Commons Sitting of 19 February 1885

Preamble
Mr. Speaker took the Chair at a quarter before Four o'clock.

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For Tipperary County, v. Patrick James Smyth, esquire, Secretary to the Loan Fund Board in Ireland; for Gloucestershire (Western Division), v. Colonel Robert Nigel Fitzhardinge Kingscote, C.B., one of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Robert Gunter, esquire, for Knaresborough.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Land Improvement and Arterial Drainage (Ireland)* [50]; Crown Lands* [51]; Board of Works (Ireland) * [52]; Ulster Canal and Tyrone Navigation * [53]; Shannon Navigation* [54]; Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) * [55]; Dean and Chapter * [56].
Second Reading—Waterworks Clauses Act (1847) Amendment [7]; Copyhold Enfranchisement [26].
Committee—Report—Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) [40–49].

NOTICES.
  ARMY AND NAVY EXPENDITURE.
    SELECT COMMITTEE.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I beg to give Notice that, in fulfilment of the pledge given to the House last year, I shall on Monday move for a Select Committee on Army and Navy Expenditure; and I also give Notice that, on the same day, I shall move for the appointment of a Select Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates.

    EGYPT AND THE SOUDAN—VOTE OF CENSURE.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I begleave to give Notice that on the earliest day which I can obtain, and which I hope will be Monday next, I shall move—
    "That an humble Address be presented to the Queen, humbly representing to Her Majesty that the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government in respect to the affairs of Egypt and the Soudan, has involved a great sacrifice of valuable lives and a heavy expenditure without any beneficial result, and has rendered it imperatively necessary in the interests of the British Empire and of the Egyptian people that Her Majesty's Government should distinctly recognise, and take decided measures to fulfil, the special responsibility now incumbent on them, to assure a good and stable Government to Egypt and to those portions of the Soudan which are necessary to its security."

    EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—EMPLOYMENT OF INDIAN TROOPS.
    MR. J. K. CROSS: On Monday next, I propose to make the usual Motion respecting the employment of Indian troops, consequent upon the decision of the Government to despatch Indian troops to the Soudan.
QUESTIONS.

  SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND—LEGISLATION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If Her Majesty's Government will re-introduce the Bill for the Scottish Minister immediately after the Recess, if not in this House, then in the other House of Parliament, so that it may be ready for consideration in this House as soon as the state of Business permits?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes; it is intended to introduce this Bill at an early date in the Hous9 of Lords.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the noble Marquess opposite, If he can inform us whether there is any information to confirm or modify the statements that have been made in the Press with regard to the movements of Sir Redvers Buller?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: A telegram was received this morning, and portions of it have, I believe, been published in the newspapers, stating that the Force under Sir Redvers Buller has evacuated Gubat and retired to Abu Klea. I think that is substantially the information which is in our possession; but it is probable that the movements of Sir Redvers Buller's Force will be continued to Gakdul, or probably to Merawi or Korti.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I wish to ask whether the Government have received any communications from Lord Wolseley on the subject, and of which they are able to inform the House? Of course, I do not ask for any information which it would not be safe to give.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think the House will agree with me that it is necessary to exercise extreme caution in giving any information as to the despatches, or any discussions of military movements which have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and Lord Wolseley. If the right hon. Gentleman will give Notice of his Question, I will see whether it is desirable to give any information or not. I will endeavour to-morrow to put before the House so much information as can be given without injury to the Public Service.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Prince Hassan, brother of the Khedive, had been appointed High Commissioner in the Soudan; and, if so, was it by the Khedive, the Sultan, or Her Majesty's Government; and, whether the appointment of Prince Hassan was an indication that Her Majesty's Government desired to place the Government of the Soudan in his hands, or in the hands of some member of the Khedive's family?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Prince Hassan is about to join the Forces under Lord Wolseley as High Commissioner under him, with authority over the Egyptian Mudirs and officials. The office has been conferred upon him by the Khedive, and nobody else. The presence of Prince Hassan is not to be taken in the sense indicated by the hon. Member.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Has he any authority over the Mudirs in the Soudan?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: He has authority over the Egyptian Mudirs and Civil authorities generally.
  MR. RITCHIEasked what policy rendered the appointment of Prince Hassan necessary now which did not make it necessary previously?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that the Question raised matter of debate, and could not be answered with propriety.
  MR. GORSTasked whether the noble Lord would state whether Prince Hassan had any authority over the Mudirs in the Soudan?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I answered that Question distinctly in the affirmative.
  SIR JOHN ST. AUBYNasked the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, Whether he was in a position to give the House any information with respect to General Brackenbury's column?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No information of importance as to the movements of General Brackenbury's column has been received since that published in the newspapers. As to instructions given to him, or which may be under consideration, I think the answer which I gave to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) just now applies in this case, and that it will be very undesirable, without full consideration, to make any statement on the subject of the instructions now given to the troops.

  NAVY—STATE OF THE NAVY— CONTRACTS.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Can my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty state to the House what steps the Government have taken to give effect to the engagements made by the Government in December for the increase of the Navy, and for what ship3 contracts have already been taken, and the time at which they are to be completed?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: The programme of additional shipbuilding work was proposed to Parliament and approved on the 2nd of December. No time was lost in pushing forward the designs and completing the specifications in more detail, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Contracts and Repairs. Additional draftsmen have been employed, and long
  862
  extra hours have been worked. The drawings for the Scout class were completed at the close of the year, and on the 5th of January tenders were invited for their construction from 37 firms. The seven weeks given for preparing the tenders expire on the 24th instant. The orders will be placed as soon as practicable after that date. On the 2nd of March we shall be ready to invite tenders for five belted cruisers and two ironclads. Tenders will be immediately invited for 10 powerful torpedo boats, armed in accordance with the recommendations of a Special Committee. Five additional torpedo boats of the first class will be ordered in the course of the year.
  In reply to Sir EDWARD J. REED,
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEYsaid: There will be no objection to place in the Library a copy of the sketch design of an iron-clad shown to my hon. Friend, and described to Parliament in December, and of the more accurate and detailed design which is now in course of completion.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Are we to understand that at this time no contract for any one ship or torpedo boat has been entered into by the Government?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: That is the case.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked, Whether the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War could give any information about the condition of General Sir Herbert Stewart?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I regret to say that the news received this morning, and which is published, is less favourable than previous accounts, inasmuch as Sir Herbert Stewart is subject to an attack of fever.

  EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—OCCUPATION OF MASSOWAH BY ITALY.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked, Whether it was the case that Italian troops had gone to Massowah by arrangement or Treaty with the Turkish Government; whether the Italian Government proposed to occupy Kassala; and, if so, whether any arrangement to that effect had been made with the Sultan of Turkey? He also asked when

  863
  Papers respecting Egypt would be in the hands of Members?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked the hon. Member to postpone the first Question until to-morrow. Further Papers with regard to Egypt would be in the hands of hon. Members by Monday. They would include the despatches of General Gordon, and particularly the telegram of November 4.

  EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—KHARTOUM— GENERAL GORDON'S DIARIES.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Are the Government in possession of any diaries of General Gordon? If so, will they publish those of public interest, and take care of those which are not of public interest for members of his family?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; the Government is not in possession of the diaries of General Gordon. With regard to the further Question, I must make inquiry before answering the Question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Does my noble Friend imply that the diaries are not in the possession of Sir Charles Wilson, or any of the officers of Her Majesty's Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; I did not mean to imply that; but if the right hon. Gentleman will put his Question to-morrow, I will give him all the information I can on the subject.

  THE VOTE OF CENSURE AND BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It will be a convenience to know when the Government can give me a day for bringing on the Motion of which I have given Notice. I shall be glad to bring it forward on Monday if possible; if not, on the very earliest day I can get.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The desire of the right hon. Gentleman to have as early a day as possible for the Motion of which he has given Notice is also the desire of the Government. It is a most natural desire, and the wish of the Government is to second that desire by every means in their power. I know of no reason for any hesitation, except it be that I presume'—I may be corrected in that matter, and if so I shall take notice of the correction—the House
  864
  would wish to be in possession of the Papers relating to Egypt before it comes to the debate. My noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) has just made a statement with regard to the Papers which leads us to suppose that Monday will be the latest day when they will be in the hand of hon. Members. There is, however, I believe, some information over and above that which is contained in these Papers, which concerns the War Department as much or rather more than the Foreign Office, properly so called, and I am not quite certain whether that information will be in the hands of hon. Members on Monday. I think, perhaps, the most convenient course will be to allow this question to stand over till to-morrow, with the understanding that we shall certainly give the first day upon which the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members generally will be in a position to approach the consideration of the question. As I have been asked this Question as to the course of Business, it will probably be convenient that I should enter more at large into the arrangements for the Business of Parliament. On a former occasion when Parliament met in February for what may be called a continuing Session, the right hon. Gentleman who was at the time the Leader of the House made a statement with regard to the Sessional Business, which statement conveyed the same information as would ordinarily have been convoyed in a Queen's Speech. But the circumstances of the present case are, however, materially different. They differ in this most important respect—that one large and somewhat complex Bill, which might occupy a moderate time or might occupy a long time, is already in the hands of the House; and it is quite understood, apart from necessary calls, such as that conveyed by the Notice which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman, that that Bill—namely, the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill—is a Bill which the Government are pledged to push forward, and which it will be their desire to ask the House of Commons to expedite, even if it is thought fit to do so by means involving some departure from the usual arrangement of Business. We have come, therefore, to this conclusion—that, so far as this House is con-

  865
  cerned, time available for the purposes of important legislation—I do not now speak of secondary Bills—the time at the disposal of the House for Bills of the first-class will really depend upon the rate of progress which the House may make on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. Consequently we could not venture to arrive positively, even in our own minds, at a conclusion upon legislation of that class—as to the introduction or non-introduction of Bills—until we shall see, from the advance actually made with that Bill, what time is likely to be at the disposal of the House. I do not propose, therefore, to make any statement, so far as this House is concerned, except one, and that refers to a subject which must be considered of primary importance in regard to its pressing and urgent character, and with regard to the pledges given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the part of the Government—namely, that we intend to introduce in any circumstances, and, as we hope, to pass, in this House, a measure relating to the relief of the crofters in the Highlands. We hope, however, that some use may be made of the time of Parliament, at least in the other House. I do not think I am guilty of any irregularity in stating that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce promptly into the other House the following Bills:—A Bill to enable the Australian Colonies to associate for certain purposes; secondly, a Bill for the amendment of the Lunacy Laws; thirdly, an Extradition Bill; and, fourthly, what is known as the Secretary for Scotland Bill. These are the Bills with regard to which, it appears to us, it may not be inconvenient that they should be introduced in the other House of Parliament.
  MR. ONSLOW: The Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross) has given Notice of a Motion for next Monday on a matter of some importance; and my right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) has also given Notice of a Motion which he may probably bring on upon that day. If the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman should come on upon that day it would be inconvenient to the House and the Government that the two Motions should be before the House at the same time. May I, there-
  866
  fore, ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary to defer his Motion until some other day?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We will endeavour to make the best arrangement in our power. I do not state anything positive at the present moment; but I do think with regard to what I may call a Constitutional point, such as the Notice of my hon. Friend, we ought not lightly to lose any time in submitting the Motion to the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman name a date when it will be convenient to lay on the Table the provisions of the Crofters Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; from his experience of the House of Commons the hon. Gentleman will understand that we could not think of producing the provisions of the Crofters Bill until we produce the Crofters Bill itself. That is a Rule of the House, especially where you have to deal with a matter of great difficulty and importance, and no one knows better than the hon. Member that this is a matter of very great difficulty, which must be dealt with in the most serious manner. We are desirous not to lose any time in proceeding with that Bill; but as regards the Bill we are substantially dependent upon the progress that may be made with the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. Subject to that one consideration, I do not at present know of any other subject of importance to which we should wish to give precedence over the Crofters Bill.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE: When will the Report of the Boundary Commissioners for England be laid upon the Table?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It has been laid upon the Table to-night. I have laid four documents upon the Table, the Report of the Boundary Commissioners for England in two parts, one for the counties, and one for the boroughs; and the Reports of the Boundary Commissioners for Scotland and Ireland. The English Reports for the counties, and the maps, will be circulated to Members to-morrow morning. The second part of the English Report will be circulated, I hope, on Saturday morning. The whole of the Scotch Report will be ready to-morrow morning. Of the Irish Report, 100 copies will reach here to-morrow from Ireland, and will be sent to the Vote Office, where

  867
  Members will be able to receive them, as far as they go, their names being taken, so that copies may not be left at their residence I cannot say when all the Irish copies will be received for distribution, as there has been considerable delay in the printing in Ireland.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Crofters Bill is not to be printed until the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill has been practically disposed of? I can quite understand that it would not be taken up seriously until progress was made with the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill; but I do not understand why it should not be in the hands of Members until that Bill has been almost disposed of.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I did not state that, nor anything approaching to it; but what I said was that it was necessary to ascertain our position practically by the actual progress which we make, and by the disposition the House may show as to proceeding rapidly with the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, before we could make any arrangements with regard to the other Bill. I did not mean to say that the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill should be passed through the House before the Crofters Bill was introduced, for, of course, there ought to be ample time for the consideration of the Crofters Bill before we proceed with it. We are unable at present to measure our own time; and it is only by measuring our own time, and taking into consideration the requirements of the House, that we are able to proceed with the Business of the House. I think the Crofters Bill is a question that would be better dealt with by Notice to the House.
  MR. RICHARD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill on the subject of Intermediate Education in Wales; and, if so, when?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to that subject, I am afraid it is included in that category of measures with respect to which, important as they are, and urgent as they are, I am obliged to withhold any declaration on the part of the Government until we can form some judgment of the time likely to be at the disposal of the House. I
  868
  am sanguine enough to hope that the House may be disposed to proceed with considerable promptitude in dealing with the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill; and if that is the case—and hon. Gentlemen will feel the immense importance, on every ground, of proceeding with that measure rapidly—the manifestation of such a disposition would enable us to judge of the time at the command of the House for other Business.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, whether it is proposed to authorize any payment out of the Revenues of India for the Expedition to the Soudan?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The proposal to be made on Monday will be made upon the basis of the proposal that was made with regard to the Abyssinian Expedition.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Does that proposal involve the authorization of the expenditure of any part of the Revenues of India upon the Expedition?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: A full explanation will be made on Monday; but I may say now that all the extra expenditure will be charged upon the Revenues of this country.
  MR. FINCH-HATTON: Is it by inadvertence that the right hon. Gentleman has omitted any reference to the renewal of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I did not consider that the moment had arrived when it was necessary, or would be convenient, to make any declaration on that subject.
  ME. PARNELL: I would ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Government have drafted a Bill on the Report of the Select Committee on the Labourers' Question? The Report was framed by the Solicitor General for Ireland, and adopted by the Government. If they have not yet drafted a Bill, do they propose to do so, and to press the measure forward until it is passed?
  ME. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes; it is my intention—and I have already given Notice of it—it is my intention to ask for leave on Monday to introduce a Bill to amend the Labourers' Act, and also to introduce a

  869
  Bill for the establishment of local Bankruptcy Courts in Ireland. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that to-morrow it is my intention to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the Laws relating to Salmon and Trout Fishing in Ireland; and, in these circumstances, I assume that the Bill on the Paper relating to that subject will not be pressed.
  MR. THEODORE FRY: Is it the intention of the Government to proceed this Session with the Sunday Closing (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not prepared to make a full statement on that subject.
  MR. KENNY: May I ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Shannon Navigation Bill this Session?
  MR. HIBBERT: Yes, Sir; it is my intention to introduce a Bill to-night on that subject.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE —IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN CATTLE.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have to apologize for having addressed a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster before the Notices on the Paper had been disposed of. I have now to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is true that animals suffering from foot-and-mouth disease have been landed in England, at Deptford and Hartlepool, from three separate foreign cargoes on the 11th, 12th, and 17th of this month; and whether, prior to the 11th of February, the country was not free from that disease; what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken, or are taking, to give effect to the Act of last Session, which provides that the Privy Council shall prohibit the landing of foreign animals from any foreign country, whenever they are not satisfied that the condition and circumstances of the same are such as to afford reasonable security against the importation of foot-and-mouth disease; whether, in this case, they were satisfied that there was such reasonable security, and the grounds upon which they formed that opinion?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is true that three cargoes of sheep, in each of which
  870
  one animal affected with foot-and-mouth disease was detected, were landed at Deptford and Hartlepool on the 11th, 12th, and 17th of this month. It is also true that, so far as the Agricultural Department is aware, there was no centre of foot-and-mouth disease in this country since the middle of December last. As soon as it was known that an animal affected with foot-and-mouth disease had been landed on February 12, an Order was passed prohibiting the importation of sheep from Hamburg, from which port the cargo had been brought. The cargo landed on February 17 came from Bremen, and immediately on the discovery of the disease among these animals an Order was passed prohibiting the landing of sheep from that port.
  MR. CHAPLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government are at the present moment satisfied that there is reasonable security against the introduction of this disease from any ports of the German Empire not now closed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In reference to the importation of sheep from Germany in the past, the Government are satisfied that reasonable security against the introduction of disease did exist, on the ground that the German Government have taken the most stringent measures to prevent the exportation of disease, and that since October 29, 1883, no case of foot-and-mouth disease was detected among animals landed from any port in Germany, during which time a good deal more than 500,000 sheep came from that country. As regards precautions for the future, the German Government have been informed that the prohibition will be extended to all other German ports unless the Imperial Government can satisfy us that there is reasonable security against the introduction of disease. Special measures have been taken to obtain telegraphic communications from our Consuls abroad direct to the Privy Council of any outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in their respective districts, and all European Governments will be asked to furnish similar information. The Government are perfectly prepared to take any step, however rigorous, if they have reason to believe that sheep affected with disease are likely to be sent to this country from any Gorman port.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government are satisfied that at the present moment there is no risk of disease being imported into this country from any German port whatever?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have given the House the grounds on which the Government consider they have had reasonable security in the past. It is obvious that at this moment the same grounds do not exist; and, therefore, the Government have not lost any time in taking the steps to which I refer, which, I think, are very strong steps, and which, I believe, will be most effectual.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to give Notice that I will call further attention to the matter, as I think it has been proved by past experience that the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government have been totally ineffectual.
  MR. R. H. PAGET: What has been done with the animals in the three ships in which disease was found to exist? Were they all slaughtered, so as to prevent the possibility of the spread of disease?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The animals were all slaughtered, and the usual precautions were adopted in each case. The Inspectors at the ports showed great diligence in the matter, the ships being disinfected, and an embargo placed upon them to prevent them from being used in the traffic for a reasonable time.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that Her Majesty's Government have called upon the German Government to satisfy them that no danger exists from the importation of animals from other German ports. Time is the essence of the matter, and I should like to know how long it will be before the Government make up their minds to prohibit the importation from any other German ports?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That would depend upon the Reports which Her Majesty's Government receive from their Consuls, and upon the state of the cargoes that may come from the ports. It is most essential for the interests of the German Government, and for the protection of the German sheep trade, to satisfy Her Majesty's Government in the matter instantly, and in the most satisfactory manner.

  SUPPLY—ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY).
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish to ask the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Supplementary Estimates for the Army and Navy, which, it is understood, will be asked for, will be laid upon the Table?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I am not in a position to say precisely, as it is hardly my business to be informed upon such subjects from day to day; but I believe that the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates will be in the hands of Members to-morrow, the Navy Estimates in a few days, and the Army Estimates a few days later.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Will the Estimates include any provision for the fortification of our coaling stations abroad?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I cannot answer that question as to the Supplementary Estimates; but they will cover all expenditure unprovided for in the original Estimates which come in course of payment up to the end of March.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I will repeat the Question to-morrow.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): It had better be addressed, not to me, but to the Representative of the War Office.
  MR. CUBITT: May I ask the Secretary to the Treasury to postpone the Vote for the National Gallery?
  MR. HIBBERT: The Estimates will be down on the Paper to-morrow, and if the opportunity is afforded we propose to take all the Votes we can. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have the Vote for the National Gallery postponed, I shall be glad to make any arrangement that may appear desirable to the House.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN—GENERAL BRACKENBURY'S COLUMN.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: With reference to the Question put to me earlier in the evening, I may say that, since it was asked, I have received a telegram from Lord Wolseley, dated the 19th (to-day), in which he states that a message, dated the 15th instant, had been received from General

  873
  Brackenbury, whose Cavalry had entered Salamat, and found it deserted. He left his Infantry five miles from Salamat, and his horses and camels passed safely through the Shukuk Pass, which was also deserted. General Bracken-bury hoped to be at Abu Hamad by the 25th instant, and to concentrate his troops before the 1st March. The delay was caused by the necessity of crossing mounted troops to the other side of the river. Any estimate of time was necessarily uncertain owing to the state of the river.

MOTION.
  EGYPT.

    MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Certain Papers and Correspondence relating to the affairs of Egypt have been presented to Parliament, and I rise to make a formal Motion that these Papers do lie upon the Table for the purpose of submitting to the House a very brief statement, of a description not controversial, but occasioned by circumstances, which I will in a very few words explain. The House will readily understand that it is not the established practice to submit telegrams relating to military operations and military measures to Parliament in the same way as it is to submit telegrams and communications relating to those matters which are civil in their character. It will be readily understood that a far greater reserve is often necessary in respect to matters of that class than with respect to public intelligence of interest in general. On that account, as military decisions of importance have been required to be taken within a very recent period, Her Majesty's Government have thought that it would be but just to Parliament that they should communicate, in a shape which can be open to no objection connected with the public interest, the substance and effect of their decisions so far as is in their power. Sir, that is the purpose and the justification, I hope, of my making a Motion which is not very often made, but which is, I believe, perfectly regular and perfectly Parliamentary, in relation to the cause which has called for such a proceeding. I need only remind the House that the policy declared by Her Majesty's Government with respect to the
    874
    Soudan has always been the evacuation of the Soudan by Egypt and its restoration. [Cries of "Oh!" from the Opposition Benches.] That policy has received the approval of the Khedive and of the present Egyptian Government. It has undergone no change. I am not about to argue it or to defend it, but merely to state the fact, which is the point on which I set out, that it has undergone no change. But events from time to time have occurred to prevent its immediate application. During the adjournment of the House up to the 3rd of February, circumstances appeared to justify a sanguine hope on our part that the military problem was near its solution, and that little, in comparison, would remain to be done. The news of February 4 entailed new duties and led to new decisions—I mean, of course, the news of the loss, and, as it has now been shown to be, the betrayal, of Khartoum. The nature of the military object in view underwent in connection with, or in consequence of, that news a considerable change. The Mahdi outside Khartoum, a repository of arms and stores, was a different person in point of power and influence, as well as of what is called moral effect, from the same Mahdi in Khartoum in possession of the place and in possession of the arms and stores which it contained, as well as being reinforced—to what extent we are not precisely informed—by men he found within the walls. Under these circumstances, and receiving as we did communications from Lord Wolseley, it was our duty to arrive at decisions which are strictly military decisions. It became, as Lord Wolseley explained to us, a necessity for him to know whether he was to shape the measures that he might have immediately to take upon the supposition that he was either now or eventually to proceed to overthrow the power of the Mahdi at Khartoum, or whether he was to proceed upon the opposite supposition, because the framework of those measures and their character would essentially depend upon our adoption of the affirmative or the negative of that important point. The Government, giving the best consideration in their power to the question from the state of facts before them, decided in the affirmative—that it was their duty to instruct Lord Wolseley to frame his military measures upon the expectation and upon the policy

    875
    of proceeding to overthrow the power of the Mahdi at Khartoum. The military consequences immediately following from that decision were these—in the first place, that there should he immediate action from Suakin against Osman Digna as a matter of essential necessity to open the route to Berber; secondly, the decision to commence the construction of a railway; and, thirdly, the intention I have already described, which is the basis of the whole—to use Her Majesty's Forces for the purpose of overthrowing the power of the Mahdi at Khartoum. With respect to the time at which effect may be given to these intentions, that, of course, was a matter for the judgment of Lord Wolseley; but if it could not be done until after the hot season, which has not yet commenced, but which may commence in no very great number of weeks, then the decision was that it should be done after the hot season. Our impression is—but it is an impression only, and it is not absolute knowledge—that Lord Wolseley will probably, under ail the circumstances, postpone the operations. The whole of these intentions and decisions will, of course, form matter for the consideration and judgment of Parliament. Now, Sir, I have said that we adopted the affirmative upon the important proposition that it was our duty to advise the use of Her Majesty's Forces in an efficient manner for overthrowing the power of the Mahdi at Khartoum. I can conceive that hon. Gentlemen may see reasons which may operate in the opposite direction; but those are reasons upon which, if they exist, I need not dwell. What I wish to put before the House, in a very few words, is the reasons which have led us to the decision opposite to that of deciding that no effort was to be made to overthrow the power of the Mahdi at Khartoum. Now, there were certain objects in connection with the Soudan—and I speak of objects in the Soudan not exclusively but separately—there were certain objects which we always deemed, and which I think Parliament has generally deemed, very fit for consideration so far as circumstances might allow. One of those objects was with reference to the case of those persons as to whom General Gordon—the lamented General Gordon—so well vindicated his title to the character of hero, now recognized throughout the
    876
    civilized world. One of them was the condition of those persons to whom General Gordon felt himself to be bound, and for whose sake he contentedly forbore—indeed, more than contentedly—he determinedly forbore—to make use of the means of personal safety which, so far as we know, were largely at all times, or, at all events, for a long time at his disposal. [Cries of "Oh!" from the Opposition Benches.] I speak under that impression with respect to General Gordon; but I do not wish to raise any question of doubt. I was not aware myself that there was any difference of opinion upon the matter. But let me withdraw those terms, because I do not wish to state anything in the nature of an historical fact which is open to controversy. I will only say that there were those persons in Khartoum to whom General Gordon held himself bound in honour, and for whose safety he was pledged. The second object was the possibility—what he regarded as a possibility—an object most desirable to attain, if it could be done—of establishing some orderly Government in Khartoum. The third was a point of very considerable importance, which I do not think any Member of this House would wish to exclude from view. The military operations and the condition of the Soudan have, I think I may say, for the time afforded an effectual check, and a very powerful cheek, to the Slave Trade carried on in that region, and the question of the Slave Trade was one which we could not wholly exclude from our view. Lastly, I will mention only one other objeot—the question of the Egyptian garrisons in the Soudan, in respect of which my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, in a great debate in this House, and in a full statement which he made as to the objects and obligations of the Government, said that we entered under no obligation whatever; but that, at the same time, with regard to some one or more of those garrisons it might be, under the circumstances, a fit subject for consideration. I only recite those objects which, I have said, have been all along kept in view, subject to the limitations that might arise in the view of the Government and of Parliament, because I wish to point out our conviction that had we arrived at a negative decision as to the British Forces being used to overthrow

    877
    the power of the Mahdi at Khartoum the effect would have been at once to involve the abandonment of the whole of those objects. But it was not merely objects in the Soudan which we had to consider. Our concern in the Soudan was a concern dependent upon our concern and obligations for the safety and defence of Egypt. We had to look at matters beyond the Soudan as well as within the Soudan; and it was our belief that such a negative decision as I have now described would have had most important and serious consequences with respect to whatever dangers there might exist, either proximate or remote, in Egypt or in the East, from the position of the Mahdi at Khartoum, momentarily triumphant, and that these dangers were of a character hardly in their nature the subject of precise estimate, but in the view of many, far-reaching, and possibly very grave. These considerations we took into view when we considered the question whether it was possible for us to arrive at what is a very important military decision. Sir, there is one other point, and only one. I have described in language as clear as I could the military decision at which the Government have arrived; but there is one other point on which I wish to say a word. No one can view circumstances so grave in the East without entertaining, at least, the question whether it is possible to escape from them, not by the way of force, but by the way of accommodation. Now, Sir, upon that subject I wish to say that the very first acts of General Gordon, when he arrived at Khartoum, signified the pacific character of his mission, and that, so far as his action and the policy he represented are concerned, that pacific character, that liberating character, has been a matter of notoriety from its very first commencement down to the present day. And Lord Wolseloy—in a document which does not happen to have reached us as yet officially, but which appears in the public journals as a document, and I cannot for a moment doubt its authenticity—Lord Wolseley has conveyed himself a similar declaration. He says—
    "The English Government has sent me with an Army to restore peace, and not to collect taxes or injure anyone. I will pay you for all produce, and I guarantee to execute General Gordon's promises."
    878
    These promises were of the character to which I have referred. The general purposes of the British power and policy, to which the Egyptian Government has fully assented, have been declared repeatedly and recently, and are well known. We do not think—and we cannot help believing that in this opinion we shall carry with us the assent of the House—we do not think that the present situation allows of our making any overtures to the Mahdi with any prospect of success. On the contrary, I believe that such overtures, however benevolently and philanthropically—[Laughter from the Opposition Benches.] Yes, however philanthropically intended would tend to defeat their own object, and to make more remote the prospect of that very settlement which it is our object to obtain. One thing, however, we have thought it right to do, and that is to convey an instruction through Sir Evelyn Baring that any communication which may proceed from the Mahdi shall be referred home for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. Sir, that is the brief statement which we have thought it necessary to submit to Parliament, in order that Parliament may apprehend the nature and scope of the military object which Lord Wolseley has now before him, and likewise the nature of the immediate measures and efforts connected with them which the attainment of that object has rendered necessary. This would not, I think, Sir, be a convenient opportunity for entering at length into any discussion, or any vindication or exposition of so large a question as is here involved; but so much of information we have thought it the duty of the Government to place in the hands of the House of Commons. I beg to move that Papers be laid upon the Table.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Copy presented of further Correspondence respecting the affairs of Egypt (by Command) do lie upon the Table."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a moment for entering into a discussion of a controversial character, and I the more feel that because of the Notice which I gave earlier in the evening of a Motion which will give an opportunity for full discus-

    879
    sion of the subject. My object in rising is simply this—that I wish to take the earliest possible opportunity of giving expression to what I am sure are the sentiments not only of the whole House, but of the whole country, with regard to the great loss we have sustained in the death of that gallant officer, General Gordon. Whatever may have been our controversies with regard to other matters, the personal feeling which General Gordon has evoked throughout his career, and more especially during the last 12 months, has been of the most marked and highly-deserved character. I am glad to take this early opportunity of saying that; and I must, at the same time, take the same opportunity of expressing the sense of all of us in regard to the valour, the conduct, and the discipline of our troops, and the very sincere sympathy which we feel for those who have fallen in our service—especially let me mention that lamented and gallant officer, General Earle. I fear that we cannot but express, also, great uneasiness with regard to Sir Herbert Stewart. [Cries of "Burnaby."] There are other names I do not mention in particular; but these two, who have taken such a prominent position, are entitled to receive the special notice of this House. There is another matter about which I will say a word of congratulation—I mean the gallant and spirited overtures which have been made to us on the part of many of the British Dependencies to rally round the flag of the Empire and bear their part in our burdens. I do not think I could omit to make these observations; but, at the same time, I do not wish to pursue this subject further on the present occasion.
    MR. MAC IVERwished to apologize to the House, but desired to say that ho thought they ought there and then to pass a Resolution something like the following:—
    "That this House deplores the betrayal of General Gordon and the purposeless destruction of life in the Soudan, and disapproves of the continuance of military operations as proposed by the Prime Minister."
    He had no desire to make a speech; all he wished to state was what he thought the judgment of the House ought to be.
    Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL.— [BILL 40.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, The Marquess of Hartington, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL.— [BILL 40.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I rise for the purpose of moving that the Speaker leave the Chair in order that this Bill may be reprinted and corrected with the Amendments which the Government have thought it right to make in it. The Motion will, therefore, be in the nature of a pro formâ Motion, and hon. Members will have the ordinary opportunity of debating the question on the Speaker leaving the Chair; but, at the same time, it may be convenient, perhaps, that I should say a few words as to the Amendments which it is proposed to introduce in the Bill. The proposed Amendments are chiefly in connection with the Schedules; and as they are of much more importance than any of the others I will mention them first. Schedules 1, 2, 3, and 4—Schedule I relating to disfranchised boroughs; 2, to boroughs with a reduced number of Members; 3, to boroughs with an increased number of Members; and 4, to new boroughs, are practically unaltered, only a few mistakes are corrected. Schedule 5 relates to the existing boroughs where the boundaries are altered. The Boundary Commissioners have recommended that alterations be made in the boundaries in the case of certain boroughs mentioned in the Schedule; and the whole of the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners for the three countries have been accepted by the Government, and introduced into the Bill. I am happy to say that the Boundary Commissioners have been unanimous throughout in their proceedings; and the Amendments made in the Bill by the Government are made with the unanimous authority of the whole of the Members of the Commission. The principal alteration of boundaries which will be made in the Bill, as compared with the original boundaries, relates to Preston and Wakefield, the boundaries of which are substantially altered. As regards Preston, a

    881
    part on the other side of the river which appears to have no special unity of interest with the borough is taken out of the Bill on account of the Report of the Commissioners; but, on the other hand, the Local Government district of Ful-wood, and a portion of Preston, which is within the municipal boundary of Bellview, have been added to the Bill. There are other changes in Bury, Lancashire, in Cardiff, in King's Lynn, and in Newport, Monmouthshire, in all which cases the boundaries have been altered to make the Parliamentary and municipal boundaries the same. At Cardiff, Darlington, and Preston, the boundaries have been altered for the purpose of excluding from the boroughs small detached parts of parishes. At Newcastle-under-Lyme and. Manchester detached pieces have been added to the boroughs, which, although surrounded by, were not part of, the boroughs. A considerable mistake as to Liverpool has been corrected. The mistake was that certain Local Government portions had been included in the Bill, while large portions which were rural had also been included, and the Commissioners have recommended only the inclusion of the urban population. There are certain Amendments in the Bill which may be considered as contingent on the Amendments in the Schedule. Owing to the alterations of the boundaries, it has been found necessary to adapt enactments disqualifying certain voters for corrupt practices to the new state of things. We have thought it right to introduce no very disputable matter into the Bill, such as a modification of the clause relating to corrupt voters; but I understand my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General will be very willing to consider the matter in Committee, although he has not thought it desirable to introduce Amendments on his own responsibility on the present occasion. As to the Amendment intended to carry the principle of unity of divided constituencies, the Bill retains the unity for certain purposes of successive occupation as between one part of a borough for another, which was intended to be covered by the Bill, and probably is covered by the Bill as drawn, but the words used were not very clear then. Then we have thought it right to put into the Bill two or three Amendments which have been suggested to us. One of these is to
    882
    apply the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act of 1883 to all election agents, voting clerks, and officers, whether in counties or boroughs, so that no abuse can arise. It has been pointed out to us that unless the Bill be amended in this fashion it would be possible to employ men in one division of a constituency and poll them in another; and we intend, so far as we can, to give effect to this suggestion. Of course, if there be any strong opposition to it, we are not prepared to adhere to it too rigidly, or to insist upon it. Then there is another Amendment to be introduced in regard to freemen. It appears that it is necessary that in a small number of constituencies the method of polling the freemen in, say, two divisions should be fixed. The hon. and learned Attorney General has drawn up an Amendment under which the freemen in each borough or city would be polled alphabetically. Then there is a further Amendment, perhaps, of only local interest. I refer to the Amendment which makes the High Bailiffs of Westminster and South-wark the Returning Officers in those constituencies. There have been other Amendments suggested; but I do not think it necessary to introduce them in the Redistribution Bill, because they will be dealt with in the Registration Bill. There are a few other technical Amendments, especially with regard to the appointment of Returning Officers, and other matters with which I need not trouble the House. I may say, however, that a Returning Officer appointed by the Sheriff need not reside in the part of a constituency in which he acts if he has an office therein; but this is a mere matter of detail with which I need not detain the House; and, therefore, I beg to move that you, Sir, now leave the Chair in order to insert these Amendments to the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the matter being purely formal, he had no wish to force a discussion now in connection with the formal Motion just made; but he looked with some suspicion on the wish expressed by the right hon. Baronet to preserve the unity of divided constituencies. In his opinion, if constituencies were to be divided for

    883
    Parliamentary representation, they ought to be completely divided; and he did not see how it would be fair to make successive occupation qualify voters for different parts of the boroughs, when those parts were divided into separate constituencies, any more than in the case of separate parts of counties when they were divided into separate constituencies. What he was anxious to say was this—that he hoped the Bill would, as amended, contain information not only of the area of the divisions, but also of the population of those divisions, &c. They were not yet in possession of the Schedules of the Bill, showing the exact proportion of representation.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Report on the counties of England will be out to-morrow, as well as the Report on Scotland, and the Report on the English boroughs on Saturday. Tomorrow there will be 100 copies issued of the Report of the Irish Boundary Commission.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, they could judge of the Amendments when they saw them, and not before; and he, therefore, hoped the Committee stage of the Bill would be postponed until the Bill was reprinted. The Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) would occupy several days; and it would be highly inconvenient to commence the debate on this Bill, and then break it off for the purpose of proceeding with that Motion.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, whether the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could give the House any information, in the shape of a Schedule or Return, of the population of the whole of the constituencies of the country, including those not affected by it, as they would be after the Bill was passed? Such a Return would be very convenient.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought such a Return might very properly be prepared, as no waste of time would be caused by it. It would, however, be a considerable work, as the Census Returns did not tally with the divisions the Boundary Commissioners recommended.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he wished to point out that, on many occasions, a strong expression of feeling was shown before the Commissioners that the names
    884
    of the divisions should follow the points of the compass rather than the name of some place in the division. He wished to ask, whether the Government intended to adhere to the instructions given to the Commissioners strictly, even where the feeling in a locality was that the name should follow the point of the compass?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Government would be guided in the matter by the general sense of the House.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he had to complain that the proposals with regard to Nowcastle-under-Lyme were objectionable.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: There can be no objection to remedy anything that is improper in the scheme.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to reply to the appeal made by the right hon. Baronet opposite the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who says, with a good deal, of reason, I think, that it would hardly be convenient to commence the debate upon Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair, and then to interrupt that debate for the purpose of proceeding with the Vote of Censure which the right hon. Baronet opposite the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) intends to move. I think there is a great deal of force in the observation of the right hon. Baronet; and, on that account, I do not propose to put this Bill down for to-morrow, but I wish to explain the attitude of the Government upon the question as they conceive it to be with regard to this Bill. I look upon it as standing in a different position to Government Bills in general, on account of the communications that have taken place between the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite upon it; and, in our view, it is an obligation of honour incumbent upon us to do the best we can to expedite the Bill. Consequently, I am disposed to ask the House to-morrow not, in any case, to go on with the Bill to-morrow, but to assent to the principle that precedence shall be given to the Bill, at any rate for the Committee and, probably, the Report, stage, on those days when it is put down. Of course, certain days will have to be given up to Supply, and of course it will be understood that the Egyptian debate of the I Vote of Censure would in no way be interfered with. But I think I may as

    885
    well give Notice of a Motion of that kind to-night, so that I shall be able to see to-morrow whether the House will be disposed to accept in principle all the features of such a Motion. If so, it might be debated to-morrow; but, if not, under no circumstances could the Bill be taken to-morrow, because it will not be upon the Paper.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Bill would be circulated to-morrow morning.
    MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether the precedence the right hon. Gentleman spoke of would apply to Tuesdays and Fridays?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be printed [Bill 49]; re-committed for Monday next.
    House resumed.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he presumed the House might understand that the Bill would not be put down for to-morrow?
    MR. GLADSTONE: No.
    In reply to a further Question from Mr. RAIKES,
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, they must endeavour to inform themselves as to the time the debate on the Bill would occupy. He did not think there would be any contest upon the question of precedence.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: To put it plainly, I suppose the Bill will not be taken until after the Vote of Censure?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot say that. The only object of the Government is to make the best arrangement they can to save the time of the House.
    MR. COURTNEY: With respect to the Motion of precedence of which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) has given Notice for to-morrow, I would suggest that it would be rather premature to ask the opinion of the House on the Motion to-morrow, and that it would be time enough, in going into Committee on the Bill, to make the Motion, and thus there would be less deprivation of private Members of their rights.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I think the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney) must bear in mind that fact to which the Prime Minister has alluded—namely, the peculiar character of this Bill
    886
    and the position in which we stand. It was distinctly understood before the Recess that the Government undertook as a matter of honour to proceed with the Bill as quickly as possible, and that, in the absence of any disturbing circumstances, it would be incumbent upon them to proceed at once with the Bill, and upon all days reserved for Government Business. But it so happens that we have reassembled under circumstances which will necessarily interfere with the Government giving it many days at the beginning of the Session, and I think it is only fair and reasonable that the proposal of the Prime Minister should be accepted. On behalf of ourselves, I wish to acknowledge the friendly and co-operative manner in which the Prime Minister has made the suggestion; and I am sure the House will, upon reflection, see it is a reasonable proposal to make.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he did not think the suggestion wan reasonable; but, at any rate, he hoped the Government would consider the appeal made by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). That was the first occasion in history on which the Government had proposed to take the whole of the time at the beginning of a Session for one measure.
    In reply to Sir BALDWYN LEIGHTON,
    MR. GLADSTONE: The terms of the Motion will be—
    "That the several stages of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, up to and including the Consideration of the Bill, as amended, have precedence of all Orders of the Day, and Notices of Motions, on every day on which it shall he set down, by the Government, as the first business of the day."

  WATERWORKS CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 7.]
  (Mr. Daniel Grant, Mr. Torrens, Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Arthur Cohen, Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Lawrence, Baron Henry Be Worms.)
  WATERWORKS CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 7.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. W. M. TORRENS,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that the object of its promoters was to substitute a rule of law for the settlement of the charges of Water Companies in the place of the present capricious process. It was desired to introduce into the Act of 1847 the principle of a statute passed at the

    887
    instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), which laid down that charges similar in nature to those made by Water Companies should be levied upon the basis of assessment. If this amending Bill were passed there could no longer be any question about the meaning of the "net annual value," which the decision of the House of Lords in the celebrated case of "Dobbs v. the Grand Junction Waterworks Company" made the only recognized standard of charge for Water Companies. Many disputes had arisen over this decision; and it was alike in the interest of the public and the Companies that the question of a recognized standard should be settled on some intelligible principle. He was willing this year, as last, to accept an Amendment limiting the operation of the Bill to the Metropolis; and he understood the Government had no objection to support that alteration.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time" (Mr. W. M. Torrens.)
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he regretted that the Bill had been unexpectedly brought on that afternoon, as he had not got his papers with him, containing the figures and other details upon which he based his opposition to the second reading; but he hoped, by the indulgence of the House, to be able to convince them that it should not be passed. He strongly opposed the second reading on behalf of all those shareholders who had invested their money in full reliance upon the Acts by which their powers and dividends were secured. The Bill, as it stood, applied to Provincial Water Companies as well as to the eight Metropolitan Companies; and he would later on point out the manifest injustice—an injustice which was admitted last year—which would thus be inflicted upon the Provincial Water Companies. But he opposed now mainly on behalf of the Metropolitan Companies, who had invested an enormous capital in securing to London and the suburbs a good supply of water. He ventured to state, without fear of contradiction, that both as regards quantity and quality of the water thus supplied, London was as well or better off than any other of the great capitals of Europe. As many adverse criticisms had been passed upon this point, he
    888
    would, by leave of the House, say a few words in support of his view. In the first place, as regarded the quantity supplied, it was as large as in any other town; and ho need only point out that during this last summer of exceptional heat and drought, during which many places, such as Bradford and Manchester, had been reduced to such extremities, the full supply to London had never failed, to show how well these Companies had performed the duties imposed upon them by the Acts which it was now sought to repeal. In the second place, as to the quality of the water supplied. The low death rate of London, which compared so favourably with other great towns, was in itself a proof—and a convincing proof—that the water supplied could not be as bad as it had been represented by those who had not studied the question. The truth was that, in a great number of cases where complaints had been made of the water, the water had not been analyzed as taken from the main; but it had often been standing in cisterns, of which many had not been cleaned for years, and of which many were open to the foul atmosphere and dirt of London. As regarded water taken from the mains of the Companies, he desired to point out that, for several years, the official analysis supplied to the Local Government Board had been supplied by Dr. Frankland alone. Now, Dr. Frankland was a very able man, but he had always set himself against the Thames water, although in this view he was opposed to many skilled Members of different Committees and Royal Commissions; and he (Sir Henry Holland) could not help thinking that that rooted dislike to Thames water had, unconsciously to himself, coloured Dr. Frankland's Reports; and that he had made statements as to the sanitary condition of the water which a closer analysis would not have justified. This, at all events, was the opinion of the Water Companies; and, at last, finding that the public were, as they thought, wrongly, though not unnaturally, influenced by these Reports, they determined to have the matter more thoroughly investigated and brought before the public. They appointed, therefore, three gentlemen of equal eminence with Dr. Frankland, and equally well known as skilful and careful analysts—namely,

    889
    Dr. Tidy, Dr. Odling, and Professor Crootes—to make not only monthly analyses of the water, such as Dr. Frankland had made, but daily analyses. Their Reports had been most favourable as to the purity of the water and its freedom from insanitary condition; and he hoped and believed that these Reports, though unofficial, had greatly tended to disabuse the public mind upon this important point. He claimed also for these Companies that they had most loyally performed the stringent conditions and obligations which had, from time to time, been imposed upon them by the different Acts of Parliament which gave them the powers under which they worked, and secured to them the dividend upon the invested capital. Upon that point, he had no hesitation in referring to the present and late Presidents of the Local Government Board. And not only had they performed those statutory obligations, but they had gone further, and had endeavoured to give full effect to all the recommendations and suggestions made from time to time by the Local Government Board, and by their very able officer, Sir Frank Bolton, who had the charge of supervising the supply of water to the Metropolis. He would venture to give one instance of this in the case of the Grand Junction Water-works Company, of which he (Sir Henry Holland) was a Director. One of the main points urged by the Local Government Board upon the Companies was to substitute, as far as possible, "constant supply" for "intermittent supply." Now, in 1880, the Grand Junction Water Company had only 10,000 houses on constant supply, and some 34,000 on intermittent supply. But in the year 1884 the numbers were almost reversed, and they had nearly 32,000 houses on constant supply, and only some 18,000 on intermittent supply; and by the last Return, in February of this year, the number of houses on constant supply had increased to over 33,000. He had troubled the House with this defence of the Companies, because, though they were not directly attacked upon these points by the Bill, yet if they had failed to perform the statutory conditions and obligations, their case would not be so strong as it was at present against the proposed interference with those rights to which
    890
    those conditions and obligations had been attached. How did the case stand with respect to that Bill? For the purpose of settling the rent for water supplied by the Companies, the Acts had adopted the term "annual value;" but it was not specified how that value was to be ascertained. The practice of the Companies, acting under legal advice, had been for years to act upon the assumption that "annual value" meant "gross" annual value; and he must remind the House that their construction of the Acts was upheld by the Court of Appeal. But the House of Lords, the final Court of Appeal, decided, in the case referred to by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. W. M. Torrens), that "annual value" meant "net" annual value. Immediately following upon the decision, the Companies set to work, and had a revaluation of every house supplied by them with water made in accordance with it; and it was some proof of the care and fairness with which the revaluation was made by the officers of the several Companies, that the complaints had been so very few in proportion to the number of houses—he believed some 750,000 or more, though, unfortunately, he had not the exact figures, owing to the absence of his papers. Of these complaints many were in respect of increased charges for non-domestic purposes; and there was no doubt that these charges had up to that time been rather laxly made, and that the Companies had, to some small extent, endeavoured to recoup themselves by looking more closely into these charges. But a great number of these cases had been already settled by arrangement, and a great many more would have been readily settled by the trial of one or two test cases, so that there was no need of the Bill to settle disputes, so far as this class of complaints were concerned. The larger number of complaints and disputes had, however, arisen from persons endeavouring to set up the parochial assessment as the net annual value within the meaning of the Acts. But after the various decisions of the magistrates against these attempts, they would, probably, in a short time have ceased. The Bill was, however, framed to help these complaints; and he (Sir Henry Holland) objected to it on three grounds. First, that it was in direct contravention of the decision of the House of Lords, and,

    891
    therefore, of existing Acts, by which the rights of the shareholders had been guaranteed; secondly, that it was against the views of a Committee of that House which sat in 1851 and 1852 to settle the Metropolis Water Bill; and, thirdly, that it would be unfair and unjust in its operation, and confiscatory of the rights of the shareholders of these Companies. Now, as to the first objection, he would not ask the House to rely upon his own opinion, because he was in a position to state to them the opinion of that eminent Law Lord, Lord Bramwell, who was one of the Judges in Dobbs's case. Not having his papers with him, he could not quote the exact terms of the letter which Lord Bramwell sent to The Times in May, 1884; but he was certain he was correct in saying that Lord Bramwell wrote that the Bill must have been brought in under some misapprehension as to the effect of the judgment of the House of Lords; that "annual value" in the Act meant real actual net value; and that the "annual value" settled by parish authorities was always lower than the real annual value upon which the Companies were entitled to charge; and that this difference between it and the lower charge the Bill proposed to confiscate. Ho would add that in this same letter Lord Bramwell established his (Sir Henry Holland's) third objection to the Bill as he stated that this Bill was an invasion of property and a confiscation of the rights of the Water Companies secured to them by Act of Parliament. Surely the House would pause before granting a second reading of this Bill, upon so strong an opinion of such an eminent lawyer. As to his second objection to the Bill, it was to be observed that a very strong Committee of the House sat in 1851 and 1852 upon the Metropolis Water Act, and the whole position of the Companies was brought before them. The Committee approved the term "annual value;" but examined into the way in which that annual value was to be tested. Witnesses of great experience, not only connected with the Companies, but independent witnesses, such as Mr. Lee, the experienced surveyor, gave strong reasons for not adopting parochial rating as the fair test; and the Committee must have been satisfied with these reasons, or they would have pronounced in favour of this test. They
    892
    would have so defined "annual value," or agreed that it should be fixed by the parish valuation. As to his third objection, he had already cited Lord Bramwell's opinion; but he would point out that the Bill in its present shape applied to all Water Companies, Provincial or Metropolitan, as did the Bill of last year. But that was proved to be so unfair to Provincial Companies, owing to the admitted lowness of parish assessments, and to the want of uniformity in such assessments, that the Amendments proposed by the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), which limited the operation of the Bill to the Metropolitan Companies, were accepted by the promoters of the Bill. Now, that was a strong reason against allowing a second reading of a Bill which proposed an injustice, which was condemned last year; but it was also a strong reason, as he would now proceed to prove against the Bill even as amended, as proposed last year. It was an admission that parish valuations proceeded on no uniform plan, and that such valuations were below the true valuations, and as regarded the Metropolis, this want of uniformity was remedied by the Metropolis Valuation Act of 1869. That Act prescribed uniform scales of deductions; it defined the principles of assessment; and secured a fair rating. Now, if the Amendments had been to the effect that the rental for water supplied within the Metropolitan area should be tested by the parochial valuations within that area, instead of making the Bill apply to the Metropolitan Companies generally, the Companies might have grumbled, but the ground of complaint would, to a great extent, have been cut from under their feet, because the parish valuations within the area of the Metropolis Valuation Act were, upon the whole, fairly made; there was a quinquennial valuation provided, so that any unfairness of rates could be remedied; and, moreover, a simple form of appeal was provided. But the Amendments accepted by the promoters of the Bill last year made the Bill apply to all the Metropolitan Companies generally, and they made the parish valuations the test of "annual value" in ail the districts which they supplied with water, whether within or without the area covered by the Metro-

    893
    polis Valuation Act. That that was very unfair to the Companies was really admitted by the right ton. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board; for, in reply to a deputation last year, he admitted that outside the Metropolis valuations were undoubtedly lower than in London; but lie added that they formed a mere "drop in the ocean," and that be did not think there could be any substantial grievance under that head. This was, in fact, an admission that the Bill, as amended, would be unfair to the Companies if they had any considerable interest or rentals outside the Metropolitan area. Now, as a matter of fact, their interests were not a drop in the ocean, but very large indeed outside that area. Again, in the absence of papers, he had to trust to his memory; but he believed that out of 120 square miles supplied by the Companies, 90 were outside the Metropolitan Act area, and that the number of houses outside that area were largely increasing, while the number within that area remained much the same. There was, then, a substantial ground of complaint against the Bill, even as agreed to be amended last year. On these grounds he trusted that the House would not assent to the second reading of this Bill; but if it was to be granted, he trusted that, at all events, it would not be granted unless the promoters agreed to refer it to a Hybrid Committee before whom the Companies could be heard by counsel, and before whom their case could be fully shown by evidence.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Holland) stated that his object was to defend the Companies against the charges made against them; but then the object of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Torrens) was to enable the public of London to defend themselves against the charges made by the Water Companies. This Bill had nothing to do with the purity of the water of London. He consumed a great deal of it internally and externally; and the fact that he was still alive was proof that the water was not absolutely poisonous. The question raised by this Bill was a simple one—it was, whether the constantly-increasing charges made upon the consumers by the Companies were fair or not? His hon. Friend opposite said that he had
    894
    Lord Bramwell on his side. Well, he had great respect for Lord Bramwell; but they knew that he had strong views on the rights of property. He was in favour of the full pound of flesh; and he probably would have given a decision in favour of Shylock. There was a great grievance, which had been removed in certain cases by the indomitable pertinacity of Mr. Dobbs; but that was done at an enormous cost. It was idle, in view of the Dobbs case, to say that the Companies had never charged for anything that they were not entitled to charge. It had been proved that they had. This Bill provided for the cases of those who could not defend themselves against the charges which the Companies thought right to impose. This was the grievance; and there could be no doubt it was felt to be a monstrous injustice that the Water Companies should be allowed to increase their charges by an immense percentage. The object of the Bill was to define clearly what was the annual value upon which the Companies should base their charges. It was a Bill to provide a cheap and easy means of determining that annual value by simply going to the rate book. To call it confiscation was an abuse of terms. As he understood it, it would provide an impartial settlement of disputes between the Companies and the consumers, and prevent the former increasing their charges at will. The method proposed for this purpose was an inexpensive one, which a poor man could adopt; and he, therefore, should support the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was disposed to think that within the Metropolis the Bill would operate fairly; but beyond that he was not prepared to go. He wished to point out that the decision of the House of Lords in Dobbs's case had been by no means an unmixed good, inasmuch as, under the rule laid down in that case, his assessment, and those of many other residents in his neighbourhood, had been increased by about 25 per cent. He did not think the Bill, as it stood, was fit to become law; but if his hon. Friend would assent to certain Amendments being made in Committee, no one would be better pleased with the Bill than he (Mr. Sclater-Booth). The subject was one of great difficulty; and he did not think it could be satisfactorily solved,

    895
    except by the Government themselves introducing legislation.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he was of opinion that if the operation of the measure were confined to the Metropolis it would be unobjectionable; but if applied to Provincial areas it would create much hardship. In many instances the Provincial Assessment Committees, in making their assessments, had undervalued property by 10 per cent. Therefore, it would be perfectly right that the Bill should be confined to the Metropolitan area, as contained in the Metropolis Local Assessment Bill. He trusted the day was not far distant when a Member of the Government would bring in a measure which should reconcile the conflicting measures adopted by various portions of the country in the matter of assessment, and bring one clear and concise measure forward which would put our valuation system upon a fair basis for both local and Imperial taxation.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that he should oppose the Bill, on the ground that it would be a measure of confiscation as far as regarded the water supplied by the Metropolitan Water Companies to districts outside the Metropolitan area. He opposed the Bill on general grounds as well, as it proposed to re-enact, detrimentally to the Companies, agreements made with them by Parliament.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEremarked that he hoped that the Bill would be passed this Session, inasmuch as it was most desirable that some fixed rule of valuation should be adopted, instead of each particular case having to be fought out between a wealthy Company on the one hand and a poor tenant on the other. He did not believe the Bill was one of confiscation, as some had asserted. The point that was really at issue had been fairly put, for within the area of the Metropolis Assessment Act there was a strict and accurate valuation which had been agreed to by the Companies concerned; and, as far as the valuation existed, those Companies ought to be reasonably called upon to abide by it. A slight modification of one clause in the Bill would satisfy the Water Companies and secure a large benefit to the country; but if it were understood that in Committee the Bill would be modified so as to limit it to the operations of the
    896
    Metropolis Valuation Act of 1869, there would be no necessity for a division on the second reading.
    MR. W. M. TORRENS,in accepting the proposal of the hon. and learned Member, said, that it had been the intention of the framers of the Bill that its provisions should only be applicable to districts within the Metropolitan area.
    MR. COOPEsaid, that he should wish to see the Bill referred to a Hybrid Committee, by whom the parties interested might be heard by counsel.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 5th March.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 11.]
  (Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Parnell, Colonel Nolan, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Healy, Mr. Huntly M'Carthy.)
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 11.]

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [4th December].
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that, inasmuch as Her Majesty's Government had undertaken to deal with the subject of this measure themselves, he should ask leave to postpone the further debate on the second reading of this Bill until Monday, it being, however, clearly understood that the promoters of this measure did not pledge themselves to withdraw it unless they were satisfied with the Government proposals. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

  COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Waugh, Mr. George Howard, Mr. Stafford Howard, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Ferguson)
  COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

    [BILL 26.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(General Sir George Balfour.)
    MR. ELTONsaid, he cordially approved of the measure.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there was no necessity for prolonging this discussion, as Her Majesty's Government would con-

    897
    sent to the second reading of the Bill. He regarded the principle of enfranchisement as one that should be encouraged.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  MOTIONS.
    LAND IMPROVEMENT AND ARTERIAL

      DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts for facilitating the improvement of Landed Property, and for the drainage and improvement of Lands in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 50.]

      CROWN LANDS BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to amend the Law relating to the management of the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues of the Crown, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 51.]

      BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to consolidate and amend certain Acts and Enactments relating to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. Bill [52.]

      ULSTER CANAL AND TYRONE NAVIGATION BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to provide for the transfer of the Ulster Canal and the Tyrone Navigation or Coalisland Canal from the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to the Lagan Navigation Company; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 53.]

      SHANNON NAVIGATION BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to make provision with respect to the maintenance of certain Piers and other works in the estuary of the River Shannon, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 54.]

      SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Bill to amend "The Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877," and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr.
      898
      CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 55.]

      DEAN AND CHAPTER BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Bill to make better provision respecting the repair of Cathedrals, and the Endowment of Deans and Chapters in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. HIBBERT.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 56.]
      House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock.