Commons Sitting of 22 May 1884

Preamble
MINUTES—SUPPLY—consideredin Committee— CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, further on account, £3,468,550.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Third Reading— Metropolitan District Railway,* and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order * [221];

977
Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings (Scotland) Provisional Order * [222]; Railway Regulation Acts Amendment * [225].
First Reading — Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Dundalk Waterworks) [223].
Second Reading—Metropolitan Police* [209].
Committee—Report—School, &c. Buildings (Ireland)* [45–224].
Third Reading—Gas Provisional Orders (No 2)* [181]; Summary Jurisdiction over Children (Ireland) [75], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PARLIAMENT — PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE—REPORT.
  SIR CHARLES FORSTER: In laying the Report on the Table I wish briefly to state the arrangements made by the Committee on Public Petitions for carrying out the pledge which I made on their behalf on Monday on the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). As the House understands, Petitions are supposed to be presented by Members "in their places," though, owing to the great increase in the number of Petitions, this practice has, in a great measure, been superseded by "the bag system," to the great saving of time and convenience of Members. Still the system requires limitation and control, and your Predecessor in the Chair made it a rule that no Petitions should be received after 5 of the clock to avoid the confusion which would otherwise arise from Petitions being passed in during any time of the Sitting, and the consequent setting and re-setting of the printing type. The Committee on Public Petitions are unanimously of opinion that this rule should be adhered to; but when my hon. and gallant Friend spoke of the inconvenience entailed on those hon. Members who came down after 5 in having their Petitions returned, it occurred to me that this inconvenience might be, to a great degree, met by "a supplemental bag," for the reception of such Petitions as might arrive after 5 and before 6, such bag to be cleared on the following day, and the Petitions to be then taken as presented and entered accordingly in the Votes. But I now find that I can go further, and that there is no difficulty, so far as the Journal Office is concerned, in the bag remaining during the entire Sitting, and that the Speaker will give
  978
  his assent and directions to that effect. The time for the presentation of Petitions will remain as before, up to 5 of the clock; and when the usual bag has disappeared, the "supplemental bag" will take its place, which, to avoid confusion, will be of a different colour. Members must, of course, make their own arrangements with regard to the insertion of the notices of Petitions in the public papers, so as to make the date of presentation correspond with the entry of them in the Votes; but, so far as the Committee is concerned, it will be a source of much satisfaction to them if they have been enabled to promote the convenience of the House without disarranging the Journal Office.

  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL (by Order.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.
    (Queen's Consent signified.)
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he did not know whether he was quite in Order; but he wished to have an explanation in regard to the Metropolitan District Railway Bill, the third reading of which he had come down to the House, at considerable inconvenience, to oppose. He had been sitting there ever since the House was made with that intention, and he could assure the House that the Bill was one in which great interest was taken.
    MR. SPEAKER: I put the Question distinctly from the Chair that the Bill be read a third time, and there was no opposition. I am, therefore, afraid that the hon. Member is now too late.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEAN'S (Sir ARTHUR. OTWAY)said, he had heard the Question most distinctly put from the Chair. Not only so; but the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster), who had charge of the Private Business of the House, within his (Sir Arthur Otway's) hearing, called upon the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) by name.

QUESTIONS.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL—ROYAL CARRIAGE DEPARTMENT—MOUNTINGS FOR NAVAL ORDNANCE—REDUCTION OF HANDS.
  MR. BOORDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, for several years past, nearly the whole of the mountings for Naval Ordnance, except hydraulic mountings, have been manufactured in the Royal Carriage Department at Woolwich; whether any cause has arisen for dissatisfaction on the part of the Admiralty either with respect to the quality of the work or the charges for manufacture; whether the orders given to the said Department by the Admiralty have been for some few years past slowly diminishing in quantity, and are this year very considerably less than they have ever been previously; and, whether the Admiralty are now sending their orders for such work to private firms, or do they propose that the manufacture shall be undertaken in the Royal Dockyards instead of, as heretofore, in the Royal Arsenal; and, in the event of any such change being in contemplation, what saving to the State is estimated to result therefrom?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Up to the end of the financial year 1882–3, nearly all mountings for naval ordnance, except hydraulic mountings, were provided by the War Department, and paid for out of Army Votes; and it is believed that most of them were manufactured in the Royal Carriage Department at Woolwich. The Admiralty had no cause for dissatisfaction with the quality of the work; its cost concerned the War Department only. Last year was the first in which the Admiralty gave direct orders to Woolwich for the manufacture of gun mountings: this year the orders will be somewhat diminished; but I am not in a position to give any pledge as to the source from which the supply will be obtained in future. There is no immediate intention to manufacture mountings in the Dockyards. The object of the change of arrangements has been to make the Admiralty more directly responsible for the provision of gun mountings; and it is believed that advantage will be thereby gained to the Public Service.
  MR. BOORDasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether a considerable discharge of hands from the Royal Carriage Department, to the extent of 200 or 300, is in contemplation; and, if so, whether such reduction is due to the diminution of orders from the Admiralty for naval carriages and slides; and, whether it would be possible in time of slackness to shorten the hours of work in preference to discharging trained hands, thereby distributing the distress likely to be felt on such occasions, and to some extent obviating the injury always sustained by unused machinery?
  MR. BRAND: Certain reductions in the Royal Carriage Department have taken place owing to a diminution in the number of orders, and others are contemplated on account of alterations in construction, which involve the use of more machinery and less labour. It is undesirable to reduce the number of working hours, as highly skilled artizans will not accept from the Government lower wages than they can obtain in other quarters.

  NAVY—COASTGUARD STATION IN DONEGAL.
  MR. LEAasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If, in 1878, Admiral Phillimore, then Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves, urged the building of a new Coastguard station at Kincaslagh, county Donegal, and if, in consequence of his representations, an officer of the Board of Works was sent down, who selected a site for the station; if, shortly after, the Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves so strongly approved of his predecessor's action that a ninety-nine years' lease of the ground was obtained in October 1881, the tenant right settled for, and all preliminary arrangements made; and, if, after so much expense incurred, it is intended to proceed with the work?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The site selected for the new Coastguard station has been again inspected, and further inquiry has led the Admiralty to decide against erecting the buildings at Kincaslagh.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—FRANCE AND THE AFRICAN INTERNATIONAL AS SOCIATION.
  MR. BROWNasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he

  981
  can now state whether there is any truth in the alleged negotiation between the African International Association and the French, whereby the French are to obtain the property, treaties, and stations of the Company on the Upper Congo?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In reply to this Question, and to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lynn (Mr. Bourke), I can only refer to the replies given in "another place" by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the effect that he had applied for authorization to make public the information confidentially communicated to him on the subject referred to in these Questions. I hope, therefore, very shortly to be able to give more complete information.

  BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCA TION—THE EXAMINERS.
  MR. SEXTON (for Mr. HEALY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Do the Intermediate Education secretaries defer publishing each year's list of examiners till it is too late to cancel any unsuitable appointment; has a gentleman been appointed to examine this year in arithmetic, who was also examiner in 1881 and in 1882; has he been thus selected for re-employment without the usual interval of two years since his previous employment, and in preference to others on the list more specially qualified, who have never been employed at all; is this examiner a brother-in-law of one of the secretaries; and, has the Lord Lieutenant given his sanction to the appointment?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Assistant Commissioners who act as secretaries at the intermediate education examination, inform me that they have no authority to publish the names of selected examiners until authorized by the Board to do so; and that it is the practice of the Board not to authorize such publication until the commencement of the examination. A gentleman has been appointed to examine in arithmetic this year who examined in 1881 and 1882. His case is not exceptional, as 10 other examiners have been similarly re-appointed. There is no rule of the Board requiring an interval of two years to elapse before re-appointment. The gentleman referred to is a brother-in-law of one of the Assistant Commissioners. He was, in the first instance,
  982
  appointed by the Board to examine in arithmetic and book-keeping, because they considered him specially qualified for the duty by long experience, and they re-appointed him because he discharged the duty to their entire satisfaction. The Lord Lieutenant has sanctioned his appointment.

  STATE OF IRELAND — MEETING OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE AT ABBEY FEALE—SUPPRESSION OF MEETING.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the Abbeyfeale meeting on Sunday week was suppressed, by what authority the police dispersed the weekly indoor meeting of the League on the same day, which had no relation whatever to the public meeting, and is it intended that a proclamation of an outdoor demonstration should extend to all indoor gatherings whether routine or otherwise in the same district?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The public meeting proposed to be held at Abbeyfeale was prohibited on the ground of apprehension that if held it would endanger the public peace and give rise to intimidation, there being a number of evicted and "Boycotted" farms in the locality. With regard to the suppression of the indoor meeting, what occurred was this; the Rev. Mr. Casey, being prevented from addressing the people in the street, adjourned to a house in the town, accompanied by a large crowd, who remained outside in the street while he and the members of the National League went upstairs, and were about to hold a meeting. The magistrates considered this an attempt to evade the prohibition contained in the Proclamation, and they therefore prevented it. I have, on a former occasion, stated that in matters of this kind some discretion must be left to magistrates on the spot charged with enforcing the terms of a Proclamation.
  MR. SEXTONinvited the right hon. Gentleman to answer the second clause of the Question.
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is not intended, Sir; but some discretion must be left to the magistrates.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—CATHOLIC IN MATES—PROVISION FOR DIVINE SERVICE IN DONEGAL WORKHOUSE.
  MR. SEXTON (for Mr. HEALY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-

  983
  tenant of Ireland, If he is aware of the complaint of Catholic inmates of Donegal Workhouse that the religious obligation imposed on them at Easter could not be kept owing to the conduct of the guardians as to the chaplain, and do the Local Government Board propose to leave the feeble and sick without the ministrations of the clergy; can the Local Government Board provide no remedy in the case of those who have been deprived of Mass on Sundays and holidays since the chaplain's resignation, and who are unable to go to the church, but who could be present at Divine Service in the House; what is the average attendance of the Catholic inmates at Divine Service on Sundays and holidays since the chaplain's resignation as compared with the attendance at Mass in the House for the same length of time previously; and, is it a fact that the children have been altogether deprived of Divine Service and instruction in the Church since sickness set in some three months ago; is he aware of the intense feeling that exists amongst the Catholics of the Union, on account of the opposition of the Protestant majority of the Board to the appointment of a catechist or any other Catholic official to the House; and, having regard to the fact that the vast majority of the ratepayers of the Union and of the inmates of the Workhouse are Catholics, and in. view of the spiritual destitution which the latter class suffer, will the Local Government Board set aside by sealed order the present Board of Guardians and appoint paid Vice Guardians in their stead, who will discharge their duty to those under their care?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board have no information before them to show that the Roman Catholic inmates of the Donegal Workhouse complain of being unable to keep their religious obligations, or that intense feeling exists among the Roman Catholics of the Union on account of the action of the Guardians in regard to the appointment of a catechist. The Board cannot obtain an accurate Return of the number of inmates who attended Mass in the workhouse chapel; but there is no doubt that the number of inmates of the workhouse attending Divine Service in the parish chapel is less than the number of persons who were present at Mass when it was held in the workhouse.
  984
  With regard to the children, the facts appear to be that in consequence of an outbreak of measles in the workhouse they were prevented from congregating together, either at school or Divine Service, until the doctor thought they could do so with safety. This affected the Protestant children as well as the Roman Catholics. The Local Government Board have no power to appoint a catechist. I propose to make a suggestion, which I hope will facilitate the settlement of a controversy in which I think there are faults on both sides.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION — MR. SUB COMMISSIONER GRAY.
  COLONEL DIGBYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the estate of Captain Hill, in the county Donegal, out of eighty-four cases recently adjudicated upon by Mr. William Gray, Sub-Commissioner under the Land Act of 1881, the reductions were so extreme that the landlord has appealed against his decisions in every case?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Land Commissioners inform me that Captain Hill, of county Donegal, has appealed in 84 cases from the decisions of the Sub-Commission of which Mr. Gray was a member.
  MR. LEAasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would take measures to prevent the intimidation of Mr. Gray and other Sub-Commissioners by Questions asked in that House?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot take any steps such as are suggested by the hon. Member; but I think it is very unfortunate that Questions of this kind should be asked so frequently. I always regret that they should be put, from, whatever quarter of the House they may come.

  EGYPT—PUNISHMENTS—USE OF THE "CAT."
  MR. GRAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has yet received the reply of Mr. Clifford Lloyd to the question whether there is any truth in the allegation that he had in any cases substituted for the whip in ordinary use for purposes of punishment a cat-'o-nine-tails with the thongs loaded with metal?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes; there is no foundation for the re-

  985
  port, and the use of the whip has been restricted to cases of violence and mutinous crime within the prisons, and the number of strokes has been reduced from a maximum of 300 to 24.
  MR. GRAYinquired whether the attention of the noble Lord had been called to a letter published in Truth, over the name of the junior Member for county Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan), in which he stated that at a meeting recently held he had defended the use of the courbash, and then added—
  "I did, indeed, contrast the courbash favourably with the now lead-tipped cat-o'-nine tails —administered not to the soles but to the hare backs—which Mr. Clifford Lloyd has substituted for it in the Cairo prisons."
  Would the noble Lord inquire from the junior Member for county Wicklow on what grounds he made that statement?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I sent out a copy of the hon. Member's Question the other day, and the answer I have given is founded upon the inquiry. I have no doubt, therefore, that it is quite accurate.
  MR. GRAY: It is not a question of accuracy. The question is, whether the noble Lord will inquire from the junior Member for county Wicklow on what grounds he made the statement I have read?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have no objection to make that inquiry.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether they were to understand that before Mr. Clifford Lloyd went to Egypt the whip was used in the prisons; or whether it was not the fact that the courbash was used, and that Mr. Clifford Lloyd substituted for it the whip?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No. What I understand, on the contrary, is that the use of the whip has been limited, and also that the number of strokes has been limited, and that this has been done during the time that Mr. Clifford Lloyd has held the office of the Ministry of the Interior, and therefore all the credit of it is due to him.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary, whether there is any intention of re-employing Mr. Clifford Lloyd as a police magistrate in Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Clifford Lloyd is at present on lengthened leave of absence without pay, and I can make
  986
  no statement at present with regard to his re-employment.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Is Mr. Clifford Lloyd on lengthened leave of absence from Ireland, and also on leave of absence from Egypt? Can the right hon. Gentleman state what is the intention of the Egyptian Government regarding him?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I know nothing, Sir, of the intentions of any Government but the Irish Government.
  Afterwards—
  MR. GRAYsaid, he was unable to catch the full significance of the reply of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to his Question as to the alleged use of the cat-o'-nine-tails on prisoners in Egypt. When the noble Lord said that the imputation conveyed in the Question was unfounded, did he refer to the use of the cat-o'-nine-tails, or to the portion of the Question which alleged that the cat-o'-nine-tails were loaded with lead? He wished to know whether, since Mr. Clifford Lloyd went to Egypt, the cat-o'-nine-tails had been introduced, whether loaded with lead or not?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEreplied that what he understood was that the cat-o'-nine-tails had not been introduced; but as his answer did not make that clear, he would answer a further Question on the subject.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he would put a further Question.

  THE QUEEN'S COLLEGES (IRELAND) — THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is now in a position to state whether the proceedings of the Commission on the Queen's Colleges will be public?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Commissioners have decided to hold their meetings in public.

  POST OFFICE—TELEPHONE EX CHANGE LICENCES.
  MR. GRAYasked the Postmaster General, How many licences for telephone exchanges have been applied for and how many have been granted since he instituted the new condition requiring each Company receiving a licence to undertake to sell instruments to him?
  MR. FAWCETT: The number of applications for telephone exchange licences since the period referred to has been 77, and the number granted has been eight. As bearing on this subject, I may state that as the condition to which allusion is made was imposed solely for the purpose of protecting the public interest, and was never intended to restrict the establishment of telephone exchanges, I have been for some time considering whether, with due regard to the public interest, the condition can be in any way modified. As soon as I am in a position to come to a decision on the point, there shall be no delay in making it known.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND) — POSTAL ACCOMMODATION IN LIMERICK.
  MR. KENNY (for Mr. O'SULLIVAN)asked the Postmaster General, Why it is that the district of Abbeyfeale, in the county of Limerick, having a population of over ten thousand, has not a second delivery of letters on week days as well as the other towns in that county?
  MR. FAWCETT: So far as I have, been able to ascertain, no communication has been received by the Post Office asking for the establishment of a second delivery. I have, however, given instructions that an account shall be immediately taken of the number of letters that would be facilitated by a second delivery, and then I shall be in a position to decide.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—FAIR RENTS—CASE OF THOMAS SINNOTT.
  MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that an application to fix a fair rent under the Land Act, in which Mrs. Margaret Staples was landlady and Thomas Sinnott, of Duncormack, tenant, was heard at Wexford on the 8th April, before Messrs. Rice and Barry, Sub-Commissioners; that the area of the holding was two acres. The valuation £2, and the rent £4; that only one valuator was examined, who estimated a fair rent at £2 7s., and that no evidence whatever in answer was offered by the landlady; that the Sub-Commissioners did not visit the lands or even view them from a distance, and that they fixed the judicial rent at £4, being the amount of the old rent, and double the valuation; and, whether,
  988
  under these circumstances, he can state on what grounds the Sub-Commissioners arrived at their decision?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This Question was referred to the Land Commissioners for any observations they may have to offer with regard to it; and they report as follows:—
  "The application of Thomas Sinnott to have a fair rent fixed was heard, as stated, before a Sub-Commission, consisting of Messrs. Rice and Barry. The area of the holding was over three acres; the valuation was £2; the rent was £4; and this the Sub-Commissioners left unaltered. The Land Commissioners have no knowledge of the evidence that was offered, nor as to whether the Sub-Commission visited the farm. The Commissioners are not aware of the grounds on which the Sub-Commission arrived at its decision, and they decline to make inquiry. If the tenant is dissatisfied with the decision he has a right of appeal."

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—FIRING AT THE PERSON—CASE OF MICHAEL BURKE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the last Tipperary Petty Sessions, in reference to the charge against a herdsman named Michael Burke, in the employment of Mr. P. H. Massey, J.P.; Whether it was proved that Burke fired a revolver shot at three young men on the public road, without provocation; that he then proceeded, in a state of furious intoxication, to a neighbouring gate-lodge, where an old woman was standing with a baby in her arms, and discharged another revolver shot towards the public road, challenging anybody there to fight him; and that, when pursued by Constable Garry, he dropped on his knee, presented his revolver at the constable, and swore that if he stirred a step he would let daylight through him; whether, notwithstanding the evidence to this effect, a majority of the magistrates refused Sergeant Jack's application to have him remanded to the Bansha Petty Sessions, for the production of further evidence, and directed him only to be charged with drunkenness, and with having discharged loaded firearms on the public road; whether the President Magistrate, Mr. Meldon, dissented from their ruling, and was in favour of returning Burke for trial to the assizes for shooting at the person with intent to kill; whether any notice will be taken

  989
  of the conduct of the magistrates; whether Burke was awarded £130 compensation, under the Prevention of Crime Act, for an assault alleged to have been committed upon him, although he had not been confined to bed, and no doctor had visited him; whether that amount will now be levied; and, whether Burke will be deprived of his licence for carrying firearms?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This case is at present before the Attorney General for directions as to whether the circumstances are such as to make it proper that further proceedings should be taken. I cannot, therefore, at present, make airy statement as to the details of the charge against Michael Burke. With regard to the award of compensation to him under the Prevention of Crime Act, the facts are, that about two years ago he was attacked and beaten about the head—the motive for the outrage being that he remained in the employment of a gentleman who was "Boycotted" for giving a site for a Constabulary hut. I am advised that circumstances connected with the charge now made against him could not be held to be a reason for withholding the compensation legally awarded to him. The question whether Burke's licence should be revoked will be considered by the Lord Lieutenant.

  ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELL INGS ACTS—CLEARANCES IN WHITECIIAPEL.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that a site in White-chapel, nearly eight acres in extent, from, which five thousand persons were displaced by the Metropolitan Board of Works, under the provisions of the Goulston Street and Flower and Dean Street schemes made under the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Acts, remains still almost wholly unbuilt on, although a large part of it was cleared nearly four years ago, and the remainder a year ago, and although the need for dwellings for the poor is very pressing in that over-crowded district; whether he will, if it is within his province to do so, call the attention of the Board to the above facts, and urge them to sell the land for building without delay, or to require those who have bought it, or parts of it, to proceed forthwith to erect dwellings of the kind needed for the accommoda-
  990
  tion of labourers; and, whether he will suggest to the Board that, in case they desire further delays, they should plant this site with shrubs, and let it be used as a recreation ground till such time as the erection of the dwellings required can be begun?
  MR. HIBBERT (for Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): The only portion of the Goulston Street area in the market in 1883 comprised about two acres. Of this, only one acre was reserved for the re-housing of the artizans displaced. This was put up to auction on the 1st of June, 1883, but was not sold, and the Metropolitan Board have since been using every endeavour to find a purchaser. They have recently been successful in so doing, and the agreement for sale was executed on Friday, May 9. The Metropolitan Board have not yet been in a position to dispose of the remaining land, as it has not long been cleared, and the approaches have only just been completed; but negotiations are in progress for the sale of the whole of the remaining artizans' land in the Goulston Street area, and the Flower and Dean Street sites are to be advertised this week. It may be stated that a small site in George Yard—part of the Flower and Dean Street area—has already been covered with buildings for the accommodation of 100 persons. The Secretary of State will press upon the Board the desirability of pressing forward the sale of the land and the erection of the necessary dwellings.

  BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883—TRUSTEES BALANCES.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his estimate of one million sterling, as the amount of the aggregate balance likely to remain in the hands of the Board of Trade when the sums formerly held by trustees in bankruptcy were paid in to them has been realised; and, if not, what the aggregate balance now is?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The aggregate balance now in the hands of the Board of Trade from this source is £382,489. The money is coming in at the rate of from £10,000 to £15,000 a-week, and the Board of Trade has no reason to doubt that ultimately the amount originally estimated will be realized.

  NAVY—GENERAL OFFICERS OF ROYAL MARINES.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that, on the 4th June next, there will be only three General Officers of Royal Marines eligible for employment under Army Rules, out of a total of fourteen Generals; and if there is any intention of retiring those Officers who cannot again be employed, as is done in the case of every other branch of the service?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend I have to say that the statement of fact in the first part of his Question is correct. There is no intention to assimilate the Rules as to pay and retirement of General Officers of Royal Marines to those affecting General Officers in the Army.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS—TONBRIDGE SCHOOL.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether he is aware that the school of Sir Andrew Judd at Tonbridge was founded, and has been carried on for three centuries, as a free school for the benefit of all classes; whether, by the Scheme of 1880, the school was constituted a high or grammar school, from which, through the high scale of fees adopted, the sons of the trading and working classes are practically excluded; whether the Charity Commissioners, in their first draft Scheme, proposed, out of the surplus income of the endowment, to establish a middle or lower school in or near the town of Tonbridge; whether it is true that, on the faith of this proposal, the Skinners' Company, who were the original governors of Judd's free school, did pay to the Charity Commissioners a sum of £20,000, to assist in the establishment of such lower class school in Tonbridge; whether the Commissioners now insist on the establishment of this school at Tunbridge Wells, a town five miles distant from Tonbridge; whether the Skinners' Company, in a Letter dated 22nd June 1883, protested against this change of destination of the endowment, and declared that the school ought to be established, as intended, at Tonbridge; and, whether the Government will take steps to
  992
  restore to the poorer and middle classes of Tonbridge the advantages and rights of which the Scheme of the Charity Commissioners deprives them?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The history of Sir Andrew Judd's school at Tonbridge is related in the published Reports of the Charity Commissioners appointed by the late Lord Brougham, and in that of the Schools Inquiry Commissioners. The school is now regulated by a scheme which was passed by the Charity Commissioners in 1880, and which was laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and is now a Statute of the Realm. The various Questions of the hon. Member relate to a subject which some years ago gave rise to much controversy, and the complete answer to them would require an elaborate statement altogether exceeding the usual limits of answers to Questions in this House. If the hon. Member desires the production of any correspondence between the Charity Commissioners and the Skinners' Company subsequent to the time when the scheme became law, it shall be produced. The Government has no power to take any steps to vary a scheme which Parliament has sanctioned, and which is now law.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked whether, in the original scheme of 1875, the Charity Commissioners did not propose to establish a school in or near the town of Tonbridge; whether they did not afterwards propose to establish it in an adjacent parish; and, whether two years after the scheme was sanctioned by Parliament they did not disclose their intention of removing it to Tunbridge Wells?
  MR. MUNDELLA: It is impossible to give a categorical answer to these Questions. I have received from the Charity Commissioners several folios upon the subject, which I shall be very glad to submit to the hon. Member.
  MR. CAUSTONasked whether it was not the fact that the Skinners' Company protested against the secondary school being placed at Tunbridge Wells, and that it was only with the greatest reluctance that they had given up fighting the Charity Commissioners upon the subject?
  MR. MUNDELLA: That is very possible; but the hon. Gentleman who represents the Skinners' Company did not challenge the schemes in the House;

  993
  and it is impossible to go into the matter three or four years afterwards.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to give Notice that I shall call attention to the matter in Committee to-night.

  INDIA — THE QUETTA RAILWAY.
  MR. SLAGGasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the sanction of the Secretary of State for India has been given to the construction of the Quetta Railway, and that the work will now be pushed on rapidly; and, whether it is intended to submit the important Frontier question involved in this step to the consideration of the House of Commons?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The sanction of the Secretary of State has been given to the construction of the Quetta Railway, and the work will be executed with due despatch. It is not intended to submit this Question, which is one of railway extension, to the House of Commons. With regard to the Question of the Frontier, my hon. Friend is doubtless aware that the President of the Local Government Board stated in this House, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, on the 22nd of February last, that the administration of the Quetta district had been taken over by the Government of India, with the full concurrence of the Khan of Khelat.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Will the railway be made from revenue?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Yes, Sir; it will be made from revenue.
  MR. SLAGGsaid, he should take an early opportunity of calling attention to the Question of the Frontier.

  LAW AND JUSTICE — MAGISTRATES' CLERKS—PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, since it is a common practice in counties to hand over the prosecutions to the magistrates' clerk upon the committal of the accused, and that the clerks to the borough magistrates are expressly prohibited by statute from being directly or indirectly interested in the prosecution of any person committed by those justices, he is prepared to introduce or support a measure to secure the disinterestedness of the legal advisers of county magistrates?
  MR. HIBBERT, in reply, said, the Home Secretary would take the earliest opportunity of putting the clerks in. counties on a footing with those in boroughs.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT — THE "BLUE RIBBON" IN BOARD SCHOOLS.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If his attention has been called to the dismissal from a school at Turriff, Aberdeenshire, of a boy for wearing the blue ribbon; and, whether he can give instructions from the Department to restrain teachers from acting in this way in future?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The school board of Turriff report that a boy was expelled for insubordination, and not for wearing a blue ribbon. They have notified to the parents that the boy might return to school on condition that the insubordination should not be repeated; and it was not made a condition of re-admission that the boy should cease to wear a blue ribbon. It is now well understood that managers have no right to expel or refuse admission to children because of their wearing the blue ribbon; and we constantly act on this principle.

  THE MIDDLESEX REGISTRY.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Land Transfer Commissioners "as to whether the Middlesex Registry should be continued or abolished," in which they observe as follows:—
  "On this point we have thought it necessary to examine only three witnesses. All agree in saying that the Registry causes a great increase of trouble and expense, affords no additional security or other advantage, and ought not to be continued. We entirely concur in this opinion, and recommend that from as early a date as possible the Registry should be closed as regards the registration of deeds executed after that date;"
  whether it is now proposed that this Registry shall be established as a Government Department; and, whether, if the Middlesex Registry of Deeds Bill should become Law, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to convert that Registry of Memorials into a Registry of Titles?
  MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, these Questions were of an argumentative character, and he should prefer not to answer them until the Bill was again before the House for discussion.

  LAND IMPROVEMENT AND ARTERIAL DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the honourable Member for Cavan and the honourable and gallant Member for Dublin County, Whether they will withdraw their Notices of opposition to the Bills now before the House on the subject of Arterial Drainage, so as to allow of the appointment of a Select Committee with power to call evidence?
  MR. BIGGARasked the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether or not he had read this particular Bill?
  COLONEL COLTHURSTreplied in the affirmative.
  MR. BIGGAR: Perhaps I may be allowed to ask him, also, whether he would think it desirable that a Bill of so great importance as this should be allowed to pass the important stage of second reading without discussion?
  COLONEL COLTHURST: If had thought that I should not have asked the Question.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT — THE STEAMSHIP "ELEPHANT."
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given before the Wreck Commissioner in the case of the steamship Elephant; whether an officer of the Board of Trade admitted that he met the Elephant in the Thames in an overladen condition, but took no steps whatever to stop her; and, whether he has considered the conduct of the officer in question?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The evidence given before the Wreck Commissioner in the case of this vessel has been under my notice. It is true that a subordinate officer of the Board of Trade, who was coming up the river in one of the ordinary passenger steamers, saw the Elephant going down the river in what he believed to be an overladen condition. That officer had no authority to detain ships; and even if he had had such authority he could not have stopped the steamer he was on. When the officer
  996
  landed from the river steamer the Elephant had passed out of reach.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—SIR HENRY BULWER.
  MR. GUY DAWNAYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Sir Henry Bulwer still holds the office of Special Commissioner for Zulu affairs; and, if so, what are the duties of that office, and over what portions of Zululand those duties extend?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir Henry Bulwer is still Special Commissioner for Zulu affairs. His jurisdiction and duties may best be described by reading a passage from his commission by which he was appointed to conduct all relations with the Native Tribes in Zululand, except in regard to matters affecting the Transvaal State—
  "We do hereby authorize and empower yon, in our name and on our behalf, to take all such, measures and to do all such things in relation to the Native Tribes in Zululand as are lawful and appear to you to be advisable for maintaining our Colony of Natal in peace and safety, and for promoting the peace, order, and good government of the tribes aforesaid, and for preserving friendly relations with them."
  MR. GUY DAWNAY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman when he will be able to lay fresh Papers on the Table relating to this subject?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Within a few days, Sir.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL— OVER-INSURANCE.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he has any information of the existence of a practice among underwriting and insurance companies to any large extent of affording undue facilities for the over-insurance of ships with a view to the increased premium thus obtainable; whether the over-insurance of ships, especially of ships of a markedly unseaworthy character, can, according to the information of the Government, take place to any large extent without the connivance or culpable negligence of underwriting companies operating with a view to excessive premiums; and, whether he will undertake to complete the Bill before the House by restrictions upon the facilities which may now be possessed by underwriting and insuring companies for tempting the owners of

  997
  unseaworthy ships to effect excessive insurances for the sake of the high premiums obtainable upon such over-insurance?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: In the first of these three Questions the hon. Member appears to impute to the Underwriting and Insuring Companies the practice of affording undue facilities for the over-insurance of ships. All I can say is, that I have no information of the existence of such a practice. With regard to the second Question, it cannot, I think, be to the interest of the Underwriters knowingly to insure ships of a markedly unseaworthy character; but it is, in my opinion, almost impossible for them to exercise such a supervision over ships as to prevent over-insurance altogether. As regards the third Question, I am not aware of any temptation to owners to effect excessive insurances, except that offered by the law in connection with valued policies on ship and freight. The Merchant Shipping Bill before the, House imposes heavy penalties on Underwriters who effect void insurances, and I do not think that any further provision is necessary.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Has the Board of Trade no information as to whether Underwriters continue to offer facilities for over-insurance?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that Underwriters do offer facilities for over-insurance of ships, knowing them to be over-insured.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—RE- APPOINTMENT OF THE SUB- COMMISSIONERS
  MR. GIBSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, What does he now estimate will be the cost of the Irish Land Commission this year; and, will a Supplementary Estimate be necessary, in consequence of the decision of the Government to extend the employment of the temporary Sub-Commissioners until July?
  MR. COURTNEY: I am sorry to say a Supplementary Estimate will be necessary. I have not received the particulars of it; but I am told by telegram that the additional sum asked for will exceed £23,000.
  MR. GIBSON: What has been the Estimate charge for the past year?
  MR. COURTNEY: About £90,000. The £23,000 will be additional to this.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— COMMUNICATION WITH KHAR- TOUM.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has observed the following statement of The Times Correspondent in Cairo, published on May 20th:—
  "After repeated attempts I have succeeded in finding a Greek knowing the Country, who undertakes to convey messages to Khartoum and to bring back answers in about two months, provided that £1,000 be guaranteed to him, payable on the delivery of the replies, nothing to be payable in the event of failure. I am earnestly requested to give the utmost publicity to this offer, as it promises apparently the sole probable means of ascertaining the real situation of General Gordon;"
  and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take advantage of this chance of communicating with General Gordon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government have left to Mr. Egerton, Acting Agent and Consul General at Cairo, lull discretion as to despatching messengers to Khartoum. Various offers of a similar kind to that cited by the hon. Member have been made; and Mr. Egerton will, no doubt, select the means which he, being on the spot, considers most likely to be effectual.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM HEWETT— MISSION TO THE KING OF ABYSSINIA.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can give any further information as to the present position of Admiral Sir William Hewett and the progress of the negotiations with the King of Abyssinia?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The latest information received is to the effect that the Admiral, whole ft Massowah on April 7, had reached Adowa on the 6th of May, and was awaiting the arrival of the King, who was expected on the 12th instant. He was accompanied by Mason Bey, the Governor of Massowah, and Captain T. C. S. Speedy, a gentleman well acquainted with the language and customs of the Abyssinian Court and county. Admiral Sir William Hewett states that he was being treated hospitably by Ras Aloula, and that the officers and others attached to the mission were in good health.

  INDIA (MADRAS)—THE GOVERNOR— PAYMENT OF THE PROFESSIONAL TAX.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the Governor of Madras declines to pay Professional Tax in Madras, on the grounds that he never resides there, but that he spends five months of the year at his country seat of Guindy, and the other seven months at Ootacamund, on the Nilgiri Hills; and, whether Her Majesty's Government sanctions this arrangement on the part of a Governor of Madras?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: We have no information on this subject; but I may inform the hon. Member for Cavan that the Governor of Madras does not appear to be liable to pay Professional Tax under the City of Madras Municipal Act 5 of 1878.

  THE INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE—EXAMI NATION OF NATIVES.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is true that under the limit of age, namely, twenty-two years, for the admission of candidates to the India Civil Service examinations, which prevailed from 1851 to 1866, a number of Natives of India were enabled to outer by competitive examination; whether the limit of ago was reduced during the period from 1866 to 1876 to twenty-one years, but Natives of India, though only in the proportion of one a year, were still enabled by exceptional study to enter by competitive, examination; whether the limit of age was reduced in 1876 to nineteen years, and has been maintained at that early age ever since, with the result that not a single Native of India has been able to enter by competitive examination for the past eight years; whether the Government was informed that if the age of entrance was fixed sufficiently early it would practically exclude Natives of India from the competition for the India Civil Service, owing to the difficulty of acquiring the English language and of crossing the seas to England in mere boyhood; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to restore their former opportunities of examination to the Natives of India?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The best answer to this Question will be an accurate statement of the facts relating to the maximum limits of age, fixed from time to time, and of the number of Natives who have been selected by open competition for the Indian Civil Service. From 1855 to 1859, inclusive, 23 was the limit of ago. During those years no Native of India was selected. From 1860 to 1865, inclusive, 22 was the limit. During that period one Native was selected. From 1866 to 1878, inclusive, 21 was the limit of age. Thirteen competitive examinations were held in those years, and 10 Natives of India were selected. From 1878 to 1883, inclusive, 19 was the limit; and during this period one Native of India was selected. The limit now (under an alteration, taking place last year for the first time) is practically 19½ for the examination takes place in June, and what the Rule requires is that the candidate should not be over 19 on the 1st of January preceding the examination. The hon. Member asks whether Government was informed that, if the age of examination was fixed sufficiently early, it would practically exclude Natives? The Government of India, in a letter of the 2nd of May, 1878, written some time after it had been decided to reduce the age to 19, expressed the opinion that
  "The recent reduction of the standard of age for the competitive examination will practically render the competition of Natives educated in their own country a matter of exceptional difficulty."
  The assumption that the limitation of age to 19 years prevents the appointment of Natives is hardly borne out by the facts. Twelve Natives altogether have entered the Covenanted Civil Service. One, aged 20, was selected in 1863; four, three aged 20, and one 19, were selected in 1869; one, aged 19, was selected in 1870; one, aged 20, was selected in 1871; one, aged 20, was selected in 1873; two, aged 18 and 17 respectively, were selected in 1874; one, aged 19, was selected in 1877; one, aged 17, was selected in 1882. Of this total 11 were selected when the limit was 21 or upwards. Of these, six were 20 when they competed, three were 19, one was 18, and one was only 17; and the one successful candidate since 1878 was only 17. The establishment of the "Statutory" Civil Service, to which

  1001
  Natives are appointed in India in the proportion of one to every six selected by competition in England, must be taken into account in estimating the effect of the present arrangements. The Government has no present intention of making any alteration in the Rule as to the limit of age.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—HYDE PARK—OPEN-AIR PREACHERS.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the First Commissioner of Works, If his attention has been called to the fact that itinerant lay preachers are permitted by the Park Constables of Hyde Park each Sunday to make politico-religious orations in that part of the park used by visitors solely for the purpose of promenade; if he is aware that last Sunday three or four rival preachers, one a young man in a sporting grey suit, disturbed the visitors seated round the Achilles Statue by loud-toned orations and singing; and, if he will give orders to the Park Constables to prevent such conduct in future?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: By the Rules of the Park addresses may be delivered in a certain specified part of it, which includes the spot referred to by the hon. Member. I am informed that nothing has occurred lately on Sundays in contravention of the Rules which would justify the police in interfering.

  EXCISE—THE TOBACCO DUTIES.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the whole question of the duties now levied upon tobacco imported into the United Kingdom?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDEES): In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to remind him that the Motion which he recently made on the subject of the Tobacco Duties only referred to the duties on tobacco, either imported in a manufactured state or unmanufactured in bond. This is a simple question which I will further consider before next year, having regard to the settlements made after very careful inquiry in 1863 and 1878. But in the debate on the hon. Gentleman's Motion the general question of the Tobacco Duties was raised by suggestions to introduce the system of ad valorem duties
  1002
  with a view largely to reduce the charge on unmanufactured tobacco. This charge now produces over £8,500,000 a-year, and I am not prepared to submit to a Select Committee such a question, considering the magnitude of the Revenue involved, and the absolute abandonment by Parliament of the system of ad valorem duties. My answer to the hon. Gentleman must, therefore, be in the negative.

  PORTUGAL — SEIZURE AND DETEN TION OF THE BRITISH YACHT "MAUD" ON THE SOUTH AFRICAN COAST.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of information concerning the forcible seizure and detention of the British yacht Maud, by the Portuguese authorities, on the South African coast?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: We know nothing at all about the matter at the Colonial Office.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Will the hon. Gentleman cause inquiry to be made? The matter has been fully reported in the Liverpool papers.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I will get hold of the Liverpool papers and look at the reports.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL—STATE MENT OF MR. CHAMBERLAIN— THE VALUERS.
  MR. NORWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the four gentlemen who estimated the insurance value of certain steamers made the usual survey and examination of the vessels and their machinery to enable them to arrive at a just conclusion; whether two of them, viz., Mr. White (underwriter to the Marine Insurance Company) and Mr. Stringer (formerly a shipbroker) are professional valuers; and, whether he, before accepting their valuation as authoritative, took any steps to inform himself as to their possessing any scientific or practical acquaintance with the construction and values of ships and machinery?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, that he had ordered copies of the Question to be forwarded to the gentlemen referred to, and as soon as he received their replies he would give a full answer to the Question.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—THE "INCHCLUTHA."
  MR. MAC IVERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any inquiry was held with regard to the loss of the steamer Inchclutha, and with what result; whether there was any suggestion, either then or since, that the vessel was overladen or undermanned; and, whether he referred to the vessel on Tuesday without giving the owners any notice of the statement which he intended to make, and therefore without affording the opportunity of making a reply?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will refer to the report of my speech in The Times he will find that I said—
  "I am going to ask the House to consider the case of two vessels, both belonging to owners of whose honour, integrity, and high character there cannot be the slightest doubt;"
  and that, after giving certain details connected with the two vessels, I added, as regards the Inchclutha—
  "There was an inquiry into this case, and the Court found that the lost vessel was seaworthy and not overladen."
  In these circumstances, I do not see that there was any reason for communicating with the owners before stating the facts.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, that in consequence of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, he gave Notice of a further Question—"Whether the Inchclutha and the Ajax, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech as having sailed on the same voyage from the same port on the same day, were not, as a matter of fact, engaged in entirely different sailings; whether the one was homeward bound from Calcutta, and the other outward bound from Liverpool to China with passengers and cargo; whether, in comparing the crews of the two vessels with a view to sustain his allegations as to the one, he overstated the number of effective hands on board the other by including the doctor, the stewardess, and the cabin servants; whether he was in a position to give the name of any cargo steamer which carried a crew numerically as strong as a passenger steamer; whether it was not the fact that the insured value of the Inchclutha was less than the cost of replacing her, and that the vessel at the time she was lost was
  1004
  chartered in advance for nine months; and, whether the right hon. Gentleman notwithstanding the result of the inquiry, still wished the House to understand that this vessel was overladen, and undermanned, and over-insured; or whether he withdrew unreservedly all imputations against Messrs. Hamilton, Fraser, and Co., or would endeavour to substantiate his allegations by taking steps of such a character as would enable the gentlemen whom he had traduced to be heard in reply?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he would give an answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman if he would put it in proper language on the day he proposed to ask it. In the meantime, he would say that the hon. Member had misquoted the statement he made. He did not say these vessels started from the same port on the same day on the same voyage. Neither had he alleged that the Inchclutha was overladen. On the contrary, he distinctly stated that the Court of Inquiry found that she was not overladen. Neither did he allege that she was undermanned, although he showed that the proportion of the crew was smaller than in the case of the Ajax. He brought no allegations of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he quoted from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman as reported in the newspapers, and as sent to him by the owners.
  MR. O'DONNELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in consequence of a letter which has appeared impugning the accuracy of the reports, whether we are to understand that the mis-statements in his speech, of which he complains, are attributed by him to the reporters or to any other cause?
  [No reply.]

  RAILWAYS (INDIA)—THE INDO AFGHAN RAILWAY.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether there has been a raid recently on the road railway works on the Hurnai route, when several Native workmen were killed and wounded, and if he can state whether our political agent or the Khan of Khelat is responsible for the protection of those workmen; and, what arrangements are contemplated for the

  1005
  permanent protection of the men who are engaged in the Military Trans-Frontier Line, and at whose expense this protection will be accorded?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: No official Report on this subject has yet been received; but it is believed that the fact is as stated by my hon. Friend. The protection of the workmen employed on the Hurnai road rests with our Political Agent, by whom also, in conjunction with the military authorities, the arrangements necessary for the permanent protection of the workmen will be made at the expense of the Government of India.

  THE WELLINGTON STATUE.
  SIR ROBERT PEELasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, as the opinion of the House of Commons had not been asked as to the removal from the capital of the Empire of the national monument of the Duke of Wellington, and after the recent vote in "another place," the Government would give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion before the First Commissioner of Works proceeded with the further mutilation of the statue? He would also like to know if he would state to the House what the Government proposed to do in reference to the recent vote in "another place?"
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Hon. Members will recollect that on the first night of this month, after a second and very full discussion of the proposal with respect to the statue of the Duke of Wellington, the House, by a majority of 219 to 108, or more than 2 to 1, affirmed the scheme, and voted a sum of £2,000 towards an order for a new statue to be erected in the centre of the place at Hyde Park Corner. The House of Lords had previously, by a majority, affirmed the same scheme, and I had also the approval of Her Majesty. Under these circumstances, I considered the matter to be concluded, and the controversy at an end; and I therefore at once gave an order to Mr. Boehm for a new statue, and requested that preparations should be made by the War Office for the removal of the existing colossal statue to Aldershot. These preparations are in a very forward state, and a commencement has already been made to take the statue to pieces with a view to its removal. I hope, therefore, it will not be considered that
  1006
  it is from any want of respect to the House of Lords that the Government feel unable to carry out the more recent Resolution of that House, and that it must complete the arrangements already agreed upon and which are in course of execution. The noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) and others on that side of the House will, I am sure, admit that I have been very anxious in this case to avoid controversy and to do what would be agreeable to all. If I have failed in arriving at a course which meets with general approval, it arises from the difficulty which is inseparable from all questions of taste and sentiment, and I am not aware of any other plan which would not have raised greater opposition. With respect to the first Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I consider the whole subject he refers to was fully discussed and settled in the debate on the Vote; and I cannot offer him any facilities for raising the question again.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Perhaps I may be allowed the opportunity of expressing my sense of gratitude at the right hon. Gentleman's extreme anxiety throughout all these proceedings to conciliate, if possible, the views and the different interests involved in this question. I wish to ask him, however, what preparations are being made at Aldershot for the reception of the statue?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I do not know. Perhaps the noble Lord will put the Question to-morrow.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he will not consider the advisability of gratifying at the same time the wishes of the right hon. Baronet and the people of Dublin by removing to London the Wellington monument there, which has long been an eyesore and a nuisance to the population?
  [No reply.]

  IRELAND — CONDITION OF IRISH LABOURERS — THE SELECT COM MITTEE.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When he proposes to move for the Select Committee to inquire into the subject of the condition of the Irish Labourers?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I intend to move for the Committee after Whitsuntide, during which period I shall consult with the Irish Government as to the scope of the Reference. My own view is that it should be to inquire into the working of the Labourers' Cottage Act of 1883, which was the subject of the Bill that was before the House yesterday, and I should wish that every question started upon that Bill would receive consideration.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT — POLITICAL EMBLEMS IN NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether, since giving his reply to the Question of the 15th instant with regard to the portrait of Lord Beaconsfield and the mottoes "Peace with Honour," in the National Schools at Rothwell, any further information has come to his hand with regard to the explanation given to him by the master of the schools?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have received several communications on that subject. It is now admitted that all the mottoes were removed after the banquet, except the motto in question, which was removed only after the Notice of the hon. Member's Question. I hope that is the last I shall hear about the matter.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE ROYAL ACADEMY—THE CHAN TREY BEQUEST.
  SIR ROBERT PEELasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, since giving his reply to the question with regard to the subject of the Chan trey bequest, he is aware that the subject of the administration of the Chantrey bequest is much discussed by artists; whether, inasmuch as charitable donations and bequests by will are subject to supervision by Parliament, and by Commissioners appointed by Parliament, the Government acquiesces, in the view of the President of the Royal Academy, that the trust in question is of such an exclusive character as not to allow of any interference whatever from without; whether it is a fact that the bulk of the fund is now absorbed by members of the Royal Academy buying the works of their own body; and, whether, privileges
  1008
  having been granted by Parliament to the Academy, with a local habitation, at the expense of the nation, inquiry will be made, in the interest of art, into a matter affecting an institution so important in its public influence and character as the Royal Academy?
  MR. GLADSTONE: As to what the right hon. Baronet has embodied in the first portion of his Question, I am not possessed of that information in detail, and I have not felt justified as a Minister of the Crown in asking for it. The essential point in the case, which I am afraid I have not fully stated before, is that we have absolutely no power of instituting an inquiry in this matter. The Royal Academy, no doubt, stands in a certain relation to the Crown or to the State. It may be a little difficult to say which originally; but, whatever that relation may be, it does not invest the Executive Government with any sort of discretionary authority in regard to their proceedings.
  SIR ROBERT PEELreminded the right hon. Gentleman, as to the statement that the Government had no power, that a Commission in 1863 inquired into the position of the Royal Academy. In further enlarging on the subject of the administration of the Chantrey Trust, and while quoting from the Report of this Commission—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the right hon. Baronet would not be in Order unless he intended to found a Question on the quotation.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he intended to do so. He would ask the Prime Minister, whether the President and Council of the Royal Academy were, in fact, trustees for the public of the works of Art purchased out of the funds at their disposal as the property of the nation; and, whether the Government, as in the case of charitable donations and bequests by will, could not interfere? If the right hon. Gentleman gave him an unsatisfactory answer, he would call attention on the first opportunity to the position of the Royal Academy.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have every disposition to give as satisfactory an answer as I can; and if I do not do so it is not really my will, but my poverty, that is in question. I am absolutely correct in saying that the Government have no power whatever, although the nation, no doubt, has a great interest in

  1009
  the good administration of those trusts and of many others. No doubt a Royal Commission was instituted to inquire into the condition and management of the Royal Academy; but I am correct in saying that that Commission was instituted with the good will and assent of the Academy itself. Unless it had been so instituted, it would have had no power of producing any result.
  SIR ROBERT PEELgave Notice that he would call attention to the matter on an early day.

  CITY OF LONDON LIVERY COMPA NIES—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Right honourable Sir Richard Cross, Whether he can inform the House when the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the City Livery Companies is likely to be presented?
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: With regard to this Question, I may state that these Questions are usually addressed to the Secretary of State, who obtains the information, and not the Secretary to the Royal Commission. I am not aware that a Member of any Royal Commission is entitled to state anything in this House or elsewhere as to the opinions of any of the Commissioners until their Report is presented to the Queen. I have, however, received a letter from the Secretary to the Commission, and I am willing to state this. The Report and all the evidence connected with it will, no doubt, make a very large number of volumes; but the first volume containing the Report is in a very forward state to be placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. I can assure the hon. Member, as far as I am concerned, and as far as the Secretary is concerned, there will be no delay in the presentation of that volume containing the Report in consequence of the opinion of any of the Commissioners.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true that the Government intend sending a flotilla of armed boats to Dongola, Berber, Khartoum, and other besieged places on the Upper Nile, for the purpose of relieving the garrisons, so soon as there is sufficient water to float the boats over the cataracts; and, further, what mea-
  1010
  sures, if any, are being adopted to communicate with General Gordon?
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE: I wish to ask, whether the Government are, or have been, in communication with Messrs. Cook, of Cook's tourist lame, in reference to the supply of vessels for the rescue of General Gordon?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With respect to the Question on the Paper, what has happened is simply this. On the requisition of General Stephenson, and with the full assent of the Admiralty at home, Lord John Hay is at present making arrangements for patrolling by steamboats a certain portion of the Nile. I am not able to state absolutely as to what that portion is; but I believe it is above Assiout, and it is certainly below Wady Halfa. Whether it extends all the way to Wady Halfa I do not know. These steamers belong to the Khedive; but there will be a small company of British, sailors on board each. It is purely a measure having reference to arrangements in the interior of Egypt.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Are British officers on board?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I presume that is probable; I think it must be so.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE: I shall ask a Question to-morrow on the subject.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I find that I omitted to answer one part of the hon. Member's Question. Her Majesty's Government are using every effort they can to communicate with General Gordon; but it would not be of advantage, and might be very inconvenient, if the exact means employed were now stated.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. GIBSON: I wish to ask a Question as to the course of Public Business. The Chief Secretary stated a few nights ago that he would state to-day on what occasion he would present the Bill, and make a statement with reference to the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act. In the event of its being Tuesday, I would like to know whether the speech will be made, and the Bill presented on the Motion for Adjournment?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; the proposal is that the subject should be introduced on Monday night for the purpose of making it an Order of the Day, not for the purpose of statement or

  1011
  discussion, and that then it should become the first Order on Tuesday.
  In reply to Lord JOHN MANNERS,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that the first Business that evening would be the Vote on Account; the second, the Civil Service Estimates; and the third, the National Debt Bill, which, however, would not be taken after 11 o'clock.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Prime Minister, Whether it was the intention of the Government that the House should adjourn after the Morning Sitting on Tuesday, or whether there should be an Evening Sitting on that day? His reason for asking the question was because his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had the first Notice of Motion on the Paper for Tuesday with reference to the Report of the Crofters' Commission.
  MR. GLADSTONEpresumed that the House would wish to adjourn after the Morning Sitting on Tuesday. If they met in the evening, and that incident were to happen which was not altogether unknown, there would be a necessity for the House to meet on Wednesday.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked whether the Army Estimates would be taken immediately after Whitsuntide or not?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was unable at present to fix another day for proceeding with the Army Estimates.

  ARMY—SALE OF SITES AT SOUTHSEA.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the War Department has recently disposed of a valuable piece of land at Southsea, on which it is proposed to erect a Liberal Club; if so, whether the land was sold by public auction or after invitation of tenders; and, whether the Department is prepared to offer similar facilities for the acquisition of sites for the erection of a Conservative or other political Club at Portsmouth?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: A building called Hampshire House, at Portsmouth, being no longer required by the War Department, has been sold, on the recommendation of the General Officer Commanding at Portsmouth, at a valuation to Mr. Alderman King, who in his application stated that he wished to purchase the house on behalf of the
  1012
  Committee of a Club. There was nothing in the correspondence to show that this Club was to be of a political character. The Department has not offered special facilities in this case to any particular Association. They have sold the land at the price at which it was valued by Messrs. Clutton.

  EGYPT—THE SOUDAN—EMPLOYMENT OF TURKISH TROOPS.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether it was a fact that Lord Dufferin had been instructed to enter into negotiations with the Government of the Porte, with a view to obtain the assistance of Turkish troops for operations in the Soudan, either with or without the co-operation of English troops?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It is true that the hon. Member gave me private Notice a short time ago of this Question; but it is not in my power to reply to it at present.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN ADVANCE.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state how many miles the Russian Forces have advanced from the Caspian towards India, (i.e., from Krasnovodsk by road to Sarakhs) since Her Majesty's present Ministers came into Office?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Russian advance from Krasnovodsk had reached Kizil Arvat, a distance of 144 miles, in December, 1870. It ceased till 1877, when it was resumed. In 1879 it had reached Dengel Tepe, a total distance of 254 miles. Since then it has been continued as far as Baba Dermaz, a distance of about 375 miles.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether one of the Sarakhs was not now in possession of a Russian force?
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that when Notice was given of the hon. Member's Question he had himself given Notice that he would at the same time ask the noble Lord whether he could state the comparative acquisitions of territory by Russia during the respective periods when the late Government and the present Government were in Office? Was the noble Lord now in a position to make such a statement, including the

  1013
  acquisition of The Port of Batoum and other territory in Armenia?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICErepeated the substance of the answer he had already given to the hon. Member for Eye. With reference to the Question of the hon. Member for Carlow, he had framed his previous answer so as to cover both the periods mentioned.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTgave Notice that he would call attention to the extraordinary inaccuracy of the noble Lord's answer in reference to the advance of Russia, and to a statement made by the official Russian journal of the Caucasus, containing the following words: —
  "If we desired we could undoubtedly conquer India; but our policy is to liberate Indians from the British yoke."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

    EGYPT—THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a further sum, not exceeding £3,468,550, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1885, Viz.:—

    CLASS I. — PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

    Great Britain:—

    £

    Houses of Parliament

    4,000

    Public Buildings

    10,000

    Public Offices Site

    5,000

    Furniture of Public Offices

    3,500

    Revenue Department Buildings

    40,000

    County Court Buildings

    7,000

    Metropolitan Police Courts

    1,500

    Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland

    1,000

    New Courts of Justice, &c.

    3,500

    Surveys of the United Kingdom

    30,000

    Science and Art Department Buildings

    1,000

    British Museum Buildings

    2,000

    Natural History Museum

    Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade

    1,500

    Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland)

    10,000

    Metropolitan Fire Brigade

    2,500

    Disturnpiked and Main Roads (England and Wales)

    Disturnpiked Roads (Scotland)

    1,000

    Ireland:

    Public Buildings

    35,000

    Royal University Buildings

    500

    Science and Art Buildings, Dublin

    BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he rose to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,500,000. The reason why he wished to reduce the Vote by that sum had connection with the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Egypt and the proposed Conference. As the Vote contained an item for Diplomatic Services, he thought it clearly and legitimately afforded, or should afford, an opportunity for the Committee to express its opinion, not only with regard to the Egyptian complications generally, but especially to the proposed Conference.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Motion I have submitted to the Committee has no connection with the affairs of Egypt.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: May I call your attention to the fact that there are items both for Diplomatic Services and for the Foreign Office?
    THE CHAIEMAN: I see there is an item in Class I. for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: That is not the item I refer to. In Class V. there is an item for Diplomatic Services, and in Class II. there is another for the Foreign Office.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Then I think the hon. Member will be in Order.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he rose to a point of Order. He had no desire in any way to interfere with the course which the hon. Member for Greenwich proposed to take upon the Question before the Committee; but he wished to ask the Chairman whether, in putting the proposition of the hon. Member to the vote, it might not have the effect of shutting out a discussion upon other subjects which might arise in connection with the Vote upon Notices standing earlier on the Paper? He wished to ask the Chairman whether he was correct in the information he had received that the Motion of the hon. Member would have that effect, because if so there were other Notices of Motion; and, as a rule, he understood that those who had given Notice of Motion had priority over those who had not given Notice.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, upon the point of Order, asked whether it was not necessary that Motions for the reduction of special items in the Vote must be taken before Motions to reduce the Vote as a whole?
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would suggest, upon the point of Order, that if the Motion of his hon. Friend were carried any other reduction of the Vote might be made the subject of a separate debate.
    THE CHAIRMAN: There is no positive order as to the precedence of Members on such an occasion as this. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) rose in his place to speak to the Motion. As I saw him rise, and no one else rose at the same time, I called upon the hon. Member; and he is quite in Order in the course he is taking.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he had only risen in the interests of other hon. Members who might wish to bring forward other questions. He was afraid, if the proposition of the hon. Member was carried by the Committee, that those who had given Notices of Motion upon other subjects
    1018
    might be shut out from discussing the questions in which they took an interest. In the event of that anticipation being correct, he would put it to the hon. Member for Greenwich that he might adjourn the discussion of the question he desired to raise until other hon. Members had brought forward their Motions relating to specific items in the Vote.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) will not be prejudiced in any way in bringing his Motion before the Committee. The hon. Member, however, did not rise at the same time as the hon. Member for Greenwich.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether, if the Question was put from the Chair that the total Vote be reduced, it would not preclude other hon. Members from moving the reduction of any particular item in the Vote
    THE CHAIRMAN: No.
    MR. GRAYsaid, his only wish was to call attention to the matter. He was fully satisfied the Chairman would desire to afford reasonable facilities for the discussion of any question that might be raised.
    MR. GORSTwished to inquire, upon the point of Order, whether it was the fact that the putting of a Motion for the reduction of the gross Vote would preclude hon. Members from moving the reduction of any particular item afterwards?
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwould point out that this was quite an unusual case. As a matter of fact, he was not aware that any similar circumstance had occurred before. No doubt the course referred to by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was that which was adopted in the case of a discussion of the regular Estimates when the reduction of the entire Vote was moved. But the peculiarity in the present case was that they were dealing with a Vote on Account asked for by the Government, and not with the whole Vote in any single instance.
    MR. RYLANDSunderstood the point of Order to be this. The right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had put the full amount of the Vote on Account which was asked for by Her Majesty's Government, and upon that Motion the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) proposed to reduce the

    1019
    amount by the sum of £1,500,000. What hon. Members contended was that if the Question was put upon the whole amount, and the Motion of the hon. Member were rejected, the full amount could not then be discussed again; and in that case it would be clearly most inconvenient for any hon. Member to take exception to any particular item.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Rule of debate is this—that after the Question has been proposed from the Chair for the reduction of the whole Vote, no Motion can be made for the reduction of any particular item. But in this case the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) would not be prejudiced or prevented from raising the question which he has put upon the Paper after the Motion of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) has been disposed of. If the original Vote in this instance should be reduced, the Question would afterwards be put upon either the original Vote or the reduced Vote, as the case might be, and the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) would then be in Order in making a new Motion.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, there was one point which arose out of the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman which he did not understand—namely, whether it would be competent for any hon. Member to move the reduction of the Vote by a particular item after there had been a Division upon the whole Vote?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwould submit this consideration to the Chair upon the point of Order. If a Motion were made to reduce the Vote by more than £1,000,000, would it not be competent for any hon. Member to speak to that Motion, and bring forward any arguments relating to any portion of the Public Service? Surely, if that were so, it would introduce absolute confusion into the discussion; whereas, if reductions were moved in connection with specific items contained in the Vote, the discussion would be confined to the particular Service in question.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS, on the same point of Order, wished to say that he had given Notice of his intention to move the reduction of the Vote for the Charity Commission by the sum of £2,000. Would he be in Order in moving that Motion after a Division had been taken upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms)?
    MR. SEXTONthought the hon. Member would not be able to do that.
    THE CHAIRMAN: There can be no doubt that the hon. Member's proposition can be submitted to the Committee; but it would be more regular to take the discussion upon the particular items. The circumstances are these—the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms)rose as soon as the Question was put from the Chair. I did not see any other hon. Member rise, therefore the hon. Member for Greenwich is now in possession of the Committee; and if he chooses to continue his statement I call upon him to do so.
    MR. GLADSTONE: As I understand the matter, when the hon. Member for Greenwich has made his statement upon a particular subject affecting one or more items, every other hon. Member will be able to rise in succession and introduce any other question without any possibility of bringing it to an issue.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had a proposition to make for the purpose of curtailing the time over which the Vote on Account would run. By limiting the amount voted, would he be shut out from raising that question, if they embarked in a discussion of the special items included in the Vote?
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he would make a suggestion to the Committee, which he thought would facilitate matters. Would it not be better for the Committee to ignore the hon. Member for Greenwich altogether, and proceed with the Votes as they stood upon the Paper? That course would enable them to get over all the difficulty, if they would proceed with the Votes seriatim.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he had no desire to stand in the way of the hon. Member for Greenwich; but there certainly was a question which he desired to raise, and if it were understood that he would have an opportunity hereafter of bringing that question forward, he was quite willing that the hon. Member should go first. The only desire on his part was to raise the question, and for that purpose he had given a specific Notice, which was on the Paper. He was in his place when the Motion was read by the Chairman; but he had not risen at the very first instance, because he thought it would not have been courteous to the Chairman to have done so. He had naturally assumed that as his Notice

    1021
    stood first on the Paper, the right hon. Gentleman would at once have called upon him. He had no desire, however, to contest the question of precedence, and if he were afforded an opportunity at any time before the Votes were decided for bringing forward his Motion, he would be perfectly contented.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The matter is one of considerable importance. The real fact is that the Rules, as understood, apply primarily not to Votes on Account, but rather to the ordinary form of Votes; and all the precedents we have in books, such as Sir Erskine May's, are precedents having regard to the general Votes in the Estimates. Now, the Rule in that matter is perfectly plain, and I think we should follow the spirit of the Rule in dealing with Votes on Account. Following the spirit of the Rule, if the Motion of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) is put first for the reduction of the general Vote, it will render it impossible for hon. Members to discuss particular items in the Vote. I think we should do what is customary in the case of the ordinary Estimates. I remember well, when I had more to do with these Votes than I have had lately, that when two Members wished to move Amendments, the one to reduce the whole Vote and the other to reduce a particular item, by the courtesy of the House the hon. Member who wished to reduce the Vote as a whole withdrew his Motion until those who wished to reduce individual items had had their opportunity. Of course, that could only be done by taking the Votes in regular order. What I would, suggest to the hon. Member for Greenwich is, that he should carry out that which is the spirit in which we have always acted, and withdraw his present Motion until after the Motions of other hon. Members who wish to move the reduction of particular items have been dealt with. When they have been dealt with, the opportunity for the hon. Member for Greenwich will arise.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETThoped the hon. Member for Greenwich would not be deterred, by the obvious desire of the Government to shirk the discussion of this subject, from making his statement first.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHquite agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    1022
    that the new question which had sprung up was one of considerable importance: but he thought that in this case, seeing that it was simply a Vote on Account, the Committee might be disposed to deal with the Vote as a whole. It did not appear to him that such a course would interfere in any way with the course proposed to be pursued by other hon. Members afterwards in moving the reduction of particular items in the Vote. Suppose, for example, that his hon. Friend, instead of proposing to reduce the Vote by £1,500,000, proposed to reduce it by the whole amount, and the Committee had agreed to that Motion, it would thereupon become the Main Question; and, when put as the Main Question, hon. Members would have a perfect right to bring forward their Motions. Whether that was so or not, he was quite certain that there must be some opportunity upon a Vote on Account for attacking the Vote as a whole, and it did not appear reasonable that his hon. Friend, after having obtained precedence, should give way.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I do not propose to repeat what I said about our general practice; but I may point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) carried his Motion, the lesser sum would have been absolutely voted, and no other Amendment could be put according to the Forms of the House. Therefore, I would point out again that the Rule should be, in discussing a Vote on Account, to deal with each specific item, and afterwards with the Vote as a whole.
    MR. SEXTONsaid he should like to know, after the statement which had just been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what was the ruling of the Chair?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I adhere to what I have already stated. The hon. Member for Greenwich has moved the reduction of the whole Vote; and. in my view that does not preclude the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), or any other hon. Member, from moving a reduction afterwards.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMSthen continued. He was sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would do him the justice to say that, as long as he had had the honour of a seat in it he

    1023
    had never obstructed or attempted to obstruct Public Business; but he thought the question which he wished to bring before the Committee was one of such urgency that he was obliged to avail himself of this, the only opportunity he might have, for submitting it to the decision of the Committee. He did not propose to open up all the vexed questions connected with the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt. Were he to attempt to do so, he thought the fears of hon. Members who thought they would not have a chance of discussing other questions would be well grounded, because he might, perhaps, be compelled on such a subject to make a speech that would compete favourably in length with the recent speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. Fortunately, he had no desire to do anything of the sort, and the reason why he would move the reduction of the Vote was that at that moment they were passing through a crisis of such danger and such magnitude that it was only due to the House of Commons that they should receive from Her Majesty's Government and the Prime Minister more detailed and accurate information than had hitherto been vouchsafed to them. The answer to a Question he had ventured to put to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as to the despatch alleged to have been sent to Lord Dufferin, suggesting that Turkish troops should be sent to the Soudan, was so eminently unsatisfactory that the impression it conveyed to both sides of the House was that the statement contained in the Question was not itself absolutely inaccurate. That constituted, in his opinion, a source of grave danger. The introduction of the Turkish element into the Egyptian Question must be a great danger; but there was also another matter agitating the country, the importance of which could not be overrated—he meant the question of the Conference. Some short time ago he ventured to ask the Prime Minister whether he could give, without detriment to the public interest, some assurance as to the limitation of the Conference. The answer he received was that the Conference would be confined to the financial question. Since that time various intimations had leaked out in the Press as to the statements of Ministers, which led the public to believe that the Conference
    1024
    would not be strictly limited to financial matters. He thought that people outside the House, and hon. Members within it, were justly entitled to demand from Her Majesty's Government that, taking into consideration the extremely unfortunate manner in which they had, up to the present time, conducted the affairs of Egypt, some sort of guarantee should be given before they found themselves engaged around the Conference Table with the other Powers of Europe, and that some explanation should be afforded by Her Majesty's Government, which should allay the alarm of the public, and re-assure the country as to the projects they intended to introduce at the Conference. The Prime Minister, in answer to a Question on a former occasion in that House, made a very vague statement in regard to the views expressed by France in reference to the Conference. They ought not to forget that the views and interests of France, and those of this country, in Egypt, could not be considered as equal and co-ordinate. Our interests in Egypt were different from those of any other State; and when we went to the Conference, if we submitted to the Conference those matters which were already within our power, we should be submitting to the arbitration of others matters which ought to be kept within our own administration. It was a fact, which it was impossible to deny, that our interests in Egypt were absolutely different from those of any other Power. The only Power which had any interest at all like our own was France. We must recollect that in all recent debates it had invariably been cast in our teeth that the Dual Control was the cause of all the misfortunes of Egypt. He did not wish to resuscitate that question; but he would simply state, in reference to the Conference, that they must not forget that Her Majesty's Government had ample time and means at their disposal, if they thought fit, for doing away with the Dual Control. As a matter of fact, it was not done away with by England; but it ceased at the precise moment when the French men-of-war steamed out of the harbour of Alexandria just before the bombardment of that city. The Dual Control was determined by the French, and not by the English. No doubt, there was now some anxiety on the part of the French Government to re-enact

    1025
    the Dual Control. Of course, it was impossible to measure the extraordinary ways of Her Majesty's Government. After having condemned the Dual Control to the utmost of their power, and after having cast on the late Government the whole responsibility for the state of Egypt under the Dual Control, nothing would surprise him less than to find Her Majesty's Government reconstituting a new Dual Control. He thought they might fairly ask this of the Government—to follow the precedents established by the Berlin Conference, and to give to the House not only the letters of invitation to the Conference, but also the answers of the Powers to those letters, so that the country might be in a position to know, to some extent, the basis on which the Conference was to assemble. The interests of England in the matter were so vast and so important that he could not conceive how the Government could have any right to withhold from Parliament an indication of what the reasons were which induced them to call the Conference. No doubt, the Government were under the potent spell of the Prime Minister, who was the Dictator of the Liberal Government; but he thought the time had not yet come when the Prime Minister, however potent or eloquent he might be, could possibly assume the character of Dictator of England. It was because he and others, who represented the people of the country, feared that Her Majesty's Government might adopt a tortuous and disastrous policy that he thought the moment had now arrived when the Prime Minister should clearly and distinctly state what his views were in regard to the Conference, so as to enable the House to judge how far the interests of England would be imperilled should the Conference meet. They already knew that the views of the Prime Minister as to the necessity of holding Egypt were not at all in accordance with the views of hon. Members on that side of the House. They would remember that when there was a talk about the Suez Canal, the Prime Minister suggested that the question was one of minor importance, and that it mattered very little, in a time of war, whether ships could go through the Canal or not.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I never said anything of the kind.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: The right hon. Gentleman said he had never said that. He thought the words of the right hon. Gentleman were that the Cape route to India was quite as good as that by the Suez Canal.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Never. I never said that the Cape route was quite as good, or anything of the kind. I stated the difference between them; but I never said anything like what the hon. Member has just attributed to me.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, that, of course, if the right hon. Gentleman said he had never made that statement, he would at once withdraw it; but he certainly thought that the right hon. Gentleman had made use, in one of his articles in The Nineteenth Century, of words to this effect—that in a time of war it was a matter of little importance whether ships went by the Suez Canal route or by the Cape. He (Baron Henry De Worms) was not one of those who thought the matter was not of importance. He was of opinion that it was of very great importance that they should preserve their communications through Egypt intact. He would ask the Committee to consider this. They knew perfectly well that at the close of the last Turkish War, after the Treaty of Berlin, the position of Russia with regard to Turkey was vastly changed. They knew, after some years of Office by the Prime Minister, that his sympathies were all with Russia, and that Russia had been induced since to make still further encroachments. That evening they had heard, as a geographical fact, that Russia had advanced her frontier 600 miles further since the advent to power of the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore it behoved everyone, seeing that the House was about to adjourn for 10 days, to obtain from Her Majesty's Government some specific declaration that if the Conference was to meet, English interests would not be compromised or sacrificed to that principle of non-responsibility which had been the origin of all their misfortunes in Egypt, and which he feared might end in the death or captivity of General Gordon. Her Majesty 's Government originally employed General Gordon as their Agent, with a view of shifting their responsibility from themselves to his shoulders, and they had abandoned him now because he had failed. He ventured to think that unless

    1027
    the House exercised a vigilant criticism, the Government, with a view of shirking responsibility and in order to please their peace at-any-price supporters, would endeavour to place upon the shoulders of the Great Powers, who were only too anxious to accept the responsibility, the interests which this country ought to safeguard in Egypt. Therefore, in order that the Government might have an opportunity of explaining to the Committee the basis of the Conference, he moved the reduction of the Vote. Not only the House itself, but millions of people outside the House, had a right to demand from Her Majesty's Government some explicit statement before the Government entered into obligations which the House would be unable to reverse.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a further sum, not exceeding £1,968,550, tie granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885." — (Baron Henry De Worms.)
    MR. GLADSTONE: It is with some diffidence and hesitation that I ask the attention of the Committee for a few moments, because I am aware that every hon. Gentleman who takes an interest in any one of the items on which we are now asked to take a Vote on Account is as entitled as I am myself to discuss the Motion of the hon. Gentleman; and I know, further, that hon. Members will also be able to go off upon any other subject whatever connected with any one of these Votes. That is the condition to which at present it appears the order of Business in this House is reduced. I am very sorry for it, but it is absolutely necessary that I should say one or two words in answer to the speech of the hon. Member before other subjects, just as relevant as the Egyptian policy, are introduced for discussion. I put aside in a lump the dishonouring imputations which the hon. Member thinks himself entitled to cast on Her Majesty's Government. He says that we have made a tool of General Gordon—that we have employed him to throw our responsibilities upon him, and that we abandoned him because he is no longer of use to us. The hon. Gentleman makes these dishonouring and foul imputations without the slightest attempt to prove them, and an attempt
    1028
    to make them without proof shows the unscrupulous character of those who make them.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: Sir Arthur Otway, I rise to Order.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Allow me to finish the sentence.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I wish to know if it is a Parliamentary expression for the right hon. Gentleman to say that unscrupulous imputations have been made by an hon. Member, or that any hon. Member is unscrupulous?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I believe that the word has frequently been used before in debate. I do not know that it is unparliamentary.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I observe, Sir, on this occasion, that those who are most ready to cast dishonouring and even base imputations upon their opponents, are themselves the most extraordinarily sensitive to any charge made against themselves. But, Sir, I wish to pass by the whole of these statements of the hon. Gentleman as perfectly and absolutely worthless. I will only deal with those portions of his speech which appear to be directed towards some points of an intelligible character. The hon. Gentleman is greatly alarmed at the introduction of the Turkish element. What does he mean by the introduction of the Turkish element? Is it this—that a Question having been put to my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs without Notice, my noble Friend asked for Notice—
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I gave Notice.
    MR. GLADSTONE: When was that Notice given?
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I sent it to the noble Lord at 1 o'clock.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Two hours' Notice !
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I received it at half-past 2.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The Notice was received at half-past 2, and that I do not call a Parliamentary Notice at all. My noble Friend would probably have to refer to documents, and to consult other persons, and these things cannot be done always at the very moment when it may suit the convenience of hon. Gentlemen who avoid the regular and understood methods of proceeding, and adopt others of a much less convenient and efficient character. Upon that

    1029
    fact of my noble Friend requiring Notice, the hon. Member said it amounted evidently to a proof that the whole imputations conveyed in his Question were true. I am astonished at the degree in which prejudice can divert an honest mind from the path of reason, and at the slightness of the foundation on which a most enormous structure can be raised by an overstrained and portentous ingenuity. The hon. Gentleman says he wants some statement as to the Conference, and he puts certain Questions, two of which I will venture to answer. He wishes to know whether anything of a very formidable character is to happen within what he calls the 10 days of the Whitsuntide Recess? I wish there were 10 days, but I am afraid they do not quite amount to that number. In that Recess I do not think it is likely that anything of a very portentous character will happen. I hope that statement will convey some comfort to the mind of the hon. Gentleman. [Baron HENRY DE WORMS dissented.] If my assurance to that effect conveys to him no comfort at all, what was the use of asking for it? I believe a man in a Court of Justice ought never to discredit his own witness. The hon. Gentleman asked me to make an assurance about what is to happen in the course of 10 days, and when I make it he seems to signify that it is of no account. He then asks whether the interests of England will be prejudiced in the Conference? According to our view, conviction, and expectation, there is not the slightest apprehension that the interests of England will be prejudiced in the Conference? The object of the Conference is to consult the interests of Egypt in a manner conformable to reason, and to the interest of all the Powers. I know the hon. Gentleman has given the opinion that there is some essential variance and discrepancy between the interests of England in Egypt and those of other Powers. I need not discuss that opinion on the present occasion; but I would put it to him as regards the narrower question of the settlement of Egyptian finances, that even probably he would not think it necessary to assert that there must be necessarily a great divergence or any conflict between the interests of England and of the other Great Powers. Europe has an interest in the settlement of Egyptian finance as well as England; and I do
    1030
    not think there can be anything like discrepancy in the interests of the several Powers in the settlement of the matter. Of course, the plans that England may propose and that the Conference may adopt will be subject to the control of this House. If they touch money matters, the hon. Gentleman is well aware they cannot possibly take effect without the assent of this House; and I should have thought there was no subject with regard to which his susceptibilities have so little need to be excited, as they appear to be at this moment, as the discussions of the Conference, which is going to deal with the financial question in Egypt, because, if we make propositions prejudicial to England, or propositions which, although not prejudicial to England, may affect the Prerogatives of this House, in regard to public money, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware that the matter must come under the cognizance of this House, and that no Executive Government is able to pledge this House with respect to such a subject. For instance, if I go back to the transactions of the Suez Canal, the sum of money voted as a commission on that occasion this House was free to reject if it had thought fit. It passed the Vote; but its jurisdiction was unquestionable, and in every money transaction that fact is perfectly well understood and known over the whole world. But I really want to get at the object of the hon. Gentleman, and, so far as I can, to meet him. I have said that, as respects finance, it appears to me he ought to feel perfectly secure, not from his confidence in the Government, but from the limitations under which every Government must necessarily act. But I suppose his object really must be to ascertain whether I hold to what I previously stated in regard to the limitation of the Conference. Am I right in that? If I am right in that, I will do what I can to meet him. In passing by, somewhat summarily, what I thought were dishonouring imputations, I did not mean to include the imputation the hon. Member made on me as to the airs of a Dictator. That is quite within the limits of good-humoured criticism, and I understood entirely its object. I hope it is not necessary for me to disclaim that imputation, and I am not aware of any facts or evidence, even colourable, by which it

    1031
    can be supported. It was my duty to state the limitations of the Conference to the House, but that did not imply that the limitations of the Conference had any special reference to any view of mine. It was the product of the united deliberation, and it represented the united decision, of the Cabinet. That limitation is established, and cannot possibly be presented to the House in a better form than in the letter of invitation which the hon. Gentleman has seen. He says—"Will you not lay before the House the letters you have received in reply? "It would not be in accordance with precedent that we should do so. The case of the Treaty of Berlin stands upon a totally different footing, because in relation to that Treaty the Government had made it an important financial measure, and asked the House for a very large Vote of money, making the House in that way a partner with the Government in the proceeding hand in hand, and the whole matter required that the Government should lay before the House all the information in their power. We have asked nothing of the kind. What we shall propose to the Conference we shall propose without obtaining any special Vote of Confidence, without obtaining the support of £6,000,000 from Parliament. But we do not at all disguise from the House what the purpose of the Conference is, and I repeat what I have already stated in an answer which I gave to a Question the other day, that we adhere to the basis of the Conference as it was originally laid down. So far as my information goes, I am not aware that any of the Great Powers will endeavour to draw us aside from that basis. The letters, even if they were laid on the Table, I believe would add nothing to the information of the House. But it is the invitation to which we are pledged. That is our act, and for that, and for every act in the Conference, we shall always be ready to answer to the House at the proper time. I do not remember that there was anything else in the speech of the hon. Member which I ought to refer to. Yes, there was one other matter which I ought to refer to. He said it would not at all surprise him if we were to reconstitute the Dual Control. Well, Sir, I do not think that sentiment of his will ever be brought to an issue. I never heard that the hon. Member ob-
    1032
    jected to the Control; but, whether he does or does not, I think he has very little reason to apprehend that the day will ever come when we shall propose the revival of an arrangement with respect to which, although I have always been glad to admit that it was adopted honestly and with good intentions, yet we consider that it has been productive of disastrous results. I have now endeavoured to answer the Questions asked with reference to the limitation of the Conference, and what may take place in the Recess in regard to the interests of England and the Dual Control, and I hope the Committee may now be allowed to proceed with its Business.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I was glad to notice, in the concluding portion of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, that he slightly modified the somewhat heated tone which I think he very unreasonably assumed in the earlier part of his speech. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to intimate that my hon. Friend had made a charge of a very unusual character, and one almost unprecedented in the annals of Parliament.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I said "dishonouring."
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Well, I hope that "dishonouring" is an unusual charge to make within the walls of this House. If I were to take the liberty, for a moment, of criticizing my hon. Friend, I should say that he merely gave very effective utterance to sentiments which have been frequently expressed in this House, and which I may say have been largely repeated by the Press of the country, with the general approbation of his countrymen. That really appears to me to be the sum total of the offending of my hon. Friend; and I must entirely disclaim on his part the slightest claim to originality of sentiment in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that the answers that have been given in reply to Questions addressed to the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues have been perfectly adequate. The question is a very clear and plain one, and I must own I thought that the rhetorical powers of the right hon. Gentleman exceeded themselves in his attempt to evade a distinct issue. What does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says, in effect, that he considers the affairs of Egypt of no more importance to Eng-

    1033
    land than the affairs of remote portions of the globe in which we have no more concern than other Powers. He said that he would defend the paramount interests of England in Egypt, as he would defend them in all other parts of the world. That means that the paramount interests of England in, say, Morocco or Tunis are precisely, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, on all fours with the interests of England in Egypt. What other construction could be placed on the words of the right hon. Gentleman, when he went out of his way to compare our interests in Egypt with our interests with any other portion of the globe in which England cannot be said to possess those paramount, not to say exclusive, interests which, undoubtedly, we possess in Egypt? I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has still failed to answer the very plain question addressed to him. I will venture to repeat it; it is whether, in the event of any attempt being successfully made to enlarge the scope of the Conference beyond the mere question of finance, the British Representative will be instructed to withdraw? That is a plain question, which we are justified in addressing to the right hon. Gentleman, and in regard to which we are entitled to a reply before the Government are placed in a position of independence of the House of Commons for two months to come—for that will be the effect of this Vote, coupled with the assistance of "Counts-out" and the monoply of public time which the Government have already acquired. As matters now stand, nothing can be done by the House unless the adjournment is moved. The Government decline to give us information as to what steps they are taking. The right hon. Gentleman has talked on several occasions about covenants entered into by their Predecessors in Office in regard to Egypt. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that any steps taken by the Government which may involve the expenditure of blood and treasure will be, a they put it, on account of covenants, and not because Egypt constitutes the highway to our Indian Empire? This is a point the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in mystifying; but I hope the Government will no longer decline to answer the very plain question whether, in the event of any attempt being successfully made to enlarge the scope of
    1034
    the Conference beyond the pure and simple question of finance, the British Representative thereat will be instructed to withdraw?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I need not detain the Committee a moment in saying that, as we enter into the Conference without information from the other Powers of their intention to attempt to enlarge the basis of it, it would be conveying an imputation on the honour of those other Powers if we were to give a pledge with regard to a contingency of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman will see that I should be guilty of a want of courtesy if I were to give a pledge on the subject. May I offer an apology to the hon. Member for Green-which (Baron Henry De Worms) as to a phrase from, which a misunderstanding might arise? As the matter stands, it might be reported, and truly reported, that I appeared to speak of the hon. Gentleman as an unscrupulous character; but I had not the slightest intention of saying anything of the kind. My idea was that his argument was somewhat unscrupulous; and if the phrase is reported in a naked form, so as to suggest a personal application, the hon. Gentleman will understand that that was not intended.
    MR. BOURKE: I should like to say one or two words on this subject. I had not intended to say anything, and I should not have done so but for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. There were, however, one or two remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman which I think I ought to notice. I am sure that, on the whole, the remarks of the Prime Minister will have given the Committee more confidence that the deliberations of the Conference will be limited to finance. There can be no doubt that that is the great question agitating the public mind at this moment; and with respect to the precedent mentioned relating to the Congress of Berlin, when the invitation and the replies were laid on the Table, I wish to make one remark. The right hon. Gentleman said that was quite a different case, because there were military and other steps taken that came under the purview of the House of Commons. But that was not the reason why the invitation and the replies were presented to Parliament at the time. The real reason was that the great and

    1035
    burning question at the moment was whether the Treaty of San Stefano was to be laid in its entirety before the Congress or not, or whether the deliberations of the Congress were to be confined to certain points. Therefore, it was necessary for the Government to show to the country, who were anxious for information on the point, that by the invitation and the replies the whole Treaty of San Stefano was to be laid before the Congress. This is precisely the case at present. What the country is really auxious to know is whether the question of finance is to be the only question to be submitted to the Conference. I do think, after the declarations of the Prime Minister, the country will be more satisfied than it was before, that the questions to be brought before the Conference will be limited to finance; and I cannot but think, as I have thought all along, that the discussions in the House of Commons will give the the Government a great deal more strength in going into the Conference than they would have had if these discussions had not taken place. There can be no doubt that although the House of Commons may entertain Votes of Censure and criticize the Egyptian policy of the Government, at the same time I am quite certain that the House and the country are prepared to sustain Her Majesty's Government in asserting our position in Egypt and in maintaining the position that the Government have declared over and over again we are entitled to occupy by necessity, by Treaty rights, and by the circumstances of the last two years. I am very glad to receive the assurance that the scope of the Conference is limited. I have only one more remark to make with regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He has referred to the invitation sent to the Powers. If we took the invitation simply as the basis of the Conference, I am afraid it might be open to some of the Powers to allege that the reference therein to the causes of the present condition of finance might be capable of a wider interpretation, and that the whole question of the Government of Egypt might be raised. I am afraid that, unless the Government are determined that nothing but finance shall be discussed, the invitation might be appealed to as offering an excuse for the introduction of other subjects. We
    1036
    must take the invitation now, not only as it stands, but also accompanied by the declaration of the Prime Minister, that the Conference shall be limited to finance.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee were made upon an assumption, drawn from the speech of the Prime Minister, which, in his (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett's) opinion, was not quite correct. He did not understand the Prime Minister to say in any statement he had made to the House that the Conference was to be limited to the subject of finance. If it dealt with the subject of Egyptian finance at large, it was perfectly evident that would include the whole question of the present condition of Egypt, because the financial question was the Egyptian Question. If the Powers were allowed to go into the question of the practical bankruptcy of Egypt, it was quite evident that such an examination would raise the whole question of our relations with Egypt, our conduct towards Egypt, our tenure of power, and the length of time we proposed to remain in the country. He thought the Prime Minister had done better than speak of limitation to finance. He had said to the House that the invitation to the Conference was limited to a discussion of the Law of Liquidation. He hoped he was right in assuming that.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I did not say so; but the hon. Gentleman has seen the letter of invitation.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he was not basing this assumption upon the letter of invitation only, but on answers which had been given to Questions in that House. He had understood the Prime Minister distinctly to state that the invitation to the Conference was limited to the consideration of the Law of Liquidation. Beyond that they had not yet been able to draw the Prime Minister. When they asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government would refuse to enter upon the discussion of other subjects, supposing the majority of the other Powers assembled at the Conference were disposed to widen the scope of the discussion, the Prime Minister refused to bind himself to such a limitation on the ground that it was discourteous to the other Powers. He could quite understand, in the pre-

    1037
    sent awkward condition of our foreign relations, and the fear the Government had lest the Powers would not go into the Conference, that the Prime Minister might be unwilling to make any formal statement in that House that might give offence to the French or the Russian Governments, who were naturally averse to entering into the Conference in the limited sense of the right hon. Gentleman. He could quite understand that, while the right hon. Gentleman preferred not to make any formal statement as to the consideration of other subjects, he had fully determined in his own mind that no other subjects should be considered. If that were the case, and the Government were determined that the Conference should not extend its consideration beyond the Law of Liquidation, then he took it that the House and the country would be perfectly satisfied. But if the mind of the right hon. Gentleman was still in an irresolute condition; if he was still waiting for something to turn up; if he had not yet decided that the discussion of the Conference should be limited to the Law of Liquidation, then he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) said that they were entering on a course which was most dangerous, and which might probably be more disastrous to the interests of the country than any step the Government had yet taken. It was perfectly impossible that the Government could allow any co-partnership with any other Power in her dealings with Egypt. It was quite obvious that our interests in Egypt were paramount to those of any other country, and that they must remain free and untrammelled by the interests of other countries. That was the point upon which the whole country had decided. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Oh!] The hon. Member said "Oh!" but he believed, if the country were polled to-morrow, that not one-tenth of the votes would be found in favour of allowing any other Power to mix up their authority with ours in the affairs of Egypt, whatever the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) might think. Just imagine the condition of Egypt with six foreign masters jealous of each other and intriguing against each other. He wished to say one word as to the statement of the Prime Minister that our interests were identical with those of the other Powers. The Prime Minister, and every Member
    1038
    of the Government, knew perfectly well that one of our main difficulties in Egypt for the past two years had been the intriguing of Foreign Powers against British influence. So notorious was that fact, that it was not necessary to demonstrate it further. While the Government professed, and perhaps rightly, a certain amount of confidence in the good intentions of other Powers, they were bound to take those statements for what they were worth. Sir Evelyn Baring, if he were asked by the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, could doubtless explain to the world that there was one Power which was always thwarting and embarrassing our purposes in regard to the administration of Egypt. This was the worst possible moment that could have been selected for submitting our policy to a Conference. Never had this country stood in a worse position with regard to European affairs and European feeling than at this moment. Every organ of the Press in Europe was criticizing our policy in the most severe terms, on account of its weakness and of the disastrous effects which that weakness was producing. He would not trouble the Committee with many quotations; but he should like to read a few words from a leading paper in France— The République Française—which showed the feeling entertained in that country. Commenting on the Prime Minister's speech upon the Vote of Censure, on May 15th, the article said—
    "To wait five months before sending aid to Gordon, when the fall of Khartoum is now only a question of weeks ! What a decision! To glorify as an insurrection not dissimilar to the heroic rebellions of Greece or Italy the migration of a band of barbarians, led by a fanatic and a set of slave dealers, what a strange conception !"
    The Neue Freie Presse of Vienna, the leading journal of Austria, wrote on the same day—
    "The English Government, says Mr. Gladstone, will not enter into a conflict with a people struggling for liberty. How very fine that sounds. It has a genuine Gladstonian ring, and puts us in mind of his enthusiasm for the Bulgarians. But, then, why combat Arabi Pasha? why bombard Alexandria? why fight the battle of Tel-el-Kebir? and, above all, why attack Osman Digna? What becomes of logic and reason in presence of such inconsistencies? In what fashion has England fulfilled her obligations to Europe? After nearly two years of English administration things have reached such an extremity that Europeans in Egypt

    1039
    tremble for their lives and property. That is as great a disgrace for England as the sacrifice of Gordon."
    That was the temper of the whole of Europe at this moment; and bearing that fact in mind, it was of paramount importance, if we went into the Conference at all, that we should go into it with a complete understanding that if the Powers of Europe endeavoured to extend the scope of the Conference the British Government would at once withdraw from it. That was the only security we had for our position. The Prime Minister told them that the Dual Control had been disastrous, and that it could not be revived. Now, he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had never been enamoured of the Dual Control; but he had heard statements from the Bench opposite that up to the year 1880 it had been productive of great advantage. Not only the Prime Minister, but the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington), had told them that the Dual Control had tended to mitigate the condition of the Egyptian people, and had proved of much advantage to that country generally. As a matter of fact, the evils which were supposed to have resulted from the Dual Control did not result so long as statesmen guided the affairs of the country. So long as the late Government were in power the administration of the affairs of Egypt was satisfactory; but the moment the late Government fell, and the feeble, vacillating, and inconsistent grasp of the present Ministry was applied to Egyptian affairs, then, indeed, the Dual Control became an engine of mischief, and a source of despair to that country. He failed to follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in regard to the Treaty of Berlin. The right hon. Gentleman told them that this was a case altogether different from that which preceded the Treaty of Berlin, because, forsooth, some months previous to the meeting of the Congress the Government had asked for a Vote of £6,000,000 in order to place the Naval and Military Forces of the country upon a stronger footing. But what were Her Majesty's Government going to do now? They were said to be about to ask for a Vote of £8,000,000 on behalf of Egypt—perhaps not in the name of this country; but everybody knew that when such an
    1040
    advance was made, it would be made more or less upon a guarantee of this country in reference to Egyptian finance. It was not certain whether the Government were going to make this proposition or not; but, if they did, he hoped there would be a perfectly clear understanding in regard to it. Under these circumstances, he thought the argument of the analogy between the Treaty of Berlin and the present position of affairs was complete, and that there was not such difference as the Prime Minister suggested. His hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) had raised a perfectly fair discussion, and, unhappily, the opportunities for discussing such Motions were indeed rare in that House. "Oh !"] Hon. Members opposite objected; but he would repeat that the opportunities for considering important questions of foreign policy in that House were very rare. All the Morning Sittings, which belonged by right to private Members, had been taken from them. He would appeal to the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) whether he did not agree with what he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) said? What opportunity had the hon. Member or his Friends obtained for bringing forward the important question of the Congo Treaty? That was a most important question; but the hon. Member had failed to find a single day for calling attention to it. Under these circumstances, he thought the thanks of the House were due to the hon. Member for Greenwich for bringing forward the question. If he understood the Prime Minister rightly, the right hon. Gentleman was determined in his own mind that the Conference should not be allowed to deal with any subject beyond the Law of Liquidation. If that were so, he believed the majority of hon. Members sitting on that side of the House would be perfectly satisfied with that declaration; but if it should not prove to be the case, he should then undoubtedly attribute any evils which might befall the country to the nervelessness and vacillation of Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he could not conceive what the object of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) was in bringing forward the Amendment. It appeared to be based upon the assumption that what was to be submitted to the Conference was not

    1041
    the liquidation of the Debt, but the present position of Egypt. That position was perfectly clear. Europe knew perfectly well that so long as the present Prime Minister remained in power there would be no attempt to carry out the bandit policy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that their object was simply to set Egypt on its legs again, giving them a fair start, and then absolutely to retire from the country. If there was anything necessary to prove that, it was to be seen in the Protocol— the self-denying Protocol signed by the Representative of Her Majesty's Government (Lord Dufferin) at Constantinople. In that Protocol they pledged themselves in common with the European Powers to derive no sort of advantage for themselves from their occupation of Egypt. With that pledge staring them in the face they should, as he thought the Prime Minister had stated in that House, disgrace themselves if they attempted to carry out the policy suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite, which simply meant that they had gone there, that they had killed a certain number of Egyptian people, and spent a great deal of money in bombarding their towns, by means of which they had acquired certain rights, and among them the right of insisting that Egypt should belong to them. That was not the policy of Her Majesty's Government, nor would they long retain the confidence of hon. Members on that side of the House if it became so. There was only one point that he would urge at that moment, and it was this. He gathered from the Press that the Egyptian Government themselves were not to be represented at the Conference. Now the Conference was to be convened for the purpose of looking into the Law of Liquidation—that was to say, to see how far Egypt could be taxed for the benefit of the bondholders. He certainly hoped, if Egypt was not to be represented at the Conference, that whoever was there to represent Her Majesty's Government would consider themselves not only the representatives of the bondholders, but also the representatives of the taxpayers of Egypt. He thought it would be their duty to provide for the legitimate expense of the administration of Egypt, and after adequate provision was made in that respect then let them pay the bondholders; but
    1042
    do not let them, by any attempt to tax the Egyptians unfairly or to force them to contribute an illegitimate portion of their earnings, place the interests of the bondholders before the interests of the country. He hoped and believed that something in that direction might be done; and he trusted that whoever represented Her Majesty's Government would carefully inquire into the question, and would not allow the unfortunate fellaheen to be unfairly taxed.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he only wished to say one or two words upon this very important Motion. He regarded the declaration of the Prime Minister as being satisfactory as far as it went with regard to the position of the Conference; but be could not avoid noticing that the Prime Minister carefully abstained from saying a single word about the preliminary conversations, or whatever the Government might please to call them, now going on with France. Now, that was a question that was considered to be of very great importance by the whole of the country; so important that the country was still anxious to have some further declaration. He was sorry to see that the Prime Minister was at that moment absent; but he trusted to hear from the noble Lord who represented the Foreign Office in that House that, whatever understanding might be come to with France—although the Prime Minister said the Dual Control was not to be revived—that no Multiple Control, or, in fact, any Power, should be allowed to interfere in the management of Egypt. That was what the country wished to know. After their victories, and after the large amount of money expended in Egypt, they ought to receive a satisfactory assurance that no other nation should be allowed to interfere with the management we had obtained, and rightly obtained, in Egypt. That was the question they wished to have answered— namely, that no interference with their power in Egypt should be allowed to take place until they had finished the work which the Government admitted they had undertaken to perform — namely, the restoration of tranquillity and the establishment of good government in Egypt. The anxiety of the public had been excited by the uncertain answers which had been given by the Prime Minister to Questions which had been

    1043
    put to him. If the right hon. Gentleman had answered the queries put to him in the same spirit as the remarks he had made in regard to the Law of Liquidation—if he had only stated that the Government would not go one jot beyond that question—he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was sure the country would have been satisfied, which it certainly was not at the present moment. The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the absence of the Prime Minister, might be in a position to supplement what the Prime Minister had stated, and might say that no interference on the part of any Power would be permitted until the work we had undertaken in regard to Egypt should have been accomplished. Then, and not till then, would the country be satisfied that the Government did not intend to go beyond that which they had stated to be their intention.
    MR. MACFARLANEonly wished to say half-a-dozen words upon this subject. He had already shown in a previous discussion which had taken place upon Egyptian finance that he had no particular sympathy for the bondholders. He had pointed out that a country which could not pay its working expenses and the interest of its Foreign Debt was a bankrupt country. Egypt was at present in that position, and the first duty of the Government of Egypt was to set aside the money necessary for carrying on the effective government of the country, and then to hand over what was left, if any, to the bondholders. His own opinion was that the best means of protecting the bondholders was to take that course—namely, to set aside all that was necessary for proper administration and good government in Egypt, and then to allow anything that remained to go to the bondholders. There was a time when the Israelites borrowed silver and gold from the Egyptians, and went off into the desert with it. The Egyptians had reversed that operation now, and had borrowed silver and gold from the Israelites, telling them to go into the wilderness without it. He thought the Statute of Limitations might be pleaded; but it was, perhaps, too late for that kind of revenge. He was firmly convinced, however, that this was the real and essential point for this country to consider—namely, that what was necessary for the good government of Egypt
    1044
    should be first taken, and then that what was left should be handed over to the bondholders.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to raise a point which he had endeavoured to bring forward in the form of a Question, but upon which he had certainly received no very great amount of satisfaction. He entirely sympathized with the views expressed in regard to the Conference by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He thought the public opinion of this country—at least its honest and genuine opinion—was that the Representatives of England at the Conference should have regard to the interests of the people of Egypt as well as the bondholders. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad to find that that observation met with a considerable amount of assent from the other side of the House; but he would have been more pleased if hon. Members opposite had taken care of the interests of the Egyptian people a little earlier, and had opposed one of the most infamous, most unjust, and most wicked wars of modern times. In fact, he did not know whether in speaking of that war he ought to call it a Jingo war, or a war made; from the motive that by waging it the bloodshed that would ensue might prove a good cry in justification of the annexation of the country. He cordially joined the hon. Member for Northampton in demanding that the Representatives of England should take care of the interests of the people of Egypt. He understood from the Prime Minister's statement that the Law of Liquidation would be the subject brought before the Conference, and he assumed that the meaning of that in plain language was that the creditors of Egypt were to be asked to take a smaller amount of interest than they were at present receiving from the overburdened people of Egypt. That, no doubt, was a very commendable object, but he should like to make one or two observations in regard to it. It was said to be a bondholders' war; but the bondholders incurred a good deal of the blame which ought to attach to other people. It was true that they obtained a rather large percentage, but they got it at considerable risk, which could not be said of other people—the loan-mongers who had obtained millions of money without incurring any risk whatever. As a matter of fact, they had it in

    1045
    their packets at that day, and their only regret seemed to be that they had not been able to obtain a larger share of the plunder. Now, he wished to tell the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that this was a point of view which would be very much pressed upon the Government. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton said it served them right; but, as a matter of fact, he believed that a large portion of the Egyptian Debt was now held by French and German bondholders, who had nothing whatever to do with the mating of the war, and who were as innocent as the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) in reference to it. Were these hard-working men to be asked to submit to the sacrifice of their money or their interest, which, in some cases, was their whole source of income and means of livlihood? Were they to be asked to submit to a large reduction in the value of their property, while the English loanmongers were allowed to keep every penny of their ill-gotten plunder? That was a point that would be pressed upon the attention of the Government with energy and frequency. He did not see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) in his place, and he did not mean to make any observations as to the right hon. Gentleman's share in these transactions until he was in his place; but he would give Notice that on the first opportunity he could obtain he would call the attention of the House and of the country to the part which the house of Goschen and Fr¨hling had taken in the financial transactions of Egypt. Every penny had been obtained by these loanmongers at an usurious interest which would not have done discredit to a Hebrew house in the days of King John; and every penny obtained from the unfortunate fellaheen by means of the bastinado had been freely used in order to build up the fortunes of public statesmen. He was satisfied that this was a question which both Germany and France would force upon the attention of the Government. What would the representative of an important class of French citizens, who invested their money in the funds and in foreign loans, say to the noble Lord, or to anybody else representing England, when it was proposed that the French rentier should give up a portion of his interest in order
    1046
    to make the rule of England in Egypt a little easier? What would Prince Bismark say when it was proposed that some hard-working German peasant or shopkeeper should give up a portion of his income for a similar purpose? The Representatives of both of those Powers would be able to say that it was the duty of England to look first at home, and to insist upon a large sum of money being returned to Egypt, the extortion of which was one of the main causes of the difficulty. He certainly intended to press this upon the attention of the Government, and it was only the absence of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) which prevented him from doing so at once. He intended again and again raising the question, until the people of France and Germany, if his voice were able to reach them, should learn who it was who were really responsible for the bankruptcy and miserable condition of the Egyptian people.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, they were now asked to pass a Vote on Account. They had already passed one, and this was the second in the course of the present Session. He thought they ought to have some assurance from Her Majesty's Government that it would be the last Vote on Account that would be asked for, and that, having passed it, the Estimates would be voted in regular and proper course with a full discussion upon the balance of the money yet to be obtained. He hoped the House would not be prejudiced, in raising any question which might be properly asked upon the balances, by anything which might have previously occurred. He thought an assurance of that kind on the part of Her Majesty's Government would facilitate the discussion on the present occasion.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSquite agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). He had intended to move the reduction of the Vote so as to give the Committee an early opportunity of proceeding with the Estimates; but after the discussion which had taken place on another matter, he would not take up the time of the Committee. He trusted, however, that they would have some such assurance as his hon. Friend had asked for at the hands of the Government. He was sure that such

    1047
    an assurance would give great satisfaction.
    MR. GORSTsaid, it was all very well to talk of having no more Votes on Account; but, according to the way in which the Business of the House was now transacted, there must be Votes on Account at certain periods of the Session, because the discussion of the Civil Service Estimates was now spread over the whole of the Session, and by the time they reached the month of August they had seldom got through one-half of the Votes. So long as the Business of the House was conducted in that fashion, it only stood to reason that the Government must have Votes on Account every few months. He wished to make a suggestion to the Government on another point. He had no doubt they were as anxious as he was to secure that every part of the Civil Service Estimates in its turn should be properly and fully discussed. According to the present system they discussed in minute detail Class I. of the Civil Service Estimates, and sometimes Class II.; but all the remaining Classes were never discussed at all, simply because it was impossible to bring them on until the month of August, and by that time the patience of the House was exhausted. Hon. Members were looking forward to the Prorogation, and it was practically impossible to secure anything in the nature of a real discussion. He wanted to know if it were not possible to introduce some change? For instance, could not Her Majesty's Government bring forward the Civil Service Estimates in a different order in succeeding Sessions? Why not bring forward next Session Classes IV. and V. in the first instance, so that those particular Classes should receive adequate discussion? As it was, they had the earlier Classes of the Estimates discussed ad nauseam after long speeches made about the Royal Palaces and Public Buildings, and the arrangements of the Office of Works. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit that there were very important Votes which appeared later in the Estimates — such, for instance, as Votes in aid of the Colonies, which raised important questions of Imperial policy— that were practically never discussed at all. His suggestion, assuming that these Votes on Account could not be prevented, was that the Civil Service
    1048
    Estimates should be presented in a different order in different Sessions.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Of course, it is impossible to give any pledge upon this subject, which is a very difficult one; but I will do all in my power to avoid the inconveniences that have been referred to. The Committee will, however, bear in mind the great change that has taken place in our circumstances of late years. The Supplementary Estimates have now assumed such a character that they take nearly as much time in debate as I have often known the proper Civil Service Estimates for the year to take, so that, in fact, the whole of the available time before Easter for Supply is occupied in discussing them, leaving no room for the discussion of the Civil Service Estimates themselves until after Easter. Then there is is the new invention, which I shall never cease humbly and respectfully to protest against, of spending three weeks in discussing the Address, instead of disposing of it in one night. However, with regard to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), we will do the best we can to give effect to it.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the House itself was placed in a somewhat awkward position in regard to the Estimates. Formerly, any private Member who had a question to bring forward could always find an opportunity for doing so on going into Committee of Supply. The result of that was, that if any hon. Member had a grievance to complain of, if he only stopped in the House long enough, he was sure to have an opportunity of getting the matter disposed of before the end of the Session, when Government wanted Supply; and it was to the interest of the Government in those days to enable him to do so, because they knew that if it was not disposed of before, it would be brought forward in August, when it would be most inconvenient to them to deal with it. It was, therefore, of importance to the Government that it should be disposed of at a proper time. Nowadays, the Government took Mondays and Thursdays for Supply without discussing any question on the Motion for going into Committee, and private Members were consequently prevented on those days from bringing Motions forward. This course was taken

    1049
    because it was thought that it gave more time for debating the Estimates themselves; but there were some questions— such as that in. regard to Zululand, of which his hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) had given Notice—which might be satisfactorily dealt with on going into Committee of Supply, instead of being put off until the end of the Session.
    MR. MONKsaid, there was one suggestion he should like to make, which he thought was worthy of consideration. Under the present system, it was perfectly clear that Votes on Account must be taken; and even if the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) were adopted, that other Classes of the Estimates should betaken before Class I., still they would never be able to get through a single Class of the Estimates before the time arrived for taking Votes on Account. The suggestion he would make to the Prime Minister was this. The Prime Minister was of opinion that the Standing Committees on Law and Trade were an excellent institution; he (Mr. Monk) believed so himself; and what he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman was that when he revised again the Rules of Procedure he should provide that there should be a Standing Committee to examine the Estimates, that being, he thought, the only way in which the Estimates could be properly considered by the House. Under the present arrangement, when the Estimates were under consideration, there were rarely 40 Members present; and if they were considered by a Standing Committee of 60 or 65 Members upstairs, it would be far better for the interest of the country, and the Estimates would be more carefully considered than they were now by the Committee of the Whole House.
    MR. WARTONsaid, with regard to the suggestion which had just been made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), it was perfectly true, as the hon. Member stated, that very of ten, on considering the Estimates, there were only 30 or 40 Members present; but the hon. Member seemed to have forgotten the fact that in a Grand Committee there might be fewer than 30 or 40 Members present, and that by taking these subjects out of the control of the House, and only affording to a few Members the right of discussing the Estimates,
    1050
    they would prevent Army men from dealing with the Army Votes and Naval men from dealing with the Navy Votes. That was a consideration which ought not to be entirely forgotten. A Grand Committee of 60 or 80 Members could not have upon it all the military Members of the House as well as those who represented all the different interests that were represented in a Committee of the Whole House. He, therefore, thought it would be a mistake to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gloucester. The Prime Minister, in the remarks he addressed to the Committee a short time ago, spoke of the Supplementary Estimates. He begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he himself was responsible for the Supplementary Estimates, about which complaints were so justly made, taking up so much of the time of the House in an early period of the Session. He desired to enter his protest against these Votes on Account, because they enabled the Government to omit doing that which was right, and to do that which they ought not to do. He thought the House ought to have ample time for the consideration of the Estimates. He was afraid that all Governments fell into a great mistake, and committed a cardinal sin, with regard to the functions of Parliament. The primary duty of Parliament was not to pass so many hundred Bills in the course of a Session, but to consider the Estimates with due regard to economy and efficiency. It was perfectly disgraceful that they should have to wait until the last week of August, as was the case last year, before they could discuss 19 out of the 25 Army Votes, and that the subject of Indian finance should be postponed until the last week of the Session. It was perfectly absurd to flood the Order Book with a large number of Bills, and he was afraid that therein lay the real evil. He was not easting special blame upon Her Majesty's Government; on the contrary, he blamed all Governments more or less, because they all set out a false principle. At the beginning of the Session, they found in Her Most Gracious Majesty's Speech an ambitious programme—a programme so ambitious that the most sanguine Minister could not expect to carry it out. What was the use of putting a dozen measures into the Queen's Speech, and only one little line about the Estimates? With regard

    1051
    to the conflicting duties of legislation and the consideration of the Estimates, what had the Government themselves done only as recently as Friday last? They did not apply for one penny of money, although early in the evening, before 12 o'clock, the Motions were all disposed of. Instead of going on with the Votes, they contented themselves with bringing in two trumpery wretched Bills which might very well not have been introduced at all. That showed the sincerity of the Government. He should always contend that the primary duty of the House was to look after the Estimates, with the object of securing due economy and the efficiency of the Services, both of which objects were too much neglected. His own opinion was that the Services of the country might be rendered much more efficient than they were, and that less money might be spent upon them. As to the particular matter now before the Committee, he was glad to find the Prime Minister was able to go as far as he had done. He fully admitted that the Prime Minister himself observed courtesy towards Foreign Powers. The conduct of the Government must, however, be judged by the past, and if they were going to turn over a new leaf, he hoped the time would soon arrive when the power and word of England would again be esteemed and respected. He trusted that the deliberations of the Conference would be strictly limited to the Law of Liquidation; but he was afraid that if they were extended to the general subject of finance, an ingenious foreign Representative would find himself able to introduce any subject whatever. For instance, it might be asked—"What are you going to do with the British Army, and are the Egyptians to pay for it?" He therefore earnestly hoped that Tier Majesty's Government would persevere with their intention that there should be nothing but the Law of Liquidation referred to in the Conference. His own opinion was, that if the Government had adopted a better policy in Egypt, and had boldly assumed a Protectorate, the guarantee of England's wealth and interest would have prevented the country from, getting into its present difficulty.
    MR. SALTsaid, he rose to add his voice to that of other hon. Members in the request that the Government would
    1052
    not find it necessary to have another Vote on Account this year. The inconvenience of Votes on Account was so very obvious that he would not trouble the Committee by recapitulating them at that moment. He wished also to say a word with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) as to referring the Estimates to a Grand Committee. He thought the House itself was the only Body that could exercise a proper control over the Estimates. He would not pursue that argument further, and he trusted that his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) would be satisfied with the discussion he had raised, and would now withdraw the Motion.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, that, with the leave of the House, he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to call the attention of the Committee to a ruling which I gave a short time ago. I said that the Motion of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) would not preclude other hon. Members who had Notices on the Paper with regard to certain items in the Estimates, or, indeed, those who had not placed Notices on the Paper, from raising discussions upon those points, and taking a vote of the Committee—that is, taking a vote in reduction of the general sum asked for, but they would not be able to take any vote upon a particular item. If, on the other hand, I had called upon the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), whose Notice appeared first on the Paper, and who proposes to reduce the Vote by a particular item, that particular item being one of the last Votes in the Estimate, I should have precluded all other hon. Members who desired to raise a discussion, and to move a reduction in other Votes.

    POST OFFICE—ROYALTIES FROM TELE PHONE COMPANIES.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that in rising to arraign, as he desired to do, the policy of the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General presided, so far as it related to the treatment extended to Telephone Companies, and that portion of the public interested

    1053
    in the development of the telephone system, he felt that he laboured under a serious disadvantage, inasmuch as he was connected in a prominent manner with the Irish Telephone Company. The House was naturally and properly intolerant of Members bringing before it matters in which they had a personal interest. But his personal interest in the question was of the slightest. He should not have brought forward the subject had he not thought it necessary to do so in the interest of the public. In 1869 the Post Office was given, by Act of Parliament, a complete monopoly of the telegraph business of the United Kingdom. At that time the telephone and the wonderful results obtainable by that mode of applying electricity were absolutely unknown; and Parliament certainly did not contemplate handing over to the Department an invention which was then non-existent. In 1876 the telephone came into considerable public use. When, in 1878, the Department promoted a Telegraphs Bill, some of its more astute advisers foresaw the possible results of that invention, and the Department introduced into the Bill, and succeeded in passing through the House of Lords, without attention being directed to it, a clause which gave them control over the telephonic system throughout the country. With the permission of the Committee, he would refer to the 3rd clause of the Bill, as it passed the House of Lords and came to that House; and to that clause he asked the particular attention of the Postmaster General, who, at the time the Bill was passed, was not at the head of the Department. The clause was to the effect that, in the construction of the Telegraphs Act of 1869 the term "telegraph" should, in addition to the meaning assigned to it by that Act, include "any apparatus for the transmission of messages by the aid of electricity, magnetism, or any other like agency." Now, that was inserted for the purpose of covering the telephone; he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman would venture to assert that it was not introduced deliberately for that purpose. The Bill came down from the Lords, and the clause was struck out in that House; the hon. Members who opposed the Bill saw the intention of the clause, and believed that by getting it struck out they had protected the invention from the
    1054
    control of the Department of which the right hon. Gentleman was the head. They struck out the clause deliberately; and, therefore, he maintained that the clear and distinct intention of Parliament was to leave the new invention free and open to public and private enterprize. But the Department subsequently sought to interpret the Act as covering the telephone. The telephone, which was originally the invention of Mr. Bell, and had been improved by various other inventors, became, as to its patent rights, vested in a Company about the year 1880, and that Company established in London and elsewhere Telephone Exchanges, with the nature and object of which hon. Members would be acquainted. Those exchanges were watched with the greatest anxiety and jealousy by the Department; but they took no action for some time, being in doubt, probably, in consequence of the striking out by the House of Commons of the clause he had cited. But, eventually, they raised the question as to their right to control the invention on an application for an injunction to restrain the Telephone Companies from making use of their telephones in the manner described. Judgment in the case was delivered by Mr. Justice Stephen, who held that the contention of the Department was correct, and that the words of the Telegraphs Act of 1869 were sufficiently wide to include the telephone, although the telephone at that time had not been dreamed of, or, at least, had no existence. But Mr. Justice Stephen went further, and said that the words of the Telegraphs Act of 1869 were so wide as to include, on the one hand, any system of signals, even by means of common bells, if those bells were operated upon by wires; and, on the other hand, any system of communication by means of electricity, even if such communication could be carried on without the aid of wires. That judgment, he (Mr. Gray) believed, included everything in the nature of communication, even that of a person pulling the bell at a hall door for the purpose of making a specific signal; at any rate, he had given the words of Mr. Justice Stephen. The net having been spread so wide by the Act of 1869, the Department found that the clause attempted to be inserted in the Bill of 1878 was unnecessary to enable them to control the telephonic system of the country, al-

    1055
    though Sir William Thompson had said that—
    "When the Telegraph Act was passed the telephone had not been invented, and no one concerned in that legislation had the slightest idea, nor had anyone living the slightest idea, that it would he possible so to extend the power of speech as to enable persons at a distance to converse with each other."
    Now, whether, in the face of these facts, the Department had any reason to be proud of availing themselves of powers which Parliament never intended to confer upon them in order to interfere with public and private rights in this matter, he would leave altogether to the conscience of the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, however, who represented and spoke on behalf of the Department, when judgment had been delivered, and when it was suggested that great inconvenience would result if the precise terms of the judgment restraining the Company from carrying on its business were acted upon, said he believed that it was merely a question of licence between the Companies and the Department. And there it rested. The Department, having asserted its control, granted to the Telephone Companies licences on certain conditions; the main condition being that 10 per cent of the gross receipts should, be paid to the former by way of royalty. The 10 per cent was, of course, a tax upon the public, and it had to be charged to them by the Companies. However, so enormous were the advantages and facilities offered by the invention, and so determined were those who had tried them not to abandon them, that the business of the Company spread with great rapidity, there being;3,000 or 4,000 subscribers to the Exchange in London alone, and large numbers to those in Dublin, Glasgow, Manchester, and other places. From this it would be seen that, although the Companies had considerable reason to complain of the petty vexation and annoyance to which they were subjected by the Department, they had been able to carry on their business. But recently the policy of the Post Office had changed. He distinctly charged it upon the Department that about two years ago they arrived at a determination, not openly, but indirectly, to strike at all future development of the telephonic
    1056
    system; and in order to sustain that, to his mind, serious charge, it was necessary to explain the precise relations between the United Telephone Company and others established in the United Kingdom. That Company had brought various actions for the purpose of restraining infringements of its patent rights; but, not wishing to work all the telephones in the Kingdom, they gave concessions to various subsidiary Companies in England, Scotland, and Ireland. The arrangements with those Companies were that the United Telephone Company should give them a user of its telephones for their districts, they contracting, on the one hand, to pay the United Telephone Company a certain rental per instrument, and that Company contracting, on the other hand, to give to the local Companies a monopoly of the use of the instruments in their respective districts, and not to sell or permit to be used therein any other telephones than those supplied to the Companies. As he had remarked, the Postmaster General, up to a certain date, had granted licences to Companies who paid him a royalty. Suddenly, however, the right hon. Gentleman changed his policy, and said he would grant no further licences unless the Companies entered into a contract to sell to him, on terms to be fixed by arbitration in default of agreement, as many telephones, to be used for any purposes, as he might think fit. Such a condition, he believed, had never before been imposed by a Public Department upon private enterprise; he would go further, and say that the condition was imposed by the right hon. Gentleman, or by those permanent officials in the Department whose action he had adopted, with a full knowledge that it was beyond the power of any of the Companies to consent to it, and that it was an absolute prohibition of the further development of the telephone system. If the chief Company had attempted to sell a single instrument, it would have thereby violated its contract with the subsidiary Companies, who would have obtained damages for breach of contract; if any one of the subsidiary Companies had attempted to sell instruments, it would not only have violated its contract with the chief Company, but would have committed robbery. Now, the

    1057
    right hon. Gentleman had a knowledge of these facts, because, prior to the granting of any licence, he had always insisted upon having in his possession the terms, in black and white, of the contract between the United Telephone Company and the subsidiary Company applying for the licence. He (Mr. Gray) had that day asked the right hon. Gentleman how many licences had been applied for, and how many had been granted since the new condition had been imposed; and he believed the reply was that eight licences had been granted, out of 78 applied for. In that way he had at last forced from the right hon. Gentleman practically this acknowledgment, that the terms of the new condition must be reconsidered, because they were manifestly unjust. In August, 1882, the Postmaster General made a speech in that House upon the Estimates, in which he said he wished to warn those connected with Telephone Companies against anything like the Utopian notion that the Government were going to buy their property in them. The inference from that was certainly that the Government would let the Companies alone; but the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Department had adopted the principle of free competition, not only between the Companies themselves, but between the Companies and the Department, and his statement was received with satisfaction by the Companies, and also by the House and the public. The public saw, in the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman, the best guarantee that they would be well served, and at the cheapest rate. At that time the right hon. Gentleman erroneously believed that another Company had succeeded in bringing out some instruments which evaded the patents of the United Company, and from which he believed the Post Office would derive some advantages. Since then, however, the former had been restrained from using the instruments, which the right hon. Gentleman thought he might be able to apply to his own purposes. Immediately after that, and as soon as the property of the United Telephone Company was confirmed to them, the right hon. Gentleman adopted the policy of strangulation he had described; at any rate, what he (Mr. Gray) called a policy of strangulation was adopted
    1058
    about two years ago. Not only had the various Companies applied in vain to the right hon. Gentleman for licences based on practicable conditions, but local authorities, Members of the House, and deputations from various towns had waited upon him, and, as in the case of the Companies, waited upon him in vain. He remembered reading that a deputation from Plymouth had waited upon him, a short time ago, doubtless with the object of ascertaining why they should be refused facilities which were granted in the case of Dublin, Newcastle, and Manchester. But the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was, in effect—"I have given certain concessions to certain towns, and the other parts of the Kingdom must remain out in' the cold." Now, he submitted that this was a position which the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have taken up; and in spite of the ability of the right hon. Gentleman, and in spite, of course, of the fact that if he (Mr. Gray) attempted to divide the House against his views, he should be put in a minority, he ventured to say that it was a position which would be found to be untenable, because the public would not tolerate action of the kind. He could understand the right hon. Gentleman saying—"Here is a dangerous rival to the telegraph system; I will strangle it. I do not mind the inconvenience to the public; I am going to keep that monopoly, and telephones I will not tolerate." He could understand that policy, and it might be that the House would adopt it; but he did not understand the right hon. Gentleman saying that Manchester and Dublin should have what was denied to Bristol and Cork. The right hon. Gentleman had taken up a position in this matter which he believed his sense of fair play would induce him to abandon before his perception of public opinion compelled him to do so. The principle upon which Parliament, in 1869, gave the monopoly of the Telegraph Service to the Government was that of securing uniform facilities and uniformity of charge throughout the Kingdom, as in the case of the Postal Service; and, in the face of that, what became of the condition imposed by the right hon. Gentleman—that Manchester and Dublin should have telephonic communication, and that Bristol and Cork should not?

    1059
    What had the inhabitants of the latter towns done that they should be permanently subject to this disability? Because certain individual Companies carrying on business in their own way did not think fit to make application to the right hon. Gentleman before a certain date, why should the towns referred to suffer? The right hon. Gentleman said he had acted in order to protect the public against monopoly. But he had put some Questions to the right hon. Gentleman with the view of ascertaining whether there was any necessity for the Department to retain this control over the telephone system; and he found that while the Post Office had been working the telephone during the last two or three years, they had only obtained 700 subscribers at their various Telephone Exchanges. He ascertained, also, that the Post Office had in its possession over 5,000 telephonic instruments for the use of that number of subscribers; and so far was the Department from being apprehensive of the supply of instruments running short, that they had been trading in them, and reselling, presumably at a profit, instruments which they had obtained by means, in his opinion, by no means creditable to those concerned. He had further ascertained that the Post Office, on a contract binding upon the United Telephone Company, had a right to call upon them to supply 15,000 more instruments—that was to say, they had under their control no less than 20,000 instruments at a time when their subscribers only numbered 700, and those being mostly in Newcastle. He did not think that the Postmaster General would venture to assert that he had any expectation of the Department being able to find use for all these instruments before the patent rights expired in six or seven years hence. What became, then, of the excuse of the right hon. Gentleman, that he was doing all this to protect the public against monopoly? The answer to that was that it was not to protect the public at all, but to destroy the property of the Telephone Companies. The Companies earned their profits by making their own instruments, and giving the use of them to their subscribers. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General stepped in and said—"I may buy as many instruments as I like, and
    1060
    do what I please with them." The right hon. Gentleman demanded the right to buy and sell them at a cheap rate, and utterly destroy the patent right; in fact, in his zeal for the public service, he wanted to obtain the property of other people without paying for it. To come to another matter, what were known as trunk lines were an enormous convenience; but, owing to the action of the Post Office, their usefulness was not fully realized. It was perfectly practicable for persons in London to converse with others in Liverpool; in fact, people in Liverpool did now converse with people in Manchester, and people in Sunderland, since the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) called attention to the subject, were able to hold a conversation with people in Newcastle. One of the favourite tactics of the Department was to weary the Companies by long and unnecessary delays. After about two years' negotiations, the Postmaster General laid down the terms on which he would grant facilities for trunk lines between town and town. The right hon. Gentleman said—I will not permit the Companies themselves to run wires between town and town; but I will run them for them, the Companies paying to me a minimum annual rental of £10 per double wire, and giving to me one-half the revenue over that sum which they may derive, the Companies charging whatever rates they choose." Such were the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman laid down in a formal letter, dated April 18, 1883, and addressed to the Lancashire and Cheshire Company. Now, the Lancashire and Cheshire Company accepted this condition, although it was exceedingly onerous. In their letter accepting it, they stated that, in order to serve their customers, they intended to bear the whole expense of the trunk wires-—that they would not charge their customers anything, trusting to recoup themselves by a development of business. In other words, they intended to run the trunk communication between the towns they served free of any charge to their customers; but the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General said that, although that was, no doubt, what he stated, it was not what he intended they should do; and he forthwith imposed a new condition on the Company—a condition which was of a most extraordinary cha-

    1061
    racter. The right hon. Gentleman said —I will not permit you to serve your customers on these favourable terms; you must charge your customers a rate of 10 s. per mile, whether you like it or not. Now, he (Mr. Gray) begged hon. Members to consider how such a condition worked out. A trunk wire could be established with great facility between London and Brighton, and if one were established, there were many gentlemen living in Brighton who would use it, and thus very often save themselves the trouble of coming up to town to transact business. Frequently, a few minutes' conversation over the wire would be all that was necessary for a business man living in Brighton to have with his correspondent in London. The convenience of such wires would thus be easily seen. But a charge of £25 to the subscribers to the Company for the mere occasional use of the wire would be very excessive; in fact, he doubted very much whether many gentlemen would be found to subscribe upon such terms; and, therefore, the action of the Department in compelling Companies to charge this excessive mileage was preposterous. It was, no doubt, intended to prevent the Company developing their business and giving to the public those facilities which were wanted. Not only were there these larger grounds of complaint against the Post Office, but the Telephonic Companies contended that every kind of annoyance which could by any possibility be devised by the Post Office was adopted for the purpose of wearying, impeding, and obstructing them in carrying on their business. Would it be believed by any Gentleman conversant with telephonic work that such a condition as he would now describe could be imposed by the Post Office? Supposing a man whom he would call Smith was a subscriber to a trunk wire, and he, being in Liverpool, wished to speak to Brown in Manchester, he could do so provided that Brown happened to be in his office at the moment, and could at once reply. But if Smith wished to ask a question which Brown could not answer on the instant, the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General laid it down that Brown should not be at liberty to reply to Smith, unless Brown himself was a subscriber to the trunk wire. That was a sample of the
    1062
    conditions laid down by the Post Office Department for the purpose of worrying and annoying the Telephonic Companies. As he had already said, one of the favourite tactics of the Department was delay. For instance, the Irish Company addressed a formal letter, on the 12th of December last, to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett). Three or four weeks afterwards, a letter was received by the Company to the effect that the matter would have the most careful attention of the Department. As a matter of amusement, he had waited patiently to see how long it would take the Department to reply to the letter in detail. This was the 22nd of May, and they had not yet replied. He simply mentioned this circumstance as an instance of the deliberate intention of the Post Office to throw impediments in the way of everything concerning the development of telephonic communication. The policy of the Post Office was a policy of delay and procrastination. The proposal of the Dublin Company which the Department treated so indifferently was a very simple one. It was suggested that, in order to add to the public facilities, what were called talking stations, or call offices, should be set up, so that any member of the public could come in and speak to any subscriber to the Telephone Exchange, and obtain an immediate reply. It was suggested that a moderate charge should be made for this convenience; and the Company even went so far as to tell the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General that if he was apprehensive that the telegraphic business would be thereby interfered with, the Company, in order to serve the public, would give him a guarantee that if the revenue from telegraphs was diminished in consequence of the increased facilities given to the public by means of the telephone, they would make up the loss. One of the Directors of the United Telephone Company had written several letters to The Pall Mall Gazette and other papers, pointing out the marvellous facilities which could be given by these talking stations to the whole of the London public. There were some 3,000 or 4,000 houses connected with the Telephone Exchange; and the gentleman in question wrote to say that the Company would be willing to put up, in convenient parts of Lon-

    1063
    don, call stations where any number of the public could come in and hold a conversation with any one of the subscribers for a charge which he estimated at 1d. But the Post Office said—"You shall do nothing of the kind." They did say, in Manchester—"You may open these offices if you like; but whether you think it advantageous or not, you must charge the public 1s. The Director of the Telephone Company, to whom he (Mr. Gray) had before alluded, could not believe it possible that the Post Office, especially when it was presided over by a distinguished political economist of the liberal and enlightened views of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pawcett), could think it to the interest of the public to obstruct the Public Service in the manner they did; and he wrote to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to say he was desirous of establishing experimental call stations, for the purpose of seeing whether the public would avail themselves of them. The right hon. Baronet forwarded the letter to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, who replied that, on no conditions, would such stations be allowed, not even as an experiment. Did not these things show that the deliberate intention of the Post Office Department was to prevent the public reaping the advantages of the new discovery? The Department could not use the discovery themselves to any great advantage. They had tried to use it, and, except in one town, they had miserably failed to achieve any success. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General was kind enough to give him a Return, a few days ago, of the number of telephones which he had himself in use in various towns. From that Return, he (Mr. Gray) noticed that there were only 10 telephones by the Post Office in use in Exeter, eight in Falmouth, six in Londonderry, 11 in Waterford, and so on. Indeed, if they took away Newcastle-on-Tyne, where there were 362 instruments in use, there were less than 400 distributed over the United Kingdom. In short, the telephonic business was one which the Post Office was incapable of carrying on, because it involved a great deal of individual labour, individual canvassing and explanation, which a Public Department could not carry on.
    1064
    In 1882 the Postmaster General said that when free competition showed whether the public were better served by the Post Office or private Companies, he would only be too delighted to allow the Companies to do the business if they did it better; but he had since changed his policy, because now he would be only too delighted if he could strangle the Telephone Companies. The right hon. Gentleman had fallen between two stools, because one day he said he wished to encourage the new invention, and another day it was evident he wished to destroy it. But the public had already sufficient knowledge of the advantages of the telephone not to permit the Department to strangle the Companies; and he trusted that, eventually, the right hon. Gentleman would be induced to reconsider his position; and, while taking reasonable precautions for the protection of the Public Revenue, would afford to the public reasonable facilities for being served by this new invention. When a discussion on the Post Office Vote was raised, some time ago, the right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech in reply by saying he would be sorry to consider that the only function of the Post Office was the earning of Revenue, because it had some higher object, meaning, he (Mr. Gray) supposed, the service of the public. A good many people were very doubtful as to the result of vesting the telegraphs in a Department of the Crown They feared, and he believed the result had more than justified their fear, that to give to the Department a monopoly would tend to restrict the introduction of improved methods of telegraphy. In a very remarkable address, delivered a few years ago, before one of the Scientific Societies, the late Sir William Siemens expressed the opinion that the result of the acquisition of the telegraphs by the Post Office Department had been to seriously interfere with the progress of scientific discovery and improvement in telegraphic apparatus, so far as the United Kingdom was concerned; and he asked how it was that so many great inventions in connection with telegraphy were perfected in England before the Post Office got hold of the telegraphs, and that subsequently all the great inventions, including the telephone, had been perfected in the United States, where the telegraphs were free?

    1065
    In an article in one of the Reviews by Mr. H. Spencer, the writer alluded to the observation of the late Sir William Siemens, who was probably the greatest authority on such a subject in the United Kingdom; and he pointed out that the Post Office was adopting precisely the same policy now in reference to the telephone—that was, they were endeavouring to prevent its development. He (Mr. Gray) feared he had occupied too much of the attention of the Committee already; but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would recognize that this was a very important question, and that it was very necessary the Department should lay down some clear and distinct line of action; that they should not be chopping and changing about; that every petty application of any one of the Telephone Companies should not be a subject of long and tedious negotiations; and that one set of conditions should not be conceded to one town to-day, and refused to another town to-morrow; while a modified set was made for a third town the day after to-morrow. He had contended that it was impossible for the different towns of the country to comply with the conditions laid down by the Post Office; but the right hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, in his reply, remind the Committee that Newcastle had already complied with the terms of the Department. Now, he maintained that the Newcastle contract was about the most immoral—of course he used the phrase in a political sense—of all the immoral transactions of which the Department had been guilty throughout this business. The right hon. Gentleman had official knowledge that the Newcastle Company did not own a single telephone; and yet he forced upon them a contract agreeing to sell to him instruments which they did not own. The Postmaster General knew that that contract could not be carried out, and he (Mr. Gray) challenged the right hon. Gentleman to attempt to carry it out; he challenged him to test, in a Court of Law, whether he could enforce his own contract; he challenged him to take the opinion of any Judge of the land as to the morality of the contract. The Postmaster General had instanced the Newcastle case as a justification for his refusal to grant licences which had been applied for by 78 other towns in the King-
    1066
    dom; and when it was asked the other day, in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), why Cork was refused facilities which were granted to Dublin, the right hon. Gentleman said—"I have merely imposed on Cork conditions similar to those which were imposed on other towns, and which were accepted by Newcastle - on - Tyne." In what way were the conditions accepted by New-castle-on-Tyne? What was the contract which the right hon. Gentleman had not dared to seek to enforce, and which he would not attempt to enforce even after his (Mr. Gray's) invitation? What was the contract which the right hon. Gentleman was not ashamed to enter into, and then plead it as an excuse for refusing proper and necessary telephonic facilities to other towns? How did the Department acquire control of the 20,000 instruments, which the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged he had now at command? He (Mr. Gray) would tell the right hon. Gentleman, if he did not know. The United Telephone Company, or its predecessors—he was not sure which—entered into a contract with certain individuals named Scott and Wooleston to sell to them 20,000 instruments at a price; but a condition was that the instruments should not be used for ordinary exchange or quasi-public purposes, but merely for private purposes. The Post Office were exceedingly anxious to get hold of telephone instruments; but they could not, because they happened to be the property of other people. A rather cute Yankee, who knew something about telephones, was over here, and he looked into the matter. He found that, on the one hand, the Post Office wanted to get instruments they could not get, and that, on the other hand, Scott and Wooleston had at call a lot of instruments, the use of which was restricted by certain conditions. Gower, for that was the Yankee's name, was skilled in Company-mongering; he constituted a Limited Liability Company—a Company consisting of seven persons, who each owned one share of £5—and this Company bought from Scott and Wooleston the rights over the 20,000 instruments they had purchased from the United Telephone Company. This bogus Company then sold their rights in the instruments to the Post Office, and the Post

    1067
    Office was not ashamed to enter into a contract with them. The result of the interposition between Scott and Wooleston, the original purchasers, and the Post Office, the ultimate receivers—he did not say of stolen goods, but of goods they were not morally entitled to—was, as the legal advisers of the Post Office advised the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fawcett), that the Post Office were not bound by the original conditions, because they had purchased from a second party. The right hon. Gentleman, or his Department, was not ashamed to get possession of instruments in that fashion, a fashion which was more characteristic of American log-rollers than of an English Department; the right hon. Gentleman was not ashamed to get possession of the instruments in this way, and then to use them for purposes for which the original contract prohibited their being used. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman himself whether, if he was acting in his private capacity, anything in the world would induce him to be connected with such a transaction? Was the right hon. Gentleman bound, when representing the Government of Great Britain, to stain himself with transactions which he would shrink from in his private capacity? He (Mr. Gray) ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman was not called upon to do anything of the kind. It would be much better for the right hon. Gentleman to adopt a straightforward course. He ought to say at once that the Post Office was determined to put an end altogether, so far as it could, to the use of the telephone in the United Kingdom, or he ought to say frankly—"I will give any reasonable telephonic facilities; but I will protect the public by getting a royalty." Either of those courses would be a straightforward one, and the latter would not be an unreasonable one. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that public feeling on this matter had risen with greater rapidity than he thought; and although, of course, the right hon. Gentleman would succeed in defeating any attempt which he (Mr. Gray) made to force upon the Government a recognition of its duty, he would not succeed so easily in appeasing public opinion out-of-doors. As a private Member, he (Mr. Gray) was quite powerless in the matter. He was not to-night in a position by the Rules of
    1068
    the House to bring to a Division a specific Motion; but he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, whose administration of the Post Office had been distinguished in many ways by a liberality and breadth of view, and by a desire to serve the public without too narrow ideas on the subject of preserving the Public Revenue, to extend the policy which had characterized his administration in other directions to the telephone, and not to punish the public because, under a technical judgment, he had obtained a right of control which never was contemplated by Parliament. It must be recollected that, in 1878, Parliament deliberately struck a clause out of a Bill then introduced, in order to free the Telephone Companies from the shackles which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had now succeeded, by technical possession, in imposing upon them.
    MR. SLAGGsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had certainly no warmer admirer than he (Mr. Slagg) in regard to the general administration of the Post Office; but he was bound to say that, in relation to the control which was exercised in the matter of telephones, the right hon. Gentleman's conduct did seem to be out of harmony with those traditions which had made him famous. The complaints on this subject in his (Mr. Slagg's) district were loud and frequent. It was a matter of extreme importance to the large commercial towns of Lancashire and Cheshire that they should have the very fullest facility, which they certainly had not at the present time, of availing themselves of telephonic communication. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gray) had gone so ably and so minutely into the subject, that it was hardly possible for him (Mr. Slagg) to add anything to the force of his arguments; he might, however, say that in regard to one or two points to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention, his (Mr. Slagg's) own constituents felt very special grievances. It had always surprised him that the Law Courts in this country should afford to the Post Office what really constituted a monopoly in regard to a great natural force. A monopoly in telephony was, unfortunately, allowed the Post Office, but on what principle of law it seemed impossible to

    1069
    understand, because, when the Telegraphs Act was passed, telephones were never even thought of. Surely, under the circumstances, they could consistently call on the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General to use the powers he had gained with moderation, and with the fullest measure of convenience to the commercial community. He was afraid there was ample evidence to show that was hardly done. He would refer, very briefly, to a case to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded. In Manchester it would be an enormous convenience if call offices existed. He believed that in a great number of Continental towns facilities were afforded to passers by in the street to call at certain offices and send telephonic messages at a very small cost. One would think that in a great commercial country like this, and in great commercial centres like Manchester, equal facilities for telephonic communication would exist; but as soon as a Company improved their service in that way, the Department came down and charged them 50 per cent upon their gross receipts. Well, then, there was the question of trunk lines. There were one or two very important centres of cotton manufacture—there was that, for instance, of Oldham, to which constant communication was most desirable from Manchester; but when the Company tried to establish trunk lines, they were met by restrictive regulations on the part of the Post Office. It was well known to all who were familiar with this subject that the radius allowed to Telephone Companies was four miles from the centres of such towns as Manchester and Liverpool; but a great number of the merchants lived much beyond that radius, and it would be a great convenience to them to be able to communicate between their business places and their homes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Companies should not go beyond that distance without paying a tax; and the policy was to impose perpetually-increasing taxation on every attempt to subserve the convenience of the public. Of course, the Post Office had in its hands a very important business—that of the telegraphs—which it was bound to defend and safeguard in every way; and if it could be shown that the development of telephonic enterprize would interfere seriously with the telegraphs, he should
    1070
    be more willing to admit that restrictive action should be adopted; but that was not the case. As a matter of fact, he believed that if the telephonic interest was developed, there would be a large increase in the receipts for telegrams. He would take the case of America in this respect. In that country there was an application of telephonic power, in comparison with which the facilities existing in this country might be described as positively trifling; but, notwithstanding that development of telephonic communication, there was side by side with it a great increase in telegraphic communications; so that the Government need not have the slightest apprehension as to giving facilities to the Telephonic Companies. The commercial public were under great obligations to these Companies for having planted these lines in the country; and he thought the Post Office ought to treat them in a more liberal spirit. It was possible to conceive that it was the intention of the Government by this policy to gradually obtain possession of the telephone system; and if the right hon. Gentleman would only state that to-night, he would, no doubt, relieve the minds of a great number of persons who were in uncertainty as to the future. It might reasonably be urged that it was not desirable that the Government, when it came to acquire this great system, should have to pay such high premiums as they did in obtaining possession of the telegraphs. But, whatever might be the object or the policy of the Department in this matter, he claimed, on behalf of the public, more reasonable treatment of these Companies in the meantime; and he thought it was only fair to ask the right hon. Gentleman to fix some system of payment for royalties, by which the public might be relieved from these constant changes of taxation and policy.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, that, although strong observations had been made by the hon. Member for Carlow and the hon. Member for Manchester, he should not say anything that could for a moment separate himself from the permanent officials in his Department. He, and he alone, was responsible for everything that had been done; and he should greatly regret it if there should be any reason to suppose that any atom of blame for whatever had taken place would be

    1071
    transferred from himself to the shoulders of those whom he believed to be trustworthy and zealous. All sorts of charges were made against the officials of the Post Office, as if they had some private motive to serve. They had no motive except the interest of the Department, which in their view was the interest of the public. Now, he was bound to confess that in his official experience of all the many questions he had to deal with in connection with the administration of the Post Office, none, to his mind, had been beset with a tithe part of the difficulties which had had to be considered in connection with the telephone question. Of course, it would be idle now to go over the question which had been settled, and to enter into the controversy whether or not Parliament was wise or unwise in purchasing the telegraphs at an enormous price, and so establishing a monopoly. But that was done by Parliament; and it was not for him to express an opinion as to this or that Act. All he, or anyone else similarly placed at the Post Office, had to do was to faithfully administer the Acts which Parliament had passed; and, therefore, he had nothing to do with the policy of the telegraph monopoly. He found the telegraph monopoly created, and he was bound to administer it in the best way he could, not only in the interests of the Revenue, but in the interests of the public. When he went to the Post Office he found that this question as to whether or not the telephone was an infringement of the telegraph monopoly was about to be raised in the Law Courts. Of course, nothing would be more unwise on his part than to say a single word about the decision which was given in regard to the telephone. The case was heard before two able Judges; the case was argued with consummate ability on each side; there was an elaborate judgment; and that judgment left no doubt whatever that, in the opinion of the Judges, the telephone was a direct and a distinct infringement of the telegraph monopoly, in purchasing which Parliament or the Government had spent £10,000,000 of the taxpayers' money. In the course of that case it was particularly urged upon him, as representing the Post Office, that he should not deal harshly with the Telephone Companies; that he should not act on the assumption that they had
    1072
    consciously done an illegal act in the establishment of Telephone Exchanges; that, although the Court had distinctly announced that the Companies had committed an act of illegality in every instance in which they had established an exchange, he should not exercise his full rights and confiscate their property, but should deal with them in a generous and liberal spirit. All he could say was, that had been his object from the first. After giving the matter great consideration, he said that in any case where a private Company had established a Telephone Exchange, he would assume that that establishment was a bonâ fide transaction, and that it was not done with the knowledge that it was an act of illegality; that, consequently, nothing should be done that would interfere with their business, and he would enter into arrangements with them by which they would be able to carry on their business. Consequently, in all those towns in which, at the time of the decision, Telephone Exchanges were established, licences were immediately granted to them on certain conditions, upon which an agreement was come to between the Telephone Companies and himself. The hon. Member had again and again repeated that throughout all these affairs he (Mr Fawcett) had been actuated by an intention and a desire to strangle the Telephone Companies. Far from that being his desire, he had allowed them to establish businesses in almost every large town in England; and he could only repeat most positively the assertion he had already made, that nothing was further from his desire than to do anything that was unfair to, or severe upon, the Telephone Companies, or anything that was likely to strangle them. He was anxious that the public should obtain a supply of telephonic communication, either through private enterprize or through the Post Office, according to which could supply it to the public most efficiently and on the most reasonable terms. That had been his policy hitherto, and that was his policy at the present time. But in granting these licences to private Companies, he was, of course, bound to see that the arrangement made should not prejudicially affect the Revenue. The officials of the Department were often attacked as if they had some personal

    1073
    interest to serve. They had to administer a monopoly, bought by £10,000,000 of the taxpayers' money; and he was bound to see that this large investment was guarded with adequate precautions. His position was exactly that of a trustee. If a commercial man bought an invention or a patent, for, say, £100,000, and he appointed a manager to administer it for him, and suppose someone else made another invention, and it was decided by the Courts that that invention was an infringement of the patent which had been bought for £100,000, and that the use of it was equally an infringement of his patent, would not that manager be faithless, and not properly careful of his trust, if he did not see that the use of the second patent should only take place under conditions which would properly safeguard the interests of the man who employed him? That was exactly his position; he was nothing more than the trustee of the public. This policy of granting licences to all the towns in which Telephone Exchanges had been established went on until about two years ago. He was then met with another difficulty. He received numerous applications from other Companies, stating that if he did not extend the granting of licences to other Companies in other towns, he should be constituting a private monopoly. They said it was all very well for the Government to have a monopoly; but if they abused the monopoly, a Motion would be brought forward in the House of Commons. They said they would have the Government under their control; and if the monopoly was not properly used, it would be the fault of the people if they submitted to the misuse of the monopoly. He was pressed on all sides not to allow a private monopoly to grow up, and be vested in a private Company, which could not be controlled in the same way by Parliament. He therefore decided, two years ago, that he would, to a certain extent, change the policy which had been adopted, and would no longer confine the granting of licences to those towns which happened to have exchanges at the time when the legal decision was given; but would grant licences to all towns and to all applicants on certain conditions. These conditions he considered most carefully; he had considered the condition to which the hon.
    1074
    Member had referred; and his sole object in insisting upon that condition was that he thought it was of great importance that the Department should have some larger control than it then possessed over the use of all telephone instruments, in order to have the power of interposing, not primarily for the sake of making money, but in the interests of the public, if those interests required such an interference. That plan had gone on for a couple of years. After it came into operation, a decision was given in reference to certain patents which were claimed by a Company. That Company had obtained a licence, and the effect of the decision was adverse to that Company, and that Company had found the difficulty of carrying on its business greatly increased. He was free to confess, as he had stated that afternoon —and he should almost have thought that the statement he then made would have rendered it unnecessary to bring on the question now—that it had been shown by experience that the new condition which he had thought necessary in the interest of the public to impose two years ago had checked the development of private telephonic enterprize. He never intended that effect to be produced; and, having ascertained that that had been the effect, he had been considering for some months past—and it was a question beset with difficulties —whether he should modify that condition in such a way as to get over the difficulty, while, at the same time, properly guarding the interests of the public. He had now to state that he meant to adhere to that policy. Nothing was further from his intention than to unduly extend the functions of the Post Office. He thought that what the Post Office ought to do was to supply facilities where those facilities could not be so well supplied by private enterprize; but with regard to the particular case of telegraphs and telephones, the telegraph monopoly had been purchased at an enormous cost, and he should be guilty of faithlessness to his trust if he did not do all he could to safeguard the Telegraph Revenue. But in safeguarding that he had been, and should continue to be, most scrupulously careful not to throw any unnecessary impediment in the way of the development of private enterprize. This

    1075
    subject was engaging more of his attention than any other; and he hoped he might be able, without giving any positive pledge, soon to be in a position to announce that he could see his way to proposing some modification of the particular stipulation in these new telephone licences to which the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) and the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) objected. Under those circumstances, he thought it would, perhaps, be better not to continue this discussion on the present occasion.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous reply, and he would willingly adopt his suggestion as to not prolonging the discussion; but he wished to say a few words in reply to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. He should not imagine that the right hon. Gentleman or any of the permanent officials of the Post Office had any personal interest or pecuniary interest, or any personal object to gain in connection with the policy which they adopted. That was the furthest thing from his thoughts; but permanent officials, and even officials who were not permanent, had a proper and laudable ambition to make their Department appear as favourably as possible; and there was a certain esprit de corps which could be pushed to extreme limits which constantly induced the permanent officials to adopt a principle or a policy that was contrary to the interests of the public, under the mistaken notion that their particular Department comprised the whole universe, and that everybody must be subject to their Department. It was in that sense alone that he characterized the action of the Department. The right hon. Gentleman now contended that he was bound to protect the Public Revenue of which he was the trustee, and talked about the large sum paid for the purchase of the telegraphs; but he was amazed that the right hon. Gentleman had made no allusion to the deliberate expression of opinion by Parliament in 1878 on that subject. The right hon. Gentleman did not venture to assert that when £10,000,000, or whatever was the sum, was paid, the purchasers contemplated the purchase of a thing which had no existence, like the telephone; nor did he deal with the most important matter to which he had alluded—
    1076
    that when the Department in 1878 inserted in the Bill a clause intended to give them control over telephones they then doubted the extent of their power, and that Parliament struck out or rejected the clause. Therefore, Parliament expressed the opinion that the Department ought not to have that power of control. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to look into the whole matter; and he was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman not only promised to look into the matter upon which he had laid stress, but also into the subject touched upon by the hon. Member for Manchester — namely, the conditions under which trunk wires were dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman said the Post Office did not want to simply make money. It was already making £15,000 a-year by the telephones without any expense; and he hoped it would make more; but it seemed to think it a portion of its mission to insist on Companies making money in a certain fashion, and charging to the public sums which they did not desire to charge. Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to say that it was to the interest of the public to tell a Company it must charge so much per mile which the Company did not wish to charge. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider that matter, and the extremely objectionable course which the Post Office took with regard to the Company in minor matters. He also hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to announce his decision within a reasonably short time; because, although he was ready to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, that he had not intended that the result of his action should be what it had been, still, the Companies and the Post Office being competitors for the public business, every day's delay in the announcement of his decision placed his own Department in a position of most unfair advantage over the private Companies. It was in this way that they had derived an advantage in Newcastle and other towns; and although the right hon. Gentleman desired to act fairly any delay would be unfair to the competitors of the Post Office.
    MR. FAWCETTassured the hon. Member that, so far as he was concerned, not one hour would be lost

    1077
    in coming to a decision. He had mentioned that the particular point which had been for some time past and still was engaging his attention was the clause in the Telephone Exchange Licences which the hon. Member for Carlow had drawn his attention to— namely, a general user of the telephone instruments; but what he had said did not apply to the question raised by the hon. Member for Manchester—namely, that of trunk wires, because that question had been for the present settled between the Companies and the Post Office.

    THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—GENERAL POLICY OF THEIR SCHEMES.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that when he moved the reduction of Vote 11 he should do so with the view of bringing before the Committee the policy of the Charity Commissioners with regard to the work that Parliament had intrusted them with. Dissatisfaction with the action of the Charity Commissioners was, he ventured to say, increasing both in depth and extent throughout the country; and it was difficult to bring that action under the notice of the House except in a manner such as this, seeing that the Commissioners had no Representative in Parliament save the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella). The policy of the Commissioners was one of profound distrust of the people, so far as the management part of the schemes was concerned. It might be described as a policy by which the property and endowments of the poorer classes, and of the public generally, were taken away by schemes formed mainly, and oftentimes wholly, in the interests of the richer classes. Up to the present time, or up to quite recently, the schemes of the Charity Commissioners were accepted — especiallyin the poorer districts, where public opinion was powerless—as a matter of course. In nearly all cases, however, there had been a great sense of wrong, and a great sense of injustice on the part of those who had been the victims, if he might so term it, of the action of the Charity Commissioners. Now, there were three branches connected with the work of the Charity Commissioners—first, their action in regard to the working of the Charity
    1078
    Trusts Acts. That he would not speak of, because, as hon. Members were aware, that part of their work had been recently referred to a Select Committee appointed by the House to go into the whole working of the matter. Another branch of the operations of the Commission was the working of the Allotments Extension Act, 1882, of which he had already spoken, and of which, he ventured to say, further examination would show grave neglect on the part of the Commissioners. That, also, had been referred to the Select Committee now sitting, consequently he need not detain the Committee on that subject. Before, however, passing away from the question of the Charitable Trusts, he must refer to one matter which came immediately under his notice; and his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council was, to his mind, rather too much a champion of the action of the Charity Commissioners in this affair. He would ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman for a moment to this case, and it was the only one he would speak of with regard to the Charitable Trusts part of the work of the Commissioners. There was a Charity in Birmingham called Lynch's Trust. The Charity Commissioners had recently appointed a new body of Trustees, 17 in number, and they had allowed four of those to be elected by the Town Council. It was considered a great affair, having so large a body as that directly representative. But what had the Commissioners done? They had imposed a property qualification of £60 ratal, which meant about a £75 rental, so that the representative Trustees elected by the members of the Town Council must live in houses worth £70 or £75 a-year. Now, when he remembered that the Birmingham Town Council was, perhaps, one of the most democratic in the country, and that a considerable number of the most highly respected members of it belonged to the working classes; when they knew that the ratepayers had shown great confidence in these men, and had intrusted them with the expenditure of enormous sums of money, it seemed absolutely an insult to the borough to say—"You may elect four men, but you must pass over every one of those connected with the working classes, because they are not rated at £60." The Vice President of the Coun-

    1079
    cil, he knew, was very anxious to do away with property qualification in regard to municipal elections. He need not say that the Birmingham Town Council refused to have anything to do with such a scheme, and declined to insult anyone of their number by attempting to elect anyone under such conditions; and the consequence was that they had no representatives at all on the management, and did not wish any on the terms laid down by the Commissioners. What he wanted to point out was that if in Birmingham, where they thought they could take care of themselves pretty well, the Charity Commissioners imposed these conditions in respect of the Charitable Trust, what would they not do in a small district where no public opinion obtained? The Commissioners, in that high and mighty tone which they assumed towards all those with whom they had occasion to communicate, wrote a letter in which they said that if the Town Council of Birmingham had objected they should have objected in time. As a matter of fact, the Birmingham Town Council knew nothing about the matter; but the Commissioners said they put the usual notices on the Town Hall door by advertisement. But, on the other hand, it was said—"Why did you not communicate with the Governing Body in the town in such a matter?" and the Commissioners, in reply, said—
    "It is the opinion of the Board that they were not under any obligation to give direct notice in this matter to the Corporation of Birmingham, or to any body other than the Trustees of the Charity."
    Probably they were not under an obligation; but, surely, they might have given notice even if they were not exactly under legal obligation to do so, seeing that the Town Council was affected by the Act—in as much as they would have to elect four Trustees. Then they said—and this he would call the attention of the Committee to, as showing how far behind the age and how out of touch with everything modern these gentlemen seemed to be—
    "It seems to me the intention of the Legislature to sever rather than to strengthen the: connection between these Corporations and the Charities administered within the respective boroughs which they represent."
    He would like to ask the Vice President of the Council whether it was the in-
    1080
    tention of Parliament to lessen more and more and make less and less the connection between the Corporations and these public Trusts? On what did the Commissioners base their contention? They referred to legislation of the time of William IV.—they evidently referred to the old Close Corporations. It might, possibly, be to the advantage of the community that the Corporations should have no power of this kind; but they took this Act of William IV. as a proof that it was the intention of the Legislature of the present day to sever the connection of such a Corporation as Birmingham with the work affecting the community over which the Corporation were elected to govern. In speaking of these Charities, he admitted as much as anyone the need of reform in the Charities and Endowments of the country; but the question was as to the principle on which the reforms were to be carried on. He contended that it was not a reform, and that it would not be submitted to long as a reform, that the property of the poorer classes and the lower middle classes should be taken away from them altogether, or placed in such a form that these people could not take advantage of it—that was to say, that it should be given to a different class of people altogether, and, very often, to people of a different locality. That was the principle which had been adopted, but which, he was sure, would not be long submitted to. He quite admitted that the Charities and Endowments must be administered in accordance with modern ideas; but those ideas must contemplate, in some form or other, the benefit and advantage of the people to whom the Endowments belonged. They should not be given in the form of relief to the rich. Then, again, they had this settled principle on the part of the Charity Commissioners, they had a positive hatred to free schools. Wherever they could find one they never rested until they could destroy it. That, he thought, was against the feeling which had been growing for some time, and which was very generally experienced in the country, that schools should be free. What was being done now in Rochdale? Why, there was a free school there well conducted and well reported on by the Inspector. He was not going into the question as to whether or not it needed

    1081
    reform; but the Charity Commissioners had sent in, or were about to send in, a scheme by which they would either abolish the school altogether or certainly abolish it as a free school. What reasons did they give? He would tell the Committee—and he wanted hon. Members to listen to this letter, addressed to the Rochdale Trustees, dated only in March last; the right hon. Gentleman, who so ably presided over the Committee of Council on Education, he also desired to listen, that he might say to what extent he and his Colleagues agreed with the doctrine.
    "They cannot admit that it is a proper use of the funds of an educational endowment to employ them, as they understood they were employed to a large extent, in paying the elementary education fees of children of poor parents. Even in the case of the poorest, who might be unable to pay the fee, the law has now made other provision, chargeable upon the rates."
    Now, what did that passage mean? It meant that those children who had had their school fees paid—
    MR. CROPPER: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if this is in Order, seeing that the whole subject is under the consideration of a Select Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the matter is under the consideration of a Select Committee appointed for the purpose, it seems to me to be very irregular to enter into a discussion of it at this moment.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he should be only too happy if his hon. Friend and the Chairman were correct, and the Endowed Schools part of the work of the Charity Commissioners were under the consideration of the Committee. If his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council would get up and say that the whole action of the Commissioners with regard to Endowed Schools should be brought also within the scope of the inquiry of the Select Committee that would put another complexion on the matter altogether. The reason why he must bring these cases forward was to show the necessity of that which the Charity Commissioners shrank from, and which the Government themselves were not eager to do— namely, to place the whole Department of the Endowed Schools Act within the scope of the inquiry of the Select Committee which had been recently appointed. That being so, he thought
    1082
    that not only was he in Order in referring to the action of the Commissioners with regard to School Endowments, but that it was absolutely necessary for him to do it, in order to show why, in the interests of religious equality and liberty as well as in the interests of the poor, that action should come within the scope of the inquiry of the Select Committee. What he wanted to ask was, whether it was the policy of the Vice President of the Council that persons who possessed property in these Endowments—who had the right to have the school fees of their children paid—should be unable to avail themselves of any such right without becoming what they considered to be paupers, and getting the Boards of Guardians to pay the fees for them? Could they imagine anything more insulting to the poor of a parish where there was an Educational Endowment giving free education? The people did not wish to become paupers, and yet, to their minds, there was pauperism attached to the making of an application to the Board of Guardians. They were told their property was to be taken away from them, and they could apply to the Guardians of the Poor to have their fees paid. If all the education in the country were free, then no difficulty would arise; but, by taking away these Endowments, they made the poor pay 2d., 3d., 4d., or 6d. a-week for the education of their children—and hard work, indeed, it was for many of them to do it—or they made them go to the Guardians of the Poor and practically become paupers by asking to have the fees paid for them. Well, he had put a Question down on the Paper that night to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council as to the scheme at Tonbridge. He was aware there was a difference of opinion about that; and, seeing that the scheme was an accomplished fact, he should not have alluded to it were it not that schemes of a similar description were being carried out in various parts of the country, and that it was necessary to show what had been done in order to arouse public opinion in opposition to what was contemplated. This Grammar School in Tonbridge had been for something like 200 years, some said, wholly free, and some said partly free. At any rate, it had been open to all classes in the town of Ton-

    1083
    bridge to obtain its benefits. In 1875 the Charity Commissioners published a draft scheme. There was a high school established with a fee of something like £18 a-year; but, in order to secure some equivalent, some benefit to the commercial and poorer classes, the Charity Commissioners proposed to give a second school, or establish a school within the reach of the less wealthy classes. The Skinners' Company, in order to bring that about more completely, offered £20,000 to the Charity Commissioners.
    MR. MUNDELIA: No; £10,000.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, his right hon. Friend said only £10,000; but he said £20,000. £10,000 was to come out of the Charity. He regretted such technical quibbles as this—if he might call them so—very much. He would tell the Committee what that correction meant. There was £10,000 taken from the existing Charity. He supposed he was right there; and there was £10,000 given from the funds of the Skinners' Company, which made£20,000. That was proposed to be given to the Charity Commissioners on the faith that a second class school would be founded in Tonbridge. That was the understanding; but because the scheme then before the public in 1875 said "Ton-bridge, in the town or in the neighbourhood of the town," in 1880 they brought in an amended scheme, in which they curiously altered the words to "in or near the parish or the town." That was complained of by the Skinners' Company, and every effort was made to get it altered; but the reply was this—and he was quoting from the letters of the Charity Commissioners—
    "We put in 'in or near the parish of Ton-bridge,' in order that you, the Skinners' Company, who will be Governors of the school, will have a larger latitude of choice for a site for the school."
    That was their letter—not a word said in it about moving the school. That went on until 1882, two years after the scheme was for the first time proposed, and then the inhabitants of Tonbridge learnt that the school was to be removed to Tonbridge Wells, five miles off. Hon. Gentlemen might say that was within the radius of Tonbridge. It was true, but it practically shut out the town of Tonbridge, so far as the lower middle classes could avail themselves of the advantages of the school. Then, it
    1084
    might be said that Tonbridge Wells was a more populous place than Tonbridge; but Tonbridge had a population of 10,000, and the school was only a school to accommodate not less than 200 boys, so that there were children of the class to be benefited sufficient in Tonbridge to fill twice the amount of accommodation the school afforded. His contention was that it was not fair, having made a perfectly well-understood arrangement with the Skinners' Company that the school should be established "in or near the town of Ton-bridge," to remove it five miles away. He really did not see how it could be justified in any way. The result was this—that the people of Tonbridge were ousted from their school altogether, because there were very few who could pay £18 a-year to the Grammar School, and very few of the poor classes who could afford to send their children five miles to take advantage of the lower school. He was aware the Education Department thought great things were being done in the interest of education by the making of these arrangements. They vaunted what was being done in connection with the great foundation in Birmingham; but he (Mr. Jesse Collings) ventured to say, as a Governor of that foundation, which had £30,000 a-year at its disposal, that they were doing comparatively little to advance education in the borough, over and above what would be done there if the school were not in existence. He was prepared to prove that statement. The institution had an income of £30,000 a-year; but fees of a very high character were charged — namely, £9 a-year and the cost of books, which was very considerable, in the case of the High School, and £3 a-year and books in the Grammar School. One-third of the whole number of places were free by examination—that was the salve the Commissioners placed over their consciences for having taken away an old free school from all classes of the community. They said they gave a third of the places free by Scholarships to be won by examinations; but what was the result? Everyone knew that children whose parents could afford to send them to private schools had an immense advantage over the children of the poor in the matter of obtaining Scholarships. What did they find? Why, that only

    1085
    some 60 children from the elementary schools were able to derive any benefit from, this enormous property of £30,000 a-year. That was the fullest extent to which the lower, middle, and working classes could avail themselves of a foundation which belonged to the whole community. All the rest was appropriated by the wealthier classes of the borough. But the Charity Commissioners said—
    "It is such a demoralizing thing to give free education to the poor."
    It was supposed to be demoralizing to give children free education for which they now paid 3s. a-week; but it was not demoralizing to give 300 children of Birmingham an education costing £35 a-year for £9 a-year. That did not seem demoralizing at all. It was not demoralizing to give in the Grammar Schools an education worth £12 a-year to the middle classes for £3 a-year—to give this great reduction to a class which could well afford to pay for its education. It was only demoralizing when they came to the very poor, who could not afford to pay 3d. or 4d. a-week for the education of their children, to relieve them of that payment; but it might be said that the establishment at present accommodated as many children as there were of the poor classes who could avail themselves of this middle and upper education. But, as a matter of fact—and here he would like the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to give him his attention— at a time when they were spending all this money on the wealthier classes, every half-year's examination they were turning away large numbers of poor class children who had shown by their examination that they had brains and capacity sufficient to enable them to take advantage of the better education if they could afford to pay the fees. They were turning away large numbers every year simply because they could not pay the fees. He held that the school belonged to the whole of the people of the borough, and that it was not fail-that it should be monopolized by certain classes, or rather that barriers should be put up by the schemes of the Charity Commissioners by which the poorer classes were kept out of the privileges of the endowment. He would not say to what extent the Commissioners interfered with the manage-
    1086
    ment of the school. They had on the Board of Management two or three Members of Parliament, two or three ex-Mayors, and some of the leading people of the borough; and yet they could not do the slightest thing without coming to London to consult five or six gentlemen, who, perhaps, had not been in Birmingham in their lives, and knew nothing whatever about it, and who yet put themselves in authority over the Local Authorities who knew all about the locality. Some weeks ago the local managers of the schools had to go to London with the plans of a small gymnasium in order to obtain the consent of the Commissioners. A considerable amount of unnecessary expense was occasioned by that arrangement. To his mind the time had come when this kind of scheme, or power to impose such a condition, should be taken away from any body of men. What did they want? Why, they should insist that the management of these Charities should be given into the hands of Local Authorities. He should be surprised to hear any objection to that principle coming from the Front Benches of a Liberal Government, because there was no security anywhere for the people whom he had been describing, and especially the poorer classes, except in some scheme administered by persons directly representing the community which was to be benefited. It was only in this way that abuses could be remedied, and that public opinion could be brought to bear upon the management of the institutions. He would just refer to one or two further cases, because the schemes were being carried out at the present moment. There was the case of Stroud, which, he believed, was opposed on both sides of the House, the question being by no means a Party one. Then there was the case of Horsham, and the case of Cam in Gloucestershire. In all these cases the rights of the poor were ignored, in some of them taken away altogether. He would just give one instance more, and then he had done, because all these schemes were very much alike as to the principle on which they were framed. Take the case of Seaming in Norfolk. For 200 years there had been a free school there. It had been carried on, so far as he knew, in a very satisfactory manner, and had produced presumably good results. Even ii that had not been

    1087
    the case, the question would only have been one of reforming the institution; but the Charity Commissioners, against the wish of everyone connected with the locality, went down a short time ago and insisted on imposing fees upon the children of the district. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was aware that, from time to time, up to the present, there had been something very like a riot going on in this locality in consequence of that transaction. The poor people did not understand, and could not be got to understand, why they, having this school in their possession, and having enjoyed its benefits, they and those who had gone before them for something like 200 years should be deprived of it by a certain number of officials in London, who say—"Henceforth you shall pay a certain amount of fees which are taken in a neighbouring parish," The Charity Commissioners had done all they could to force these poor people to accept their scheme. Labouring men had sent their children for a time, and had refused to pay the fees, and a policeman had had to be stationed at the school in order to turn these children away from the institution which the people firmly believed to be their own. Up to the present time, the children so turned away were taught in a building constructed for the purpose, by the daughter of a working man, gratuitously, rather than they should go in to pay the school fees, and thereby give up the right which they believed they possessed, and submit to be robbed of their property. What was going on in that parish was simply what was taking place in many other parts of the country. Bad feeling had been produced, class had been set against class. In November, the Vicar of the parish to which he particularly referred had been, carried in effigy throughout the village, and burnt on a neighbouring common. All this trouble and ill-feeling had been caused simply by the action of the Charity Commissioners. He would quote a letter he had received from a gentleman he knew residing in the neighbourhood—a gentleman whom he was quite sure would not knowingly say anything he believed to be unjust or untrue. Referring to this action of the Charity Commissioners in regard to the Seaming school, his correspondent said—
    1088
    "If such, things can be done in a poor and obscure village in Norfolk, we still entertain the hope that in some form or other the facts will be brought under the notice of the House of Commons very early next Session. Departmental government is growing into an intolerable and cruel despotism."
    He (Mr. Jesse Collings) was inclined to think there was a great deal of truth in that. Instead of believing more and more in what people should believe in— namely, the efficacy of local government, there seemed to be a tendency in the Department in London to gather everything into their own hands; and, whatever their intention might be, the result was that things were done more inefficiently, less cheaply, and altogether in a more unsatisfactory way than they ought to be. With regard to any reform, if reform was thought necessary in the Office of the Charity Commissioners, he would strongly urge as the guiding principle that the whole management of every scheme should be placed in the hands of representatives of the Local Authorities. But then they had not yet got Local Authorities in the counties. They were promised them, and he hoped it would not be long before they got them. At any rate, they had been waiting for something like 200 years for reform of these Endowments, and it would not be a very great hardship if they had to wait another 12 months in order to have the thing done thoroughly while they were about it. He was quite sure that if any scheme was adopted which did not involve the principle of local management there would be no real settlement of the matter, but a continual agitation until the management of the property of the people and the affairs of the people were placed in the hands of the representatives of the people. As to the Charity Commissioners, he had no wish to bring any personal accusation against them; all he would say was, that they were an institution obsolete and out of joint with the requirements of the present time, and that the result of their action, whatever might be their intention, had been to inflict great hardships on the people of a large number of parishes and towns in England; and he trusted that this action was so stirring up the people that it would not be allowed to continue much longer. Of course, if the Government thought that this action was everything that they could desire, well and good. There

    1089
    would be nothing left but to continue agitation, until, perhaps, they might get the Government to see that there was something in the complaints of the people. At present, the poor people in rural districts had no hope and no power to help themselves. The Charity Commissioners could do pretty much as they liked. There was another view of the question, and it was one very easy to put. The Charity Commissioners, perhaps sincerely—for he did not ask what their opinions were in this matter —had lent themselves to the propping up and to the increasing of the ecclesiastical part of the Governmental Charities in rural districts. He thought it would be found, if this matter could be properly sifted by the Select Committee, that the Nonconformists of some rural parishes in the country were suffering great religious and social hardships from the action of those who administered those Trusts. He would not detain the Committee much longer. He regretted to have had to detain it so long; but he knew of no other way in which to bring before the House of Commons the hardships which he was sure hon. Members on both sides of the House sympathized with; and not the less because they had been exercised, very thoughtlessly perhaps, but in a degree that was very shocking, upon many of the poor classes of the people of the country, and especially on that class which had no one to speak for them, and were not represented here. When these classes were represented, the Committee might depend upon it that the Charity Commissioners would not last a Session, so deep and so wide was the dissatisfaction felt at their action. Hon. Members heard a great deal about setting class against class; and he ventured to say that there were no men or body of men who had ever stirred up animosity between the different social classes in the villages and towns of England as had the Charity Commissioners. Why should labourers go and burn in effigy the Vicar of their parish? Why, simply because the Charity Commissioners had planned a scheme which had stirred up resentment, ill-feeling, and heartburning. He did ask the Vice President of the Council not to shut his mind to these statements. Let the right hon. Gentleman not think there was nothing in it. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman would think,
    1090
    which was rather true, that the Department over which he (Mr. Mundella) presided sympathized with the principle which the Charity Commissioners had adopted. If the Department did sympathize with the Commissioners—and he was afraid they had some evidence that they did—then they too would have to change their policy; because, at any rate, the House of Commons had the Department under them if they had not the Charity Commissioners; and they were not going to be satisfied with any answer which left matters in the condition in which they now found them.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he thought it hardly fair to the subject, or to himself, that the hon. Member, without having placed any Notice on the Paper, and without any intimation whatever, should have launched this question on the Committee, and called upon him to answer facts with reference to Charities, some of which were already before a Committee of the House.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg pardon; my Notice has been on the Paper for three weeks.
    MR. MUNDELLA: But that Notice referred to the Vote in the Estimate, and not to a Vote on Account, which wag altogether a different thing. This was the second time the hon. Member had brought the question before the House during the Session. On the first occasion he reminded the hon. Member that a Committee was sitting to consider Charitable Trusts and Allotments, and that he would have an opportunity of bringing these cases before that Committee; but the hon. Member commenced his speech that evening with some allegations of maladministration of a Trust in Birmingham, which he (Mr. Mundella) could assure the Committee he had never heard of before in that House, or had anything to do with in his official capacity. The hon. Member said he had no other remedy; but he would point out that he had a remedy ready to his hand, in as much as there was the Committee he had referred to now sitting; and he understood that representatives from Birmingham were going before it, who would probably deal with this very question. Surely it was hardly fair, under the circumstances, when they were considering a Vote on Account, to waste the time of the Committee on questions of this

    1091
    kind. He was utterly unprepared, as the hon. Member must be aware, to go into them, for he had had no chance of communicating with the Charity Commissioners. Then the hon. Member said there was something wrong about the Rochdale Scheme. If there were, he (Mr. Mundella) had never heard of it. These schemes came before the Committee of Council, who acted in a judicial capacity; and if there was a scheme in preparation, and the people of Rochdale petitioned against it, the Petition would, of course, be considered; and, besides, Rochdale had a Member, who would be expected to look after the matter. The hon. Member then said there was something wrong going on with respect to the Stroud Scheme. With regard to that scheme, he had applied to the Commissioners, who said they were in process of dealing with the Stroud School; but that, at present, they had nothing ready which could be submitted. He said it was premature and irregular to discuss points in connection with the action of the Charity Commissioners and the Education Department with respect to a scheme, the clauses of which were not even framed. Again, the hon. Member said that the Tonbridge Scheme ought to be brought before the House to show the policy of the Charity Commissioners. He would point out to the Committee the position of that scheme. It was passed by the Duke of Richmond and the former Vice President of the Council in 1879; and when the present Government accepted Office in 1880, his (Mr. Mundella's) sole business in connection with it was to lay it on the Table of the House. the scheme was challenged, discussed, and amended in that House; and now, after it had been in operation for four years, his hon. Friend came down upon the action of the Charity Commissioners, and described the scheme as one by which the poor were being robbed of their free school. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: That is what it amounts to.] Now, he had in his hand the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commissioners with respect to the Tonbridge School, which was to the effect that the tradesmen were not, on the whole, satisfied with the school; that there were a large number of day boarders attending it, which gave a great stimulus to trade in the place; that many people were attracted by the
    1092
    cheapness of the education for day boarders during the three years necessary to gain the whole privileges of the foundation. The tradesmen, it appeared, could not send their sons to the school for two reasons—first, because the education was so classical; and, secondly, because they feared class prejudices amongst the boys, and, consequently, there was only the son of one tradesman in the school.
    MR. JESSE COLLTNGS: My objection was that the school should be removed to another locality for the benefit of another class.
    MR. MUNDELLA: The Report stated that there was only one tradesman's son in the school. There was a class prejudice against tradesmen's sons. Surely it could not be said that, the modern school, which the Charity Commissioners recommended with reduced foes, would have the effect of depriving any class of the advantages of education. He simply pointed to these facts in order to show that there were two sides to the question, both of which ought to be heard. In his opinion, the Charity Commissioners had exercised a wise discretion by transferring the school to a town of 10,000 inhabitants, with the full knowledge, as it would be easy to show, of the Skinners' Company. He did not object to an attack by the hon. Member on the scheme of the Charity Commissioners, provided it was made in a fair way. But if the hon. Member wished to challenge the principle of the Endowed Schools Act, let him do so by all means; let him move for a Select Committee to inquire into the working of that Act. But he maintained that the Committee now sitting to consider Charitable Trusts and Allotments should first be allowed to make their Report, and then he should be prepared to meet the hon. Member's challenge. For his own part, he had no sort of objection to inquiry, nor had he any interest in screening the Charity Commissioners; but he said it was unfair to make two attacks upon them within a few weeks upon a question which was already under consideration by a Committee upstairs, and whose Report might be shortly expected. His hon. Friend had not confined himself to the questions specified. He objected to the whole system of the administration of the Tonbridge School; but he was

    1093
    sure the Committee would not expect him to go further than he had gone. However, he would conclude by repeating that he could prove to the Committee, from documentary evidence, that, so far as the Skinners' Company was concerned, they knew, when the question was fully before them, that the school was to be placed at a point within 10 miles of its original position.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he should not go into the details of the schemes which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) had brought before the Committee, nor should he attack the principle of the Endowed Schools Act. He wished to call attention to a point on which he thought both the Charity Commissioners and the Education Department had not carried out the spirit of the Endowed Schools Act, nor dealt justly with the claims of the poor. He referred to small endowments for elementary education which were originally made for free education. He called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the Reports of his own Department from 1873 to 1882; and he asked what had happened in those 10 years in respect of the Church of England National Schools? He found that there was a steady diversion of the old endowments to the subsidizing of Elementary Schools. The endowments to National Schools had gone up from £63,000 to £123,000, or nearly doubled, in the time mentioned. Now, if that money had been applied to the relief of the poor by helping them in their school fees it would have been applied more in accordance with the spirit of the Charity. The whole policy of the Department had been rigorously to exact increasing fees; and he would show briefly that while the Elementary Schools had made £63,000 a-year more by Endowments, they had screwed up the fees to the highest point, and reduced the contributions of wealthy subscribers by what was actually taken away from the poor. The fees had gone up to £807,000 a year; whereas, if they had been charged on the same principle as they were 10 years ago, they would have stood at £680,000. According to that, the proportion of subscription ought to have been £620,000 instead of £580,000; so that £180,000 a-year more was taken from the poor than was the case 10
    1094
    years ago, and £40,000 a-year less was paid in subscriptions. He did not object to the principle that these Endowments should often be applied to secondary education; but if they were applied to elementary education they ought to go to the poor, and not be applied to the subsidizing of inefficient Church Schools to save the pockets of the ratepayers.
    MR. COLMANsaid, that cases had come within his own knowledge in which two years and even longer had elapsed before they could get any reply to very simple questions addressed to the Education Department. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to understand that there was a strong feeling in the country with reference to the extreme dilatoriness of the Department.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had been much amused at the air of injured innocence which was assumed by the Vice President of the Council in replying to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings). Inquiry had been made on several occasions at Question time with regard to the schools referred to by the hon. Member, so that the right hon. Gentleman knew something of them quite recently. The right hon. Gentleman complained that he had had no Notice; but he said afterwards that he had documentary evidence to prove that the hon. Member was entirely in the wrong. So that, as a matter of fact, he seemed to be arguing in a manner rather contradictory of himself. Then the right hon. Gentleman complained of the hon. Member bringing forward the case of the Tonbridge School, because the school was in a bad state some years ago; but that did not appear to him to be any argument in favour of the present state of the school. Again, the right hon. Gentleman contended that it was unreasonable to bring forward questions of this sort more than once; but he (Mr. Biggar) differed entirely from that view, because his own experience was that nothing was ever done with regard to any subject by the Government until their attention had been called to it over and over again. The usual course was for a Minister at first to refuse to consider the question at all; the Member who raised it would then promise to bring forward a Motion, and when the Question had been put once or twice more the Minister generally agreed to

    1095
    do what was asked of him at first. He judged, therefore, from his Parliamentary experience, that if the hon. Member for Ipswich persevered he would succeed in attaining the object he had in view.

    CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN ADVANCE.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the recent advance of Russia. He had asked the noble Lord that afternoon the distance which had been covered by the Russian Forces from the Caspian towards India since the present Government came into Office. At the outset of the few observations he was about to make, he must beg the indulgence of hon. Members opposite who were in the habit of regarding reference to these advances as the views of alarmists, and not justified by the facts of the case. The question was one which had altogether passed out of the region of controversy. It was a subject of the gravest national and Imperial importance; and there could not be the least doubt that many of those who were once accustomed to ridicule the danger to their Indian Empire which these advances involved had now ceased to ridicule, and regarded them with apprehension, if not with alarm. The noble Lord had given that afternoon an answer which he would be very sorry to describe as disingenuous, but which was certainly altogether wide of the facts of the case. He stated that the Russian Forces had advanced so many miles in 1878, and so many miles in 1879; but he had omitted to state to the House the important truth that this was merely a temporary advance, and that the forces engaged in it were badly defeated by the Turkoman Tribes, and compelled to fall back upon the Caspian At that moment there was good reason to believe that a Russian Army was in possession of Sarakhs. The noble Lord seemed to think it a matter of no importance that the great Military Power of the Czar should have covered a distance of 500 miles onwards in the direction of our Indian Empire since the year 1880. It was of no use to quibble about Old and New Sarakhs, because the two towns were opposite each other on the banks of a river which was easily passable;
    1096
    and it was not likely that the miserable Persian garrison there would be able to offer any opposition to the Russian Army advancing beyond it. Now, the seriousness of this advance was not to be disputed, and he recommended any hon. Member who wished fully to realize the gravity of the question to read the report of a remarkable lecture delivered by Sir Edward Hamley at the Royal Institution. This accurately described the great danger to their Indian Empire that was involved in the advance of Russia. He might also refer to a statement which appeared a few weeks ago in the Russian semi-official newspaper of the Caucasus, and which stated plainly the position of the Russian Army at the present time. He did not, of course, admit the correctness of the opening statement; but the article was to the effect that if the Russians desired it they could undoubtedly acquire India, and that their policy was to liberate the people of India from the British yoke. That plain-spoken article actually revelled in pointing out the change of front and bearing on the part of Russian officials towards this country. Time was when this Russian advance was concealed, but that was no longer necessary; rather it was held in terrorem over this country as a lever which would be exercised in case of ail European or any other struggle. The danger of the position lay in the Russian Forces having acquired a fresh basis of operations close to the Afghan Frontier; they had shown their power by acquiring as allies the independent races which intervened between them and Afghanistan. They were pushing their outposts steadily onwards; they had advanced even more than the distance of 500 miles of which he had spoken, and already deputations from the Turkoman Tribes bordering on Afghanistan, and some actually within the Afghan limits, had gone to the Czar's Representatives at Merv and offered their submission. It ought also to be remembered that Prince Dondoukoff-Korsakoff was actually at Merv. No doubt that name appeared formidable, and it should remind hon. Members opposite that it belonged to the Russian official who was so successful in 1878 in Russianizing Bulgaria. That Prince had been sent to do the same work amongst the Turkoman Tribes which he had so vigorously performed in Roumelia, The

    1097
    Indian Government had nothing to trust to but their ill-guarded frontier, stripped of its defensive power and strength by the action of the present Cabinet. He understood the Government were pushing forward from Sibi to Quetta the railway which was abandoned some four years ago, and that efforts were being made to find out a frontier from Quetta northwards. In fact, the Government were doing secretly what they blamed the Government of Lord Beaconsfield for doing openly. So long as British troops were in Candahar they had a really great defensive position. They had a grasp of Afghanistan. They held then such a strong position that they could safely have treated the Russian advance with ridicule. At the present moment they had no practical strategic position in Afghanistan. They were fortifying Quetta certainly; they believed the Government were pushing forward the construction of the railway to Quetta; but, on the other hand, the Russians were pushing on their railway; it was said it had been extended another 100 miles. It was significant of the extreme ignorance and secretiveness of the Government that it was not known how far the Russian railway had advanced. That was a point on which the Government ought to give the Committee the fullest information. They had an Agent at Meshed, which was not far from the Russian advance posts; and, by means of Native spies, the British Agent at Meshed, and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Teheran, ought to have been able to give the fullest information concerning the construction of the Russian railway. They were told the other day that great preparations were being made by Russia for an advance on India. That advance was no longer a matter of great alarm; it was no longer a question for the contempt of the Prime Minister, nor to be treated as an old woman's fears. It was an actual danger close at hand, which must be met by vigorous precautions, and by the most prudent military preparations. This question differed very much, indeed, from the other important questions which were now under the consideration of the House and of the country; it differed from their difficulties in regard to Egypt, and from their difficulties with regard to Ireland. Any of those difficulties might be settled the moment the Government was reso-
    1098
    lute, when the Government made up their mind as to a fixed policy, and when they enlisted the support of the country. The Egyptian and Irish difficulties lay within the grasp of England to settle; but the advance of a great and overwhelming Military Power towards their Indian Frontier might reach a point when it was not within the power of this country to deal with it. That point had not yet been reached, but they were fast approaching it. The time would come when, having given up all the great positions which Nature, and circumstances, and Providence—[Laughter] He was sorry to hear hon. Members laugh at a statement of that kind. He maintained that when they had given up the great positions which Nature, and circumstances, and Providence —[Renewed laughter.]—had placed within their power, this country might find itself in the face of a force majeure which it would be impossible to cope with. It was one thing to deal with small difficulties and small forces in Egypt; it was one thing to deal with difficulties which might arise close at our doors—in Ireland; but it was quite another thing to hurl back the enormous Military Power of Russia, more especially would it be difficult to resist, especially when the British Government had deliberately given up to Russia all those natural bulwarks and coigns of vantage which they once possessed, and which it was still in their power to regain, but which they were abandoning in the face of the clearest warnings and most imminent danger. There could be no doubt as to the course which the Government ought to take. There would, perhaps, be two or three years of comparative quiet, during which the Czar's Administrators and Generals would be organizing the Turkoman Tribes, and preparing them for an advance on India, during which they would be intriguing in Afghanistan and India itself. He reminded the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the unfortunate tone of the Native Press of India with respect to the Russian advance. The Indian Native Press seemed to have taken a unanimous cue —he did not know from what source, it might be inspired by the Russian Government; but, from whatever source they took the cue, they undoubtedly were writing about the Russian ad-

    1099
    vance, about its advantage to the Indian people, about the leverage it gave the Natives of India over the English Government. Their position with regard to the advance of Russia towards India was one which merited the very careful attention of the Ministry, who ought at once to take steps to complete not only the road but the railway to Quetta. They should have a most perfect understanding with the Ameer on this question, and they should be in a position to put other pressure upon him than that which mere bribes would produce in case of an actual advance of a Russian Force upon India. The Russian paper he had quoted foreshadowed the dangers which might arise in regard to Afghanistan. They had comparatively little to offer Afghanistan in comparison with what the Russians had to offer them. The Afghans had been for 800 years the traditional raiders upon India, and they knew that they had more to gain by a free right to invade and pillage India, which an alliance with Russia would give them, than they had to gain by our casual subsidies. He again asserted that it was important that they should not only hold influence over the Ameer by bribes, but that they should be in a position to put actual military pressure upon him if that were needed. For that purpose a railway to Candahar was an absolute necessity. They should not allow this dangerous advance to continue, lest an actual invasion of India might be made when they were least prepared to meet it, when, perhaps, they were at war with another Power, or, perhaps, when they had a serious revolution at home. He asked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in justice to his character for accuracy, to withdraw the statement he made that afternoon, or, at all events, to contradict the inference which would be drawn from that statement—namely, that in the years 1878 and 1879 the Russian Forces advanced 150 or 200 miles eastwards. It was clear that that was a temporary inroad which ended in a disastrous defeat, and which could not be justly or fairly described as an advance in any way similar to the permanent conquest and annexation which had since taken place.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the hon. Member seemed to have forgotten that at the commencement of
    1100
    the Session there was a regular discussion on this question, which was brought before the House in a very able speech by the hon. Gentleman who was the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. E. Stanhope) in the late Government. Speeches on that occasion were made by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), and by himself. When he called to mind the speech which the hon. Member then made, he could not find that the hon. Gentleman had that night introduced any new matter, except the charge of inaccuracy against him (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice). And that, indeed, was not exactly new matter, because the hon. Gentleman was so often charging him with inaccuracy. The hon. Member's indignation against the President of the Local Government Board was even greater than it was against him. If he held his present Office much longer he felt that the accumulation of indignation in the breast of the hon. Member would overwhelm him; but he should, however, in that case, be able to console himself with the reflection that it was all owing to what the hon. Gentleman called "Nature, circumstances, and Providence." The hon. Member deprecated making this a Party question; but what had he himself done? For the last two or three days he had had a Question on the Paper, which could only tend to make it a Party matter. The hon. Gentleman had desired to ascertain, through the Question he had placed upon the Paper, by how many miles the Russian Frontier had been advanced during the tenure of Office of the present Government, and by how many miles the Russian Frontier was advanced during the time of the late Government. He quite agreed with what was said by the hon. Member, and also by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope), on the former occasion when this subject was discussed, that it was undesirable to make this a Party question if it could be avoided; and he asked the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) to set the example himself. The hon. Gentleman had appealed to him to withdraw the statement he made earlier in the evening as to the extent to which the Russians advanced

    1101
    in 1879. He was very sorry to disappoint the hon. Member; but he really could not withdraw the statement. The hon. Member said the statement was inaccurate, because the Russians were defeated, and at the end of the year withdrew to the Caspian. It was true they did withdraw temporarily; but the next year they overran the whole country between the Caspian and Kizil Arvat. The hon. Member hoped he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) would not insist upon what he called the quibble as to the distinction between Old and New Sarakhs. But it was a distinction of importance, because the new Fort of Sarakhs was Persian, and the old town was upon territory which was not clearly Persian, though it had sometimes boon claimed by them. It would have been a very much graver matter if the Russians had crossed the river and occupied the Persian town. They had, however, occupied a place which was almost deserted, and which was not upon Persian territory. The hon. Member advised hon. Members to read the report of a recent lecture delivered by Sir Edward Hainley. As a matter of fact, Sir Edward Hainley was an intimate friend of his (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), and they had very often talked over these questions together. They were in close communication only a few days before Sir Edward Hamley gave his lecture, and on a great many of the points of the lecture he had the pleasure of conferring with his friend. Towards the close of his speech the hon. Member frightened himself by rattling in his own ears a great number of long sounding Russian names, and he referred to the "terrible" Russian Prince Dondoukoff-Korsakoff, who was reported to be at Merv. Now, when he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was in Eastern Roumelia, as a Commissioner, he heard a great deal about Prince Dondoukoff-Korsakoff, and he was not at all sure that what the hon. Member had said about that Prince was perfectly accurate. Prince Dondoukoff-Korsakoff did his best in Roumelia to conciliate the sentiments of the people towards the Russian occupation; but he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) could not, in consequence, share the hon. Member's apprehensions as to the influence Prince Dondoukoff-Korsakoff was likely to exercise over the Afghan Tribes. The hon. Member asked if Government knew all
    1102
    about the railway which was being constructed from the Caspian in the direction of Sarakhs. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had heard of the railway before. He recollected that the hon. Member put a series of Questions concerning it to the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke). ["No, no!"] Well, but he did recollect the circumstance; and if the hon. Member would refresh his memory, he would find he did ask Questions on the subject, of the President of the Local Government Board, when he was Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He hoped hon. Members would notice the extraordinary inconsistency of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman said it was very wicked on the part of Russia to construct the railway in question, and then he said that we ought to make a railway to Quetta without delay. If it was a wicked act on the part of Russia to construct a railway, why was it an act of virtue on our part? Was it for a great nation like England to go into hysterics every time a few yards of railway were added to the Russian lines in Asia? The construction of roads and railways in the wild districts of Central Asia, by whomsoever undertaken, was a great advantage to civilization and humanity. He knew he had excited the indignation of some hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches, by pointing out the fact that Russian annexation in Central Asia had been accompanied by the abolition of one of the most horrible systems of slave trading that the world had ever seen. He was sure the Committee had not forgotten the cruelties which were perpetrated upon English officers — Captain Conolly and Major Stoddart—at the time of the old Afghan War, by the very tribes whose apologist and defender the hon. Member (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had constituted himself. To him (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) it was an extraordinary thing that any hon. Member, whatever his feeling might be upon the political aspects of the question, should come down to the House and make the fate of these barbarous tribes a matter on which the good relations between Great Britain and Russia should depend. Her Majesty's Government held as strongly as any hon. Gentleman opposite that the advance of Russia in Asiatic regions was a matter of great importance; but they felt that it was

    1103
    not a matter about which they ought to get into a state of alarm or excitement. It was a matter to be met calmly, with a due consideration of all the circumstances, and with that strength of character which befitted a great nation like this. The position of the different holders of the Office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had never varied in regard to this subject. He could produce extracts from speeches of Lord Clarendon, Lord Granville, Lord Beaconsfield, and of Lord Salisbury, to show that the advance of Russia in Asia had always been regarded as a probability of the future. Lord Clarendon foresaw the probability that some day or other the Russian line of frontier would be close to that of Afghanistan, if it did not reach it; and he fully realized that that day would be a day to be regarded as one which would tax the resources of the statesmanship of this country; but not one which could be turned to the advantage of this country by hysterical alarm and excited discussion in Parliament. That was still the position of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this question. They quite realized the importance of the events which were happening in Asia; but they must decline to discuss those events prematurely, believing, as they did, that discussion would not be conducive to the peace of the world or to the advantage of this country.

    STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—THE RAJAH OF TENOM—CREW OF THE "NISERO."
    MR. STOREYsaid, he desired to draw attention to another matter which was of much more importance than the problematical march of Russia towards India. He was not much concerned in what was happening in Central Asia. For his part, he should not be sorry if a civilizing Power like Russia took a great many other places. He wished, however, to invite the attention of the Committee to a question which affected them immediately. They were aware that on several occasions he had asked Questions of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs respecting some British subjects who, for several mouths, had been the captives of a petty Rajah in Sumatra. He had not obtained from the noble Lord any satisfactory assurance that the English official out there was doing all that was necessary to secure
    1104
    the release of the men; and if the Committee would bear with him, he would very briefly enumerate the circumstances. The Nisero was wrecked on the 14th of November, 1883, and since then the crew had not only been in peril of their lives, but from time to time had been in absolute destitution. At the time they were taken captive the Rajah of Tenom was in conflict with the Dutch Government, who claimed Sovereignty in that part of the world. So far as he could form a judgment, the Dutch Government, and other persons, had behaved in a high-handed and improper manner towards this petty Potentate. However that might be, the Rajah, finding that his captives were British subjects, determined to use them as a means of compelling the Dutch Government to do justice to himself. We had nothing to do with the Rajah of Tenom in this matter. The Dutch Government claimed Sovereignty in those parts; and therefore they owed it to us to produce those men when we demanded their release. He wanted to know what the Foreign Office of England had done to secure the release of these British sailors? They were poor men; they had not the honour to be Generals, or to be connected with noble Lords in the other House, or with officers in the Army or Navy. If they had been, he could understand the shoals of Questions which would have been asked in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords concerning their fate. It had been left to him to raise this matter in the House, inasmuch as these men belonged to the borough which he represented (Sunderland); and if he had not had the support of one or two Members coming from the same locality, and of one Member in whose constituency some of these men lived, he should have been entirely powerless even to make a speech on this subject in the House. If he could show the Committee that these men had been kept in captivity for several months, and that practically nothing had been done for their release, and that unless Members spoke out nothing would be done, he thought he should probably secure the support of some other Members. It was on the 14th of November that these men were made captive. What had been done to release them? Representations were made to the Dutch Government; and

    1105
    when the matter was mentioned in that House the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had stated that an expedition had been sent by the Dutch Government. That the Dutch Government had sent an expedition he admitted. They sent an expedition on the 7th of January—two months after the men were captured; but what was that expedition? A person who was well able to give information on the subject had described it. He said the expedition went on shore, set fire to a few huts, and returned to their ships, apparently satisfied that they had done their utmost. On turning to the official declarations of the Dutch Government, he found that the official Report stated that the operations were conducted not for the rescue of the captives, but for the chastisement of the district. He thought the noble Lord knew better than he did that it was not in the policy or the intention of the Dutch Government to do anything relating to these poor men except under strong pressure from the English Government. They were quite content to have an open sore between themselves and the Rajah, and that these men should remain in captivity as a bone of contention between him and themselves; but he submitted that it was the duty of the British Government to enforce it on the Dutch Government that they must deal with this matter. The noble Lord had said that the Foreign Office was doing what it could; but he could tell the noble Lord much more that it ought to do. Once in the history of this country, when an English Earl had been taken prisoner by one of his vassals, William the Conqueror demanded his release, and when his captor made excuses as the Dutch Government had now done, he said—
    "By the splendour of God, Guy of Ponthieu !
    I will have your prisoner or I will have you !"
    He submitted to the noble Lord that it was time that the Foreign Office should speak in firmer and more definite language. He thought he had heard an hon. Member say he was speaking in a Jingo spirit. He was not; but they often passed to Jingo actions, because they did not speak definitely. If these men had been in a more important position there would have been a shower of Questions to the Government; but he would recall some of the facts. He did
    1106
    not mean to go into the facts in detail; but he thought it was in the recollection of many hon. Members that on three occasions in the last 10 or 15 years similar questions to this had arisen, only not with regard to poor men, but to men who held positions in society, or had relations with society. What happened? The Foreign Office put all the engines of diplomacy to work, and made its authority so felt that in two cases a remedy was obtained; and in the third case, at any rate, satisfaction was exacted. He would explain why he pressed upon the noble Lord more active measures in this matter. They had not these men alone to consider, though that was a matter of importance. There were more than 20 of them; they were all hard working men, and were now living in a climate that was peculiarly unhealthy at the present time of the year. The noble Lord assured him the other day that he had received a telegram stating that these people were well. He had had a communication from the captain of the ship, who was at present at home. He wished the captain had been with his men to look after them. He entertained an entirely opposite opinion to that in the telegram; and stated that, so far as his judgment, went the message to which the noble Lord had referred was not a message sent by the men at all, but by the Rajah, who held the men in activity, and whose interest it was to make things appear as agreeable as he could. He counselled the noble Lord to ascertain as soon as he could from the men themselves whether they were not at present in jeopardy for their lives, for he thought he knew the temper both of that House and of the people of this country; and he was satisfied that if, through laxity on the part of their officials, those poor men should die while in captivity, there would be considerable irritation expressed against the officials. As he had said, they had not only to consider these men; they had to consider their wives and families. When he asked the noble Lord whether he could do anything for the wives and families of these men, the noble Lord said he regretted that he had no funds at his disposal. He wondered that the noble Lord, having Radical instincts as he had, did not feel ashamed to make such an answer; and he believed the noble Lord would not have made such a reply if he had not been an offi-

    1107
    cial. He had received the following short letter from the wife of one of these men:—
    "I am very sorry to write to you again; but I have remained so long expecting some news from my poor husband, that I do not know what to do. I have four children. I am not able to work. I am dependent on a widowed mother so long that I do not know what to do, so I write to you. If you can help me in any way I shall he most thankful. Please write to me if any steps are taken to release these men."
    He did not put too much stress upon this letter; but he thought it likely that in a great number of cases the wives and families of these men would be in absolute destitution if they had not found here and there kind friends; and he must say it was little to the credit of the Office which the noble Lord represented that he should have to say that he had no funds at his disposal to help these people. No funds at his disposal! The other day the Foreign Office spent £2,000 or £3,000 on sending certain noble Lords to bestow a Garter; and every time a petty German Prince wanted to come and visit our Royal Family the Government could put a ship at his disposal at a charge of £40 to the State, when he might very well afford to pay for his passage himself. £40 would keep one of these families for 12 months. He could multiply these instances by dozens and by hundreds; but he could assure the noble Lord that if he did not speak much about these matters he took the trouble to note down circumstances under which the money of this country was wasted over the most frivolous and foolish things. But when he asked the noble Lord for money to relieve the distress of these people whose husbands and fathers were kept captive for political reasons—because the Foreign Office dared not be firm with the Dutch Government—he could give no assistance. He did not blame the Foreign Office too much for that, for he did not wish to run them into conflict with the Dutch Government or any other Government; but he most point out that it was because of political consequences that pressure was not brought to bear upon the Dutch Government, and when he asked for a small sum of money to help these people the Representative of the Foreign Office replied that if these people were to be helped it must be done by public subscription. He was
    1108
    very much obliged to the noble Lord for the suggestion; but he was thankful to say that he could do without suggestions from the noble Lord as to public subscriptions. He only pressed upon him and the Committee the impropriety of any public Department saying that they could not afford money in such a case as this, when at some other time they were parties to expenses which no common sense could justify. He had no more to say, except that he thought the Government ought to speak to the Dutch Government with the firmness which a Minister of England ought to employ in such a matter as this. These men were British subjects; they were held in captivity within Dutch territory by men who ought to be amenable to Dutch influence or Dutch power; and if the Dutch Government could not be brought, after six or seven months, definitely to say that it would take effectual measures to release these men, then he thought it was time that the British Government, which could afford to shed blood like water, and spend money by millions, over very much less worthy ends, should itself take steps to assert the honour of England and release these poor men.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he would not enter into the details of the case of these unfortunate British subjects; but he desired to assure the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the greatest sympathy was felt for them by Members sitting on that side of the House. It was no Party question, but one affecting the honour of this country. The hon. Member for Sunderland had said that they had nothing to do directly with the Rajah. That was, no doubt, true; but they had to deal with him indirectly through the Dutch, and they had a right to exercise very direct pressure on the Dutch. They practically owed their position and power in that part of Sumatra to the concessions made by this country in return for the surrender to them by the Dutch of some forts on the West Coast of Africa. The noble Lord would doubtless say, as he had said before, that the Foreign Office had made strong representations to the Dutch authorities upon the matter of these unfortunate captives. Well, they make such representations very freely; they had made them to Russia; they had made them to the Transvaal Government; but there they stopped,

    1109
    as if by making them they had done all that it was their duty or interest to do. Now, he (Sir Henry Holland) protested against this view. He was satisfied that if they took a firm and decided tone with the Dutch authorities, and insisted upon their getting these men restored, either by force or by payment of a ransom, they would succeed. He fully admitted that there were difficulties in the case; but other cases of a like kind, and of like difficulty, had been before now successfully dealt with; and it was intolerable that these innocent men should be left in a captivity which had already lasted too long. He would not detain the Committee any longer; but he desired to uphold strongly the case of these men. and to show by doing so that this was no Party question, and that both sides of the House desired to strengthen the hands of the Foreign Office.
    MR. MOOREsaid, he knew it to be a fact that those men were not detained through any hostility to this country on the part of the people of Sumatra. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) agreed with him; but, while agreeing with the hon. Member upon the matter, he must make one distinction. The people of Sumatra had said over and over again that they were anxious that this country should go and take possession of Sumatra, and would fall at our feet if we would go there and give them protection. He was not urging a policy of annexation; but he wanted to bring the Committee to see the true point, which was this— these men were held in captivity in order to draw attention to the tyranny and brutal treatment which the Natives had received from the Dutch. They said their only hope was in that the Foreign Office should speak one word firmly, and that would bring them relief. These men were not held there through any hostility to or defiance of this country, but simply to draw attention to their grievances. The Dutch had closed their ports, and would not allow them to treat freely. They were deeply grieved, and that was why they were holding these men. He should be sorry to say anything that would weaken the responsibility of the Foreign Office in this matter; but these men were being fairly treated according to the poor diet and circumstances of the people, and he hoped the Government would not exer-
    1110
    cise the power of this country against these poor weak Natives, except to speak plainly to the Dutch Government and obtain the release of these prisoners, and see that the influence of the country was exercised in securing justice and fair treatment to these people, instead of oppression.
    MR. SLAGGwished to say a few words on this subject, inasmuch as one of these men was one of his constituents. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) seemed to think that as this question had not been submitted to discussion in the House these men had not received duo attention. But the noble Lord had been in constant communication with him and his friends upon this matter. They had received the greatest possible attention and manifestations of the greatest interest and solicitude on the part of the Foreign Office. He had been in communication, with Captain Wodehouse, the commander of the Nisero, who had more than once been with him to the Foreign Office, and had been invited, together with others who had interested themselves in the case, to make suggestions for the release of the men. All the suggestions were fully and promptly carried out by the Foreign Office; but the Committee must remember that unusual difficulties surrounded this matter. It was not merely a question of dealing with the Dutch Government, or sending supplies or an armed force from this country. The captain of the Nisero absolutely deprecated the idea of sending an armed force on account of the danger and probable death to which such a step might subject these men; and he was bound to say, on behalf of the noble Lord, that he had only been deterred from active steps of the kind suggested through the danger to the men pointed out by Captain Wodehouse. He joined the hon. Member for Sunderland in the hearty desire that the Foreign Office would take up this matter in such a way as to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion; but he was satisfied that undue pressure might result in disastrous consequences.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was very glad to hear the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg), for it appeared to him that if they went on as they were going on now they would soon be at war with

    1111
    all the world. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), if he meant anything, meant that they should go to war with Holland, and he had quoted William the Conqueror; but surely they had got past the days of William the Conqueror, and should deal with matters in a different way. He sympathized with these men, and was anxious that they should be brought back safely. He had no doubt that these men were very good men, and he was quite as anxious to get them back as General Gordon. They were not getting the country into any trouble; hut he thought the hon. Member, instead of doing good to these men, would do them harm, because if active steps were taken the Rajah would be more likely to murder them. He hoped the noble Lord would speak in a peaceable manner, and not in a savage manner.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, he thought the hon. Baronet had delivered a most heartless speech. He forgot the terrible position of these men, and he wished to say that he himself knew something about this matter. He knew how accurately the case had been put by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey); and he felt that it would be a sad day for England when the House of Commons came to discuss with indifference the question whether they should not only use firm words, but should follow them up. It would be a sad day when they led other countries to believe that they were no longer in earnest, and no longer spoke firmly and followed up their words vigorously. But what he particularly wished to say was, that he also had had some experience of the Foreign Office in regard to a case somewhat parallel to this. There was a case of the illegal detention of two Scotch engineers, which was brought before that House more than once by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). That case had some interest for himself, because, although those men were originally Glasgow men, it happened that one of them had come to reside in Birkenhead. He knew the man, and knew how hard his case was; but the Foreign Office did absolutely nothing in the matter, except to write polite letters to the Government of Spain. The case of these men was very similar to this case. They were forcibly imprisoned and taken to Manilla, and afterwards
    1112
    sent home as distressed seamen and entitled to wages. They had a perfectly just claim against the Spanish Government, which the English Government acknowledged, but did nothing. he mentioned this as an illustration of the supineness of the Foreign Office, which had been repeated in the present case, but which he hoped they would no longer adopt.
    MR. W. REDMONDsaid, attention had been drawn, by the able address of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), to this matter; and he thought the conclusion generally to be drawn was that Her Majesty's Government were at all times ready to embroil themselves in quarrels with second-rate Powers, or with savage races such as the Zulus, or with such as they imagined the Boers were, but afterwards found they were not. The hon. Member for Sunderland had quoted, to the chagrin of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), some ancient history with regard to William the Conqueror, as to the action that William the Conqueror took respecting some friend of his who had been taken prisoner; and the hon. Member seemed to compare his firm conduct to the wavering conduct of the present Government with reference to these unfortunate men. He did not share the opinion of the hon. Baronet, who found fault, so to speak, with the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) for quoting William the Conqueror; but what he did regret was, that when he was speaking of William the Conqueror and of English history he did not cite the action of another person who figured in English history at a more recent date than William the Conqueror. Had he done so, he would have shown completely the reason why the Government did not take action with regard to these men. The person he referred to was Admiral Van Tromp, who, in a former quarrel between the Dutch and the English, sailed up the Medway and set fire to the shipping, and did a great deal of damage to this country. There was another reason. Probably the sound of the rifles which rang in the Transvaal had not altogether died away, but were still echoing in the ears of Her Majesty's Government. He was not surprised, therefore, that the people, or rather the Government of the country, was somewhat loth to take any

    1113
    firm or decided step which might result in a catastrophe of the nature of that which befel Her Majesty's troops in the Transvaal. He could only say that, listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), he had confirmed an opinion which he had entertained — namely, that while the country was embroiled in difficulties of this kind the Government was afraid, and altogether too mean, to stand up against a Power which could not be considered at all powerful. These sailors had been taken, he believed, because they were British, and because there was a feeling in that quarter of the world that British subjects, as a rule, were very little better than depredators. If no notice was taken of the holding of these sailors in captivity, the destitute condition of their families he should have thought sufficient to prompt Her Majesty's Government to take some action to secure the release of the men. But because the Dutch Government appeared to be concerned, Her Majesty's Government remained silent, and would do nothing that they considered likely to raise the ire of the Dutch people. Oh, no; before the Dutch and the Boers they had nothing to say for themselves; but wait until some people like the Zulus awakened their displeasure, and they would then have the British lion on the alert, with his tail swinging and his jaws open, ready to devour whatever might come within his reach.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he was not surprised to hear this subject discussed by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), as there was a strong feeling with regard to it in the North of England, where the relations of the crew of this unfortunate vessel resided. He would go farther, and say that this discussion would strengthen the hands of the Foreign Office in whatever steps they might think it desirable to take, because when they appealed to the Dutch Government, and urged the consideration of the question on them, they could now say that the question was not so much one in which the Foreign Office took interest as one in which the House of Commons itself was interested. At the same time, he must regret some of the observations which fell from the hon. Member for Sunderland, because he felt that the hon. Member was not justified in leading the Committee to suppose that
    1114
    the Foreign Office had been doing nothing; and he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had to thank the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg), with whom he had had frequent communication on this subject, for having risen and corrected the statement of the hon. Member. He must altogether deny the claim of the hon. Member for Sunderland that he, and he alone, had taken a prominent part in this question. While the hon. Member was still in Egypt, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had had frequent communication with many hon. Members on the matter. A deputation, in which were several Members of Parliament, had waited upon the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs some time ago; but the hon. Member did not seem to be aware of what had passed on that occasion; in fact, it really seemed as though he was unaware of what had taken place on the subject from beginning to end, and that his principal desire had been to take advantage of an opportunity for making an attack upon the Government. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) would not take up the time of the Committee by replying in detail to the observations of the hon. Member, but would state to the Committee very briefly what had occurred. The hon. Member had not given him warning that he was going to bring the subject on that evening, and the first intimation he had of it was contained in the hon. Member's speech. The position of the subject, however, was that he intended tomorrow to lay on the Table Papers giving particulars of what had occurred between the Rajah of Tenom and the Dutch Government. When the House had seen those Papers it would know how undeserved were the observations of the hon. Member for Sunderland to the effect that the Foreign Office had done nothing. But, as the character of the Foreign Office had been already cleared by the independent testimony of the hon. Member for Manchester, it was not necessary for him to go any further into the matter. The Prime Minister had stated the other day, in reply to a further Question from the hon. Member for Sunderland, that the real and essential difficulty of the case was that the Rajah had got the men in his possession, and that if an armed expedition were attempted, or any intervention of that kind were essayed, its object would be very likely

    1115
    to be defeated, as the Rajah would probably take the law into his own hands and destroy the captives. Every means ought to be taken, therefore—every resource of diplomacy ought to be exhausted, before recourse was had to military force, or any strong measures were adopted. He would remind the Committee of this—that the greatest difficulty of all in this case began at the time the Dutch armed expedition was sent out. The men having been taken in November were still on the sea coast in January, and the Dutch were of opinion that something might be done for their relief by an armed expedition. That expedition might have been well or badly managed; but the result was that the Rajah succeeded in drawing off inland and in taking his captives with him into the interior of the country, where they were now out of reach. There were, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) had said, various diplomatic questions put forward between England and Holland, and the position of the Dutch Government in relation to the Sultan of Kemala and his tributary, the Rajah of Tenom. In reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for Sunderland a few days ago, he had informed the House that it was hoped by Her Majesty's Government, by negotiations conducted through the Sultan of Acheen, who resided tit Kemala, and was the Suzerain of the Rajah, that it might be possible to secure the liberation of the captives. That was an opinion which the Government had not abandoned, and at that very moment negotiations were going on. The Dutch Government were appealed to to accept a mediation with regard to all quarrels between them and the Native Princes; but, unfortunately, the Dutch Government had refused that mediation. Her Majesty's Government were still pressing that course on the Dutch Government. He was in great hopes that those steps would prove successful; still, he did not conceal the fact that the whole question was one of great difficulty. He believed that in the opinion of the Foreign Office it was one of the most difficult minor questions they had ever had to deal with, because it was complicated by questions both of policy and International Law. Of one matter he felt certain—namely, that if they made up their minds to send an armed expedi-
    1116
    tion with no other instruction than to secure the captives and punish their captors, it would be the most unwise thing they ever did. He was astonished that the hon. Member for Sunderland had mingled with his sentences of kindness and pity for the suffering sailors and their families taunts about German Princes, and the expenses of the Foreign Office. The hon. Member even took the trouble to show how carelessly he had studied the Estimates which he declared he was always studying, for he had said he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was responsible for the expenditure of a certain sum of money for the conveyance of a German Prince to his own country. That was a matter with which the Foreign Office had nothing whatever to do. But he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) did not wish to enter into these points, which were entirely irrelevant to the issue before the House. The great necessity was to take every diplomatic means to secure the liberation of the men, and they could only hope that they would escape thereby from such a disaster as that they had experienced on a previous occasion, when violent measures had been taken to liberate persons. The unfortunate gentlemen who were killed in Greece some years ago perished in consequence of an armed expedition sent out to save them. When hon. Members read the Papers which they would have in their hands the day after to-morrow, they would see that no efforts had been or would be spared by the Foreign Office to secure the release of these men.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTdenied that he had found fault with Russia for advancing her railway, or even for pressing on her conquests. It was natural she should seize all she could. But he blamed Her Majesty's Ministers for throwing away the bulwarks of our Indian Empire, and for their blind indifference towards the unerring advance of the Czar's Forces. As for the noble Lord's eulogy of Russian humanity and civilization it was pure imagination. Skobeleff had butchered over 12,000 of the Turkomans, women and children as well as men, at Geok Tepe. The Mussulmans of the Balkan Peninsula, the mountaineers of the Caucasus, and the oppressed people of Poland, could give the noble Lord some information as to the real character of the civilizing mission of Russia.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—EXTRA POLICE FOR THE CITY OF CORK.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that just before the House adjourned for the Easter Recess they had a discussion on the question of the extra police tax in the City of Cork; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was good enough to say that he would communicate with the Corporation of Cork, and ascertain what their views were with regard to the matter. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had communicated with the Corporation on the subject and what the result had been?
    MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork has stated his case so briefly that I shall certainly not go into any detail, or repeat any of the arguments or statements I made use of on a previous occasion. I shall confine myself to answering the question the hon. Member has put. After the last discussion, I at once communicated with the authorities in Dublin, who put themselves into communication with the Local Authorities in Cork on the question. No time was lost. At first there was a slight misunderstanding of my object; and I received, on the 17th of April, a carefully drawn Report from Captain Plunkett, recapitulating the reasons why the Police Force had not been diminished. On the 24th of April, I communicated with him again, asking him to read very carefully what had passed in the House of Commons, and saying that I wanted to have the view of the Corporation as to the number of police necessary to do duty in the City, and that that was the best way to get a reliable opinion. He put himself into communication with the Municipality of Cork, and received a letter from, I presume, the Town Clerk, saying—
    "I am directed by the Mayor to acquaint you, with reference to the conversation he had with you on Monday in reference to the Constabulary Force, that he does not feel warranted in consulting the Corporation. If you wish him to do so, and will give him a written statement of the points you want, he will do so on Friday next."
    Captain Plunkett answered that the point on which he wished for an expression of opinion was as to the number of police necessary to perform duty in
    1118
    the City of Cork; and, on the 2nd of May, he received a letter to the effect that the Town Council declined to express any opinion as to what number of police were necessary to perform the duties in the City of Cork. It appears that these letters referred to an interview that Captain Plunkett had with the Mayor of Cork on the 28th of April; so that there can be no misunderstanding at all, I think, on the part of the Local Authorities as to the desire of the Irish Government to place themselves in communication with them on the subject. Not being able to obtain the opinion of the Mayor and Corporation on this point, the Irish Government were again thrown back on their own officers; and they came, and came very reluctantly, to the conclusion that it was necessary to maintain the present force. What burden that force places on the City of Cork I will not proceed to state to the Committee, as the hon. Member has not expressed any desire to review the arguments used the other day. I have stated the result of the negotiations.
    MR. PARNELLconfessed he was very much disappointed at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He had been in hopes that, in consequence of what took place in the House on the last occasion he brought the matter forward, the Government would have seen their way to remove the extra police in Cork. It appeared from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the extra force in Cork was to be retained for an indefinite period at the expense of the ratepayers. It was very much to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not, through his own Office, communicated with the Local Authority in Cork—that was to say, with the Mayor —in order to obtain his opinion on the matter. It would appear that, owing to the method chosen by Captain Plunkett, and the very scanty communication which he made to the Town Clerk, that no impression was conveyed to that functionary that his communication was really from the Irish Executive, or in reference to any information which the Irish Executive wished to obtain as to the views of the Corporation. He (Mr. Parnell) was informed that the stipendiary magistrate, Captain Plunkett, happened to meet the Town Clerk one day in the street, and he asked him, verbally, what he thought would be the number of

    1119
    police required for the City of Cork; but he did not make the inquiry in such a way as to indicate that he was seeking for information on the part of the right hon. Gentleman or of the Irish Executive. The Mayor gave the reply the right hon. Gentleman had read, and it was followed by a more definite inquiry in writing, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, from Captain Plunkett; but neither did this written inquiry convey the, impression to the Corporation of Cork that the information was sought by the Government. He could not help thinking that the Government had acted very hastily, mid not in accordance with the spirit of the pledge—though they might have acted in accordance with the letter of it—they had given in dealing with this matter so summarily. The Corporation of Cork, he thought, were entitled to the courtesy of a communication from the right hon. Gentleman on a matter of such importance. Captain Plunkett was a person who had made himself very obnoxious to the Local Authority, and, in connection with this matter, had communicated with the Corporation in such a way as not to make them aware of what the inquiry really was, and the Irish Executive, in choosing this means of making the communication, had acted in such a way as to show that they did not desire a peaceful settlement of the question.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had left out three lines of his letter to Captain Plunkett; and, as there was what he considered an unjust impression on the hon. Gentleman's mind that he had not conveyed to Captain Plunkett a fair sense of the importance of the matter, if the hon. Gentleman wished he would read them. He had conveyed to Captain Plunkett the exact sense of the promise he had made to the hon. Member for the City of Cork.
    MR. GRAYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay on the Table the document from which he had just quoted? It would be interesting to see the exact terms of the communication made to the Corporation. It struck him that the terms of the question put to Captain Plunkett almost necessitated the reply made by the Corporation. If Captain Plunkett had desired to carry out the spirit of the undertaking entered into by the right hon. Gentleman with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the
    1120
    City of Cork, the question he would have put to the Mayor and Corporation would have been—"In your opinion, is the extra police force necessary for the preservation of the peace in Cork?" That, he was told, was not the question that Captain Plunkett asked at all. He had asked them to pronounce an abstract opinion as to the precise number of police required in Cork City. The Corporation of Cork had nothing to do with the police; they did not appoint them, and had no control over them; and he thought it most unfair to ask them to pronounce officially as to the number of police required. Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to have the question put in the other form to the Corporation? If he did, probably he would then be able to get a more satisfactory reply.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the letter to the Corporation of Cork neither conveyed what the right hon. Gentleman directed Captain Plunkett to convey, nor did it convey what the right hon. Gentleman had said what he would inquire about. Here was the letter, the only written or formal communication which was sent—
    "Sir,—With reference to your letter of this day, the only point on which I should be glad to have an expression of opinion from the Mayor and Corporation is as to what number of police are necessary to perform the duties in the City of Cork. I am, Sir, your obedient servant," &c.
    The Committee would observe that Captain Plunkett did not convey, in this letter to the Corporation, that the information was sought by the Irish Government. He simply said that he required the information for himself. He (Mr. Parnell) could only gay that he regretted very much that what, at one time, promised to furnish an amicable settlement of this question, should have been frustrated by the extraordinary manner in which Captain Plunkett chose to carry out the mission confided to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, he had some remarks to make; but was reluctant to intervene at that moment. The right hon. Gentleman had changed the discussion to another subject of an important character; and if it were his intention to finish that discussion he would be happy to give way to him.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was perfectly ready to communicate again with

    1121
    Captain Plunkett, and ask him to write another letter to the Mayor and Corporation of Cork, requesting them to confer with him as to the numbers and disposition of the Cork police force, and, at the same time, to intimate to them that he was desired to do so by the Chief Secretary.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was willing to allow the matter to rest where it was until they knew the result of the right hon. Gentleman's further communication with Captain Plunkett.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, that while the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was in a yielding mood on the subject of the police force in the City of Cork, he was anxious to remind him that there was a difficulty of a still more acute character in reference to the police force of the City of Limerick. There was an unparalleled struggle going on between the Mayor and Corporation of that city and the Government with reference to the compulsory police force stationed there. The Court of Queen's Bench had issued a mandamus for the payment of £460 for the police tax; and, among other points, he believed there were even threats held out that the members of the Corporation would be imprisoned if they refused payment. Now, the Corporation and citizens of Limerick were firmly determined to resist this tax, and to allow the Corporation property, if necessary, to be seized and sold rather than pay 1d. of the sum demanded. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was a proper course to enter upon a conflict of this kind with the elected representatives of a great city, and for no other purpose that he could perceive except that of gratifying some local organization, or of saving £460 to the Consolidated Fund? He believed it was £1,500,000 annually which the country readily paid for maintaining military possession of Ireland. An extra police force had been foisted on the people of Limerick by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, against the repeated protests of the Corporation, the citizens, and even the magistrates, who had several times declared that there was no necessity for it whatever—at all events, from a municipal point of view. It was perfectly well known that the police were a purely military force, and utterly useless for municipal purposes; and the Corporation of Limerick did
    1122
    not want to have in the city a large body of men lounging about the streets— star-gazing, for aught he knew—for they had nothing else to do; and they had even been obliged to employ a force of watchmen to protect the property of the citizens. Although the city was one of the quietest, the police had done their worst to torment the people; they assaulted them in the streets; and it was not more than two years ago that they had shot them down with buckshot. Such was the work which the police were doing for their money; and he put it to the Government whether it was worth while for them to create a bitterness, which was always left behind, by the continuance of a struggle of this kind? They might rest perfectly satisfied that the Corporation would have the support of the citizens and the sympathy of every Irishman in seeing this thing out to the end, and in resisting the payment of a tax which they regarded simply as one of the worst remnants of the unfortunate rule of Mr. Clifford Lloyd in Ireland. He was happy to observe that there were some indications that the Government were not inclined to drive the people to extremities in respect of the extra police tax. Already the extra police force had been withdrawn from some districts; and he congratulated the Government on the course they had taken so far. He thought they were showing signs that they perceived the impolicy and unwisdom of keeping open these old sores; that they were beginning to understand that there was nothing in. the state of Ireland to demand the presence of these extra policemen in the various districts; and that the issue of any struggle which they might have with the people on that ground was not likely to be conducive to peace or good feeling in Ireland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, while he was in the mood to rid the people of Cork of their extra police force, would also be able to hold out some hope that evening of an amicable termination of the dispute, which otherwise unquestionably would have to go on to the bitter end. He trusted that he would not force the people of Limerick to continue a struggle that, whichever way it might end—and the chances were not altogether in favour of the Government—would leave nothing but bitterness behind, and that

    1123
    the right hon. Gentleman would make the same announcement with regard to Limerick as he had done in the case of the City of Cork.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he hoped to get something in the nature of an explanation of what appeared to be the inexplicable course of action adopted by the Government in the case of Mr. Preston, clerk in the Land Commission. The case was not that of an individual; it touched the general policy of the Government in Ireland, and it raised the large and important question whether persons in the service of the State and drawing incomes from the public purse contributed to by the people of all political opinions, should be allowed to ally themselves with Party organizations. On the 8th of January last, there appeared in the Dublin Press an advertisement issued by the officers of the Orange Society and addressed to the Loyalists of the United Kingdom; it was signed by 100 persons of consideration in Ireland, all of them members of the Orange Order, including Earls, Viscounts, and military officers of various ranks and Members of both Houses of Parliament, and one of the names subscribed was that of Mr. Preston. That gentleman held the office of Inspector of Tithe Rents, and for the discharge of that office he received a liberal salary. This appeal to the Loyalists said that by the dismissal of Lord Rossmore from the Magistracy, the Government had insulted Irish Loyalists, and it went on to say that the conduct of the Government in dismissing him demanded a most severe rebuke; it called for sympathy for Lord Rossmore and disapproved of the conduct of the Chief Secretary. It was bad enough that persons not in the employ of the State should endeavour to set class against class and to incite them to strife and disorder, but surely it was intolerable that a clerk in the Public Service, drawing a salary from the State, should be allowed to join the persons he had referred to in reviling the Executive of the country. Lord Rossmore was a man so false to his duty as a magistrate, and so false to his duty to the Queen, that instead of preserving the peace, he led a body of men into an orderly meeting with the view of producing a deadly conflict—and that was the man whom Mr. Preston endeavoured to exalt into a hero upon whom posterity might look back with pride. It was on his account
    1124
    that Mr. Preston took upon himself to condemn the Government for their necessary action in dismissing him. The date of the Manifesto, the 8th of January, was important, because seven days before, that was to say, on New Tear's Day, the tactics of Lord Rossmore and of the whole truculent and disorderly Orange faction had reached their culmination at Dromore, where they assembled and be threatened the peace of the locality that the police were obliged to chase them from the ground, in which pursuit one of the unfortunate men lost his life. One would have thought that such an event might have been relied upon to quiet the most factious and disorderly of persons; but a week afterwards the name of Mr. Preston appeared on a public Manifesto in which the Government were rebuked for endeavouring to preserve the public peace, and Lord Rossmore was alluded to as a hero. As soon as possible after the meeting he (Mr. Sexton) raised the subject of the conduct of Mr. Preston by Question in that House. On the 11th of February he asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if Mr. Preston, whoso name was appended to that scandalous Manifesto, was the same person who held office in the service of the State as clerk in the Land Commission; and, if so, whether he would be continued in the service? To this the right hon. Gentleman made a satisfactory reply by stating that—
    "The Land Commissioners were not aware till now that Mr. Preston was a member of the committee referred to in the Question. They strongly disapprove of his conduct in having become a member of that committee, and they have called on him to resign his situation in the Land Commission., Accordingly, Mr. Preston has placed his resignation in their hands."— (3 Hansard, [284] 423.)
    He (Mr. Sexton) considered that to be a rational solution of the question, because it did not seem to him to be possible that the Government should tolerate in its employ a man who condemned its action and made a hero of Lord Boss-more. He was afterwards informed that Mr. Preston continued to be in the Office of the Land Commissioners, and he pointed out that on the very day after the reply was given to his Question there appeared in the Dublin Press an article well calculated to intimidate the Commissioners and to induce the Government to retrace their steps. The article, among other things, said that the Go-

    1125
    vernment were in such a hurry to act that they had not inquired into the extent of their own powers, and it went on to say that Ministers were acting thus in order to bid high for the Parnellite vote. The whole article was to the effect that they had wrongly dismissed Mr. Preston, but that they had not removed those soldiers and magistrates who held up Lord Rossmore to admiration, and charged the Government with inconsistency. The Government had adopted the evil course of restoring Mr. Preston to office. When he ascertained that the article in The Daily Express had produced that effect—namely, that the Government were guided by the imputations launched against them, he inquired of the right hon. Gentleman whether or not Mr. Preston had been removed from the Service? And his reply was that—
    "The Land Commission, thinking that Mr. Preston did not understand his tenure of office, gave him an opportunity of withdrawing his resignation, of which he availed himself. The matter having subsequently been brought under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant, without whose assent Mr. Preston could not be removed from office, His Excellency conferred with the Land Commissioners, when it was decided, having regard to the fact that Mr. Preston had been in the service of the State for 38 years without a complaint having been made against him, and to the fact that he never had anything to do with the action of the committee, upon which his name was placed without his authority, that the case would be fairly dealt with if Mr. Preston were reprimanded instead of being dismissed."—(3 Hansard, [285] 218.)
    Now, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to get up and repeat that statement. Did he mean to ask the Committee to believe that Mr. Preston was not consulted before his name was placed upon the committee? Why, he had already pointed out that the committee was a constellation of distinguished persons; it was composed of the most distinguished Orangemen in Ireland; and was he to be told that 100 persons of influence and position cared so much about Mr. Preston that they furtively put his name on the committee, and that he remained for a whole month after the advertisement appeared in ignorance of the fact; that his name was being used to discredit the Executive and to do honour to a subordinate magistrate who had been dismissed for misconduct from the Commission of the Peace? He asked the Committee to ob-
    1126
    serve the conditions upon which Mr. Preston was restored to office—
    "Provided that he undertook to withdraw his name from the committee.… and, further, that he expressed regret at having allowed his name to appear."—[Ibid.]
    That was one of the most extraordinary contradictions that had ever been recorded in the annals of official life in. Ireland. The Lord Lieutenant first said that Mr. Preston was ignorant that his name had appeared as a member of the committee, and then that he was restored to office on condition that he expressed regret for that which, according to his own plea, he had never done. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to explain that to the Committee. He asked how the Lord Lieutenant, having imposed upon Mr. Preston a condition incompatible with his own plea, could be rescued from the suspicion of having acted on a plea which was obviously false? He remembered that one of the most valued public servants that had ever been brought into the service of the State in Ireland, and who was concerned in the issue of a pamphlet which contained two or three phrases objected to by the Government, had been treated in a very different manner. The Land Commission called upon him to send in his resignation; but they never afterwards asked him to express any regret, nor did the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland restore him to his office. His contention was, that Mr. Preston deliberately put forward a false plea, which the Lord Lieutenant had accepted in order to protect a truculent Orangeman; that Mr. Preston was aware of the use that had been made of Iris name, and that the Lord Lieutenant must have been cognizant of that fact. He stigmatized the whole transaction as scandalous, and he believed that it would De of evil influence on the public opinion in Ireland.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, there were in the Public Service persons whom that House could fairly trust; among them were the officers of the Executive who had had this matter in hand. He protested against these attacks upon absent individuals as being neither fair, honourable, nor just; and he put it to he Committee to say whether the charges made by the hon. Member for Sligo were not, to use his own language, absolutely scandalous.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, lie was bound to state, in reply to the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), that the complaint which he had brought forward was, perhaps, of a less serious nature than the Committee, from his speech, would be led to imagine. The facts wore, that the proportion of cost paid by Irish towns in support of the police force was not greater than the payment made for the services of the police in English towns. According to the last Return, it appeared that for the extra men the charge was £344 12 s. 6d. In addition to that, the town of Limerick kept a force of local police, the exact number of which he did not know; but, taking them at 20 in number, the cost would be about £1,300 a-year. Against this he would take the town of Northampton, for instance, which was about the same size as the city of Limerick. While the city of Limerick paid £314 to the staff of the 10 men of the Constabulary, and paid likewise for the service of the 20 local police, the town of Northampton paid for its police £2,846. There were other large towns in England in which the payment from local rates for the service of the police was very much larger than that paid by the Irish towns. Though hon. Members might say the Irish Constabulary were a military body, used for political purposes, he did not think that the police of the streets was as efficiently performed in England. ["Oh, oh !"] Well, that was his opinion; and certainly the police of the Irish streets was performed at a very much less cost to the country than the police of the English streets was. He had got a Return of the cost of the police in certain counties. In Staffordshire, in England, which had a population of 770,000, £32,000 a-year was paid from the local rates for the police. The collective population of Cork, Kilkenny, and Tipperary was 3,000 or 4,000 greater than that of Staffordshire, and those three counties combined paid for police not £32,000, but something under £24,000 a-year. The hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had referred to the tendency on the part of the Irish Government to reduce the police where possible. Although the counties he (Mr. Trevelyan) had named paid so much less than English counties of the same size, an application had been made to His Excellency the Lord Lieu-
    1128
    tenant, since the Return, from which he (Mr. Trevelyan) had quoted, was prepared, for the reduction of the extra police in the county of Cork by 44, and in the county of Kilkenny by 50. The Irish Government were extremely anxious to reduce the extra police wherever it was possible; but he was bound to say that the only process by which the extra police could be withdrawn was the process of a staunch maintenance of the law. In the case of the controversy with the city of Limerick, the law was on the side of the Executive Government, and they could not withdraw the claim which they thought they were bound to make on behalf of the State. If ever the time came when they could reduce the charge for the extra police, they would do so; but, from what he heard, he was inclined to think that the peace of the streets of Limerick would be kept much cheaper if the conservation of that peace were placed more in the hands of the Constabulary. It was certainly somewhat curious that, while the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) urged the Corporation of Limerick to resist the law—he (Mr. Trevelyan) thought he might put that interpretation on the hon. Gentleman's words—the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) should be very much exercised because a public servant who had joined in giving a testimonial to a magistrate who had resisted the law, had been let off much too cheaply. The Government were trying, to the best of their ability, to do justice, tempered with mercy, all round, and he could not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) that the hon. Member for Sligo had continued the series of attacks which had lately been made upon Mr. Eyre Preston. As a matter of fact, this was the first opportunity the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) had had of raising the question otherwise than by Questions. Well, the story was simply this. Mr. Eyre Preston's name appeared on a very improper Manifesto, which he (Mr. Trevelyan) had not by him at the present moment, but the impropriety of which he was quite willing to acknowledge to the full. If he recollected aright, it called for funds to erect an Orange Hall in Dublin, in commemoration of Lord Rossmore's resistance of the Irish Executive. The hon. Member for Sligo

    1129
    called the attention of the Government to the matter, and they referred it to the Land Commissioners. The Land Commissioners called upon Mr. Eyre Preston for an explanation, and the one he gave was so unsatisfactory in their opinion that they removed him from the Land Commission. Subsequently, it was brought to the knowledge of the Land Commissioners that they could not remove Mr. Eyre Preston without the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant. They communicated with Mr. Eyre Preston, and suggested to him the withdrawal of his resignation. It then became necessary for the Lord Lieutenant to go into the subject de novo, and to determine whether Mr. Eyre Preston's conduct had been such that loss of office ought to be enforced against him. Mr. Eyre Preston's defence was this—
    "In the year 1853 I became a member of an Orange Lodge, and I have so continued to the present time. I have never supposed, nor heard it said, that my being what is called an Orangeman was in any way inconsistent with my position as a Civil servant; and indeed, in my interview with the Commissioners on Monday, I did not understand them to make any such suggestion. I have, moreover, never been a prominent member of the Body. I have not taken part in public demonstrations, and although I entertain strong political views, I have not even joined a Political Club, nor made myself conspicuous as a politician. In the month of December last, I received a Circular (which I enclose) stating that the object of providing in Dublin an Orange Hall was under consideration at the recent meeting of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, and that a committee had been appointed to make the necessary arrangements to promote the object in view. A list of the proposed committee, which included my name, was given, and the persons so named were requested to act. I know nothing of the project referred to in the Circular beyond what it disclosed. The Commissioners will see that it is a document of the most innocent character, and contains no political allusion of any kind. Assuming that my name had been introduced by way of a compliment to my having been so long connected with the Body, I wrote thanking the honorary secretaries for the honour that had been done me, but at the same time intimating that my avocations would prevent me from giving much assistance. I never attended or acted on the Committee, and from that time I never heard, directly or indirectly, of its doings until I saw some day about the middle of January, in a newspaper, the advertisement to which the Commissioners referred in our interview. I do not usually look at advertisements, and my seeing the one in question arose from the accidental circumstance that in the copy of the newspaper which I was reading it was printed immediately before the leading article. I glanced at it hastily; I observed that it contained a reference to Lord Rossmore, con-
    1130
    demning the action of the Government, but I did not further note the motive or character of the reference. I also saw that my name was included in the long list, but it never occurred to me that that circumstance made me responsible for a document which I had never authorized and about which I knew nothing whatever. The matter brought thus to my notice accidentally and quickly, passed as quickly from my mind. It was not so much that I considered it of no importance as that it never became a subject of thought or consideration with me at all. I did not afterwards hear it referred to, and it was only brought back to recollection upon seeing on Friday last a paragraph in a newspaper on the subject. When speaking to you as the Secretary of the Commissioners on Saturday last, I stated, as you may remember, that I was ready to at once withdraw my name from the committee. I would have taken this step before if the matter had ever engaged my attention; but the Commissioners can, I am sure, understand how an advertisement, even under the circumstances I have mentioned, and never made the subject of discussion or conversation, would produce no impression on the mind. I have now, at too great length, perhaps, but with the most perfect accuracy, stated all the circumstances which, as far as I am aware, bear on the charge against me. It will be seen that it is not a case in which a Civil servant has taken part in, or countenanced by any overt act, a public censure on the Executive. I have never considered to what an extent an official would be justified in so acting, inasmuch as my own opinion is, and has been, that it would be bad taste in a person, holding as I do a subordinate position in a Public Department, to interfere at all in such a matter, and accordingly I have always avoided doing so. If I had not seen the advertisement, I presume that the Commissioners would, under the circumstances I have stated, have held me blameless. If this be so, I would submit that my default has at the most amounted to mere mental carelessness or blindness of perception leading me not to appreciate the effect of my name being printed along with many others under an advertisement at which I had given a hasty glance. I am 62 years of age, my official salary forms a substantial portion of my income; although well able to perform my Departmental work, it would be hopeless for me at my time of life to look for new employment. I would ask the Commissioners to remember that dismissal would entail a far heavier punishment on me than on a younger man. I would ask them also to consider my past professional and official career, free from stain or imputation. In conclusion, I would press on them, humbly and respectfully, but very earnestly, to say whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the case is one which would justify the heads of a Department in removing from his office an old and long-tried public servant."
    Mr. Eyre Preston had been in the Public Service for 38 years; and with that letter before him, it was the duty of the Lord Lieutenant to say whether, in the interest of the public, it was necessary to inflict the punishment of dis-

    1131
    missal in the case of a man who showed such great contrition. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) compared this case to the dismissal of Mr. Fottrell. With the dismissal of Mr. Fottrell, he (Mr. Trevelyan) had nothing to do, and at the time it took place Lord Spencer was not Lord Lieutenant. He could not enter into any discussion as to whether Mr. Fottrell was wisely or unwisely dismissed. Throughout the whole of this Lord Rossmore business, it had been the desire of the Executive not to punish as long as they could get a complete and thorough acknowledgment from the person who had misbehaved himself, that he recognized the fact that he had done wrong, because in times of political excitement people were apt to take steps which were not justifiable, but which after all might not be absolutely criminal. If in the case of the public servants who attacked the Government on account of their conduct to wards Lord Rossmore, there was ample and complete contrition, and a promise given that their course of wrong conduct would not be repeated, the Executive Government were glad to excuse them. It would be a very different thing if such conduct were repeated. The circumstances of the last Recess in Ireland were very novel, and many men in public positions acted under the impression that the action they took was quite permissible. They now knew it was not permissible, and that a repetition of their conduct would be visited with very serious consequences. The official letter which contained the submission of Mr. Eyre Preston was dated the 23rd of February, 1884, and in it he said—
    "I have to express my obligation for yours of the 22nd instant, and beg to state that I have already withdrawn my name from the committee of the Orange Hall, and am ready to give my withdrawal such publicity as the Commissioners may require. I quite disavow any responsibility for the terms of the appeal for funds for erecting such a building; and I beg again respectfully to repeat that I was ignorant of such appeal, or of the intention to issue it, until I saw it in print. I regret that, being, as I am, a public servant, I allowed my name to be placed on the committee; and I undertake that I shall never in future, so long as I hold office in the Land Commission, take any public or prominent part in political matters."
    He (Mr. Trevelyan) recognized the public spirit in which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had brought this question forward; but, nevertheless, he
    1132
    humbly submitted to the Committee that the Government had taken adequate means of expressing their sentiments.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the purpose he had in view in bringing forward the question had been tolerably well served by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; his purpose was far removed from the gratification of private spleen which was attributed to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman). He (Mr. Sexton) never saw Mr. Eyre Preston; he had not the slightest personal knowledge of that gentleman; and therefore he thought he might take credit to himself of being actuated by public spirit in bringing this question before the Committee. His only object was to teach public officials of every grade in Ireland that they were obliged to maintain the peace impartially. After Mr. Eyre Pros-ton had addressed the Land Commission in language of such emphatic contradiction, he (Mr. Sexton) would scarcely have thought of troubling the Committee by introducing this question. He had brought the matter forward, however, because subsequently Mr. Eyre Preston was restored to the Commission, on the ground that he expressed regret for having done that which previously he said he had not done. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would undertake to lay the Correspondence on the subject upon the Table in the shape of a Parliamentary Paper, he (Mr. Sexton) would be perfectly ready not to pursue the subject further.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, an expression fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary of which he thought he had a right to ask for an explanation. The right hon. Gentleman said that during the last year persons holding positions in the Civil Service had criticized the conduct of the Government in a manner which they now knew was not permissible, and that if the criticism were repeated, it would be visited with condign punishment. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that gentlemen holding positions in the Civil Service—and he (Colonel King-Harman) believed magistrates and Lord Lieutenants of Counties were supposed to be engaged in the Civil Service—were precluded from criticizing, in any manner whatever, the action of the Irish Government? Did

    1133
    the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that men were to be absolutely debarred from all liberty of speech, from all liberty of expressing themselves in the Press, because they held Commissions of the Peace, and because they tried to do their duty as far as their lights allowed them? He maintained that a more gross attack upon the liberty of the subject was never made in the House of Commons, and he called upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to explain himself—to say whether magistrates and others were to be muzzled, so to speak, in any case where the conduct of the Government, or any Member of the Government, was concerned? Were the Government to be allowed to go scatheless, and was everything they did to be deemed incapable of criticism? He never heard a more extraordinary expression of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary might as well say that Members of Parliament were to be muzzled. Were Members of the Government to do just what they pleased without remonstrance? He called upon the Chief Secretary to explain what he meant, and to say whether he intended his words as a threat?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had stated in the strongest terms that it was the opinion of the Lord Chancellor and his (Mr. Trevelyan's) own opinion, and also that of the Lord Lieutenant and of the Land Commissioners, that magistrates and public servants could, of course, belong to political associations and express political opinions. If circumstances recurred in which magistrates broke the peace instead of keeping it—if magistrates and public servants supported and endorsed by their conduct breakers of the peace—they would do so on their own responsibility, and they would find that the Government would consider that responsibility was not a light one.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, that no one who had perused the recent speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) and his Friends would feel much apprehension that their liberty of speech was in much danger. He (Mr. O'Brien) attempted to catch the Chairman's eye a few minutes ago to express regret that he had left anything to the sense of justice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He would not repeat the blunder. The right hon. Gen-
    1134
    tleman had treated the Committee that night to another of his delusive parallels between the contributions from local sources in England for the maintenance of the police force and the local contributions in Ireland for the maintenance of the police. The right hon. Gentleman well knew, or, if he did not know, every man, woman, and child in Ireland could tell him, that the difference was that in English towns the police were the people's servants, but in Irish towns the police were the people's masters. The Irish people were perfectly willing to pay their police as the English people did, if Parliament would give them some control over the police. But Parliament dared not give the people that control, but paid the police themselves, in order to keep the people in subjection, and then were surprised if the people did not submit tamely. The right hon. Gentleman made exactly the same reply that night with reference to Limerick that he made with regard to the question of the extra police in Cork, which was raised by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). His hon. Friend retorted by telling the farmers of Ireland that they were fools to pay 1d. of the police tax, and as soon as the constituencies seemed inclined to take his hon. Friend's advice the Irish Government showed a disposition to remove the cause of quarrel. It was a curious circumstance that wherever the people had shown a resolute spirit the Government had seen reason to withdraw the extra police force. There was the case of Monaniny, and there were numerous cases in Kerry where the Government had anticipated resistance. The people of Castle Jordan, however, instead of resisting the tax, resorted to Petitions and to correspondence with the Castle authorities, and they received nothing but snubs from Mr. Jenkinson for their pains. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said he (Mr. O'Brien) had advised the people of Limerick to resist the law. He (Mr. O'Brien) was sorry to say the Irish people had not the power to resist a good deal that was done in the name of law; if they had he might speak in a different tone. All he asked the people of Limerick to do was to exercise their legal right of passive resistance; and he thought that after the

    1135
    proceedings of that night—after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman— the people of Limerick would learn that if they wanted to win like the people of Monaniny had won, they must imitate the people of Monaniny.
    MR. W. REDMONDdesired to have a more satisfactory explanation from the Chief Secretary; but as the Committee were not likely to get a satisfactory reply with reference to the police in Limerick, he would like to call attention to the conduct of the police in the borough which he represented (Wexford). While he was away he was elected to represent that borough, and certain gentlemen went there to represent his interests and the interests of his Party. He had no more claim on the confidence of the people than any ordinary individual, and he had no more claim on the protection of the police; but what happened? Wexford was one of the most peaceful towns and counties in Ireland. Crime was altogether unknown, and the people were most peace-loving, and yet a large body of police were sent down during the election. Why? Did they expect a riot? If so, who were the people who would make a riot? The large majority of the people were of one way of thinking, and there had never been any breaches of the peace during any election, and no assaults committed on the unpopular candidate and his friends. Notwithstanding that the town was most peaceful, a large body of police were drafted down. The narrow streets of the town were crowded with police, and not ordinary police as Englishmen might understand them, but police who were practically soldiers, armed cap-a-pie with rifles and cartridges and bayonets, and the people going to the election were very much irritated by the presence of these police, who occupied a commanding position in the town, where crowds assembled to learn the result of the polling. They were obstructed by the police, and they naturally resented the insult. They had no intention of committing a breach of the peace; they only wished to exercise their legitimate right to see how the election had gone. The result was that the police came into contact with the people, and they charged upon the people. Blood was shed like water, and 26 policemen, were so severely injured that they had to be sent into
    1136
    hospital to have their wounds attended to. He did not mention this because he had no sympathy for the police; on the contrary, he only wished to point out that the Government were not only doing injury to the police in Ireland, but to the police themselves, in drafting them unnecessarily into peaceful districts. After this collision between the people and the police, Wexford was crowded with extra police; but he was happy to say they had now been withdrawn, because they had proved to be unnecessary. There was just as little necessity then for these extra police as there was now. He did not think there was any better way of judging when extra police were necessary in any town than by taking the opinion of the Corporation, who were a representative body elected by the people. The Corporation of Limerick were unanimous in the opinion that the extra police in that city were quite unnecessary. There was no riot or crime of any kind in the city; and yet in the face of that fact, and of the protestations of the Corporation, the Government and the Lord Lieutenant and the officers of Dublin Castle, who know nothing about the requirements of the district, sent a largo force of police there, and when the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) came and asked for some explanation of the matter, or for a pledge that the Chief Secretary would inquire into it, what was the answer he got? The right hon. Gentleman, assuming, he supposed, that Irish Members were altogether ignorant of the people of Great Britain, in reply to the suggestion that the extra police should be withdrawn, gave a very elaborate and what would, no doubt under certain circumstances, be a highly interesting account of certain statistics in Great Britain. He gave some statistics relating to the town of Northampton; but there was no parallel between the police force in Northampton and in Limerick and other Irish cities. And the right hon. Gentleman, in support of his statement, pointed out that the police duty, and especially street duty, was performed more cheaply in Limerick than in Northampton. He would, however, venture to point out that in regard to street duty the police had little or nothing to do in Ireland. If the police in Ireland were only required to perform what was called

    1137
    street duty, one-twentieth of the number of police would be sufficient: but the police in Ireland were not used so much for keeping the peace, as for keeping the people down. If the right hon. Gentleman would not give a satisfactory answer to the case put by the hon. Member for Mallow, he would remind the Committee that, in the long run, that course might not prove well for the Government in Ireland, or for the conduct of proceedings in that House. Perhaps it was not very interesting for English Gentlemen to listen to Irish Members at all, imagining they were there only for the purpose of Obstruction; but they were there to express the wishes of the people who had gent them there. In such matters as this they would express the opinions of the people, if they had to keep the House up all night, and if they did not get a satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman, it would not be so well for the proceedings of the House in the long run.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged that the Government which he represented had not done their duty with regard to the magistrates in the North of Ireland, and at the same time he had promised to reform his ways in future; but he would like also to have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman would follow out his duty in another direction—namely, with regard to the packing of juries by the Solicitor General in Ireland. He wished to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of his obtaining honest juries for trying people on political or semi-political charges. Irish Members had constantly to draw attention to the fact of honest men being condemned for offences of which they were perfectly innocent. In some cases that went so far that those men were executed. This was an exceedingly awkward state of things, and he appealed to the Chief Secretary to say that in future he would give instructions to the Law Officers and those administering justice in Ireland that, so far as possible, they would get impartial juries for these trials, and not convict persons who were clearly innocent. With regard to Limerick, the state of things there was very peculiar. The Town Council, who were of mixed politics, were practically unanimous in favour of
    1138
    the withdrawal of these extra police, and the borough magistrates, who had been appointed by the Executive, and who had no special reason for being in accord with the people, were also in favour of the withdrawal of these police, and to the abandonment of this unfair claim upon the people of Limerick. If the Government did not consent to that, he would urge the Town Council to hold firmly to their position, as had been done by other Corporations, and to let the Government find their own remedy. The Government must know that this was a most unreasonable claim, for, otherwise, the Corporation and the magistrates would not have protested against it and refused to agree to it. Under these circumstances, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would do well to give a satisfactory answer to the point raised with regard to the payment of the police and the payment for what passed as the administration of justice in Ireland.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, the Chief Secretary had told him the other day that the Assistant Commissioners had received documentary evidence. He wished to know whether he had received a copy of the evidence taken by the Local Government Board Inspector in the inquiry held in Waterford a fortnight ago; and, if so, whether he would have any objection to lay it on the Table, together with the Inspector's Report, and also the conclusion of the Assistant Commissioners, if they had yet arrived at a conclusion.
    MR. SMALLobserved, that the people of Ireland were just as willing to pay for policemen as the English people, and in regard to Northampton, the right hon. Gentleman had not shown that there was much difference between the cost of the police there and the cost in Limerick. In Limerick a population of 31,000 paid £2,000 for police; in Northampton a population of 31,000 paid £2,846. Besides, the people of Northampton had control over their police, who were their servants, while in Limerick the case was quite the opposite. When had there been a disturbance in Limerick? The right hon. Gentleman said the police were there because the place was not peaceable; but he had not shown that that was so. The reply of the Chief Secretary to his Question that afternoon was manifestly unsatisfactory, and he must now ask what evi-

    1139
    dence the Sub-Commissioners had upon which they fixed the judicial rent? The facts were these. The areas of these holdings were two acres; their valuation was £2, and the rent £4. The only evidence of their value put before the Sub-Commissioners was the evidence of one Land Commissioner on the part of the tenants, while the landlord presented no evidence. The Sub-Commissioner did not visit the land, or even looked at it from a distance; but, without taking proper evidence, he affirmed the old rent of £2 an acre, and doubled the valuation. It appeared to him very strange that, as the Chief Secretary had told him in reply, the Land Commissioners would not ask the Sub-Commissioners whether or not they had visited the lands they valued; for in many cases they knew that the Sub-Commissioners did not do so, or had not done so. If they affirmed rents in that way, what protection was there for tenants in the Land Court? The Land Court was of little use now, but it was likely to be of less use unless the Sub-Commissioners visited the land.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was glad that the Chief Secretary would turn his attention to any case brought under his notice as to extra police, and he wished to draw his attention particularly to the town of Galway, from which, he thought, the police might safely be removed. He had no objection to their being as many police in the town as the right hon. Gentleman liked; but he did object to having to pay for dummy police. He had mentioned a case last year, and the Chief Secretary had promised to inquire into it, but he had heard nothing more of it. In England, Members came to London, and found there all the head offices centred in London; and if they had a grievance, they could go to the head office and have it investigated. That gave them direct contact with the officials, but that was not the case in Ireland. They had no control over the office in Dublin. They had some slight control in the House of Commons; but they had no means of calling on the head officers in Dublin, and so were actually obliged to bring matters before the House of Commons. It was not that they were not often in Dublin, but it was no use going to the offices, for they were totally out of gear with the Constitution, as it was understood in Eng-
    1140
    land. They had not the means in Ireland of remedying these small grievances which the people of England had, and therefore they must bring them before the House, and so they must take up the time of the House. In Galway 100 extra men were put on, but 50, or loss, of these were dummies. According to the Rules, a certain number of constables were allotted to each county, and for Galway there were 500. If extra police were put on the county, a certain number of the 500 were taken off and sent away—perhaps 60 or 70 of them—and returned as ill. Then 60 or 70 extra were put on and charged for as 100. These men were not really ill, but were sent away on leave and then charged on the county. The Chief Secretary was very fond of statistics, and he was usually accurate; but in this case he was not correct. His statement of £32,000 in English towns, as against £24,000 in Irish towns, was incorrect. As a rule the Government were fond of underpaying men in Ireland. The Constabulary got enormous pensions, because the Government wished to secure faithfulness in the force, and of course large pensions were an obvious way of securing that; but if the Local Authorities maintained their own police, and followed the example of the Government in paying less than they paid in the Civil Service, and for National School Teachers, there would not be much difference between the two totals. The Government said they paid for the Irish Constabulary; but in reality, as the Chief Secretary had shown, they gave only one-fourth. Of course there was a large extra sum in Ireland; but he looked upon that as a military item for the Constabulary. In regard to roads, the Government also said they paid for roads in Ireland; but they did not do so, because, while they paid for the Constabulary, the Local Authorities paid for the roads. They had voted a large sum for roads in England and Scotland; but they had voted nothing for Ireland. Then there was another item which had grown up in recent years, the conveyance of prisoners. In every way they had a wretched system of administering, and were heavily mulcted in these matters, and to his mind the Irish Members did not take half as much notice of these things as they ought to do. Ireland only got

    1141
    £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 of the £9,000,000 voted in the ordinary expense of the country, and he thought the Irish Members should vote against Supply, until the Government showed some little care in attending to their wants in these matters. He wanted the Government to give Ireland a contribution, either to the rates, or an equivalent to what was given in England and Scotland. Also, in parts of the country which were undisturbed they wanted the Government to relieve them from the police tax. There was no use in keeping up a recollection of troubles, and he therefore would not keep the police in a district four or six months after a disturbance had taken place. These were very simple points, and, he believed, tolerably practicable ones. He had thought it right to make these observations that night, and he must protest against the contempt in which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant dealt with matters of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman would not be able at all to look into Irish administration and Irish affairs, if he were not backed up by a large majority of the Irish Members—that was to say, if matters were not brought before his attention by those Members. The Chief Secretary for Ireland got no assistance from the Opposition, because those who supported him were snubbed, and the right hon. Gentleman was, therefore, in the hands of the Executive officials in Dublin, who spent money, and who made something out of the expenditure. That was the reason why the remonstrances of the Irish Members were treated with but very little attention.
    MR. MOOREsaid, that no doubt it was the duty of the Government to look into this point as to the extra police, setting aside those argumentative and administrative questions concerning the alleged disorder of the districts. He (Mr. Moore) desired the right hon. Gentleman to look into the financial question. There was no doubt that the moment sanction was given for the employment of extra police in a certain district, that a draft was made which became a permanent extra police force. He had gone into this question for some years—he was not speaking on the point of order or of disorder—year after year on the only occasions when they had an opportunity of exercising anything like
    1142
    control over the taxation, he had objected to the extra police tax, because the men were not employed in their own county. What were the figures? He thought there were 60 extra police appointed in the County Tipperary. Year after year he had insisted on having a responsible officer come before the Grand Jury to make a statement in regard to the matter. They had been paying in Tipperary for 60 men, and they never had had that number by as many as three. It was very galling and irritating to have to pay this tax. The Committee was perfectly ignorant of the way in which these matters were managed. Hundreds of pounds were thrown away in the Irish counties under the Prisons Act. No one knew what was going to be done. That was very often the case amongst hon. Members when the House was passing a Public Act. They were often perfectly ignorant of the way in which they were piling up local taxation. They knew very well what they were doing when they were piling up Imperial taxation, because the expenditure in that case had to come before them in the Estimates; but that was not the case with local taxes. That House had no jurisdiction over local taxes, and, therefore, he thought this question of police was one that should be inquired into. It would be satisfactory to know whether the districts now paying for extra police had the full Parliamentary force.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought they had had enough talking that night, and he was glad to have heard such a large chorus of assent. If they had any more discussion they would have too much, and, therefore, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant an opportunity of answering the questions that had been put to him—his answers would involve a great deal more talk—he would move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that seeing they had discussed this Vote for so long —for seven or eight hours—he would put it to the Committee whether it would not be idle now to report Progress, thereby adjourning the debate. The Vote must be taken that night. [Colonel NOLAN;

    1143
    Why must?] They must have the Vote before separation for the Whitsuntide Recess, inasmuch, as the two months for which they had obtained money expired on the 31st of the present month. If they did not obtain this Vote, during the holidays they would have nothing to go on with. If the debate was postponed for another night, he was confident they would have just as much discussion as they would be likely to have to-night.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was anxious to talk until the Chief (Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant came in. The right hon. Gentleman was now in his place, and, that being so, he would proceed to put three or four subjects before him. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman how jaded hon. Members were, and he wished to mention several subjects, and to talk about each one. It would be a great advantage if they went to a Division now. He knew Irish Members were very few in the Committee; but naturally they thought that a Division on a Motion for reporting Progress would have its advantages, because the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who, in an earlier part of the evening, had answered some questions very satisfactorily, had failed to give an answer at all on certain financial subjects. He thought the Motion for Progress was very properly moved at a time when they were getting no answers from the Chief Secretary.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman, having listened to his speech, and was prepared to give an answer to him which he thought would be agreeable to him and to those who sat around him. The fact was, that he (Mr. Trevelyan) had not spoken at once out of respect to hon. Gentlemen who were getting up on the other side. He, for his own part, had been anxious to avoid rising more than once.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had effected the purpose he had in view in moving to report Progress. He had elicited that little word "must"—he had elicited that the Government must come down three or four times a-year and say—"We want the money and we 'must' have it." He wished the public to see that, and to ask themselves whether that was the proper way in which Supplies should be demanded from the
    1144
    House of Commons. He should be very much surprised if there was not a very great deal of dissatisfaction before long in the country at the way in which public money was voted in the small hours in the morning. Not wishing to put hon. Members to the trouble of walking the Lobbies, and not wishing to have that trouble himself, he should withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, that before the Chief Secretary answered he should like to call his attention to another matter— with reference to the charges brought against the Government in connection with certain very horrible scandals in Dublin. He had intended to take an opportunity on that occasion to draw attention to the whole question; but the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had obtained in the ballot a much more favourable opportunity, at a time when the excuse that litigation was pending, he ventured to think, would be no longer available for the prevention of full discussion. he would not refer further to the case than to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, which he thought he was entitled to ask him, to give some guarantee or engagement that precautions would be taken that none of the persons who were inculpated in this matter were permitted to leave the country in the meantime. He thought he was also entitled to ask that any questions in reference to the pensions of any of these officials would be reserved until such time as the House had had an opportunity of discussing the Motion of the hon. Member for Queen's County.
    MR. TREVELYANremarked, that the hon. Member had said very little about the case itself, and he (Mr. Trevelyan) should follow his example, and say as little as he could with regard to it. In answer to the two questions that had been put to him, he had to observe that it was impossible for people to be arrested and kept in the country when no criminal charge had been preferred against them—["Oh, oh!"] Well, no information of any sort or kind had been laid against these persons— ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might dissent as much as they liked,

    1145
    but he was stating a simple fact. To prevent any person leaving the country before anyone had laid any information against them was a proposition which would not be for a moment entertained. As to the other point, the Government bad called upon these persons to vindicate their character, and that was one of the matters which the hon. Member (Mr. O'Brien) intended to refer to when dealing with the conduct of the Government. No pensions would be allotted until this matter was decided. The hon. Member for Waterford City (Mr. Leamy) had asked him for the details of the evidence that was laid before the Prisons Commission. He should be inclined to ask the hon. Member to wait and see how soon the Report of the Commission would be in coming out. He should presume the evidence the hon. Member asked for would be printed in the Appendix to the Report of the Commission; but, at any rate, they should wait and see whether or not that was the case. As to the question the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Redmond) had asked him earlier in the evening in reference to a decision in the Land Commission Court, he had given him the answer which had been placed in his hands by the Land Commissioners, and he must say to bis mind that answer was a very reasonable one. The hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) also thought it a reasonable one that he had given to the hon. and gallant Member for Dorset (Colonel Digby) about five minutes before. The hon. Member for Dorset had asked for certain decisions, and he (Mr. Trevelyan) had given the answer and some explanation of a pointed nature on his own prompting. The fact was they could not force the Land Commission to give details to the House of Commons as to the processes of their judicial inquiry. The Commissioners very rightly stated that they were not willing to give such details, and that if any irregularities had taken place during an inquiry before them they could be made the subject of appeal. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) had spoken on certain financial questions with which he was familiar, and had declared that the Chief Secretary, partly from being overworked and partly from being ill-advised, was not cognizant of the facts which were exercising
    1146
    the minds of the Irish Members. Well, he (Mr. Trevelyan) must say that the questions relating to the disposition of the police force and the proportion of the expenses contributed by the county at a time when they were not getting the benefit of its services, were the first questions which were presented to any Chief Secretary, and of which he heard more than he did of any other class of questions during the time beheld Office. Of that subject he had spoken very frequently in the House. He had referred to casualties which must occur in every force, and the proportion of men who were recruits and who were under training. The complete force, which was nearly 10,000 men actually on duty in the streets and lanes, lost 10 per cent of its men who had to be formed by the commands amongst whom the force was allotted. The matter was one which had long been in dispute between the Executive Government and the Irish Members. The hon. Member had then gone on to say there was another question which had escaped the notice of the Irish Government, and in which Ireland was put at great disadvantge as compared to England; and he had said at the time the Prisons Bill was being passed these differences had escaped the House. He (Mr. Trevelyan) would not enter very deeply into this subject. The hon. Member was right in thinking it was a matter of inadvertence; but he (Mr. Trevelyan) was rather unwilling to dwell upon this case, because the controversy on this point had now been settled, and settled in a manner not altogether in accordance with what was the intention of Parliament. It had been settled in the interest of the localities and against the interest of the Exchequer. The Irish Government and the Treasury had come to the conclusion that in the matter of the conveyance of prisoners Ireland and England should be placed on the same footing. He proposed to introduce a short Bill on this subject—either he would or his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) who sat near him; and he had every reason to believe that it would be passed without opposition in the House. He earnestly hoped that the Committee would now be allowed to take the Vote.
    COLONEL NOLAN said, that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered him upon the question of the payment for roads.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would answer that; but he trusted that after having received the assurance which he had just made, and which was satisfactory at least in one respect, that hon. Members would now allow the Vote to be taken.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that subventions in aid of turnpike roads was a provisional arrangement assented to most reluctantly two years ago by the Prime Minister in anticipation of the introduction of the County Government Bill. When that Bill was brought in and local finances were properly arranged, the subventions would be withdrawn.
    MR. GRAYsaid, the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General made the other day, that he did not contemplate sending the Irish mail train under the new arrangement earlier in the evening from Euston, had caused a considerable amount of disappointment to all those who had given attention to the subject, which was really one of great importance. Within 24 or 26 hours of that announcement a Memorial was presented to the right hon. Gentleman, signed by 60 Irish Members—or all those in London, except two or three—asking that the decision might be reconsidered. He (Mr. Gray) understood that the right hon. Gentleman's answer was not a favourable one, and that he did not see his way to complying with their request. It was quite natural that those skilled officials and others to whom the matter was referred should recommend, when the case was put before them, that everything should be left as it was rather than that, a new arrangement, involving a considerable amount of trouble upon them, should be undertaken. The Irish Members and the Irish Chambers of Commerce, who had studied the question, considered, and he (Mr. Gray) considered, with many others, that with a thoroughly efficient mail service from London to Dublin, very nearly, if not quite, two hours could be saved on the journey, whereas only something like three quarters of an hour had been saved. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not delay bringing the new system into operation until the Irish Members had had some opportunity of considering it, and the Postmaster General had said that he did not see his way to that delay,
    1148
    for the reason that it would interfere with the prompt introduction of the new service which he was anxious to establish about the 1st of July. One would have imagined from that that something would be gained from the introduction of the new service; but he (Mr. Gray) ventured to express the opinion that nothing whatever would be gained by it. A certain amount of inconvenience would be suffered by passengers who would be landed in Dublin at an earlier and colder hour than at present. The mail service would not be assisted in the slightest degree. There was nothing to be gained by accelerating the service between London and Dublin alone, as that service was already sufficiently rapid. The mails were posted after business hours in the evening in London, and delivered before business hours in the morning in Dublin, and whether they could be delivered at 6, or 7, or half-past 7, or 8, could make a difference to hardly a single individual. The right hon. Gentleman as yet had not even, so far as he (Mr. Gray) could understand, opened negotiations for the really important portion of the business—that was to say, the acceleration of the mails out from Dublin. He (Mr. Gray) was afraid it was hopeless to ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his determination as to the starting of the Irish mail from Euston. In connection with the service to Cork and Limerick, which were, perhaps, the two most important services, one or two hours acceleration were of no use. What the right hon. Gentleman should give, if he wanted to confer any real advantage whatsoever in the principal Provincial cities, was an acceleration so complete as to enable business men in those towns to answer their letters to London and England by the evening mail leaving the town on the same day on which they had received the letters to which their communications were the replies. At present, letters were received from England in Cork at 2 o'clock, and he believed letters would have to leave Cork at 1, or some such hour, at any rate, some time before the arrival of the English letters, for them to get sent away that day. The giving of an hour or two hours under such circumstances was of no use whatever. The mail train should arrive in Cork from Dublin two hours or two and a-half hours before the corresponding mail left Cork for Dublin,

    1149
    Unless that were settled, and merchants and business men had an opportunity of replying to the letters they received the same day, the right hon. Gentleman might save himself the trouble of interfering with the Irish mail arrangements. He was astonished to find that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken into consideration the desirability of despatching a mail from Dublin in the evenings at a later hour than at present. If an acceleration of three quarters of an hour could be given between London and Dublin, an acceleration of a corresponding period should be given between Dublin and London. He should have imagined that the right hon. Gentleman, when arranging the service from London to Dublin, would also have arranged the service from Dublin to London, and would not have lost sight of that important element in the solution of the problem of how to satisfy the inhabitants of the Provincial towns in Ireland by enabling them to save 24 hours in their correspondence. It must be remembered that there was only one mail service to all the great towns in the morning, and that the whole passenger service depended on the mail trains. That was not the case in England. In Ireland they were dependent altogether for their rapid travelling on the arrangements that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General might make, and they would be dependent upon them for 10 years to come. He pressed these matters to the right hon. Gentleman's attention, because, though uniformity might be a very nice thing in the Post Office, there was something far more important for the travelling public of Ireland. He and the other Irish Members desired to get the best possible service they could, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his wav to communicate on the subject with those who were interested in the matter in Ireland. ["Divide !"] He (Mr. Gray) was aware this was not a matter of importance to English Members; but it was one of great importance to the constituency he (Mr. Gray) represented (Carlow County), and, therefore, he intended to discuss it. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to communicating his plan to those directly interested before he decided the matter. There was always a great deal of mystery enshroud-
    1150
    ing Post Office contracts, and he (Mr. Gray) never for the life of him could understand why that was. He never could understand why, when tenders had been submitted, they could not be published before they were accepted or rejected; and in the same way, when the Department had arrived at a plan for the revision of the mail service, he did not know why it could not be submitted to those interested before it was decided upon. The mere laying of a contract for 40 days on the Table really meant nothing at all. he would invite the right hon. Gentleman to explain why he should not consult Chambers of Commerce in Ireland on a subject which so directly concerned them before he came to a final decision, which would bind not only the present, but would bind succeeding Governments for 10 years to come, and bind the whole of Ireland, and, in fact, the whole of the interests of the country. He did not suggest that the Chambers of Commerce should have power, or control, or veto in the matter; but he thought, at least, their opinion should be taken on the question they had studied very minutely, and in which they were profoundly interested. It should be in the power of those who were interested to make reasonable suggestions which might be thrown out, but which at times, if adopted, might be found to give a largely improved system, and do what the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, desired to do—namely, to give the best possible mail service which was practicable, under the circumstances, to the country.
    MR. DEASYsaid, that, before the right hon. Gentleman answered, he should like to call his attention to the case of Cork.
    MR. FAWCETT: I am going to refer to that. I will, first of all, make a short statement in reply to the hon. Member for Carlow, who has put questions with regard to the time the Irish mails should leave, and acceleration to Cork and other towns. He says I ought to have consulted Irish Members and Irish Chambers of Commerce. Well, that is what I did. I have repeatedly done so, and it is what I am always anxious to do. I am sure there is an almost unanimous wish that the Irish mail should leave Euston earlier than it does; and I have

    1151
    acted throughout on the assumption that this is the wish of Irish Members, and the Irish people who take an interest in the subject, and I have endeavoured to effect that object. But it is entirely a question of the intricacies of Post Office administration. The train must meet cross-country trains that bring letters from various towns to catch the mail train. Even starting the train at the same time, and accelerating it to the Midland towns, even that, in some cases, will cause considerable difficulty, because at such towns as Nottingham, for instance, Irish letters will have to be posted earlier than at the present time. This is not the only difficulty, as I have stated before. If the train leaves at 8, instead of half-past, as I have tried to arrange, it would be necessary that the Irish letters with the late fee should be posted earlier in London. Not only so, but through Dublin the whole of the American correspondence passes; therefore, if we start at 8 o'clock we introduce an anomaly, two kinds of late fee postings, which will be attended with serious inconvenience. Now, hon. Members say this acceleration of half an hour is of no use in Ireland.
    MR. GRAY: Of no use to the mails to Dublin.
    MR. FAWCETT: I know it will be of no use to Dublin, but it is essential, as I will show, to effect the acceleration —so much desired—to Cork, and I take that as a typical instance. We shall get an acceleration of half an hour; and when the new steamers are ready for use—and under the contract they must be ready next year—another quarter of an hour will be gained, an aggregate acceleration of three quarters of an hour. When this comes into operation it will be very possible to have a most important acceleration to Cork. The mail now leaves Dublin at 9, and arrives at Cork at 2, while the mail leaves Cork at half-past 12, an hour and a-half before the mail arrives, so that quick replies to letters are hopeless. Now when the whole acceleration comes into operation, I hope it will be possible for the mail train to leave Dublin for Cork at a quarter before 8, and arrive in Cork at 12, and instead of leaving at half-past 12 will leave Cork for Dublin at 2 or shortly before, thus gaining the time hon. Members so much desire. I did not like to interrupt the hon. Member
    1152
    while he was speaking; but I could have told him this was the direction in which we are working at the present time. I have made proposals to the Railway Companies, and of course much will depend on terms; but this has been my object—my chief object—throughout, to gain the very two hours hon. Members think so important. If this acceleration can be obtained it will be of great importance to the South of Ireland and to the public generally; because it will to this extent accelerate the American mails, and render it unnecessary for steamers to wait so long at Queenstown by two hours as they do now. I hope Irish Members and the Committee will think I have said enough to convince them that I am as anxious as hon. Members are to do everything possible to improve the Irish mail service.
    MR. GRAYsaid, after this satisfactory statement he no longer felt regret that he had delayed the Committee. It was a satisfaction to have elicited such an explanation. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would appreciate their anxiety, as he had made no such public statement until now, and would believe that it was with no desire to harrass him with questions that the subject had so often been brought forward.
    MR. SEXTONtrusted the Postmaster General would see his way to carry out an equally effective acceleration to the West of Ireland, where the mail service was even worse than in the South.
    MR. FAWCETT: I cannot give any promise yet. I take Cork in hand first of all. No doubt the hon. Member refers to Sligo. An acceleration there presents greater difficulty, and the correspondence to be dealt with is much less, but I will see what can be done. The Cork acceleration is, to my mind, of the most pressing importance; but I will not lose sight of other matters. I am going to consider the whole subject of Irish mails; and I hope hon. Members will not now press me as to one district after another. I take Cork in hand at once as being in the worst condition, and as being of most importance in connection with the American mails.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

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

    THIRD READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [3rd April], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

MOTIONS.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made under "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," relating to the parish of Stevenston and Saltcoats, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 221.]

  ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made under "The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement (Scotland) Acts, 1875 and 1880," relating to the Improvement of the Burgh of Aberdeen, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 222.]

  RAILWAY REGULATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Bill to amend the Regulation of Railways Acts; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, and Mr. JOHN HOLMS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 225.]
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.