously announced, to seek some opportunity, and the right hon. Gentleman would have another opportunity of putting his Coercion Act into force. Who sent a Petition for preventing the meeting? Why was it said—"If it were not for your meetings, we should have no trouble in getting our rents?" It was an unfortunate thing that the Chief Secretary for Ireland gauged the condition of the country by remarking how the rents were paid. If they were paid well, then the state of the country was satisfactory; if badly, then the country was in a very bad state——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member for Ennis that his remarks on the Chief Secretary's policy have no reference whatever to the Vote. They would apply very well to a discussion which took place four or five hours ago; but they have no reference to the Vote at all now.
  MR. KENNYsaid, he would pass from the subject with this remark—he was, no doubt, out of Order in referring

  1833
  to the Chief Secretary for Ireland when he should have mentioned special magistrates. They advised the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and it was because of the fact that they were his advisers, deluding him into error, that he had referred to the right hon. Gentleman. He was perfectly certain that if the right hon. Gentleman understood the real state of the facts, and had not to rely on second-hand information from biassed sources, he would not have acted as he had. A favourite device of these magistrates was, wherever they could, to get extra police drafted into a district. The police magistrates themselves, on those occasions, acted, to a great extent, on the advice of the sergeants of police and others. Into districts perfectly peaceful extra police had been drafted, all on the recommendation of a local police-man, who had certain personal objects to gain by it. In one instance a police but was erected in a very peaceful part of Clare, near the town of Castlemaine, to protect a man named Gardner, who had made himself obnoxious in the district. After the but had been there two months it was found to be altogether unnecessary; but at the end of six months, as the result of a new arrangement between Gardner and the Constabulary, the but was re-erected. Now, Gardner was a man having no reason to apprehend personal danger. He alleged that a calf belonging to him had been killed maliciously, though it was believed by the people of the district that the animal died, it having no marks of violence. Gardner tried to secure compensation; and, on his mere allegation, five men were sent to guard Gardner, prejudging the case with a vengeance. The gain to this man was some £20 or £30; he received a ground rent of something like £10 a-year, and, in addition, he supplied the police by contract with certain necessaries. Now, if this man required protection at all, it was only in the night time, and one or two policemen would have been sufficient to guard him; and yet, on the recommendation of a local policeman, the police magistrate of the district had seen his way to order the erection of a police but in that district, at the cost of some hundreds of pounds. Of course, it was said, the expense did not fall upon any particular district; but his experience was that it fell upon the very smallest
  1834
  districts. There was another feature in the conduct of local magistrates, and it was the manner in which the blood tax had been levied. The tax had been levied in the most reckless fashion; but on account of the lateness of the hour (3–30) he would not enter at any length upon this branch of the question. He would, however, point out one instance in which, in a small district, the blood tax had been placed upon every person but the one upon whom it should have been placed, the only exception made, in he cases he had in mind, was that of Mr. Mahoney. This woman had been excluded from the penalty, although others, who, of course, could be in no way concerned in outrages, were subjected to the imposition. His own father, for instance, paid in blood tax £8 10 s. a-year; and another man he knew, who had no possible connection with outrage, was required to pay £7 10 s. He considered that was a most scandalous and infamous case; and the imposition of such taxes, instead of putting down crime, was only calculated to promote it. There was another point to which he wished to refer, and that was the question of the levying of the police tax. He thought that wherever extra police were drafted into any district, and where it could be shown—indeed, he did not think it could be shown in any district—that extra police were required, the people should, in all instances, refuse to be taxed in repect of the police quartered upon them. It was lamentable to see the enormous way in which taxation had been increased in Ireland within the last two or three years. Last year, in the county of Gal-way, the increase of taxation on account of the extra police drafted there at the instigation of the County Court magistrates was something like £6,000. In one county, over which Plunkett Pasha ruled, taxation for extra police had been increased by £10,000, and the same thing prevailed all over the country. The police force had been increased by something like 10,000 or 15,000 men, without the slightest show of necessity. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had left his place in the House; but before the discussion closed, he (Mr. Kenny) would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what were the reasons for his extraordinary, arbitrary, and utterly unjusti-

  1835
  fiable conduct towards the Irish Representatives when they went down amongst their constituents. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman's explanation would not be of the unsatisfactory character it had been up to now, and that it would be of such a nature that it would bear the examination of reasonable men.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he did not intend to occupy the attention of the Committee for more than one or two moments; he rose merely for the purpose—["Oh, oh!"] He had not, up to then, troubled the Committee, and he thought that, when he rose to submit a practical question to the Government, as he did now, it was rather too bad that he should be met with jeers from hon. Members opposite. That, however, was his experience; Irish Members, who did not speak often, were jeered at when they rose; but when they were in the habit of speaking, and rose to occupy the attention of the House or Committee, they were respected. He rose merely for the purpose of asking a question of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker). He found now that they were asked to pass a Vote of £2,103 for the salaries and allowances of the County Court magistrates in Ireland, and in the Estimate there appeared a note to the effect that "the above salaries are in excess of the rate authorized by the Act, 37 and 38 Vic. c. 23." By the 2nd section of that Act, which was passed in April, 1874, it was provided that magistrates in Ireland should be paid by way of salary, which salaries were specified. He now had to ask whether the salaries of magistrates, having been fixed by Act of Parliament, it was competent for a Committee of the House of Commons to increase those salaries until the Act of Parliament had been repealed? This was purely a legal question, and he desired information on the point from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that the question the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Leamy) had put was reasonable enough. The salaries of certain magistrates were fixed by Act of Parliament, he believed at £675 a-year. Pour additional magistrates were appointed in October last upon a different system, and upon a different scale of payment; their salaries
  1836
  were fixed at £1,000 a-year, and it was because their salaries were above the sum fixed by Act of Parliament that the Government had come to the Committee with this Vote.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, it must be remembered, however, that there was an Act of Parliament which stated that every magistrate should be paid a certain salary; and he wanted to know on what authority magistrates had been appointed and increased salaries had been given them? There was not a Member present who would say for one moment that the Committee had a right to pass anything by way of increase of salary of any County Court magistrate in Ireland, when the salary was fixed and appointed by Statute. He desired something more in the nature of a legal explanation than the statement they had received from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. Of course, he knew that the hon. and learned Gentleman could not, for a moment, suppose that he (Mr. Leamy) meant anything disrespectful to him in the matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman was only a new Member of the House, and possibly was not fully conversant with the particulars of the Vote; but there was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) present, and surely the Committee had a right to receive the best information it could from the highest Legal Authorities in the House upon the question which he now put. Here was a statement made on the Estimates, that the sum they were asked to pay was a sum in excess of the sum they were authorized to pay by Act of Parliament. In the face of an Act of Parliament, authorizing a certain rate of payment, what right had the Committee to pay a sum in excess of that rate? He maintained that the Committee had no such right, and that they would be acting illegally if they passed the proposed excess. The answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland did not explain the matter at all. Why did the Government consider it necessary to make a statement on the Vote that the salary they were now defending was in excess of the rate authorized by Act of Parliament? If they had a perfect right to demand the increase, there was no necessity to make that statement at all. He did not know whether it would be discourteous to

  1837
  appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, seeing that he had not been upon the Treasury Bench throughout the whole of the discussion, to give the Committee some explanation of the matter; but he was persuaded this was a question which demanded an answer from a very high legal authority. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, were to come down to-night, and, instead of asking for a sum of £2,000, asked for £20,000, with which to increase the salaries of these County Court magistrates, was he (Mr. Leamy) to be told that it would depend upon the will of the Committee whether the salaries were increased or not?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that matter was really one of well-settled authority. The salaries of magistrates were defined by Act of Parliament. It was true that the Committee could not, by its own act, overrule that Act of Parliament; but the authority of the Committee was only the first stage in the preparation of another Act of Parliament; and if the Vote of the Committee supported the payment of a salary different to that provided by a former Act, the Vote was subsequently embodied in another Act—the Appropriation Act. The Appropriation Act was perfectly valid, and it settled the new salary, although that new salary might differ from one previously decided upon. The matter had been very carefully considered, and the step now taken was found to be quite legitimate.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for his explanation; but it appeared to him that the position they were in was this—that a proposition was made to-night which every hon. Member in the House regarded as one on a par with any other proposition made in Committee—namely, that the Vote did not require a subsequent Act of Parliament to secure its validity.
  MR. COURTNEYobserved, that no Vote was complete until it was embodied in an Act of Parliament.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he did not affect to be acquainted with financial law; he thought there was only one kind of law, the law made by a Parliament and not by the Treasury. It was strikingly
  1838
  unfair and improper to alter Acts of Parliament in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman; and he desired to know whether it was a custom often adopted? Let him take, for instance, the case of the Land Act. Certain salaries were appointed to be paid, and certain Judges were appointed, who were to receive those salaries. Would the hon. Gentleman tell him that if there was a desire on the part of the Government to increase the salaries of any of the Judges, or of the Sub-Commissioners, he would put down in the Votes a sum for the increase of such salaries, and he would merely add a note that that was a sum in excess of that authorized by the Act of Parliament? Of course, the hon. Gentleman dared not do anything of the kind; if he did, he (Mr. Leamy) would like to know what would be the language held by hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. It was because the Irish were only a small Party, and it was because the hon. Gentleman knew that every measure sought by the Government would be supported by the mechanical following of the Government, irrespective of its merits, that he had not hesitated to put down this sum to-night, and ask the House to vote it away. The hon. Gentleman had very courteously replied to him, and he, of course, did not hold the hon. Gentleman responsible in the matter; others were responsible for this Vote. But what he wanted to know was this—that if he, or some of his hon. Friends, had not got up to raise this question, would the hon. Gentleman, who had sat through the Sabbath morning—would they have voted this sum of money; would they have gone away knowing that they had increased the salaries of these County Court magistrates, notwithstanding that there was an Act of Parliament fixing a proper salary; would they have thought they were merely passing a Vote in the ordinary way? The present was only another instance of the way Irish Members were dealt with by this intolerant and extravagant Irish Ministry. This Vote had been sprung upon the Committee.
  MR. TREVELYANrose to Order. He thought that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Leamy) should be asked to withdraw the expression that the Vote had been "sprung upon the Committee."

  1839
  As a matter of fact, the Vote had been before the Committee for weeks, and there was a complete explanation on one side of the Paper.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the expression "sprung upon the Committee" was out of Order?
  MR. LEAMYsubmitted that the phrase "sprung upon the Committee" was one that was continually used.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the expression is not out of Order; but whether it is true or not is a different question.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland wished to contest the point, he might do so; but there was no use in dealing with English Members, even those below the Gangway. If they were above the Gangway, they might accept their statements; but when he saw the way in which they acted, especially the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who was such a champion of liberty, except when it came home to himself, he could not pay much regard to them. He wished to put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether it was possible to go outside the Act of Parliament, which fixed the salaries to be paid to Resident Magistrates, by a Vote in Committee? He could not be satisfied with the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, because this was a new kind of procedure and practice; but he would appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland whether, in the face of the Act of Parliament fixing the salaries, this course could be adopted?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that after being in the House for several hours, and when he was very tired, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Leamy), who had generally treated him with courtesy, suddenly attacked him, and asked why his Colleagues did not throw him over? That he thought was rather too strong. The real fact of the matter was that this Vote was far from having been sprung on the House. It was a Vote which carried out, in a perfectly legal manner, a course of policy which had been explained to the House as long ago as last year. When he and Lord Spencer went to Ireland they found certain machinery for preserving law and order through the Resident Magis-
  1840
  trates. That system was effective; but it erred in two respects. In the first place, it was a very expensive arrangement; and, in the next place, it confused the functions of the magistrates and the police, and placed over the police a class of officers who had great powers as magistrates. They, accordingly, determined to alter the system into a form which would be more satisfactory in a legislative and judicial aspect. That was no small object in their eyes; but it was demanded by the necessity of supervising law and order in the country. Therefore, last year, they introduced a Bill which had a good many objects, among which was the setting up of divisional Commissions. The Bill was opposed on account of that, and other provisions, and therefore the Bill was withdrawn. He regretted that, because the great reduction of expenditure which their proposal would have brought about could not be effected; and he was also sorry that hon. Gentlemen who were always making charges against the Government on account of the salaries of officials in Ireland did not co-operate with the Government. He was sorry that several of the proposals in that Bill could not be carried out; but there was one which, in a modified form, could be carried out, and that was one which greatly reduced the salaries of the Resident Magistrates, and, at the same time, modified their functions and rendered them more satisfactory. In place of the Resident Magistrates, the Lord Lieutenant appointed four divisional magistrates, who received very much smaller salaries and allowances; but on precisely the same footing as the Resident Magistrates. The Lord Lieutenant reduced the powers below those of the Resident Magistrates, and the result of this proceeding, which was perfectly legal, was to greatly reduce the expenditure—from, in fact, £17,000 a-year to £7,200. The business of the country was, he believed, better organized now than when it was under the Resident Magistrates, and the gain to the country had been between £9,000 and £10,000 a-year. That was his explanation.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had looked for some adequate reply to the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy); but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had

  1841
  confined himself to considerations which influenced the Government in making certain changes. He left altogether untouched the legal objection taken by the hon. Member. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) was a little more a rash, and, instead of leaving to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland the task of defending the position of the Government upon this legal point, he gallantly rose to the charge. The argument he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) wished to put forward was that the Act 37 & 38 Vict. contained a retrospective clause, in express terms, limiting the sum to be paid to-Resident Magistrates in Ireland, and that it would necessarily follow that a Vote of this House would repeal this Act. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), however, traversed the contention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and held that a clause of that kind must be repealed in express terms, or by such implication as must be obvious. But with regard to the matter of fact, his contention in reply to the hon. Gentleman was that the Appropriation Act had nothing to do with rates of pay. It simply appropriated to certain services, described in general terms, certain sums of money, and did not fix the rates of pay. A Court of Law would not recognize the Estimates, and there was nothing in the Appropriation Act to support the contention of the hon. Gentleman. Therefore, the argument of the hon. Member for Waterford remained untouched. Here was an Act of Parliament which expressly limited the maximum pay of magistrates. His hon. Friend said they would require equal authority to increase the amount, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury trusted to the Appropriation Act, which, however, was quite inadequate, as he had shown.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that was the first time he had ever discussed or risen to answer a legal question at 4 o'clock in the morning. The statement of his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) was quite correct. They must go to the Estimate to see that the Appropriation Act did not go beyond the Estimate, and in that way they had a check which was perfectly legal. There was nothing new in what the hon. Member for Queen's
  1842
  County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had stated. The process of Supply was completed by the passing of an Act of Parliament embodying the Votes, and that would be a legal alteration of the salaries under consideration.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, there was another question he would like to ask—namely, whether it was competent to this Committee to vote the salary of a man who had no salary by Act of Parliament—say, £1,000 a-year?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was not competent to the Committee to vote a salary of £1,000 a-year as a salary; but it was competent to them to vote a specific sum of money.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, there was no indication respecting the question of salaries. There was nothing here to indicate that this sum was to be given for six months. It was true there was an Act of Parliament fixing the salary which the County Court magistrates were to receive. Would it, he asked, be competent for the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to come to Parliament and say, "I want a Vote of £1,000 for Judge O'Hagan, in addition to the salary he now has;" and would it be competent for the Committee to pass such a Vote?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it would be competent to vote any Judge a specific sum. He could assure hon. Gentlemen there would be ample opportunity afforded them for discussing any sum of money given to one person.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that no doubt the point was very clear in the hon. and learned Gentleman's (the Attorney General's) own mind; but he (Mr. Sexton) knew what Irishmen would think tomorrow about this very smart financial device which had been so suddenly brought to light. He had little doubt also as to what honest Englishmen would think about this transaction. By an Act of Parliament which appeared on the Statute Book, the salaries of certain magistrates were fixed. Every Act of Parliament, as they knew, passed through various stages in the House of Commons; they then were taken up to the House of Lords; and then, after passing that House, they received the Assent of the Crown. All these proceedings were taken in order that the

  1843
  subjects might receive the serious and deliberate attention of both Houses of Parliament. Last year the Government introduced a Bill in the House of Lords to increase the salaries of Resident Magistrates. The Bill, however, encountered such opposition in the House of Commons that the Government were unable to pass it. They found here, at the foot of the page, in surprisingly small type, a note which certainly had not attracted his attention, and which he did not hesitate to say was unnoticed by 19–20ths—the Government had endeavoured, by a simple line of type, to escape the effect of their defeat last year, and to escape the examination and scrutiny which would be given to a Bill regularly introduced into Parliament. He asserted that this amounted to an attempt to hoodwink the Representatives of the people. It amounted to a device to extract from the House of Commons a Vote for the expenditure of public money without enabling the House to understand what was before it. It amounted to an attempt to get the Committee to pass this Estimate without their knowing that the salaries of magistrates were fixed by Act of Parliament. It would thus be seen how public money was filched away by a device which was nothing else but an attempt to obtain, by a side wind, and by a delusive and discreditable course, money which could only have been regularly and constitutionally obtained by the passing of an Act of Parliament. He presented the Government with their own proposition. When the question came to be understood by the general body of the House, and more especially by financial critics, he had not the least doubt the Government would be compelled to withdraw part of this Estimate, and to fall back upon the course which they unsuccessfully attempted last year—namely, to introduce a Bill. If they wanted to pay a higher salary to their instruments in Ireland, they must pay that higher salary by the only mode which was recognized in law. He should not delay the Committee in considering the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker). He (Mr. Sexton) had hoped that before this the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have felt called upon to offer some further reply. The speeches of the Chief Secre-
  1844
  tary for Ireland and of the Solicitor General for Ireland had been compared to those of two lawyers—that of the Chief Secretary appeared to be a speech of a man who had read his brief; while that of the Solicitor General appeared to be the speech of a lawyer who had only taken a peep at his brief, when he came into Court. The hon. and learned Gentleman hoped that nothing would be said to cause the Lord Lieutenant to forego his merciful intention to remit the police tax in the case of Hallissey. He (Mr. Sexton) despised that threat. Whenever Irish Members spoke openly and inconveniently of Irish grievances, they were told that, if they continued to do so, certain inconvenient results might follow. Inconvenient results had followed their plain speaking; but those results had never induced them to hesitate for an instant. They would continue, upon every occasion, to say in the House of Commons what they considered to be desirable and necessary in the public interest, without regard to how it might affect themselves and others. A second reason why he disregarded the threat of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General was that the people of Ireland were now in a resolute mood, and he believed they would take the word of advice which had been given them to-night. He believed they would feel and understand that the safety of their rights and the integrity of their homes were not so concerned in the recovery of the police tax as they were in the payment of rack rents. If the Government persisted much longer in imposing a tax which was alien to the spirit of civilization, which was a disgrace to Constitutional rule, which was not required by the circumstances of Ireland, they would find themselves in a net of difficulty from which extrication might not be easy. He charged the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Solicitor General for Ireland with suppressing a material fact. The imposition of this tax had occurred in districts almost crimeless. He referred the Chief Secretary for Ireland to his own language of a recent date; he referred the right hon. Gentleman to his own admission that the state of Ireland with regard to crime was a state which would not be discreditable to any country in the world; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman why, in the face of his own

  1845
  admission, did the Government obstinately and blindly insist upon the imposition of police and blood taxes which could only be tolerable and conceivable in countries barbarously governed in the mediæval ages of the world? They had asked why Captain Plunkett arrested the public leaders of the people, but they had received no reply. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland made a weak attempt to shield Captain Plunkett, by transferring to the Government of Dublin Castle the onus of the suppression of public meetings. He (Mr. Sexton), however, remembered a remarkable declaration which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland only the other day. Speaking upon the question of the suppression of public meetings, the right hon. Gentleman said there never was a meeting announced in Ireland for the purpose of discussing politics from a popular standpoint that the Government were not recommended and implored by some body of persons to suppress it. He (Mr. Sexton) had no doubt that Captain Plunkett belonged to the body of persons to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. He could assure the Chief Secretary for Ireland that if the Government had acted towards Captain Plunkett as he deserved, it would have been quite possible to hold quiet and peaceable meetings in Cork as it was in other parts of Ireland. Another grotesquely weak argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was that proclamations of meetings in Ireland had frequently been delayed, because the Government had to consider the subject. They had been told already by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that when the Government suppressed meetings in County Cork they did so upon the advice of Captain Plunkett. They had been told that, whenever a meeting was suppressed, it was not suppressed because of circumstances suddenly arising, but because of well-known pre-existing facts. They had been told that meetings were suppressed, because two men jumped over a hedge; because a parish priest was evicted. All these facts were well known; and if this debate had made one thing clearer than another, it was that the reasons for the suppression of the meetings in Ireland
  1846
  were of a most nonsensical nature. It was ridiculous for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to state that the proclamations were delayed because the subject had to be considered. In the case of every meeting proclaimed in Cork, the facts alleged by the Chief Secretary for Ireland as the reasons for the suppressions were known to Captain Plunkett and to the Government, in some cases months, and in other cases weeks, before the meetings were announced. Captain Plunkett had the telegraph wires at his service; he had only to telegraph from his palace in Cork to the Lord Lieutenant's palace in Dublin, and everything was settled. He (Mr. Sexton) repeated the accusation made at the opening of the debate, that the Government and Captain Plunkett knew, days and weeks before, the cases upon which they relied. They delayed the proclamations until the eve of the meetings, until the very days upon which the meetings were held, and for what reason? For no other reason but that the people might be allowed to assemble on the scene; that they might be allowed to protest, perhaps to revolt; and that, therefore, Plunkett Pasha, the great terror of the Southern Provinces, might be able to relieve the tedious ways of civil rule; that he might be able to apply to the people the means of violence and force. As to the blacksmith Hallissey, the Government appeared to find him a white elephant. He (Mr. Sexton) had no doubt they would find they had obtained an evil legacy in this blacksmith. For the sake of this disreputable creature, who had given up the attempt to earn an honest livelihood, who had become a riotous person, who thought, like others, he could take up with advantage the trade of informer—for the sake of this creature they had tormented a poor pastoral and hard-working community; for the sake of this creature they continued to persecute honest peasantry, and had made to them the extraordinary and unparalleled proposal that, unless they subscribed to send the man out of the country, they must be content to lie under a heavy burden. Let England continue this tax a little longer; they would find that, as they had to abandon the imposition of Church rates on Quakers in this country, and tithes in

  1847
  Ireland, they would have to forego this police tax as repugnant to all civilized law, as one against which the public conscience revolted, and as one which could not be sustained. He was certain that if the Government had no moral sense of the enormity of what they were doing; if their consciences would not induce them to pause in their attempt to force the tax on the people, they would, to their meanness, add the disgrace of failure.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he could now understand why the Government were so anxious to snatch this Vote that night. It was said it was absolutely necessary to thrust it down the throats of the Committee at 2 o'clock on Sunday morning; and now he found the Vote concealed a thing of which the Government might well feel ashamed. Thanks to the acumen of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy), it was now seen why the Government were so anxious; and if this discussion had not been continued the Government would have obtained that power by a side wind which they never could get openly. The Bill of last Session was vehemently opposed by Irish Members; but it was now attempted to gain the power to give these salaries under a Vote of Supply. The logic of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was extra ordinary; he said, perfectly truly, that if the Vote of the Committee was followed by the Appropriation Act, it would legalize the payments to these gentlemen. That was logical, and no one could con test it; it was an impregnable position; but what happened? The Appropriation Act was only for a year, and thon its power lapsed; but the Police Bill proposed that these satraps should be perpetual. Was it proposed to make these salaries perpetual? [" No, no!"] The right hon. Gentleman opposite the Chancellor of the Exchequer dissented——
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I said this Vote would not make them perpetual.
  MR. HEALYsaid, yes; but let there be an understanding on the general question. Was it proposed by the Government to make these salaries perpetual? Could the Government hope to obtain, in Committee, on Sunday morning, at half-past 4, the consent of Irish
  1848
  Members, who opposed the Bill of last year, to setting up four satraps in Ireland? They would continue to oppose the proposal—a proposal to give Captain Plunkett and his compatriots in crime propagation—salaries to afford the means for their continuance in Ireland. They had shown how, like cause and effect, these salaries had been followed by crime. Captain Plunkett desired the continuance of disorder in Ireland. The House had had recently a quotation from Edmund Burke, as to agitators living on disorder, and there was another party in Ireland which lived on disorder. How did Captain Plunkett obtain his extra salary? Were there peace in Ireland, would Captain Plunkett be worth his wages, or worth his salt? He was given extra salary for extra duty, and he had extraordinary duty because of extraordinary crime. And why the extra crime? Because of the putting down of peaceful meetings and encouragement to outrage. The Government had hoped to snatch this Vote in a surreptitious manner. It had been allowed it was unusual; let the precedents for it be shown in the House, and when their relevancy could be studied, and when leading Members of the Opposition were present, to bring their experience to bear on the proposal of the Government. Irish Members were not likely to have official experience, and they had nothing but the ipse dixit of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), which they accepted as a statement bounded by his official position, and made under official stress, at half-past 4 in the morning. Contrast his statement, made in the heat of debate, with the cold light of precedent, and the actual facts of previous cases. However much they condemned the conduct of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; however much they condemned the practice of snatching, under lump sums for law charges in Ireland without sub-heads, particular Votes in connection with the Prevention of Crime Act investigations and informers, they did not expect from him that he would attempt to get by a Supplementary Vote that which was ignominiously withdrawn in a Bill last Session. If this Vote was not intended to be snatched rapidly from the House, why put it in the nature of a Supplementary Vote?

  1849
  They all knew the usual character of Supplementary Estimates; that they were of a special description, supposed to be necessitated by some circumstance of peculiar urgency. What was the special urgency of the salary of Captain Plunkett? Could he not wait another year, or until the general Estimates came on? Were Members to have dust thrown in their eyes, because Captain Plunkett was in a hurry to draw his extra salary? Was Captain Plunkett in receipt of this extra salary? The Committee were frequently told—"You must vote the money now, because it is already spent." Had Captain Plunkett received his extra salary? There was no answer. Cancel the extra portion of this Vote. It could be brought in next year. If Captain Plunkett was suffering from the want of it, help him from the Secret Service money. A more extraordinary proposition he never heard of than, on a Sunday morning, to ask the Committee to adopt a Vote perfectly illegal and unconstitutional. There had been an explanation that explained nothing; there had been a statement from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that the Vote was legal when passed; but it was not passed, and was not legal yet; therefore this unprecedented Vote was unconstitutional. He might be told other Votes were not legal until the Act was passed; but, at least, the Government had precedent and custom on which to base their practice. This Vote was put forward without any statement, until one was wrung from the Government by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy). Did the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland think that, if he were proposing, say, a Navy Vote of an entirely novel character, between 2 and 5 on a Sunday morning, that it would not be stoutly resisted by such Members as the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and Portsmouth (Mr. T. C. Bruce) and others? But because Irish Members had not the support of public opinion, the right hon. Gentleman ventured on a proposal of this kind. He (Mr. Healy) ventured to say the Government would rue the day they tried to snatch a Vote of this kind from the Irish Party. The proposal would have to pass through the Report stage, and when the Appropriation Bill came on, it would be fought through all its
  1850
  stages. Irish Members had no birds to shoot in August. He was surprised that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had led the Government into such a mess; he gained nothing by these mole-like methods of getting money. Instead of gaining, the Government would lose time; and the judgment of the whole country would condemn the attempt to snatch a Vote on Sunday morning.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, in reference to the remarks lately made, he forgot, when he answered the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny), that a good while ago he was asked, in reference to these additional magistrates, the names, districts, and pay. The hon. Member asked for a Return, and he (Mr. Trevelyan) said he was ready to state the names and districts——
  MR. HEALYrose to Order. It would be in the recollection of the Chairman that earlier in the day a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench raised a question of Order in reference to a re mark made by the right hon. Gentle man the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt). He (Mr. Healy) was just informed that when he was remarking, in reference to the Appropriation Bill, that Irish Members had no birds to shoot in August, the hon. Member for Oldham, and he would name him, Mr. Lyulph Stanley, said "landlords"——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not allude to another hon. Member except by the name of the place he represents.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he only wished to thoroughly identify him. While he was speaking, the hon. Member said "landlords," thereby imputing murder to hon. Members on that side. Was such a remark in Order, made across the floor of the House?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not understand the hon. Member made that observation in debate.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that day the Speaker had ruled, when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was stated to have said that a vote of the House was attempted to be carried by a "dirty trick," that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have made that statement. He (Mr. Healy) asked, was it in Order, was it to be tolerated, that the hon. Member for Oldham, always offensive

  1851
  to Irish Members, should shout across the floor, imputing murder to Irish Members?
  THE CHAIRMAN: So much depends on the manner, the way, the tone, in which it was said. If the hon. Member for Oldham had shouted it across the House, I should have heard it, and other hon. Members would have heard it. If he made the observation in confidence to an hon. Member beside him, it is not for me to judge. If it had been used in debate, I should have had an opportunity of judging, and should know how to act.
  MR. HEALY: I remember, Sir, on a former occasion, in the time of the late Speaker, when your ruling on a point of Order differed from the Speaker's, the Speaker was sent for, and consulted. The Speaker's ruling to-day, in my opinion, was distinctly different from yours on this, a similar question; and I respectfully ask that you now leave the Chair, as I have seen done before, in order that you consult Mr. Speaker on the point of Order as to whether the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) has a right to shout a charge of murder across the House.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not sufficiently aware of the Rules of the House; that is a Question that could not be put to the Committee. I am not aware in what way I have differed from the ruling of the Speaker. Neither am I aware that the Speaker has any power to reverse any ruling I may give as Chairman.
  MR. HEALY: For the purpose of testing the matter, and seeing that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) has not had the courtesy to do what the Secretary of State for the Home Department thought it was best to do towards English Members this afternoon, I move that you leave the Chair for the purpose of consulting the Speaker.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): That would be quite unprecedented. The Chairman has given his decision. I was present when the Speaker gave his decision, and it was exactly in the same words as the Chairman's.
  MR. HEALY: Am I to understand that the present Leader of the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will allow his followers to make a charge of
  1852
  this kind against the Irish Members, and that he will get up at the Table, and, without saying a word of condemnation of the charge, simply attempt to get the whole matter put aside?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, I am not to be browbeaten by language of that kind. I spoke quite temperately and quietly. All I said was that I was present when the Speaker ruled on the matter to which the hon. Member referred, and that the Speaker ruled precisely in the same words as the Chairman has ruled just now. It is not my business to make any representations to hon. Members as to whom there is no statement of what they said. All my business is to say that the Chairman has stated his ruling, and that his ruling is strictly accurate.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just stated that your ruling was strictly accurate. The point on which you ruled was perfectly plain—namely, that the proposal that you should leave the Chair, in order that your ruling might be possibly overruled by the decision of the Speaker, was a proposal which could not be put from the Chair. Upon that, Sir, your ruling was most clear; but you have not yet ruled upon the much more important question which was brought to your notice by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). I heard the expression, and I heard it with amazement and indignation, not to say disgust. I was not certain who made use of the expression; but I believe it was made by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley). Since he has been charged with it, and has sat now for some minutes without any disclaimer, I am forced to conclude the charge is well founded. That charge is a serious one. The hon. Member has, by implication, charged us with the crime of murder.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member raise any other point of Order?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I am going to bring the point of Order to your notice.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member be so good as to put any new point of Order? The former one I have disposed of.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Which one?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The point of Order which was raised by the hon. Member for Monaghan.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I want to submit a point of Order in connection with that. I do not know, Sir, whether it is within your personal recollection—it will probably be in the recollection of many hon. Members now in the House—that last year I made an observation in a private conversation respecting another hon. Member of this House. A Gentleman sitting behind me overheard the observation, and thereupon brought it to the notice of the Speaker. The Speaker addressed himself to me—or, rather, called upon me to make such an explanation with regard to the observation as I thought necessary. He left the matter to me, with a very strong suggestion as to what I ought to do—namely, to withdraw the expression. I did withdraw the observation. Now, Sir, I take that as an authoritative ruling in a case very similar to the present. I imputed nothing to the hon. Member I referred to; but the private conversation was sufficiently loud for others sitting near to hear what was being said. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), however, shouted across the floor of the House; and, therefore, if anything, his offence is much more serious than mine was. I ask you, Sir, to adopt the course which the Speaker adopted on the occasion I have referred to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The point in regard to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) has been already determined. I have stated that if I had heard the expression, or if I had any reason to believe that he had made it in debate, I should not have had a moment's hesitation as to how I should have ruled. That has been determined, and I understood the hon. Member to rise to a new point of Order.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rose, Sir, to bring under your notice the ruling of the late Speaker, Sir Henry Brand.
  MR. HEALY: Sir, as you have declined to reprove the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) in any way, I beg to give Notice that, on Monday next, I shall raise this question when the Speaker is in the Chair.
  MR. O'BRIEN: May I inquire, Sir, whether a Member on these Benches would have been at liberty to cry out
  1854
  "Liar!" in the hearing of the hon. Member for Oldham, though not addressing himself to the Chair?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to state, for the information of the hon. Member, that if an observation of that kind were made, when I heard it I should know how to deal with it.
  MR. BIGGAR: I beg leave to move that you do now report Progress, and I do so for two reasons. The one is, that there should be an opportunity afforded of consulting the Speaker upon the point under discussion. In the last Parliament I made an objectionable remark, and Mr. Speaker Brand ruled that oven improper expressions used in the Division Lobby came within the censure of the Chair. The other reason why I wish to report Progress is, that the Government should have an opportunity of considering their position with regard to this particular Vote. The Vote is of a most irregular character; and, in their own interest, I submit to them the desirability of considering their position between now and Monday, with the view of withdrawing the Vote entirely from the notice of the House. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) has said that if this Vote is persisted in by the Government, unpleasant discussions will arise on its future stages, and I may say that what has taken place with regard to this particular Vote will be a strong incentive to us to refuse to pass Estimates at a late hour of the night.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEY: I wish to make a personal explanation. In the first place, it is quite correct that I did use the word "landlords" when the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) said that there was no occasion for him and his hon. Friends to go to shoot grouse in August. [Mr. HEALY: I said birds.] Well, grouse or birds—they are much the same. First, let me say I do not impute, and do not imagine, that any hon. Members opposite have any desire, or ever would shoot a landlord or anyone else. I would rather identify the hon. Members' constituents than themselves with the word. I beg to withdraw the expression as it was heard, and hope hon. Member's will not think it applied to themselves. Hon. Members will understand that words which are in the nature of taunts are not always meant to be taken strictly; but,

  1855
  of course, if they are, they must be withdrawn.
  MR. SEXTON: I support the Motion of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar).
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) has already moved to report Progress once or twice this evening, and certainly he will not be in Order in making such a Motion now.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, that, in that event, he would move to report Progress. He considered the discovery made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy) had completely altered the complexion of matters.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—(Mr. O'Brien.)
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he hoped the Committee would discuss the extremely important point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy) a little longer. With respect to the supposed invalidity of what had been done, he pointed out that last year precisely the same thing happened. Votes were taken in excess of salaries fixed, and the matter was mentioned in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. That Committee recommended that, under the circumstances, a special note referring to the excess salaries should be inserted in the Supplementary Estimates. That had been done, and a note had been inserted in the Vote explaining matters. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had said he would fight this Vote at every stage. He hoped the hon. Member would not think it necessary to carry out his threat, because there had certainly been no sharp practice whatever on the part of the Government. He trusted that they would be allowed to take the Vote to-night, because, if thought necessary, the question could be further considered on the Report of Supply which was to be taken on Monday.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had the greatest possible respect for the opinion of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney); but neither he, nor the Public Accounts Committee could make law. What was done in the Appropriation Act? There was in the Appropriation Act, Schedule B, Part 14,
  1856
  Sub-head 31, a certain sum of money for the salaries and allowances and expenses of various County Court officers and magistrates in Ireland.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not wish to stop the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor); but he would be more in Order if the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) would withdraw his Motion to report Progress. I could then put the Original Question, and the hon. Gentleman would be able to speak.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the words the Chairman had just read in proposing the Original Question were precisely the words which were in the Appropriation Act; and the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney) would have the Committee suppose that those words would, by implication at least, repeal the express terms of an Act of Parliament.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that what he had stated was, that the terms of the Act of Parliament would be superseded by the terms of the Appropriation Act.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that that was precisely the point he disputed, for the reason that the amount put in the Appropriation Act Schedule was a sum of money under a certain heading, the words of which he had read. That money was distributed under 10 or 12 different sub-heads.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUEE (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the Statute was merely an indication of what Parliament, at the time, considered should be the salary; but this might be increased for any year by the Appropriation Act based on an Estimate for a higher rate.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had avoided the point, that an application was made to Parliament to increase these salaries, but Parliament refused; and then the right hon. Gentleman took the matter into his own hands, and slipped in a Vote to give these salaries over the head of Parliament. He thought this was irregular, and on Monday he should have an opportunity of speaking upon this matter. He also wished to point out the general conduct of the administration of law in Ireland with regard to these Resident Magis-

  1857
  trates, whom the Government had bribed to misconduct themselves.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had made a reference to the subject to which he thought the right hon. Gentleman was about to reply.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, a few weeks ago the hon. and learned Member had asked for the names of these officials, and he had then given their names and their districts; and about a month ago he had informed the House that the salaries were to be increased to the amount of £2,000 a-year for each, with allowances.
  MR. KENNYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's statement was substantially correct. As he understood the right hon. Gentleman's answer, the Government would decide to arrange these four districts in Ireland and appoint Resident Magistrates; but the right hon. Gentleman had not given them the names of the Resident Magistrates. However, that was not of much importance. He had moved for a Return which had been granted, and he hoped it would soon be in the hands of Members.
  MR. DEASYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Solicitor General for Ireland had carefully avoided the subject of the discussion. It had been pointed out that a large extra force of police had been quartered on the City of Cork, which was one of the most peaceable cities in the Island, and perhaps in the United Kingdom. The only duty they had to perform had been to keep jurors out of the Court at the Assizes.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the pay proposed in these Estimates was £1,000 a-year only. A much larger question was started than was raised in this question by the question of extra police.
  MR. KENNYsaid, it was too late to make a speech to-night; but he had put a series of questions in connection with his own constituency without getting answers. He was quite willing to forego answers at the present time; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to give answers on the Report stage.
  MR. BIGGARcalled the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the case of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The Chief Secretary had stated that Mr. Clifford Lloyd
  1858
  had already had about six months' leave.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that the case of Mr. Clifford Lloyd is not in any way connected with this Vote.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it was important to know whether any of this Vote was for Mr. Clifford Lloyd. Very likely part of it was for him. So far as he knew, part of this money was for him; but what he would like to know was, why Mr. Clifford Lloyd should have this leave of absence?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, six months' leave of absence had already been given, and it was the intention of the Lord Lieutenant to extend that leave of absence to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, if it was desired for the Public Service, up to a period of two years. He had made inquiries with reference to Mr. Clifford Lloyd's pay, and he could assure the House that that gentleman had never drawn double pay for one single day. In answer to the hon. Member (Mr. Deasy), he had already found time during this discussion to write to Cork for very full and minute information concerning the extra police, and he had been careful to raise all the points upon which he desired full information. The new rates of pay proposed for Divisional Magistrates was £1,000 a-year, with no other allowance than those which they would draw as ordinary magistrates—£100. The Special Resident Magistrates drew extra remuneration £300, an allowance of £360 a-year, and forage £100. The great saving was in their staffs. Before this financial year closed he would lay on the Table a short Bill providing for the appointment of Divisional Magistrates.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he would suggest that the Government should pay the debts of Mr. Clifford Lloyd in Ireland. He would not pay his debts, and he had no redeeming quality at all.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, they would not prolong the discussion; but they proposed to divide against the Vote. He would like to know whether the Chairman intended to make a report to the Speaker of the circumstance in connection with the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley)? He might add that the apology of the hon. Member aggravated the offence.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have no intention of reporting the incident.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 7: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 42.) [5.35 A.M.]
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he protested against the Resolutions being reported, because they were of a thoroughly unconstitutional character, and quite indefensible. He would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing; but he protested against a system of forcing through illegal Votes by an unprincipled mechanical majority.
  MR. HEALYsaid, in assenting to the Vote they held themselves free to give the Bill, when brought in, their earnest opposition.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, as the Chairman had stated he would not report the incident in relation to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), he (Mr. Sexton) would take an early opportunity of bringing the matter before the House. It was not, perhaps, a question of Privilege; but it was a serious and very
  1860
  grave offence, and aggravated by an apology by which the hon. Member transferred the insult to the constituents who sent Members to the House.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, if the expression bad come from any other Member of the House he should have considered it singularly offensive; but, coming from the quarter it did, he did not think it was worthy of notice.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, in reference to this incident, he thought the hon. Member for Oldham's conduct particularly offensive. He would appeal to the Chairman to look up authentic precedents, to see if there was reason to reverse his ruling.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock on Sunday morning till Monday next.