Commons Sitting of 12 March 1885

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Benjamin St. John Ackers, esquire, for Gloucester County (Western Division).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1884–5)—CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART; CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES; CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES; CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Parliamentary Elections (Second Ballot)*[94]; Barristers Admission (Ireland) * [95],
First Reading—Prevention of Crimes Amendment* [93].
Committee—Report—Elections in Counties (Hours of Poll) (re-comm.) [85].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Municipal Voters (Relief) [64], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—SCHOOL BOARD FOR LENZIE.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether his attention has been called to a memorial from the inhabitants of Lenzie, praying that facilities be given them to erect Lenzie into a School Board district;
  844
  whether it is the fact that that portion of Lenzie which is in Cadder parish has to pay an education rate of 10d., and that which is in the School Board district of Kirkintolloch a rate of 7d. in the £, and that the public schools provided are so distant and so unsuitable for the requirements of the Lenzie population that a large number of the children have to be sent for education to Glasgow; whether Her Majesty's Inspector, Dr. Kerr, has reported that the alleged deficiency in public school accomodation does actually exist, and calls for immediate remedy; whether Cadder parish is willing to sanction the disjunction for educational purposes of that portion of Lenzie which lies within it; whether the difficulty in the way of submitting the question to a decision of the sheriff does not lie in the fact that no provision is made in the Scottish Education Act for the disjunction of portions of burghal School Board districts; and, whether he will introduce, or would support, if introduced, a short Bill to enable communities included in burghal as well as rural School Board districts to apply to the sheriff for disjunction?
  MR. MUNDELLA: A Memorial has been received from the inhabitants of Lenzie to the effect stated in the Question of my hon. Friend, and the facts as set forth in the second paragraph appear to be correct. Dr. Kerr, Her Majesty's Inspector, reports that the public schools at Auchenloch are overcrowded, and those of Kirkintilloch are full. Kirkintilloch objects to the disjunction of Lenzie, while Cadder is willing on certain conditions. We have no power under the Act to separate portions of a parish and a burgh, and unite them under a school board of their own. We think it undesirable to multiply school board areas, and we should prefer that the recommendation of Dr. Kerr was acted upon, and a combination school by the parish and borough set up for Lenzie. We will endeavour to effect this, and secure for the inhabitants of Lenzie a school suitable to their requirements.
  DR. CAMERONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the inhabitants of Lenzie did not want combination?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes Sir; but it would require legislation to separate Lenzie.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ROBERT GRAHAM, CLERK TO THE GUARDIANS, COOTEHILL.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Robert Graham, clerk to the Guardians at Cootehill, gave his evidence on oath before Mr. Mathison, B.L. on 28th January 1885; what is the result of the inquiry he stated, on 5th instant, he had made; and, whether, taking into account the general conduct of Graham, and all the circumstances, he will allow him to hold his situation?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It appears that Mr. Graham's evidence before Mr. Mathison was not given on oath, but that it was verified next day by a declaration before a magistrate. Mr. Graham is the officer of the Cootehill Board of Guardians, and before coming to a decision on the case, the Local Government Board think it right to communicate with them and to invite an expression of their opinion on Mr. Graham's conduct. A letter in this sense was, I believe, sent to the Guardians yesterday.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND).
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether in any Registration Bill to be brought in for the purpose of placing on the registries the great numbers of additional voters entitled to the franchise, provision will be made for the remuneration of clerks of unions, rate collectors, and other officials, for their greatly increased duties, and if the Bill will provide that the expense shall not fall upon the ratepayers?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): The matter to which the hon. Member refers in this Question is a very important one, and is at the present moment under the consideration of the Irish Government. I will communicate the result to the hon. Member at the earliest moment.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the Irish Government would follow the course adopted in England and Scotland by asking the Irish Revising Barristers as to the character of the Bill for Ireland?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he could
  846
  not give any opinion on that matter. The Government were making the best inquiries they could.

  HER MAJESTY'S PALACE OF WINDSOR.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Junior Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true that the redecoration of Her Majesty's private suite of rooms at Windsor Castle was let on contract last year to a Mr. Cooper of Windsor; whether it is true that the contractor then relet the loose gilt portion by sub-contract, at the lowest possible price, to a cheap shop in Soho (London), and that on the work being taken to its place for fixture, the Inspector of Palaces severely condemned it as a disgraceful work, only permitting it to be fixed on account of the immediate return of Her Majesty, and, on condition, that it was taken down and re-gilt; and, whether he will see that in the letting of future contracts, guarantees shall be demanded that the work be properly and efficiently done by competent skilled labour, and not hawked about the poorest neighbourhoods of London in search of the cheapest and most inefficient labour?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE,in reply, said, he regretted he was unable to give any information on the subject. It was not a matter for which the Treasury had any responsibility.
  MR. BROADHURSTgave Notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Vote for the Lord Chamberlain's Office, he would call attention to the matter.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—MONAGHAN WORKHOUSE—DR. HALL, MEDICAL OPFICER.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the language used by Dr. Hall, the medical officer of Monaghan Workhouse, reported in The Monaghan Standard of 7th February; whether this official, presiding over an Orange Lodge, is reported to have said—
  "Some of them perhaps had read Parnell's utterances a few days ago in county Clare. He said, 'You are the descendants of the men whom Cromwell sent to hell or Connaught. He only succeeded in sending you as far as Connaught.' He (Dr. Hall) considered it was a pity they did not get sent a little further;"

  847
  whether any repudiation by Dr. Hall of the sentiments attributed to him has appeared; and, if the use of such language by public officials is to be tolerated?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have seen a letter from Dr. Hall, in which he explains that the language he used is not quite accurately represented in the newspaper report quoted in the Question. He states that his words did not point to the extreme alternative suggested, but that what he intended to convey was an expression of his opinion that it would have been for the good of the country if those who sympathized with the projects of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had gone across the Atlantic. Dr. Hall is not a public officer in the sense that his whole time is at the disposal of the public; and I do not think the incident calls for any action on the part of the Government.
  MR. HEALYasked whether Dr. Hall did not allow a month to pass before he contradicted the report?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had no information on the point.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—CAVAN CO. FREE FORCE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the police who are supposed to protect James M'Cul-lough, of Drumkilla, county Cavan, delayed behind him drinking at the fair of Bailieboro', and did not overtake him till he had got three miles from the town; whether one of the policemen was so much under the influence of drink he rolled on the road; and, whether the expense of these policemen will be charged on the ratepayers of the locality?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is no foundation for any of the allegations in this Question. The police who are protecting James M'Cullough are men of exemplary character. They are part of the Free Force of the county, and are not charged on the locality.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE RECESS POLICE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  848
  Were charges of drunkenness and assault brought against the Recess police by Thomas Lydon on the 3let October 1884; why was not a sworn inquiry granted, as demanded, and were the charges forwarded; did the police at Recess then bring two charges against Thomas Lydon, and were the cases dismissed; did the police then bring a charge against Thomas Lydon in connection with illicit whiskey, and was it dismissed on the merits; did the police appeal in the latter case, and did the Recorder of Galway attribute partiality to the Bench who dismissed the case, consisting as it did of two resident magistrates; was Lydon then convicted; and, will the Government obtain from the resident magistrates their opinion on the case, and consider the advisability of remitting the fine?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Thomas Lydon brought charges of assault and drunkenness against the police at Recess in a letter which he wrote to the District Inspector in November last. The District Inspector investigated the charges, and came to the conclusion that they were groundless. He so informed Lydon, and added that it was open to him, if he wished, to proceed against the police at Petty Sessions. Lydon did not do so, nor did he ask for a sworn inquiry, and the charges were forwarded to the County Inspector. Subsequently, the police brought two charges against Lydon—one for leaving his car on the road without a driver, and the other for furious driving. The first charge was withdrawn, and the second dismissed. Lydon was also charged with having illicit whiskey in his possession; but the Bench, on which there were two Resident Magistrates, dismissed the case on the merits. The Recorder of Galway afterwards reversed this decision, on appeal, and convicted Lydon, and I understand he expressed the opinion that the case was a very clear one. If Lydon desires a remission or mitigation of the penalty imposed, the proper course would be for him to address a Memorial to the Lord Lieutenant, and the facts of the case would then be investigated.
  MR. HEALYasked whether there were not more appeals?

  ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC—ALLEGED CESSION OF ISLANDS.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement made by the late Governor General of Canada in The Nineteenth Century:—
  "It should not be possible for Downing Street to negotiate with France about the abrogation of her fishing rights in Newfoundland without informing Canada of what is contemplated. It should not be possible for British Ministers to propose that France be given islands in the Pacific in lieu of rights in Newfoundland without consulting Australia;"
  whether the negotiations referred to by Lord Lorne are still pending, or are come to a conclusion; which are the islands in the Pacific that the Government proposed to give to France without consulting Australia; and, whether, before any Treaty is concluded, full information on the subject will be given to the Governments of the Australian Colonies and New Zealand and to the British Parliament?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I have noticed the statement in question. The negotiations referred to are still pending. They relate to the Society Islands, part of the Tahiti group, and at a great distance from any part of Australia. They involve no cession of territory to France, but a possible waiver of rights under a declaration relating to those Islands in return for reciprocal concessions. There is no question of the conclusion of any Treaty. The interests of the Australian Colonies in these negotiations will not be lost sight of; but there is nothing which calls for any departure from the usual course of proceeding in such matters.

  THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—DUTY ON BEER.
  MR. HICKSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in consideration of the very serious and continued reduction in the value of barley since the substitution of a Duty on Beer for the Malt Duty, a measure which was brought in professedly to benefit the farmers, he will make provision in the Budget for a reduction of the Duty on Beer brewed from malt and hops, to a sum representing the real equivalent of the Duty on Malt under the old system?
  THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I am afraid that my only answer to the hon. Member must be that I cannot tell him or the House what will be in my Budget before I make my Financial Statement next month.
  MR. HICKSgave Notice that he would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would state the number of quarters of barley returned in 1884 as having been sold below 32 s. per quarter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THEEXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I cannot give that information; it is not in my power.

  NAVY—ARMOURED VESSELS—ERROR IN RETURNS.
  SIR EDWARD J. REEDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, With reference to the Return of Her Majesty's "Ships Built and Building" lately presented by him to this House, with what object he has inserted, under the heading "Armoured Vessels," seventeen recently built vessels which are not armoured, and which were described as "Unarmoured Vessels" in the Return "Navy (Ships Built)," presented to Parliament by Command of Her Majesty in August last, and printed by Order of this House; and, whether the Diagram attached to his Return, which purports to compare the tonnage of "Armoured Ships" built by the present Board of Admiralty with that built by their predecessors has been so constructed as to comprise all, or any, of these seventeen unarmoured ships; and, if so, whether he will cause an amended Return and Diagram, to be forthwith presented, showing the correct amounts of armoured tonnage?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: I regret that the error to which the Question refers should have escaped observation. It will be corrected in an amended Return. I desire to add that the Return which has been presented to the House is intended to combine all the particulars which have hitherto been given in Returns moved for by the late Mr. Laird, the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigtown Burghs, and by my Predecessors in the Office of Secretary to the Admiralty. In the Diagram attached to the Return the tonnage of "Armoured Ships" does not include any unarmoured ships, except for the

  851
  year 1882–3, when the Polyphemus and Mersey were classed as armoured.
  SIR EDWAED J. REEDsaid, he should like to ask whether, in view of the great importance of the error, it had been traced to its source?
  [No reply.]

  SPAIN—COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS —THE SPANISH ANTILLES.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is now prepared to state whether the Government intend to enter upon any negotiations for the purpose of relieving British trade with the Spanish Antilles from the adverse differential treatment to which it is now subjected?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir Robert Morier, who has returned to Madrid, has been instructed to bring forward this subject in the negotiations which he will enter upon with the Spanish Government during his stay in that capital.

  CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the appointment of a new Committee on Civil Service Expenditure, he will, in accordance with the spirit of the Report of a former Committee of this House, of which he was Chairman, order a suspension of all new appointments to Class I. and the Upper Division clerkships, particularly as the inquiry may show that there will be a redundancy of such appointments in various Departments; whether any temporary inconvenience occasioned by the suspension of new appointments might not readily be met by the transfer of men who are already declared to be redundant in certain Departments; whether he has been able to transfer any of the redundant clerks from the Customs to fill vacancies in Class I. or the Higher Division elsewhere; and, whether he is aware that, notwithstanding his statement and the recommendations of the Committee of which he was Chairman, and the fact of there being an existing redundancy in certain offices, the Civil Service Commissioners have just held an examination for new appointments to Class I. and the Upper Division?
  THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The hon. Member can hardly have appreciated the meaning of the answer which I gave to him on the 7th of November last. I explained to him that until lately I had had nothing to do with the matters with which the Report of the Committee of 1873 dealt; and I pointed out to him that the recommendations of the Committee itself, even if they had been followed out, were not what the hon. Member's Question implied. As to the present position of the question, the appointment of the Committee on Civil Service Expenditure is resisted, and perhaps it will not be carried. But even if it is carried, I cannot assume that its inquiries will result in all appointments to superior clerkships being suspended, and it is quite clear to me that the present redundant Customs clerks are not competent to fill several offices which are or may become vacant. As to his third Question, no redundant clerks from the Customs have been appointed to fill vacancies in the first class. They passed examinations of a very inferior character to those which first-class clerks are required to pass.

  SOUTH AFRICA—WHITE ADVENTURERS IN STELLALAND.
  MR. A. M'ARTHUR (for Sir WILLIAM M'ARTHUR)asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true, as reported in the Cape papers, that Mr. Rhodes, the Deputy Commissioner, promised the white adventurers in Stella-land that the titles to land contained in the register of the so-called Government of that territory would be recognised by England; and, if so, whether it is the Intention of Her Majesty's Government to sanction grants of land without inquiry as to whether they were obtained from the natives by legal means or by violence?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I am unable to add anything to the information which is already in the possession of my hon. Friend in the Blue Books laid last year before Parliament. In. July Mr. Mackenzie entered into the following undertaking (page 125, C. 4,194, August):—
  "I ratify the claims to the farms which were drawn by lottery by the original volunteers under David Massouw, or otherwise that farms of equal value or fair compensation be granted to those volunteers or the holders of their titles."

  853
  In September, Mr. Rhodes, who had succeeded Mr. Mackenzie, ratified this, and agreed (page 123, C. 4,213, October) "that the land titles of Stellaland be recognized." Early in December, Sir Charles Warren announced to the Stellalanders that the settlement would be adhered to. Sir Hercules Robinson, a few days later, telegraphed that, in his opinion, the settlement of the 8th of September should be adhered to, and the Secretary of State, in reply, approved. The principle adopted, therefore, appears to be that, provided the White men can be confirmed in their present occupation on conditions equitable for the Natives, Her Majesty's Government do not, as at present advised, propose to interfere. They reserve, however, all final conclusions until they have the result of the investigation which, apparently, is now being conducted by Sir Charles Warren, as there may be cases in which it would be impossible to sanction the grant.

  ZANZIBAR-SUCCESSION TO THE SOVEREIGNTY.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government will lay upon the Table Papers relating to the succession to the Sovereignity of Zanzibar?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The subject of the succession has not been discussed by Her Majesty's Government. There are consequently no Papers to be laid.
  MR. BOURKE: Are there any Papers upon the subject which have come into the possession of the Government since they came into Office?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am not aware of any, but I will inquire.

  EGYPT—PRINCE BISMARCK—THE PAPERS.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government can lay upon the Table any Despatch supporting the statement of Prince Bismarck, that upon several occasions he had been asked to tender "advice or a hint" to the English Government as to how it should deal with Egypt, or as to what it might do in Egypt which would at the same time meet with the approval of Prince Bismarck?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government do not propose to lay any more Papers, whether of the time of the late or of the present Administration, relating to the controversy in question.

  WEST AFRICAN CONFERENCE—THE PAPERS.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Papers relating to the West African Conference will be laid upon the Table?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Despatches from Sir Edward Malet, giving the results of the Conference, were distributed yesterday. The remainder of the Papers will be laid as soon as the translations of the Protocols and accompanying Papers are completed. It is expect that they will be ready next week.
  MR. BOURKE: Cannot the Convention be laid on the Table?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: All Protocols and Papers will be in the hands of Members next week.

  BRITISH MINISTERS ABROAD—THE EMBASSY AT CONSTANTINOPLE.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, How much longer is this Country to be left unrepresented by an Ambassador at the Ottoman Porte?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir Edward Thornton will proceed to Constantinople as Her Majesty's Ambassador as soon as the requirements of the Public Service will permit of his leaving St. Petersburg.

  NAVY—THE ENGINEERS' COMMITTEE —THE REPORT.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will state the reason for the delay in coming to a conclusion on the Report of the Committee which was laid before the Lords Commissioners in November or December last; and when action on the Report may be expected?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: The Report of the Committee on the Engineers has led to the consideration of many important questions of detail with reference to relative rank, retiring allowance, and uniform. It has not yet been possible

  855
  to arrive at a conclusion on all these points.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT(SCOTLAND) —EDUCATION IN THE HIGHLANDS— MR CRAIK'S REPORT.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether his attention has been directed to the following paragraph in Paper (C. 4,261, of 1884, page 4), written by Mr. Craik of the Scottish Education Department:—
  "I may perhaps be permitted to refer to the regret expressed to me by several of those who take an interest in Education in the Highlands, that statements with regard to the Education Acts were admitted in evidence by the Commissioners without being subjected to the test of cross-examination, which would have been most useful in exposing their fallacies, and perhaps in explaining more fully to the people the advantages of making use of the opportunities which the Acts throw open;"
  whether he is aware that the sittings of the Crofters' Commission, referred to in the above paragraph, were advertised, and all the evidence taken in public; whether the inquiries made by Mr. Craik were conducted in private; whether he will order the notes (if any) taken by Mr. Craik at the time of his inquiries, to be published and laid upon the Table, giving dates, localities, and persons; and, whether, if this cannot be done, he will order the paragraph reflecting upon a public Commission, to be withdrawn and cancelled?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Mr. Craik assures me that he had no intention of reflecting upon the Commission. He was instructed to inquire and report to the Department as to the best means of meeting the educational requirements of the crofters, and he naturally made himself acquainted with the views of those in the localities who are most interested, and have had most to do with educational work. I have myself heard similar expressions of regret that more evidence of the kind referred to was not taken by the Commission. I understand that some Members of the Commission have expressed their satisfaction with the Report. There are no notes of Mr. Craik's that can be laid on the Table of this House.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA)— THE QUETTA RAILWAY.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If
  856
  he is now prepared to state what progress has been made with the Quetta Railway; whether the means of communication with Quetta by railway will be accelerated by means of works of a temporary character; and whether any works for a military railway will be undertaken in the direction of Candahar?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The despatch from the Government of India on the subject of this railway has now been received. The whole of the earthwork from Hurnai to Gurkai, 65 miles, with the exception of the heavy cutting at Mud Gorge, and some other trifling portions, has been completed. More than half of the tunnel headings of the Chappar Rift have been driven through; material for most of the bridges has been collected; and the final portion of the line to Quetta has been planned and marked out. The line will probably be opened throughout for traffic in the course of 1887–8. I am not able to say how far it might be possible to accelerate the communications by means of works of a temporary character. There is no present intention of extending the line beyond Shebo.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked if the hon. Gentleman would inquire whether the works could be accelerated?
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, that as soon as the tunnel was completed it might be possible to accelerate the other portion of the works. He would make inquiry.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—OLDCASTLE PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. SHEILasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the ratepayers of the Union of Oldcastle, in the county of Meath, are burdened with the sum of £150 for the maintenance of an illegitimate and deserted child named James Farelly; that the magistrates of the Oldcastle Petty Sessions signed a warrant for the arrest of the mother of the said child, which they afterwards cancelled; that by so acting the magistrates enabled the putative father, a wealthy Protestant, to avoid the payment of maintenance for the child; whether the conduct of the magistrates was legal; and, whether redress will be given to the ratepayers of Oldcastle?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A complaint similar to that described in this Question has been made by the Board of Guardians of Oldcastle Union

  857
  to the Lord Chancellor, who, after investigating the circumstances, has arrived at the conclusion that the magistrates were perfectly right in recalling the warrant, which, on the face of it, was illegal. He adds that by so doing they did not in any way enable the person who by law was liable to pay for the maintenance of the child to avoid that payment.

  ARMY-ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH—CADETS.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Gentlemen Cadets of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich have, this term, been deprived of two small intermediate meals, to which they had previously been accustomed; whether this has been done from motives of economy or retrenchment; and, whether, since the interval between 7.55 A.M. for breakfast, and 2.15 P.M. for luncheon, is larger than is desirable for growing youths undergoing constant exertion, mentally and bodily, he will inquire whether the scale of charges already paid for board and education may not be sufficient to admit of a better arrangement?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Some variation has been made in the hours of the principal meals in the interests of the cadets themselves and on the recommendation of the medical officer. This has involved the abolition of two small meals, but the luncheon has been improved. It is not anticipated that any saving will result from the change. I may add that the cadets are understood to be pleased with the new arrangement.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked whether the noble Marquess did not think that the interval between 7.55 A.M. and 2.15 P.M. was too long for growing youths, who were constantly employed, to go without food?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The medical authorities are better able to judge of that than I am.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTIONS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, as President of the Local Government Board in Ireland, he will take steps to secure that, in the forthcoming Poor Law elections, the returning
  858
  officers shall be required to perform their duties in an impartial manner; whether he will direct them either to furnish copies of the lists of electors in full to the candidates or their agents on receiving reasonable payment for same, or else permit them to copy the lists during office hours; and, as the claims to vote lodged by owners of property contain long and complicated details necessarily requiring time to examine in order to ascertain their correctness, whether he will direct the returning officers to give facilities for the inspection of same by the candidates and their agents before the scrutiny of votes is held?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Local Government Board have no reason to apprehend that the Returning Officers will not discharge their duties at the coming elections in an impartial manner, and they see no necessity to make special regulations to govern their proceedings, or to amend the General Order on the subject, which has been in force for many years. The Local Government Board have recently re-issued to Returning Officers their instructions as to the mode in which these elections are to be conducted.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked whether it was not a fact that during the past three or four years numerous complaints were made against the Returning Officers in the Unions of Baltinglass, Rathdrum, and Shillelagh by popular candidates, and that upon investigation the elections of several Conservative candidates were declared void; and whether the right hon. Gentleman considered that a satisfactory state of things to which he would give his sanction?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am aware that there have been numerous complaints. What I say is that there is no need for new regulations, and the old regulations, if properly carried out, are sufficient; and, by way of stimulating the memory of the Returning Officers, the Local Government Board have re-issued those regulations.

  EPPING FOREST ACT, 1878—SALE OF LANDS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has observed that it is intended to sell about four acres of Epping Forest to the Woodford Local

  859
  Board; and, whether such sale is not in contravention of "The Epping Forest Act, 1878," s. 7, sub-section 2, which says—
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act the Conservators shall not sell, demise, or otherwise alienate any part of the Forest?"
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had received information from the City authorities that this land was taken by the Woodford Local Board under the compulsory powers conferred upon them by the Public Health Act of 1882. The civic authorities, therefore, had no option in the matter.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—TIPPERARY GRAND JURY—BENEDINE BRIDGE, NENAGH.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland agreed to give the Grand Jury of the county Tipperary a sum of £200, for the construction of a suitable approach to Benedine Bridge, near Nenagh, on the Company's Line from Nenagh to Bird Bill; whether said approach would run through the lands of Mr. George Bolton, Crown Solicitor for the county, and whether Mr. George Bolton subsequently received the sum of £200 from the Grand Jury; whether Mr. George Bolton had not, for his own convenience, agreed to construct the new approach at his own expense, if the Grand Jury allowed him to receive the £200; whether the presentment for the nominal sum of 2s. 6d. for the construction of said approach was taken out by Mr. Bolton's clerk and steward, William Clear, in the year 1878, and a portion of the approach laid out; whether the approach has not yet been made, and does Mr. Bolton, notwithstanding, still retain the £200; whether Mr. Bolton is solicitor to the Grand Jury; and, what course the Government will take in the matter?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have received a telegram from the secretary of the Grand Jury of Tipperary, in which he states that a presentment was made for 2s. 6d. by the Nenagh Grand Jury to legalize an-alteration in a road through the Bolton property. The Railway Company contributed £200, which Mr. Bolton received. The works are nearly finished,
  860
  and the old road is not interfered with. Mr. Bolton is solicitor to the Grand Jury. There is nothing in this which calls for the interference of Government.

  ARMY—THE ROYAL ENGINEERS— MILITARY FOREMEN OF WORKS.
  MR. CAUSTONasked the Secretary of State for War, If the Military Foremen of Works of the Royal Engineers, referred to in his reply to the honourable and learned Member for Chatham on 2nd March, will, when commissioned, perform the duties of Regimental Quartermaster or duties of a professional nature in the Royal Engineer Department?
  THE MARQUSS OF HARTINGTON: It is not contemplated that these quartermasters should perform regimental duty. The duties will be strictly professional in the Royal Engineer Department. The hon. Member may not be aware that the rank of quartermaster is conferred in several cases which do not involve regimental duty as such.

  ARMY—QUARTERMASTERS.
  MR. CAUSTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the statements of the disabilities of Army Quartermasters, which have been recently received in the War Office, had been previously seen, supported, and recommended by His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief or by the Adjutant General of the Army?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The statements respecting the position of the quartermasters have been under the consideration of various branches of the War Department, including, of course, the Military Departments; but it is contrary to official practice to publish the opinions given confidentially to the Secretary of State by his military advisers.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY—PHOTOGRAPHS OF PICTURES.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked the Junior Lord of the Treasury, as representing the First Commissioner of Public Works, Whether he can state what were the arrangements under which Messrs. Braun and Co. of Germany, and Messrs. Goupil and Co. of Paris were allowed to photograph the pictures at the National Gallery; whether any English firm of pho-

  861
  tographers would be allowed the same facilities as to taking pictures from the walls or removing the glass, or otherwise, as were allowed to those firms, or either of them, or would be allowed the use of the front of the Gallery for any temporary building; whether any arrangement was made with Messrs. Braun and Co. or Messrs. Goupil and Co. as to the price at which the pictures were to be sold, or as to allowing any copies free of cost to any public institution; whether any payment was made by Messrs. Braun and Co. or Messrs. Goupil and Co. for the privileges accorded to them; and, whether he will lay upon the Table any Papers relating to the subject?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEwas understood to say that the Office of Works, on the recommendation of the Trustees of the National Gallery, assented to the erection of the temporary building necessary for the photographing of these pictures, as they would in any similar case recommended by the Trustees. The question of the photographing was one for the consideration of the Trustees, over whom the Office of Works had no authority. The only papers in the Office of Works were the two letters asking and giving the above-mentioned permission.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—TRAWLING.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been directed to that portion of the Report of the Royal Commission on Trawling which states that in-shore fishermen and fishing may be sometimes injured by trawling; if he is aware that trawling is prohibited in Dublin Bay, but has lately been allowed in Galway Bay; is he aware that the Galway fishermen are opposed to trawling; and, will he take steps to renew the former prohibition in Galway Bay?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I explained to the hon. and gallant Member in November last the circumstances in which, after a series of inquiries and experiments carried on for four years, it was decided in 1877 to allow trawling in Galway Bay. The Inspectors of Fisheries inform me that they have not since seen any reason to alter the decision then arrived at. I have not yet seen the Report of the
  862
  Royal Commission on Trawling, which I understand has not yet been distributed. If the hon. and gallant Member desires it, I shall be happy to lay on the Table a copy of the Reports which led up to the result I have mentioned in 1877.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE NEW WORKS AT MEELICK.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that the new cutting by the Board of Works between Victoria Lock and Hamilton Lock at Meelick went right through the way by which many people in the district had access to the chapel and post office at Meelick, and that now they have to go a round of nearly two miles for that purpose; and, whether the Board of Works will be directed to restore the way over the Shannon where it before existed, which the people claim as a right?
  MR. HIBBERT: I have looked into the matter with the aid of a map. There does not appear to have been any right of way. At the same time, it is possible that inconvenience may have been caused to the people of the district by the new works. Local inquiries will be made, and if it should be proved that any hardship is appreciable in amount or extent to a considerable number of people, steps will be taken to remedy it.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES—REPORTS OF THE REGISTRARS.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to the fact that the Reports of the Registrars of Friendly Societies are delivered many months after date, when the information contained in them is, in many respects, obsolete; and, if he will take steps to secure an earlier circulation of the Reports?
  MR. HIBBERT: The Reports of the Registrars of Friendly Societies are generally delivered many months after the close of the year to which they relate; but this can hardly be said to make them obsolete. New arrangements have been made, which will enable them to be brought out somewhat earlier in future. The Returns on which these Reports are based are by Statute not due until June, and often come in much

  863
  later. These Returns have to be examined and abstracted before publication; and as the results are very voluminous, containing large masses of figures, it is therefore not possible to expedite publication beyond a certain point. A new arrangement, however, has been made, which it is hoped may facilitate.
  MR. BROADHUCSTasked, whether the delay was not mainly owing to the great want of sufficient labour in this very useful Department?
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he believed the delay rested mainly with the Friendly Societies themselves.

  THE QUEEN'S COLLEGES, IRELAND— PROFESSOR D'ARCY THOMPSON.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the full amount of pension to which Professor D'Arcy Thompson would be entitled, if appointed Librarian, would be seventy-five pounds per annum; if, since the date of his appointment as Acting Librarian in 1876, the Irish Government have made twenty-nine appointments in the three Queen's Colleges, all entitled to full pensions, namely: two Presidencies; three Librarianships; one Registrar-ship; and twenty-three Professorships; and, whether, under these circumstances, the Government will persist in refusing Professor D'Arcy Thompson's reasonable claim after twenty-one years' service in the service of the Crown in Ireland?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: £75 is the salary of the office of Librarian in the Queen's College, Galway, and Professor Thompson receives that sum as Acting Librarian. The amount of his pension will depend upon the length of his service when he comes to retire. It is true that several appointments to which pensions are attached have been made in the Queen's Colleges since 1876, but that is not the point. The question is whether the Government should now create this new vested interest in connection with the Queen's Colleges; and, having regard to all the circumstances, they have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion in the negative.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the maximum Professor D'Arcy Thompson would be entitled to?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot say.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to give Notice that, in consequence of the unsatisfactory answers of the right hon. Gentleman, I will call attention to the matter on another occasion.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—SUMMONS FOR TRESPASS IN HUNTING AT BAGENALSTOWN.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If the Bagenelstown magistrates allege as a reason for dismissing the summons of Mr. M'Grath against the huntsman Duffield that there was no evidence of wilful tresspass; if so, was any witness called for Duffield; did he appear himself in support of this contention; or is it the fact that the prosecutor was the only witness in the case, and that he proved the trespass and the order to leave his holding, but that the Bench nevertheless said M'Grath had only a civil remedy?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): I have no precise information, but am willing to assume that M'Grath was the only witness examined, and that he proved that Duffield entered upon his lands while hunting, and that he ordered him to leave. Under these circumstances, I think the magistrates were right in holding that such a trespass was not wilful or malicious so as to constitute an offence punishable by summary conviction, but was the subject of a civil action.
  MR. HEALY: Might I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, as he has now given a legal opinion, is it his view that if a huntsman trespasses on the lands of a farmer he has no remedy but a civil action?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND: That is my opinion.

  POOR LAW ELECTIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board in Ireland will permit returning officers at Poor Law elections to cause voting papers for non-resident voters to be sent to the houses of other persons without having received any instructions to that effect from the voters themselves, or even with such instructions; and, if in

  865
  the latter case only, then in what form should such instructions be given; whether non-resident voters should not attend at the office of the returning officer, there receive a voting paper, and fill up same in the presence of the officer; and, whether the Local Government Board will permit returning officers to cause such voting papers in considerable numbers to be left at the offices of political agents, or at Orange Lodges, to be there filled up by the persons in charge of these establishments?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The instructions of the Local Government Board are that voting papers for non-resident voters and proxies are to be delivered at the respective places appointed by them in the electoral division or ward. If any case is brought to the notice of the Board in which the Returning Officer deviated from his instructions in this respect, the Board will be prepared to take due notice of the matter.

  BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any steps will be taken to remove the inequality in the Intermediate Education Board in Ireland, where there are three Catholic Members, and four who are not Catholic; whether one necessary result of the existing condition of things is that if a member, not a Catholic, is absent through illness or other causes, both sides are equal, whereas if a Catholic is absent the result is four against two; whether this was not actually the case during a long time in consequence of the failing health of the late Lord O'Hagan; whether it is a fact that whereas there are a Protestant clergyman and a Presbyterian minister on the Board, there is no Roman Catholic clergymen; and, whether the great majority of the students examined, and the successful students, are Catholics from Catholic schools?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Board of Intermediate Education in Ireland is a mixed Board, consisting of three Roman Catholics, two Protestant Episcopalians, and two Presbyterians. The majority of the students examined, and of the successful students, are, I understand, Roman Catholics. Assum-
  866
  ing, for the moment, what I regard as most unlikely—namely, that this Board, which deals with no religious questions, always divides as Catholics and non-Catholics, no doubt the results would be, as stated in the Question, if a member of one side or the other were absent, and all the other members were present; and theoretical contingencies of the kind may be almost indefinitely multiplied; but the defect—if it is one—is not peculiar to the Intermediate Board. The true test is the practical result; and the Government have no reason to suppose that the existing arrangement does not work well, or that the public are dissatisfied with it. It is true that hitherto there has been no Roman Catholic clergyman on the Board; but this will no longer be the case, as His Excellency has just appointed the Rev. John Egan, D.D., a Fellow of the Royal University, and at one time Principal of the Ennis Diocesan Training College, to the seat rendered vacant by the death of Lord O'Hagan.

  NEW GUINEA—OCCUPATION OF NORTHERN COAST BY GERMANY.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have reason to believe that the Northern Coast of New Guinea has been, or is about to be, taken over by a private German Association for colonization and administration similar to the British North Borneo Company; whether such an arrangement would give Germany any greater sovereign rights in New Guinea than Great Britain has in Borneo; and, whether the right of such private Association to exercise jurisdiction over British subjects will be recognized by Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: In reply to the first Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, Her Majesty's Government have no information as to the proposed administration of the Northern Coast of New Guinea by a private German Association similar to the North Borneo Company. In reply to the second Question, no sovereign rights are claimed by Great Britain in Borneo. The third is a hypothetical Question, and cannot be answered without a knowledge of the conditions under which such an Association would claim to exercise jurisdiction.
  MR. GORST: I would ask whether Her Majesty's Government will make some inquiry as to the practical administration under which North New Guinea is placed by the German Government?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Of course, we always make inquiries in such cases.

  CYPRUS—M. BISTACHI, CHIEF INSPECTOR OF REVENUE.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is a fact that, on the sworn information of Mr. C. Sarsboghi, clerk to the Nicosia magistrates, a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Bistachi, Chief Inspector to Revenue, was issued; whether, during the period between the swearing of the information, its consideration by Sir Robert Biddulph, and the placing of the warrant in the hands of the police, Mr. Bistachi was allowed to leave the Island; whether the police have followed him, and whether any steps will be taken to secure his arrest; and, whether it is a fact that the Auditor occupies the same dwelling-house at Nicosia as Bistachi did up to the day of his absconding?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The sworn information of Mr. Saripolos was not preferred until after Mr. Bistachi had left Cyprus for Alexandria on leave of absence. He was immediately ordered by telegram to return, and has telegraphed that he will do so. The police would have no authority to arrest him in Egypt, where he had gone; and the offence with which he is charged—namely, receiving a bribe, is not an extraditable offence within the Schedule of the Cyprus Extradition Order in Council, 1881. Though we have no official information as to the latter part of the Question, I believe it to be a fact that the two gentlemen referred to, being bachelors, occupy separate parts of one large building.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether it was within the knowledge of the Colonial Office that Petitions, largely signed by both Greeks and Catholics, had been presented through the Christian Mission praying that the corrupt administration of Cyprus may cease, that the British will evacuate the Island, and that it may join the Hellenic Kingdom?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I have no knowledge of it.

  ORDNANCE SURVEY—COUNTY OF HEREFORD.
  MR. RANKINasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the cause of the great delay in the completion of the survey of the county of Hereford, and when it is probable that the 25-inch scale maps will be published for that county; and, whether it would be practicable to publish maps of those portions of the county which were already completely surveyed without waiting for the completion of the survey of the whole county?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: The detailed survey of Herefordshire was begun last year, and has been proceeded with uninterruptedly, more than half the county having now been surveyed. There has been no delay in carrying on the work. The publication of the maps on the 25-inch and 6-inch scales of the northern portion of the county has been commenced, and will be continued as the plans of the different parishes are finished, as usual, without waiting1 for the completion of the survey of the whole county. I am not able to give the hon. Member a specific date when the publication of the plans of the entire county will be finished.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT— TEACHERS IN VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS —MR. DRAPER.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether his attention has been called to the dismissal of Mr. E. Draper, who had been for twenty-six years master of the parochial school of St. Giles, Northampton, for "want of sympathy with the general religious and church work of the parish, as evinced by his long-continued absence from the church," and the unsatisfactory Government Report just received; whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Draper's school earned more than 17 s.. 6d. per head and the "good merit" grant, the Department has its dissatisfaction with Mr. Draper; and, whether want of sympathy with the general religious and church work of a parish is to be regarded as a fitting reason for the dismissal of a master of a school receiving a Government grant?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Education Department has no complaint whatever

  869
  against Mr. Draper. He is a good and successful teacher, his school was well reported on at the last examination, and he has earned a good grant. But it must be borne in mind that the teachers are the servants of the managers, not of the Education Department; and we have no power to interfere with the dismissal of a teacher by the managers of a voluntary school, whether the reasons for dismissal are justifiable or not.

  THE ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS— ADMINISTRATION BY THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether he proposes, during the present Session, to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the administration of the Endowed Schools Act by the Charity Commission; or whether he proposes to defer the inquiry until the new Parliament?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I was fully prepared to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Endowed Schools Acts; but on conferring with several Members who are anxious for inquiry I found them all agreed that an inquiry during the present Session would prove abortive, and that it would be better to postpone it until the first Session of a new Parliament. Under these circumstances, I do not propose to move for a Committee this Session unless it is the general wish of the House that I should do so.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked if the Charity Commissioners would postpone the completion of any further scheme until the Committee should have reported, or, at least, those schemes such as were proposed for Sutton Coldfield and Horsham—with respect to which it was alleged that the rights of the poorer classes were being taken away in order to provide higher education at a cheap rate for the children of the rich—should be held over?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I said, that it was impossible to arrest the work. The Commissioners would go on completing their schemes. He knew nothing of the schemes until they came before the Education Department. If there were any schemes involving such a question as that alluded to he would think it his duty to suspend them.

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS—IRREGULAR PUBLICATION—THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRAWLING.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has yet been able to ascertain whether the irregularity of the Report of the Royal Commission on Trawling having been sent to the newspapers one week before it was laid upon the Table of this House, is owing to a breach of confidence on the part of the Government printer, or any other person having official access to the papers of the Commission; and, if not, could he explain the way in which it occurred? He begged to say that it was not his intention to make any insinuation against the Government printer or any other official; but he had not been allowed to put the Question as he framed it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that, so far as he could make out, there was no breach of confidence on the part of anyone. The Report of the Commission ought to have been sent to the Home Office; but by some blunder it was sent to the Board of Trade. It reached the Board of Trade on the 28th of February; but it did not find its way to the Home Office till last Saturday. In the meantime, it was supposed that the Report had been sent to the Home Office, by whom it would have been communicated to the Queen and to the House of Commons, and in consequence of that the Report was allowed to be published. The whole thing arose from the blunder of sending it to the Board of Trade, who could not communicate the document to the Queen or the House of Commons.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: When will it be circulated?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It was circulated last Monday.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: It has not yet been circulated.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Then I shall make inquiries.
  MR. RAIKES: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to state that the publication referred to was made by some official of the Board of Trade?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, Sir; I understand that either the Chairman or the Secretary of the Commission, believing it to have been duly communicated to the Queen and the House of

  871
  Commons, thought, in the ordinary course, it might be circulated.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— KASSALA.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any further information respecting the garrison of Kassala, or whether there has been any further communication with that garrison; and, what are the numbers of the garrison and the inhabitants, respectively, according to the latest advices? The hon. Member added: I wish also to ask another Question on a telegram which I have only received during the last hour, and of which, therefore, I could give no Notice—
  "According to rumours from Cairo, Kassala has fallen. Any how, mere question of time. Doubtful if Sultan has ever been bonâ fide invited to co-operate on fair terms."
  I should like to ask whether the Sultan has been on fair terms invited to cooperate?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In reply to the first portion of the hon. Member's Question, I have no further information to give than that contained in the replies already given in this House. According to a statement contained in Sir Evelyn Baring's despatch of December 3, 1883 (Egypt, No. 1,1884, p. 125), the garrison consisted of 1,259 men. The population in 1881 is stated by Captain Gascoigne to have been from 25,000 to 30,000.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: Will the noble Lord answer the further Question?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I must ask the hon. Baronet to put the further Question on the Paper.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Robat Pass, the only pass through the mountains north of Herat available for a railway, is now in Russian or in Afghan possession; and, whether it is within the territory claimed by Russia, but shown in Russian maps to belong to Afghanistan?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Russians have not occupied the
  872
  Robat Pass. I have no reason to believe that it is the only pass through the mountains north of Herat available for a railway. The House will agree with me that it is not desirable, in the present state of the negotiations, to give information as to the claims of Russia.
  MR. GOURLEY (for Mr. STOREY)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has noticed the following extract quoted in The Times of Tuesday from The North German Gazette—
  "We have before us a map prepared by the Secretary of State for India, and described as compiled principally from original authorities, in which the boundary of Merv and Herat is drawn about 25 English miles south of the confluence of the Khushk with the Murghab, and 19 miles south of that very Penjdeh, lying on the left bank of the Murghab, and still about 94 miles north of Herat;"
  and, whether the India Office is cognizant of, or responsible for, any such map?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The map referred to by The North German Gazette is apparently one of Persia prepared at the India Office in 1875 by Major St. John. This map possesses no authority whatever as to any portion of country lying outside the Persian Frontier; but in this map there is a point upon the Khushk River, 25 miles south of the confluence of that river with the Murghab, marked as the boundary between Merv and Herat. All the maps of Turkestan prepared between 1872 and 1883 under the authority of the Government of India show the boundary between Merv and Herat to the north of Penjdeh.

  LAW AND POLICE (ENGLAND)—POLICE AS GAMEKEEPERS—ARREST OF LABOURERS FOR PICKING UP A DEAD RABBIT.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a statement in The Daily News of Tuesday last, to the following effect:—Two labourers, James and Thomas Wilson, were engaged in cutting wood, when they were taken into custody by a gamekeeper and a policeman, and one of them charged before the magistrates at Ashford (Kent) Petty Sessions with "going round as if to see if there was anybody about, and then taking up a rabbit." According to the evidence of

  873
  the witnesses, Thomas Wilson had no hand in the business, and was at work when his brother James found the rabbit, which he does not hesitate to declare was placed there by the gamekeeper or the policeman, or by both. The Bench sentenced the two men to twenty-one days' imprisonment, with hard labour; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the circumstances of the case, and will state whether policemen, who are paid by public money, can be legally employed to act as gamekeepers to private persons?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that as he had not had time to ascertain the facts of the case, he would request the hon. Gentleman to postpone the Question.

  LAW AND POLICE—WANDSWORTH POLICE COURT.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has lately again been called by the Local Authorities to the very defective and inadequate accommodation of the Wandsworth Police Court, whereby grave inconvenience and serious impediments to the due administration of justice are occasioned; and, whether he persists in his determination to defer dealing with this matter until after the indefinite date of the passing of the London Government Bill?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have never disputed that the inadequate accommodation at the police court referred to has been the cause of great inconvenience to the public, and I have long endeavoured to get the evil remedied. But I can now only repeat to the hon. Baronet the advice I gave him some months ago. I have exhausted my resources, and I am sorry to say I cannot get the necessary money. I shall be very glad, therefore, if the hon. Baronet will turn his batteries towards the Secretary to the Treasury instead of towards me.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEsaid, that as it was impossible for him to turn any battery on to the Treasury, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman on Monday whether his determination not to deal with this subject until the London Government Bill had passed would not have the effect of inflicting great inconvenience on the people of the
  874
  Wandsworth district for several years; and, whether the want of a proper court would not increase whether the London Government Bill passed or not?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I will answer that Question at once. I have no such determination as that attributed to me by the hon. Baronet in the second half of this Question. On the contrary, I have been labouring week after week and month after month to get this thing done; and I do not mean to postpone the matter until after the passing of the London Government Bill.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—THE SUAKIN-BERBER RAILWAY—SUPPLY OF PUMPS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, with reference to a letter he read from Messrs. Tangye alleging that the pumps for the Suakin-Berber water service could not be obtained for some months in England, Whether he is aware that the pumps for the Aldershot experimental service were ordered by Mr. Tweddle Messrs. S. Owens and Co. on the 20th May last, and were completed and sent to Aldershot on the 4th June, and that Messrs. S. Owens and Co. made all the oil line pumps required by Mr. Tweddle for the Caucasus; if he will state on what date the order for the pumps now making was given to Mr. Tweddle, and on what date they will be delivered in England; and, whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Agreement with Messrs. Edwards and Tweddle?
  MR. BRAND: Yes, Sir; the pumps for the Aldershot trial were ordered from Messrs. Owens and Co., and the orders were completed in about the time mentioned; but they were not duplex pumps. They were much smaller than those required for the Suakin route. Mr. Tweddle informs me that he ordered three sets of Blake's large duplex American pumps from Messrs. Owens for use in the Caucasus; but he considers that they are inferior to the Worthington pumps. The right hon. Gentleman will confer a personal favour upon me if he will make inquiries and inform the House as to the time occupied by Messrs. Owens in completing the order. I venture to say that the further he pursues his inquiry the more he will find that the action of the Depart-

  875
  ment was fully justified. The present pumps were ordered on the 25th of February. The first arrived on March 3. Mr. Tweddle having taken upon himself to anticipate the formal order, the second arrived on the 10th instant. The third is due to-morrow, and the last three were on board the Republican, due on Monday. It is not proposed to lay the contract upon the Table of the House.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether other communications have been received by the Department from the trade, in addition to the testimonial he read the other day from Messrs. Tangye; and whether he will lay Messrs. Tangye's testimonial on the Table of the House?
  MR. RITCHIE: What is the date of the informal order to Mr. Tweddle?
  MR. BRAND: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that one other communication has been received from a firm, the name of which I at present forget; but it must be taken cum grano. All I can say is that the specifications are now ready, and the tenders will shortly be issued for these pumps. I shall be very agreeably surprised if the orders can be completed in England by the time suggested by the Question of the right hon. Gentleman. As regards the letter of Messrs. Tangye which I read, I do not see that there is any objection to lay it on the Table if the right hon. Gentleman wishes it.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Will the hon. Gentleman obtain it in the form of a sworn information?

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— ALLEGED WOUNDING OF DENIS MURPHY AT CASTLEISLAND, CO. KERRY.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How long were the eleven men in county Kerry imprisoned whom the police arrested, because of the shooting of Murphy by one of the Force; and is it proposed to make them any compensation?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I find that in consequence of the reprehensible conduct of the policemen in this case, which I have already explained to the House, 11 men were detained in custody for three days and seven hours. The Government are of opinion that the
  876
  case is one in which they may fairly consider whether some compensation should not be given.
  MR. SEXTON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the charge to be made against the constable?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not acquainted with the details of the charge; but I have seen a telegram stating that he was brought up before the magistrate and discharged, it being found that the occurrence was an accident. The Coroner's verdict was, I believe, to the same effect; but of these matters I have only telegraphic information.
  MR. HEALY: I shall ask to-morrow if it is true that the Coroner's inquest exonerated only one of the two constables; and whether the other constable will be prosecuted for having caused the imprisonment of 11 innocent persons by making a false statement, and inducing others to corroborate it?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANwas understood to say that the verdict exonerated both constables, in that it found the occurrence to be an accident. With regard to the culpability of the policemen, he had already said that both had been dismissed from the Force, and that it was intended to prosecute them. Whether the prosecution would be confined to the one of them he could not say.
  MR. HEALY: I beg to give Notice that if the Crimes Act comes to be renewed, I will propose a clause to make it penal to spread false reports of charges, especially by the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

  NAVY—THE TRANSPORT "ARAB."
  SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether or not it is true that the Arab transport sailed from Southampton to Suakin on the 17th of February last with only eight boats, which were together capable of carrying about 250 men, whilst there were on board 701 officers and men, besides the ship's complement of about 100 men, making in all about 800 souls, of whom about 550 might have perished in case of fire or shipwreck?
  MR. CAINE: It is true that the Arab left Southampton with the number of boats stated. This number complies with the requirements of the transport

  877
  regulations, and also with the Passengers Act.

  THE EDUCATION ACTS—INJUSTICE TO NONCONFORMISTS AT TOTNES.
  MR. SAMUEL MORLEYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If his attention has been drawn to a case of hardship to Nonconformists in the working of the Education Acts at Totnes; the building at present used as a Board School was formerly used as a British School, and is leased to the School Board by the Trustees for a term of years for the education of boys and girls; this building has now become quite inadequate to receive all the pupils; hence the existing Board proposes, instead of increasing the accommodation, to transfer to a Church School all the girls as well as all the infants; whether it is true that the School Board consists of four Episcopalians and one Nonconformist; and, whether he can intervene in the matter?
  MR. MUNDELLA: My attention has been drawn to this case, and I have directed inquiry to be made in the locality as to the alleged proposals of the Board, and as to the manner in which the deficiency of accommodation can be suitably supplied. I shall be happy to communicate the results to my hon. Friend when the investigation is complete.

  THE METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD —EXPENDITURE.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the alleged increased expenditure of the Metropolitan Asylums Board for the year ending Lady Day 1884 of £187,330 (exclusive of that in repayment of loans), as compared with the year ending Lady Day 1880; and, whether he will direct a thorough investigation of the expenditure of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and to give instructions for an exhaustive report thereupon?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The accounts of the managers of the Metropolitan Asylums District show that, comparing the year ended Lady Day, 1884, with, the year ended on the same day in 1880, the expenditure, excluding expenditure out of loans, had increased by £187,000. Without going into the
  878
  details of the expenditure, it may be observed that since 1880 an asylum for 900 imbecile patients at Darenth has been erected, three hospital ships for small-pox patients have been provided, the North-Western Hospital has been opened, and wharves and ambulance stations have been established. There has also been a large expenditure on alterations and additions at the smallpox and fever hospitals since the date of the Report of the Royal Commission, with the view of diminishing any risk of spread of disease from the hospitals, and also a considerable increase in the payments in respect of principal and interest of loans.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, If the Local Government Board has received a copy of the Report of a Sub-Committee of the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and of the notes of evidence taken by such Committee in an investigation into the expenditure of the Metropolitan Asylums Board upon the Eastern Hospital of that Board; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board will order an inquiry to be conducted into all matters relating to such expenditure?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: We have received a copy of the Report of the Committee of the managers of the Metropolitan Asylums District as to their investigation into the expenditure on the Eastern Hospital, and of the notes of the evidence. The investigation extended over 10 days, and the evidence, which is very voluminous, was only received by the Board three days ago. The subject is now under the consideration of the Board, and no decision as to the course to be taken has as yet been arrived at by my right hon. Friend.

  ARMY (MILITARY EXPEDITION TO THE SOUDAN)-DEFECTIVE CARTRIDGES.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the following extract from the description of the battle of Abou Klea by the special correspondent of The Daily Telegraph:—
  "Possibly much of the wildness of aim was occasioned by the excitement of finding that hundreds of cartridges jammed fast after the

  879
  second or third shot. I have since been told by officers that this year our mongrel cartridge sticks worse than ever. Positively at Abou Klea, and later at Metemmeh, I saw scores of weapons rendered temporarily useless.…. I myself took up a Martini-Henry, but the third cartridge stuck;"
  and, whether he can give the House any information on the subject?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: At present I can only repeat the answer I gave on Tuesday, that the matter is under examination.

  PARLIAMENT—PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—COMPLETION OF SIR CHARLES BARRY'S DESIGNS.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Junior Lord of the Treasury, Whether the completion of the Houses of Parliament, according to the designs of the late Sir Charles Barry, has been under consideration of Her Majesty's Government; and, whether it is the case that, if carried out at the estimated cost of £500,000, a saving of upwards of £20,000 per annum would be effected by the discontinuance of rent paid for premises elsewhere?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: The statement that the completion of the Houses of Parliament, according to the designs of the late Sir Charles Barry, would, if carried out at the estimated cost of £500,000, effect a saving of upwards of £20,000 per annum by the discontinuance of rent paid for premises elsewhere, rests on an assumption which, in the opinion of the First Commissioner of Works, is not accurate. If the hon. Baronet will refer to pp. 20 to 23 of the Civil Service Estimates, he will see that, with some exceptions, it would not be possible, without great inconvenience, to make changes in the position of premises rented by the Government, so as to effect a saving in rent of the amount stated. Moreover, it would be an act of at least very doubtful expediency to lodge Public Departments in the Palace of Westminster.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked, considering the great interest attached to the complete scheme, whether the hon. Gentleman would cause drawings of the complete elevation to be placed in the Library?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEreplied that the matter should be considered.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884—INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERKS OF UNIONS AND RATE COLLECTORS IN IRELAND.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board have issued any instructions to the different Clerks of Unions and Poor Rate Collectors in Ireland, pointing out to those officials the increased work which has been imposed on them under the new Franchise Act?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Local Government Board have not issued any such instructions. As I stated, in reply to a Question of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), on the 23rd ultimo, the Board have performed the duty imposed on them by the Act, and have prescribed an altered form of rate book; but they do not consider that it devolves on them to go any further than this in the matter.
  MR. KENNYasked if it was intended, in consequence of the increased work to be discharged by these officials, to improve their position?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That Question was asked the other day.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE GRAND JURY OF MEATH—EXEMPTION FROM SERVICE.
  MR. SHEILasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it the fact that Mr. F. H. Langan, a Catholic magistrate in Meath, owner in fee of 1,100 acres, has never been allowed to serve on the Grand Jury for the last ton years, while one of his tenants, Mr. Handy, J.P. a Protestant, has regularly been called on the Grand Jury; if so, can he explain by what right a gentleman of inferior qualification is summoned before one of superior qualification?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The summoning of Grand Juries was a matter for the High Sheriff for the year, and the Executive Government have nothing to say to it. I have, therefore, no information as to the matters stated in the Question.
  MR. HEALY: Will the Government take care in the appointment of the High Sheriff that he will be a person suitable for such an appointment?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN'Sreply was inaudible.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill dealing with the Grand Jury Laws in Ireland?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is a Question which I cannot answer.
  In reply to Mr. W. J. CORBET,
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir. I have said that this question rests entirely with the High Sheriff.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION TO THE SOUDAN)—VOTES OF THANKS TO THE TROOPS.
  MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDER (for Sir JOHN HAY)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to move Parliament to vote its thanks to the seamen and soldiers who fought at Abu Klea, Gubat, and Kerbekan, or to follow the precedent of El Teb and Tamai, and omit the usual vote of thanks for victories?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In the opinion of the Government it would be rather premature at this moment, when further operations are probably imminent, to come to a decision on this subject. When, in the opinion of the Government, the proper time arrives they will give this subject their best consideration, with reference not only to the precedent referred to, but to the whole of the precedents.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS—THE RIOT AT ASTON HALL, BIRMINGHAM.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to the case of Regina v. Mack, or Joyce, and to the statements of the learned judge, as to the careless way in which the affidavits therein concerned were drawn; whether culpable negligence was shown on that occasion, by taking the affidavits of men of no character, without due caution and inquiry; and, whether he will give the matter his careful attention, and, if possible, so amend the Law as to render the recurrence of such proceedings impossible?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, he had
  882
  no access to any information upon the subject which was not open to everyone else. It was quite impossible for him to express an opinion condemnatory of any persons whose case had never been stated to him, and who had not had an opportunity of giving their own views on the subject. As to the question whether he would endeavour to amend the law, he could not see how he could make a declaration on the point; but if the hon. Baronet would make any suggestion he should be very happy to consider it.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNER: If I supply the hon. and learned Gentleman with full details of the facts of the case, will he, as Law Officer of the Crown, express an opinion?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Baronet; but I fail to see why I ought to express any condemnatory opinion.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, having regard to the answer given by the First Lord of the Treasury last Friday, the time has not now arrived for the production of the Papers relating to Egyptian Finance, "without the consent of others concerned?"
  The following Question also stood upon the Paper in the name of Mr. DIXON-HARTLAND:—
  "To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If he has seen the telegram from Cairo in The Times of Saturday, which says 'The financial arrangement appears to he quite settled if not signed;' and, whether such financial arrangements are settled; and, if so, how soon they will be submitted to the House?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the two Questions referred to the same subject, and he would give the same answer.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, his Question was so utterly mutilated by the way it had been altered at the Table that he declined to put it as it appeared on the Paper.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, what the hon. Member stated to be mutilation was the omission of a newspaper comment, which was couched in strong language, and did not contain a mere statement of fact.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In reply to the right hon. Member for

  883
  King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke), I beg to say that it is expected that the Financial Agreement will be signed very shortly, and the Papers and the Agreement will be laid on the Table together.

  EGYPT—THE SOUDAN—EMPLOYMENT OF TURKISH TROOPS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that Her Majesty's Ministry, in December 1883, prevented the Khedive from applying to His Sovereign, the Sultan of Turkey, for Military aid to relieve the garrisons in the Soudan; what are the occasions since January 1st 1884 on which Her Majesty's Ministers have "suggested to the Sultan that he should resume the direct administration of the Red Sea Littoral;" what conditions were appended to such suggestions; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have, since the fall of Khartoum, invited the Sultan to send relief to the garrison and people of Kassala?
  LORD EDMOND FLTZMAURICE: On the 12th of December, 1883, the Egyptian Government expressed a wish that Her Majesty's Government should negotiate with the Sultan the conditions under which the assistance of Turkish troops could be obtained in view of the state of affairs in the Soudan (Egypt, No. 1, 1884, p. 121), and on the following day Her Majesty's Government replied that they had no objection to the employment of Turkish troops if they were paid by the Turkish Government and employed exclusively for the Soudan. Her Majesty's Government were opposed to any operations except to secure the retreat of the garrisons (Egypt, No. 1, 1884, p. 131). In May last Her Majesty's Government proposed that the Sultan, as Sovereign of Egypt, should resume direct jurisdiction over the ports on the Egyptian Coast of the Red Sea, and should occupy them with his troops. Lord Granville has expressed his regret to Musurus Pasha that the Porte had not come to any decision on the subject. This proposal was made in the confidence that the Sultan would be ready to apply and observe, with regard to the territory so resumed, the provisions of the agreements between England and Turkey as to freedom of commerce, navigation,
  884
  Customs, and the suppression of the Slave Trade. Her Majesty's Government have not invited the Sultan, since the fall of Khartoum, to send relief to Kassala.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked, whether the conditions imposed on the Sultan as to the Soudan and Egypt were that he should pay the expenses of the abandonment of the Soudan, and should be limited to entry to the Soudan solely by way of Suakin?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, if the hon. Member desired further information, it had been explained to him that the Papers relating to this subject were before the House.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the noble Lord had not fully answered his Question. He should put a Question on the subject to-morrow.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION OF STOCK) ACT, 1884.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will lay upon the Table a Return of the several Funds under his control, or that of any Department of the Government, which were converted, under the Act of 1884, from 3 per cent, to 2½ or 2¾ per cent. Stock, both as regards principal and interest, and the effect of the transaction on each particular Fund, so far as the trust for which it is held is concerned?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have no objection to give the Return. I will lay it on the Table shortly.

  PATENT MEDICINES ACT—LEGISLATION.
  DR. CAMERONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has yet received from the Board of Inland Revenue those Reports on the Medicine Stamp Tax, which in the House of Commons on August 7th he undertook to "study with care;" and, if so, what action he proposes taking in the matter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have considered the question of the Patent Medicines Act with the Board of Inland Revenue, and also with my noble Friend the President of the Council. We have under consideration a Bill or Bills deal-

  885
  ing with the subject; but I cannot say-now what action will be taken during this Session.

  NAVY—THE GREENWICH AGE PENSION.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Her Majesty's Government will reconsider the question of the Greenwich Age Pension, so as to give it to pensioners who retired from the service before the order of 1878?
  MR. CAINE: The question referred to by the hon. Gentleman is now under the consideration of a Committee, over which His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh presides.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—THE RUSSIAN ADVANCE.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the important letter from The Times Correspondent with Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission in Afghanistan, which appeared in that paper on the 3rd March, and especially to the following extracts:—
  "I have pointed out the great strategical importance of Pul-i-Khatun, a place which has always been considered Afghan, and beyond the pale of discussion. Another important position is Penjdeh, in the valley of the Murghab. Its inhabitants have always been subject to Afghanistan, and it is occupied by an Afghan garrison. Russia does not desire the definition of the Afghan frontier, for it will put an end to her successful system of stealthy encroachment. … Three years ago the nearest Russian outposts on the road from the Caspian were at Krasnovodsk and Chikishlar, 700 miles from Herat; now they are at Pul-i-Khatun, only 150 miles from Herat. Three years ago the nearest Russian outposts on the road from the Oxus and Merv were at Katra Kurghan, say 500 miles from Herat; now they are at Tolatan, 140 miles from Herat. Nearly all this progress has been made by unopposed encroachments since we evacuated Kandahar;"
  whether it is true that the Russian troops have occupied Zulfagar, 40 miles south of Pul-i-Khatun, Ak-Eabat, and Penjdeh (all four places being on Afghan territory); whether any further advance has been recently made beyond these places, where Sir Peter Lumsden's force now is stationed; and, whether he can now, consistently with the public interest, state that Her Majesty's Ministers intend to protect the absolute integrity of all Afghan territory, including these important positions, from Russian occu-
  886
  pation and influence, in accordance with their own pledges and those of the Czar's Government? The hon. Member intimated that he would not press for an answer if the right hon. Gentleman should not consider it consistent with the interests of the Public Service to give one. The Question had been on the Paper for 10 days; but he was quite willing to wait until it could be conveniently answered.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHOOTE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, he will, perhaps, also reply to a communication made to him by myself, in which I stated that I also intended to put a Question of a general character on this subject—namely, whether the Government have any information which they can properly communicate to the House? And I am anxious to take this opportunity of disabusing the minds of some persons of the impression that Her Majesty's Government take unusual steps to communicate with the Opposition on this subject.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am glad to hear the words that have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, because I think he was quite right to remove any misapprehension that may prevail on the subject, though the rumour of which he speaks did not happen to have reached me, and I was not cognizant of it. I thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye also for his disposition to wait, pending the course of proceedings in this extremely important matter, until the time shall be ripe for an answer. There is nothing I could communicate to the House at the present moment which would substantially improve the hon. Member's information. All I would beg of the hon. Gentleman and the House is to accept my assurances that the subject has the constant and unfailing attention of Her Majesty's Government.

  NAVY—STATE OF THE NAVY—NOTICE OF MOTION (SIR EDWARD J. REED).
  SIR EDWARD J. REEDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the anxiety which is felt respecting the present state of the Navy, he will afford me facilities for making the Motion which stands in my name, and for taking the sense of the House upon it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to my hon. Friend, I may state that I

  887
  think he is under a misapprehension as to the Rules with respect to Motions made in this House in the nature of Votes of Censure. It is certainly the established practice of the House—and I hope it will continue to be the established practice—that when Notice of a Vote of Censure is given in the House by some person who is entitled to express the opinion of some very large portion of the House, and is responsible for making himself the organ of that opinion—in such eases, undoubtedly, it is the established practice to put aside the course of Business for the purpose of entertaining such a Vote of Censure. I do not in the least mean to say that these are the only Votes of Censure that ought to be moved; but I only mean to say that there is no justification for interfering with the course of Business when the Vote of Censure proceeds from an individual Member on his own responsibility. At the present moment I could not do anything—independently of what I have just stated—in derogation of the precedence that has been given to the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. But having thus far given an answer to my hon. Friend, I beg he will not suppose that I am desirous to see the discussion of his Motion postponed. I should be very glad to see it brought on speedily; and, by way of giving him some small assistance, I wish to refer him to the answer given the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). When my hon. Friend behind me appealed to the hon. Member for Glasgow and requested him to give him precedence for his Motion, the hon. Member for Glasgow replied that probably my hon. Friend would be able to get precedence from me. Now, Sir, as I have had the opportunity of dispelling that idea on the part of the hon. Member for Glasgow, and as it is not in my power to give precedence to my hon. Friend, the hon. Member will now understand that the reason given for his refusal is entirely removed, and possibly he will now make way for my hon. Friend.
  SIR EDWARD J. REED: Will the Prime Minister allow me to ask him another Question on this subject? The terms of my Motion are not in the form of a Vote of Censure on the Government, but only of a Vote of Censure on a Department of the Administration; and
  888
  it seems to me that we have some claim to bring before the House the views which, after care and consideration, we hold on this subject. I should have thought—[Cries of "Order!" and "Hear, hear!"]—that the Admiralty itself would have been glad to have had this matter discussed. [Renewed cries of "Order!" and "Hear, hear!" I beg to give Notice that on Monday next I shall ask the Prime Minister whether he will be prepared to give me an evening after Easter?

  THE WEST INDIA ISLANDS—RECIPROCITY TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the offers of the Government of the United States to negotiate a Convention with the West India Islands have been rejected by Her Majesty's Government; and, if he will lay upon the Table the Despatch from the Government of the United States offering to open negotiations for a reciprocity Treaty, and the Correspondence which has since taken place on the subject between the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the Board of Trade, and the interests concerned?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government have not been able to accept the draft of the Convention proposed by the late United States Government; and Lord Granville is now in communication with Her Majesty's Minister at Washington with respect to the publication of the Diplomatic Correspondence. The question of the publication of the Papers referred to by my hon. Friend must stand over until the course to be taken with regard to the Correspondence with the United States is settled.

  NEW GUINEA—OCCUPATION OF NORTHERN COAST BY GERMANY.
  SIR WILLIAM M'ARTHURasked the First of the Treasury, If the statement in The Pall Mall Gazette of Monday the 9th inst. is correct, viz.:—
  "That Her Majesty's Government has surrendered Huon Bay in New Guinea to the German Government, and that the line of demarcation between England and Germany in New Guinea will be latitude 8 south of the equator?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: The case stands thus:—There was a claim or desire on

  889
  the part of the German Government to annex the whole of what is known as the North and North-Eastern Coast of New Guinea. Of course, I do not speak of the portion that is subject to the Dutch. On the 2nd of this month Her Majesty's Government repeated an offer, which they had previously made on the 7th of February, to settle in a friendly manner with Germany the best point on the North-Eastern Coast for fixing the boundary between the German Protectorate and that portion of the Coast the Protectorate of which was assumed by England. The negotiations on this subject have commenced, and have advanced in a satisfactory manner; but they have not reached the stage at which a positive statement can be made as to the details or the particular point at which the boundary is to be fixed. The House may rest assured that the aim of Her Majesty's Government is to secure, in addition to the South Coast, which has already been appropriated in a certain sense, a fair division of the Northern Coast of New Guinea.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked, whether this was the way in which Her Majesty's Government showed their appreciation of the recent offers of the Australian Colonies to send troops to the Soudan; and whether Her Majesty's Government had not conceded to Germany the right of annexing parts of New Guinea which the Queensland Colony and the other Australian Colonies had desired to annex?
  MR. GLADSTONEasked for Notice.

  INDIA—THE BENGAL TENANCY BILL.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India a Question of which he had given private Notice—Whether the telegraphic information in The Times of this morning was correct, that the Bengal Tenancy Bill had passed without much alteration from the state in which it left the Select Committee; and, whether 250 Zemindars came to Calcutta to petition the Viceroy for delay, and that the delay had been refused?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Bill has passed. After the discussion that took place on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the other night for the adjournment of the House, I sent the following telegram to the Viceroy:—
  890
  "Statement telegraphed by Durbhunga, made in Parliament that you are pressing through Bent Bill without giving time for translation into vernacular. Reason given that you wish to go to Simla. What shall I answer?"
  I have received this morning a telegram, of which the following is an abstract:—
  "From Viceroy, March 11, 1885.—Statement absolutely unfounded. Bill already twice translated into vernacular. Select Committee held 64 meetings. Of these 28 held in Calcutta within last few months. Maharajah attended only seven. Committee consisted of 11 Members, of whom only two go to Simla; and decided vernacular re-publication unnecessary, because almost all alterations were excisions favourable to Zemindars, and not new clauses. After Bill reported fortnight elapsed before considered by Legislative Council. First Motion in Council was for suspension by Zemindar Representative, which was lost by 18 to 2. Two Native Members, who do not go to Simla, had voted before Members of Executive Council were called on to vote. Members representing ryots' interests voted in majority. Bill passed to-day without division after seven days' debate."
  I was not able to get the exact wording of the telegram which the hon. Baronet had quoted, as when I asked the hon. Baronet for it he had left it at home.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLexplained that he was not asked for the telegram until after dinner, when he had changed his clothes and left the telegram at home.

  SOUTH AFRICA—BECHUANALAND.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Secretary of State for War, If the Artillery stationed at Natal has been telegraphed for by Sir Charles Warren to proceed at once to Bechuanaland; and, if this is so, whether they will be landed at Port Alfred and sent by rail to Hope Town, as being a cheaper and shorter route, by over 400 miles, than going round by Cape Town?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am not aware of any such request on the part of Sir Charles Warren.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—QUESTIONS—STATE OF THE NOTICE PAPER.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wish to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister which arises out of the extraordinary condition of the Notice Paper to-day. I find that there are Notices of 77 Questions upon it, and I

  891
  wish to know whether some arrangement may not be made by which Questions of merely local or personal interest should not be put verbally in the House, but printed, with the answers to them, on the Notice Paper, Mr. Speaker having authority to decide without appeal what Questions are or are not of this character?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I can quite appreciate the intention with which the Question of the hon. Member has been put, and I think the suggestion he has made deserves consideration; but I do not think I can undertake to deal with the subject in answer to a Question.
  Afterwards—
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid: In reference to the Question of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he is not prepared himself to move in the matter, and to get rid of this questioning evil; whether he will support a Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the Rules which relate to the putting of Questions in this House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I doubt whether that course could be followed with advantage at the present moment.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: In the event of the hon. Member for Hertford placing on the Paper a Notice in reference to the putting of Questions, relating to local and personal matters, in this House, I will ask the hon. Member whether, at the same time, he will not use his influence with Members of the Conservative Party to induce them to abstain from placing on the Paper delicate Questions affecting the Imperial policy in relation to foreign affairs at a moment when the issues of peace and war are trembling in the balance?

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)
  MR. BOURKEsaid, some of the Supplementary Votes that were down for consideration that evening arose out of Egyptian finance; and he wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government could postpone those Votes until the Papers relating to Egyptian finance had been presented to Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I should not like to make any further demands on the patience of the House; but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we must have
  892
  our Supplementary Estimates completed before the 31st of March, and there is a chance that the Financial Agreement may not be signed by that date. At the earliest moment we can find after the conclusion of the Agreement it will be presented to Parliament. It would be impossible for us to discuss Egyptian finance without having the Agreement before us. We will not lose a moment in submitting the Agreement to Parliament.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that as they had been told very often by the Prime Minister that the Agreement would be signed in a short time, and as some weeks had passed since that announcement was first made, he wished to know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by a short time? Was it a few days, a week, a month, or two months? The House was very anxious to have that information.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, they had been so often disappointed as to time in that matter—a burnt child dreaded the fire—that he did not like to speak too positively; but what appeared to be the reasonable expectation on the part of the Government was that the matter would be decided in the course of two or three days. It was only on account of some verbal questions that some delay had taken place at one or two Foreign Courts.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Could the right hon. Gentleman conveniently tell us in what form the question will be submitted to the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think that the form of the presentation of the question to Parliament will be one that will completely establish the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. It will be in the form of a preliminary Resolution on which to found a Bill for a guarantee.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  MR. HEALYasked for an assurance from the Government that the Vote on Account would not be pressed forward that night, as it had been circulated only that morning?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, it was impossible to postpone the Vote on Account. The Monday and Thursday of next week must be devoted to the Army and Navy Estimates.
  In reply to Mr. W. H. SMITH,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, it was proposed to take the Supplemental Navy Estimates on Monday, and the Army Supplemental Estimates on Thursday.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that under that arrangement there would be only one night for the discussion of the Navy Estimates.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)replied, that it was necessary to take the first Vote in each branch next week.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER—AMENDMENTS ON THE MOTION FOR GOING INTO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit a point of Order to you with regard to the proceedings of this evening. The first Order of the Day is for Supply, and it is intended, I believe, that the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates should be taken. Now, I find by Standing Order No. 425A, passed on the 27th of November, 1882, that—
  "Whenever the Committee of Supply stands as the First Order of the Day on Monday or Thursday Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, unless on first going into Supply on the Army, Navy, or Civil Service Estimates respectively, or on any Vote of Credit, an Amendment he moved or Question raised relating to the Estimates proposed to be taken in Supply."
  The point I wish, Sir, to submit to you is this—the Vote on Account which the Government propose to take to-night is for the Civil Services and Revenue Departments Estimates, 1885–6, and does not refer to the present financial year, but to the new financial year commencing on the 1st of April, 1885. Therefore, if the Government are to take this Vote on Account to-night and bring it on after you have left the Chair, and Committee of Supply has been begun on the Estimates for the current year, I want to know whether private Members will be deprived of the opportunity, which would otherwise be afforded to them, of moving an Amendment to the Motion that you leave the Chair on the first occasion of going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates for the next financial year?
  MR. SPEAKER: The opportunity for discussion, to which the hon. Member
  894
  refers, will be given on the regular Civil Service Estimates of the year. That is a point which has already been settled by the Chair.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Are we, then, to understand that after the 1st of April, or on the next occasion, when the Civil Service Estimates for 1885–6 are down on the Paper for Committee of Supply, it will be open for any hon. Member to move an Amendment on the Motion that you leave the Chair?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes; that would be the case.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1884–5).
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
  (1.)£23,400, Public Education, Ireland.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the sum now asked for by the Government on account of Public Education in Ireland was £23,400. He did not propose to call in question the amount of the Vote; but in looking into the details he found that £3,000 of the sum was to go towards the salaries of the principal and assistant teachers, and that a considerable portion of the remaining sum of £20,400 was for an increase in the payments for result fees to the Irish National school teachers. He need scarely say that this was a Department in which he was glad to see an increased expenditure; and he was sure that the hon. Members with whom he had the honour to act would always be glad to see a satisfactory increment in the result fees. It was also satisfactory to find that there had not only been a larger number of pupils presented for examination, but that the rate of payment to the teachers for each pupil had been increased. Therefore he had no desire to contest the amount of the Vote; but he desired to take this opportunity of warning the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who was responsible for this Department, that upon the consideration of the Vote on Account, or else upon the regular Estimates for the year, the Irish Members

  895
  would feel obliged to take a full view of the constitution and conduct of this important Department of the State in Ireland. In its constitution the Board of National Education in Ireland was, perhaps, the most objectionable of any Department connected with the Public Service. It was composed, with few exceptions, of men in official positions who approached their duties with an official bias, who had not sufficient time to devote to the duties of the Board, who enjoyed no share whatever of the public confidence, and who left the duties connected with the position to be discharged by a paid Commissioner, who had neither the confidence of the teachers, of the people, nor of the Irish Members in that House. He desired to ask the Chief Secretary, or the Secretary to the Treasury, what was the explanation of the course lately pursued by the Government towards gentlemen who held the position of Inspectors of the Board. He observed that these Inspectors recently met with a check from the Board of Commissioners, and a stinging rebuke from the Lord Lieutenant, for no better reason than that they had endeavoured to better their condition. Why should not Civil servants be allowed in Ireland the same freedom of representation and agitation to improve their lot as was allowed to Civil servants in England and Scotland? For these Inspectors the highest standard of education was required. They had to pass a difficult examination, and were called upon to discharge very onerous and difficult duties; and it was, therefore, with surprise and regret that he had noticed, in the attempt they had made to improve their condition, the check which the Board of Commissioners sitting in Marlborough Street had attempted to impose upon them. He could assure the Committee that if Sir Patrick Keenan in Marlborough Street, or Earl Spencer at Dublin Castle, took upon themselves to rebuke the School Inspectors for the only reason that they were desirous of getting better terms for themselves, the difficulties of the Irish Question would not be lessened, nor the discharge of duties by the public officials of Ireland rendered more easy or efficient. He certainly thought the policy pursued by the Board at Marlborough Street, in endeavouring to gag the National school teachers and to stifle their representations
  896
  by terror, deserved the attention of Parliament. He had been present on the occasion when the course pursued by the teachers provoked the despotic action of the Commissioners, and had led to the issue of a Circular warning the National school teachers that if they admitted to their confidence persons outside their own body, so dangerous as Members of Parliament, and allowed them to be present at their conferences, the teachers themselves would be held individually and collectively responsible for the language used. He had never heard of any attempt to make English Civil servants responsible for the language used by Members of Parliament at any of their meetings; but the teachers in the National schools in Ireland were told, in the most arbitrary and tyrannical manner, that they must be prepared to lose their miserable situations or discountenance the attendance of Members of Parliament at their meetings and disavow their utterances. Last year his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) and himself happened to attend a public congress of the teachers, and afterwards a public dinner in the City of Dublin. He was aware that the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan and himself did not always use the kind of language which was acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. On that occasion the teachers drank the health of Her Majesty the Queen, but they did not drink the health of Earl Spencer, nor were they any more called upon to drink the health of Earl Spencer than that of the insubordinate usher who had been recently distinguishing himself in Dublin Castle. The teachers thought that to drink the health of Her Majesty the Queen was enough; and although the omission of the health of the Lord Lieutenant was not owing to any action of his hon. and learned Friend or himself, he confessed that if the health of Earl Spencer had been drunk by the teachers, both his hon. and learned Friend and himself would have been obliged to leave the hall. In consequence of the teachers having limited themselves in their loyalty to drinking the health of the Queen a Circular of the most despotic and cowardly character was issued, which would have the effect of bringing the influence of terror to bear upon the proceedings of the teachers. He wished to ask whether or not the

  897
  teachers were to be allowed to communicate freely with their Parliamentary friends, and to hear their addresses when in public meeting assembled, without being threatened with the severe penalty of dismissal at the hands of the Commissioners? He wished also to refer to the conditions under which teachers were examined for promotion. The only communication made to the teacher by the Commissioners was the result of the examination; and that communication was made, not to the teacher himself, but to the manager. It was a simple intimation that the teacher had failed to pass the examination, and was not to be promoted on account of his answers to the questions put to him not having displayed sufficient merit. This was the vague and general communication made to the manager; and the Commissioners thus enjoyed the power of depriving the teacher of promotion, and rendering the results of his examination nugatory, upon no rule of reason or conceivable maxim of fair play. Many of the teachers who went up for examination with a view to promotion wished to know, for their own guidance, how they stood in relation to the subjects upon which they were examined—in how many they had passed, and in what they had failed. This information was certainly most essential for their future guidance, in the event of their desiring to present themselves for future examination. How was it possible that a man would ever be able to pass if he was not informed as to the particular subjects in which the examination had shown him to be defective? It was an act of unreasonable and wanton despotism to refuse to give him this information except through the manager. In a case which had been brought under his (Mr. Sexton's) notice the teacher who went up for examination received nearly all the marks which would have entitled him to pass; the examination was very close indeed; but although he passed in 58 per cent of the subjects, the simple intimation he received from the Commissioners was that his answers were not of sufficient merit to entitle him to promotion. Although he was only an infinitesimal percentage under that which would have enabled him to pass, for all he knew from the Commissioners he might have failed to answer satisfactorily even 10 per cent of the questions. The rules adopted were
  898
  absurd and ridiculous, and by the course pursued the Commissioners placed the most able teachers on a level with the most ignorant and stupid dullard in the whole Service. He contended that the teacher should be supplied with information as to the marks which he had received in every branch. This would be a means of enabling the teacher to qualify himself for the next trial. No intellectual teacher who presented himself for examination ought to be subjected to the ill opinion which would be engendered in the mind of the manager against him by a simple communication that he had failed. There was no rule of the Service which required a teacher to present himself for examination. And as he did so, simply as a volunteer, he was entitled to have the result of the examination supplied to him directly and confidentially. [Mr. CAMPBELL-BAN-NERMAN dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made a gesture of dissent. Would the right Gentleman answer this plain question, How was the teacher, in the event of desiring to go up for a further examination, to qualify himself for success, if the examiners refused to tell him in what particular branches he had failed? That was a plain question, and he desired a plain answer. In all other examinations the result was communicated to the candidate. He should certainly press the right hon. Gentleman for a reply to this question, and he should ask for the withdrawal of the rule which now operated so injuriously upon candidates for promotion. He might, in conclusion, say that the time was approaching fast when the Irish Party would invite the attention of the House to the consideration of the whole subject, and endeavour to effect a thorough and radical remodelling of this Department, which was the most meddlesome and the most despotic in Ireland.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was accustomed to the use of strong language, and also to the statement of cases by what he did not wish to characterize more strongly than terms of exaggeration. If, however, the state of things in this case was as represented by the hon. Member—namely, that when a candidate went in for a voluntary examination in a number of subjects and did not pass, he certainly thought he was entitled, if he desired, to know the

  899
  number of subjects in which he had passed, and the number of marks he had obtained. That he believed to be a very-fair and reasonable request. He could not agree, however, with the hon. Member that the candidate was entitled to have that information directly without the knowledge of his manager; because he believed that the manager was perfectly entitled to know what was the nature of the examination, and in what manner the candidate had acquitted himself.
  MR. SEXTONremarked, that that was not his contention. Let the managers know if they would; but let the teacher be informed of the number of marks he received in each subject.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, this was a mere matter of form. It was only reasonable that a teacher who wished to know how he had gone through an examination should receive the information; but it was necessary that he should apply to the manager, and that the information should go through the manager. That, he understood, was what actually took place now. The hon. Member had asked a good many questions in reference to the teachers, and had varied them with great ingenuity; but in spite of this ingenuity, and all the ingenuity which he could exercise, in his inquiries as to the Commissioners of the Board in Dublin, he could not find out that there was any reason for saying that a teacher was debarred from ascertaining the result of his examination. If it were so, he certainly would say that he would at once look into the matter with a strong disposition to apply a remedy; but he could not conceive that anything of that kind occurred. He differed from the hon. Member in the opinion that there should be direct communication with the teacher behind the back of the manager of the school. The hon. Member talked of the rules laid down by the Commissioners as being the exercise of unreasonable despotism; but so far as he was able to judge of the proceedings of the Board there was nothing arbitrary, harsh, or despotic in them at all. He did not understand the hon. Member to make a grievance of the case he had referred to, in which, owing to some infinitesimal percentage below the necessary standard, one particular teacher had failed to pass. With regard to the Cir-
  900
  cular to which the hon. Member had called attention, that was, no doubt, a very delicate subject; and he might say at once that he was not disposed to think that the issue of Circulars from the Education Department interfering with the discretion of the teachers in matters such as that to which this Circular had reference was very desirable. In his opinion, such things as those had better be left to the good taste and feeling of the teachers themselves; but, at the same time, he did think that in a country like Ireland, where political feeling ran so high, it was peculiarly undesirable that the teachers, who had under their charge the children of parents of all classes and denominations, should take a prominent and public character as violent partizans either on one side or the other. As he understood the matter, the Circular was issued simply with the desire to prevent the teachers assuming such an attitude in regard to politics as might have a tendency to do harm to the cause of education, a result which was not unlikely to follow if they were found associating themselves with the views of a particular Party, and thus causing a feeling of discontent. There was, he felt sure, no intention to prohibit the teachers from carrying out in the ordinary way their own views on political matters; but he thought the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) would agree with him that it was not a desirable thing, à priori, that a person in the position of a teacher should publicly identify himself with Party politics. Although the object of the Circular had been what he had just stated, he would not say whether it was the most judicious way of effecting that object; but it was certainly not issued with a desire to prevent the legitimate exercise of the teachers' rights as citizens. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the claims raised by the School Inspectors for additional pay, and in reply to the contention of the hon. Member he had to say that there was no objection to the servants of the Education Department putting forward a statement of their case, although there was a strong objection to the creation of an organized agitation in any Department, and it was in consequence of such an organization being undertaken by that class of employés under the Education Board that

  901
  the step had been taken of which the hon. Gentleman complained. With regard to the Vote itself, he felt quite sure that the Committee generally, and the hon. Member himself, would agree with him that it indicated an exceedingly satisfactory state of things. It was considered that under the circumstances a very liberal estimate was made at this time last year as to the amount that would be required in Ireland, and it had turned out that that estimate had been more than justified. He was glad to say that there had been a far better attendance of the children in the schools, and that there was also evidence of increased prosperity in the country. The result was very satisfactory, especially as it added to the emoluments of that very hard-worked and deserving class of public servants, the school teachers of Ireland.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTdesired to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant if he could inform the Committee whether there was any prospect of dealing with the question of education in Ireland by means of a Government measure this Session? There could be no doubt that the teachers in Ireland did not get their due proportion of emolument, owing partly to the irregular attendance of the children, and partly to the failure of so many Unions—indeed, he might say, of almost all the Unions, to make the contributions which he, for one, thought they were bound in honesty and in honour to pay. Still, there was the fact that they did not do so, and the consequence was that the teachers, through no fault of their own, were mulct of a portion of the remuneration to which they were undoubtedly entitled, and which they ought to receive. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary would be enabled to hold out some hope that the measure, which he had every reason to believe had been drafted, and which was intended to deal with various pressing points in connection with the subject of Irish education, would be brought forward during the present Session, and that it would not, as was the case last year, be postponed in favour of some Sunday Closing Bill, or other measure, of not nearly so much importance. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) with respect to the compo-
  902
  sition of the National Board of Education, he felt quite sure that no one who might be called upon to constitute such a body on any future occasion would constitute it exactly as it was now. Still, that Board had had to deal for a number of years with the question of National Education; and it had, upon the whole, achieved a considerable amount of success, owing mainly to the action of Sir Alexander Macdonald and Sir Patrick Keenan, both of whom he believed possessed the confidence of the clergy and teachers generally throughout the country. He believed that although every individual act of theirs might not have commanded general approval, still that all interested in Education owed them a deep debt of gratitude.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had stated that he was accustomed to the violent language of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton); and in answer to that remark he (Mr. Healy) could only say that they on those Benches were accustomed to the fogginess of the replies of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had made, as far as he (Mr. Healy) could understand him, no defence as to the allegation of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton), that the marks obtained by the teachers at the different examinations were not made known, and he had not stated that he would insist in future that they should be given. The reason was that the right hon. Gentleman dared not assume any independence in that House, either on this or on any other subject in connection with Ireland, the fact being that he had no more independence than the Mace at the Table; and on any question with reference to Irish education he would have to refer to Sir Patrick Keenan as to whether that gentleman thought this or that course desirable. If Sir Patrick Keenan said he thought such a course ought to be taken, the answer given was his, and not that of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. He would inform the right hon. Gentleman, if he were not already aware of the fact, that in every other class of examination the marks obtained by the candidate were given. They were given in the case of all students in other public examinations; and even in the case of the cadets of the Royal

  903
  Irish Constabulary the number of marks gained at an examination was made known. In England the number of marks in every examination was published, both in the case of the successful and unsuccessful candidates; but for the purpose of putting a stumbling block in the way of the Irish National teachers this small amount of information was refused, and the result was that the candidates were put to the unnecessary trouble of grinding up in the whole of the 13 subjects over and over again for want of knowing the particular elements in which they had failed. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary of a question he had put in connection with this subject on the 20th of June, 1884. He would read the Question and answer as reported in Hansard's Debates, vol. 289, page 991. He had asked—
  "Whether it is a fact that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland conceal from the public the names of the examiners appointed by them to conduct the annual examination of teachers; whether, as a consequence, questions, or perhaps whole pages of questions, have frequently been given, outside the prescribed course, on the teachers' programme; whether the Commissioners of National Education will for the future, like the "Universities, South Kensington Department, and the Intermediate Education Board, place upon each set of questions the name of the examiner on that subject; and, whether the names of the examiners appointed to conduct the next July examinations will be given; and, if not, would he explain the reason?"
  To this the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) replied—
  "The Commissioners of National Education inform me that there is no concealment whatever in the matter, and that it would be impossible to put the names of the examiners on the examination paper, as their preparation, as well as the examination of the candidates' answers, is a joint work, and not done exclusively by individuals. The Commissioners have furnished me with a memorandum of the system of examination adopted, which seems both efficient and fair. I should be glad to show it to any hon. Member who wishes to see it."
  He (Mr. Healy) asked—"Will it be laid on the Table?" and the right hon. Gentleman replied—"I have no objection to that." And, of course, it was never laid on the Table, as far as he (Mr. Healy) was aware; and he might state that he had examined the Papers which had been presented in 1884–5, with the assistance of the Librarian, and could not ascertain that the promise
  904
  made by the right hon. Gentleman had ever been complied with. He certainly thought that this was a matter on which even an Irish Chief Secretary might be supposed to have an opinion of his own, and in regard to which he might act without the aid of Sir Patrick Keenan, especially when he found that both in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and in England, in the case of all examinations for the Universities, for the Bar, and in other cases, the custom was that the number of marks should be published. Surely this ought to be sufficient for the Chief Secretary, if he really were a man of any independence, and he ought to be able to say that what was done elsewhere should be done also in Ireland. It certainly seemed to him that this, at least, was a matter in which the right hon. Gentleman might exercise a little personal judgment, without thinking it necessary to refer it to Sir Patrick Keenan. With regard to the Circular that had been issued to the teachers in Ireland by the Board of Education, there could be little doubt that it was intended to prohibit those men from attending National meetings, or from indulging themselves in any way with matters of a political character. The right hon. Gentleman had explained that its object was to prevent the teachers from taking an over-prominent part in politics; but he had not explained to the Committee that by the terms of that Circular the teachers were held directly responsible for any proceedings that might take place at meetings attended by them. The Circular was issued last August, and in it the teachers were informed that they would be held individually and collectively responsible for the opinions of any person who happened to address them. This was practically the substance of it; and if any hon. Gentleman opposite could refine upon the words used in the Circular he would give him the benefit of any distinction he might be able to draw. There could be little doubt, however, as to what was the real meaning and intention of the Circular. In his opinion, that Circular was distinctly drawn up to prevent any Representative of the National Party from attending the meetings of the National teachers. It might be said, and of course it would be said, that this was not the case; but he asked the Committee to consider what were the facts? The

  905
  Circular was issued immediately after the National teachers had been addressed by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) and himself (Mr. Healy). At the dinner of that body they ventured to make remarks, some of which had reference to Sir Patrick Keenan. These speeches were reported, and immediately after the report had appeared this Circular was issued. What, he asked, was the effect of that Circular? It was evidently intended to debar the National teachers of Ireland from receiving any aid and assistance from the National Party. In it they were praetically told that if their Representatives happened to use any language which Sir Patrick Keenan and Co. considered ought not to be used, or might think unjustifiable, unless the teachers present immediately got up and dissociated themselves from those who used that language, they would be held responsible for it. This was really not intended as a muzzle upon the teachers; it was rather a muzzle which the Government desired to put upon the Representatives of the National Party under the impression that they would not jeopardize the interests of the teachers by using language that might get them into a scrape. For his own part, he (Mr. Healy) need hardly say that, although the Speaker might put the clôture on him in that House, Sir Patrick Keenan should never subject him to such a process. He had, however, yet to learn that the Government of Ireland would ever dare to call any teacher over the coals for not dissociating himself from any remarks he (Mr. Healy) might make. He extremely regretted his inability to attend the last meeting of the teachers in Ireland, his absence being due to his being in Glasgow. Had he been present, he should have made comments on the question in general, and Sir Patrick Keenan in particular, as would, he thought, have set the whole body of teachers in Ireland in revolt against that Board. As the matter now stood, either the obnoxious Circular must be withdrawn or discredited, or the National teachers, as a body, must be induced to set themselves against it. He repeated that the Government dared not carry out the threat the Circular contained. Even as bad a Government as the Irish Government would not care in such a matter to put themselves so
  906
  grievously in the wrong as to hold 16,000 educated men and women responsible for the language of the independent Representatives of the Irish people. For his own part, he cared about as much for the Government or Sir Patrick Keenan as he did for the Tycoon of Japan. With regard to another matter, he must take exception to the Circular issued by the National Board to the Inspectors of Schools, censuring them for seeking to improve their position by approaching the Government without the intervention of the Board. This was a proceeding which seemed to him to savour very much of bureaucratic tyranny. He must say that he could see no reason why the Inspectors of National Schools should be debarred, any more than Civil servants generally were, from seeking the aid and influence of Members of Parliament to help in redressing their grievances. As a matter of fact, there was no other body of men to whom they could look for redress. They had for years been pressing their case upon the School Department in Marlborough Street, and no attention had been paid to them; and he thought that to attempt to divorce these gentlemen from their Representatives now was nothing less than an act of the most high-handed character. [The hon. Gentleman here quoted from that part of the Circular addressed by the Education Department to the School Inspectors, expressing regret at the action they had taken.] The statement here made was a very vague one; and he should like to know what it was that the Government complained of in the conduct of the Inspectors of Schools? These gentlemen surely had as much right and title to endeavour, by any means in their power, to better their position, as had any other class of men; and he should like to know what was the construction the Government placed upon these rules? His experience was that the Government drew up very careful Minutes and instructions, which were so framed that they could put upon them any interpretation they thought proper. When the rules appeared to be most liberal, they interpreted them in the narrowest spirit; and when they were narrowly framed, they gave them the widest and most liberal interpretation as against the individuals with whom they dealt. Almost

  907
  every incident was construed by some latitudinarian interpretation of the rules to be an act against the rules themselves. A rule might bear a very innocent look; but it would be found that the interpretation placed upon it by the Government was generally of such a character as to make it a tyrannical and arbitrary regulation. He would ask the Government when did they intend to bring in the Bill of which the House had heard for a considerable time, but which had hitherto been kept in the background? With regard to the Estimate before the Committee, it was one against which he had nothing to say, and which he thought the Committee would be very glad to vote. It was satisfactory, inasmuch as it provided for increased, payments by results to the body of the Irish teachers. He was extremely glad that they had been able to deserve this, and to recognize the fact that the Government had introduced this Vote. It was but a few days ago that they had heard that the Government had a scheme for generally improving the position of teachers in Ireland, and they had promised to bring forward a Bill on the subject. Promises in regard to this had for some time been made by Sir Patrick Keenan; but up to the present moment they had nothing but vague hints on the matter. He supposed the Government intended, as usual, to try and put the Irish Representatives in a corner by the well-known device of promising a scheme for an improvement in the pay and pensions of the teachers, and perhaps in regard to their residences and some other matters, and that they meant to embody in the same measure other proposals that would not be acceptable. Considerable anxiety was felt on this subject, and the Bill ought to be introduced at the earliest possible moment, so that the Irish Representatives might know what it was the Government really intended to do. There was another matter also which the Government could not avoid discussing, and that was the Circular or Minute which had been drawn by Sir Patrick Keenan, a gentleman who appeared to favour the retention of the Maltese dialect in Malta. This Circular had reference to the education in Gaelic of Gaelic-speaking children; but this was a matter which he (Mr. Healy) should have something to say about at a later period, when he
  908
  should take occasion to comment on the manner in which Sir Patrick Keenan was posturing in Malta as the patron of the Maltese dialect, while, apparently for professional purposes, he was doing everything he could in Ireland to extinguish the native language of the Irish people. Sir Patrick Keenan's apparent love of the Maltese dialect would seem to be due to the fact that there was a patois spoken in Malta which the English Government were anxious to favour at the expense of the Italian language, which most of the Maltese people preferred to the patois the English Government were trying to force upon them.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the Bill about which questions had been put to him, and of which he had given Notice, would appear on the Paper for next Monday, when he should move for leave to introduce the measure if the Motion could be reached before too late an hour. He did not know, however, whether that would be the case as the Navy Estimates, had to be taken that evening, and would probably last until late; and if that were so, he should hold the Motion over until Tuesday.
  COLONEL NOLANexpressed a hope that when the Bill that had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government was introduced, it would be found to be one in which whatever benefits it might propose to confer would not be wrapped up with conditions which would destroy their value. He hoped that care would be taken to prevent children being compelled to attend schools where the religion taught was contrary to that held by their parents. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) had last year intimated, when the question was brought before the House, that he thought the power of obtaining sites for schools in Ireland was needed; and he further declared that probably sites for teachers' residences might in some cases be required. Although he made no distinct promise on the latter point, he had, however, spoken very strongly as to the necessity of sites for schools in certain parts of Ireland, particularly in the North. He hoped the Chief Secretary would be able to tell them that the Bill he had promised would deal with this subject. He (Colonel Nolan) had se-

  909
  cured a day—next Tuesday week—for discussing this question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be discussing the provisions of a Bill of which Notice has been given, but which is not at present before the Committee. It is not, therefore, in Order for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to discuss that matter in connection with the present Estimates.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he would not, after the intimation he had received from the Chair, make further reference to the Bill. He might have put it in a rather more roundabout shape, which, however, would have come to the same thing. He might have congratulated the Chief Secretary on the fact that another £20,000 was to be given to the teachers in Ireland, and have pointed out that this was a fact reflected great credit on the teachers who had earned the money, but that, although the sum was considerable, it was quite inadequate to the wants of the teachers. And then he might have pointed out that, inasmuch as the teachers were in receipt of inadequate salaries, they could not afford to pay for improved residence?
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he did not think that anything could show more clearly the contrast between the way in which the people were treated in England and in Ireland than the facts which had been brought out in the course of the debate. If an Irish teacher or Inspector were to find fault with the Government, or if he happened to be present at a meeting at which an Irish Member of Parliament, who might be totally unknown to him, found fault with the Government, he would be held responsible for the utterances of that Member, and be liable to dismissal. Now, in this country there was a very eminent gentleman, famous in the world of letters—Mr. Matthew Arnold, who held the office of Inspector of Schools. Mr. Matthew Arnold, writing in The Nineteenth Century, and speaking of certain trials in Ireland, said that the government of Ireland, and especially the Castle system in the Metropolis of Ireland, was not only unnatural, but anti-natural. When an English Inspector made such a statement, no one ventured to rebuke him; but if an Irish National school teacher happened merely to listen to anything of the kind he became liable
  910
  to censure from the authorities, and even to dismissal. He did not think there could be a more curious illustration of the difference between the treatment of people in this country and in Ireland. He was glad that something was now being done to improve the condition of the Irish National school teachers. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would introduce his Bill as soon as possible, and that when it was brought in it might be printed and circulated at once, so that the public might have an opportunity of forming an opinion upon it. He could assure the Government that they would not be content with any half-hearted measure.
  MR. PICTONsaid, he had no intention of occupying the time of the Committee; but he wished to express a word of sympathy with the Irish teachers. Hon. Members opposite had spoken of the threatening Circular which had been addressed to the teachers by the Board of Commissioners. Now, they all agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had stated as to the un-desirability of elementary teachers, or any other school teachers, mixing Party politics up with the lessons it was their duty to give; but when a difficulty arose on that score, surely a kindly and polite intimation might have been addressed to the school managers, who would have known how to deal with the matter. A Circular, such as that which had been issued by the Department in Dublin, was only calculated to create irritation in the minds of the teachers, and to produce opposite results from those which were desired. He could only say that if the teachers of Ireland were treated in that way, it afforded a very marked contrast indeed to the enormous amount of liberty and latitude accorded to hon. Members from Ireland in that House.
  MR. MOLLOYwished to know if he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary rightly that the marks obtained by the teachers were communicated to them through the manager? [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes.] The answer of the right hon. Gentleman afforded another example of the extraordinary replies received in that House by Irish Members who were interested in Irish affairs. As a matter of fact, nothing of the kind took place. He had it on the best authority that what took

  911
  place was this. A school teacher went up for examination, and after the lapse of a certain time a communication was made to his manager to the effect that he had not passed his examination; but that was the total amount of information afforded. The point raised by his hon. Friends was, whether or not a teacher was entitled to such information as would enable him to know what were the subjects in which he had or had not passed. That was the information for which his hon. Friends asked; and it was certainly most desirable that every teacher should know how it was he had failed. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that, in his opinion, the school teacher was entitled to certain information; and would the right hon. Gentleman, as Chief Secretary, undertake that in future he got that information. If not, and it was a mere question of referring backwards and forwards to different Departments in Ireland, he, for one, was unable to see what the use of a Chief Secretary in that House was. They might just as well communicate, by means of an ordinary penny postage-stamp, with Dublin. He (Mr. Molloy) would not say that this grievance existed; but if it did exist, it ought to be remedied; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would undertake that it should be remedied?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that he had answered various questions upon the subject during the last half-hour. What he had stated was that he quite agreed that the fullest information should be given in regard to the details of the examination, which was usually afforded in all such examinations. At the same time, he thought that it ought to be given through the managers, and not to the teachers direct. The claim was that there should be a direct communication between the teachers and the examiners upon the subject. [Mr. SEXTON: No.] All the hon. Member could insist upon, and he thought it was quite fair, was that the communication should be made through the manager. He was not intimately acquainted with the rules which applied to other competitive examinations; but he believed that in regard to many of them the details given were very limited indeed. He was distinctly of opinion, however, that all the information usually given in such examinations should be
  912
  afforded to candidates from among the school teachers through the managers of the schools with which they were connected.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had made himself very clear. For his part, although he had listened very attentively to the discussion since it commenced, he confessed that he was still in a state of uncertainty whether the right hon. Gentleman had given any undertaking that he would see that the complaint of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was remedied, and that this objectionable practice should be no longer allowed to prevail in Dublin. It would appear from the last few remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that he thought the information upon the subjects in which the teachers had failed to pass should be given to the school managers. [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No.] He (Mr. William Redmond) had certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was making an application for knowledge, as to the subjects on which the school teacher had not satisfied the requirements of the examination by the managers, the condition on which the information was conveyed to the school teacher himself.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No; I only stated that the information would not go direct, but would be conveyed to the teacher through the manager.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the information would only be given in case the manager applied for it; whereas, in many cases, the manager would have no personal interest in making the inquiry, although in all cases the teacher would be very much interested in obtaining the information. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to say plainly, "yes" or "no," whether he would give the information that was required to be given to the teacher on the teacher applying for it. That was what the Irish Members wanted to know; and to that question he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had, as yet, given a distinct answer, nor did he expect that they would succeed in getting a definite answer either. There was another point in reference to this matter which he

  913
  should like to emphasize, and it was the insult which had been put upon the Irish National Members by the Circular issued by the Commissioners to the school teachers. He believed that before there was an Irish National Party in that House the school teachers often got the advice of the Irish Members, and constantly consulted with them as to the manner in which it would be best to forward their interests. Nor did he know that the Government had ever interfered with such consultations between the school teachers and the Irish Members. And why was that? It was because, at that time, the Irish Members, unfortunately for Ireland, were either all Whigs or all Tories. Things had very much changed since; and now the action of the Commissioners, who issued the Circular, amounted to this—that the school teachers were to understand that as long as they only consulted, in regard to their interests, with Whig or Tory Irish Members no fault would be found with them; but directly they showed a disposition to put their claims and their interests in the hands of the Irish National Party the Government would come down upon them at once and say—"No; that must not be done." The Bishops of Ireland had considered that it was appropriate they should place the question of education in the hands of the Irish National Members; and in view of that action on the part of the Bishops he wanted to know why the Government should commit an act of gross insult to the Irish Members by issuing a Circular practically forbidding the Irish school teachers from consulting with them? He thought the conduct of the Government ought not to be allowed to pass without a strong protest. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had just entered the House, and he would ask him if he thought it was proper conduct on the part of the Commissioners to issue a Circular to the school teachers stating that they should not consult with the Irish Members of Parliament with reference to their interests? If they were not to consult with the Irish Members of Parliament, with whom were they to consult? Were they to consult with the English and Scotch Members? He was afraid, if they did, they would obtain very little satisfactory result from the consultation. If they were not to consult with the
  914
  Irish Members, were they to go upon their knees to Earl Spencer, and his surroundings in Dublin Castle, and implore them to look into their case? It was simply infamous that such a body as the National school teachers of Ireland should be ordered by the Government not to hold communication with the Irish Members of Parliament. It was difficult to conceive how the Government could possibly consent to the issue of such a Circular. There was only one explanation to be given, and it was the same explanation that was given in regard to almost every act of the Irish Government—namely, that through the school teachers, and through every other channel, the primary wish of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the Government generally in Ireland was to do everything in their power to weaken the hands of the Irish Party, led by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and to shake the confidence of the Irish people in that Party. He thought the Committee was entitled to know from the Chief Secretary why Her Majesty's Government had thought fit to prohibit the Irish National school teachers from soliciting the interference and support of the Irish Members in their case. He did not see of what use an Irish Member was, at all, to the people of the country he represented if they could not confide their interests to his hands for explanation in that House. It appeared to him to be the most natural thing in the world to expect that the school teachers, if they had a grievance—and Her Majesty's Government admitted that they had—to make that grievance known to Parliament through their elected Members. What they were told by the Government was that the school teachers must not make use of their elected Representatives at all. Did the Government require that the National school teachers should burn down houses, or shoot some landlord, or do some other desperate act before they could insure attention being paid to their wrongs? Did they wish to drive them into illegal courses, and, if not, why did they prohibit their making use of the Irish Members of Parliament unless the real reason was their desire to weaken the hands of the Irish Party? When the long-promised Bill was introduced, as it would be soon, the National school

  915
  teachers would recognize that they owed it to the Irish Members generally in spite of the Circular issued by the Government prohibiting the Irish teachers from consulting with their Representatives. He thought that if hon. Members on the other side of the House, and especially below the Gangway, had the spirit which ought to exist in them, they would strongly protest against the action of the Government in directing the school teachers notto consult with their Members. Such an act was a gross infringement of the rights of the school teachers, and a gross insult to the Representatives of the people. Why should not the Irish Members do everything they could for the National school teachers? Why should they not communicate with them and give expression to their grievances on the floor of that House? There was no reason whatever for the prohibition, and there could be no explanation except that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to discredit the Irish Members, and weaken the confidence of the Irish people in them. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to put an end to the difficulty, both in the House and in the country outside, by declaring distinctly what objections there could be to a consultation between the National school teachers and their Representatives, as to grievances. It was a simple question, and he thought he had a right to expect an answer to it.
  An hon. MEMBER: The right hon. Gentleman will not answer.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: No; the right hon. Gentleman never answers anything.
  MR. P. J. POWERdesired to point out that the Poor Law Guardians of Ireland, as a body, were in favour of education; but they could not expect the Boards of Guardians to contribute largely out of the rates in order to assist the work of education so long as it was in the hands of a class of which they disapproved, and so long as the Irish people had no control over the system of education. He was satisfied that if Parliament would establish any system of education in Ireland that would be truly National, the different Unions would be delighted to become contributors to it; but so long as they had a Board which was in every sense anti-National they could not expect the Irish people to stultify themselves by approving of a system which
  916
  they, as Irishmen, most strongly condemned. He would also point out to the Committee, in connection with this subject, that, as in many other instances, the information derived from Dublin Castle was altogether unreliable. Two years ago the Union which he had the honour to preside over was foolish enough to become a contributor to the educational expenses. They were told that if they became contributors the contributions they would be called upon to make would be about £255. With that understanding, the Union unfortunately consented to become a contributor, and then they received an order from the officials in Dublin Castle directing them to pay £500, or double the sum they were first told would be required from them. He wished to call attention to that fact as an example of the unreliability of the information which was received from Dublin Castle. If the Government would make the system truly National the Guardians would be found ready to support them.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, they very often in that House heard allusions made to Dublin Castle; but he presumed that as long as they had a Government there must be some centre from which that Government should act. Let it be called the "National Port" if they liked, and he would not differ from hon. Members as to the propriety of the nomenclature. He did not suppose, as sensible men, that they could comprehend the existence of a Government without some central place from which such Government would have to express its opinions and issue its instructions. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Redmond), who had spoken with his usual animation and ability, had stated that the Government carried on the work of education in Ireland from Dublin Castle. The hon. Member was altogether in error in speaking of the National Board as a Government, seeing that it was simply a Department. He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) had been for years a Member of that House, and it had not been upon one occasion, but upon hundreds, that he had had communication with those hard-worked officials—the National school teachers. They were persons to whom the country owed a deep debt of gratitude; and, whoever was responsible for the recent arrangements, it was quite certain that an

  917
  opportunity should be afforded to the school teachers for making their grievances known. He had never grudged the sums paid out of the public funds for educational purposes in Ireland. He believed they made many of their own grievances, and added many grievances unnecessarily to those which really existed. But the one point which it was desirable to keep in the foreground was how the people of Ireland were to be taught, and trained, and brought up in knowledge, not only literary, but moral. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to think that he ought to go a good deal further, and to use the word "National"—a word often heard in debates in that House. If he had the acute and logical intellect of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), he was quite sure, if he could have the advantage of a conversation with the hon. and learned Member on the subject, so that he could derive from the hon. and learned Member the instruction which the hon. and learned Member was so well able to impart; if he could have that advantage, he would, no doubt, be told that a great deal in the use of the word "National" depended upon its definition. Assuming that to be correct, was he wrong in saying that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Redmond) was begging the whole question. The meaning of the word "National" was this. It was generally associated with attempts on the part of a people who had been struggling under penal laws, persecution, and confiscation to make themselves free, their progenitors having been engaged in a similar undertaking before them. [A laugh.] This was no laughing matter. Of course, the modern Plutarch who wrote for The Freeman's Journal, and who said that he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was generally unintelligible—of course a modern Plutarch—might he say a £10 Plutarch?—was far superior to the Greek Plutarch, and was bound to be correct.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDrose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Baronet, whose speech, no doubt, was most interesting, was in Order in bringing Plutarch into the debate?
  COLONEL NOLAN: Plutarch was an educational authority.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Baronet should address himself more
  918
  directly to the Question before the Committee.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he knew that it was the desire of the Chairman to prevent any difference in that House; and there was no one more indisposed than he was, in the few observations that he proposed to make, to produce such a state of circumstances. If, for a moment, humble animal that he was, he were to take up the position of a lion, he would say that his jackal in that House would be the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Redmond), for the hon. Member always rose to a question of Order on every occasion when he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) ventured to address the House. The hon. Member was a philosopher by his manner, style, and mode of address.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Baronet again that the subject now before the Committee is a Supplementary Vote of £23,400 for Education in Ireland.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he knew from experience that it was the Chairman's sense of fairness that induced him to treat him (Sir Patrick O'Brien) differently from hon. Members opposite, because he agreed with the hon. Gentleman in politics; but as they were talking on this question he had no desire to shrink from it. One word as to the question of the National school teachers. It had always been his opinion, during the long time he had sat in the House, that the teachers verbally communicated with Members; and he himself had frequently done for them what no hon. Member opposite had done, notwithstanding their "lip" sympathy. He was one of the few men in the House who had endeavoured to induce the Government to do justice to this important class, and to make use of the legislative power of Parliament in compelling the Boards of Guardians in Ireland to do their duty to the teachers. Hon. Members opposite might talk as much as they pleased; but why they did not make better use of their words and power his unintelligible intellect was unable to comprehend. The teachers, however, fully comprehended one thing. They knew that hon. Members opposite were repeatedly making declarations in their favour, and asserting their readiness to do justice to the teachers in every possible way. They were constantly

  919
  vaunting all that the teachers and the country owed to them; but they invariably declined to put their precepts into practice, and never attempted to use legislative means for furthering the interest of the teachers and compelling the Boards of Guardians to do justice to them. He trusted that what he said now, if unintelligible to hon. Gentlemen opposite, would be intelligible to the people of Ireland, and that the Irish people would realize the difference between the "lip" sympathy of their professed friends and a determined effort to secure that their grievances should be remedied and full justice done to them. The statement of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Molloy) as to the treatment the teachers received from the Board of Commissioners he entirely confirmed. He could not understand why, when a man devoted his time and labour and the midnight oil to the advancement of himself in the world by hard study, and was then told that he had failed in his examination, that he should not be fully informed as to the cause of his failure. That was a legitimate matter for the consideration of the House, or of any other deliberative assembly. It was said they were not to be free to speak their minds openly, although they naturally desired to ventilate their grievances with their Representatives, if they had the opportunity. He maintained that it was for the House to declare what the conduct of the Board ought to be in this respect. It was an educational question, and he should have thought that with reference to such a question all Party politics might have been laid aside, and that the Orangemen, Moderate Liberals, Nationalists, and the still larger number who in Ireland were waiters upon Providence, wishing to see in what direction the wind would blow—whether it blew across the Atlantic as it did for nine months out of the 12 in Ireland—would all meet on a common ground. As to the wind, he warned hon. Members opposite that the day might come when they would find it blowing across the Atlantic in a way that would be anything but pleasant for them—for there were other things blown across the Atlantic besides steamers; and in his humble opinion the hesitating class in Ireland, men without the strong and grand vertebræ which used to be a characteristic of the
  920
  Irish race, who regarded the whole political atmosphere of Great Britain as un wholesome, and would willingly accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) that they might with advantage be towed 2,000 miles away from the British Isles, who were not adventurers like Cromwell and Raleigh and the pirates of the old Spanish Main, not men who were ready to write one thing one day and another the next—not men who would praise people in a religious journal to-day and denounce them in a journal of free thought to morrow——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must again ask the hon. Baronet to confine himself to the Question before the Committee, which is the Vote for Education in Ireland.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENapologized for having transgressed the ruling of the Chair. He should have confined himself to the Question from the first, were it not that the speeches he had heard had led him into a digression. He had come down to the House that day to support his hon. Colleague (Mr. Molloy), with whom he had never had a difference, except a political one. He had come there to say a few words upon a social Irish question; but he had found himself surrounded with an atmosphere of Nationalism, and he had to ask the pardon of the Chair if, when suffocated by it, he had used an expression he should apologize for. He knew hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he knew what was said of them in Ireland. In that country, if they had the mob with them, they said, "Go it, Jem," and if they had not the mob with them they said, "Laugh him down." There was nothing like laughing a man down when they were unable to answer him. But that was not the question. The question was whether there had been an improper interference with the National school teachers of Ireland. If there had been, no hon. Member in that House would be stronger in his denunciation of so abominable a principle than he would; and he had no doubt that he would receive the support of every hon. Gentleman sitting around him; but if it was not so, and the question was simply how these teachers were to have their grievances remedied, let them come to the point at once, and not spend their

  921
  time in talk without arriving at a legislative remedy. He assumed that hon. Members opposite would give British power in Ireland some two or three years to last; and, assuming that that was so, were they to allow a deep sense of injustice to sink into the hearts of these men maltreated by the Government—maltreated by the Boards of Guardians, and maltreated by everyone in Ireland who had the right to interfere with them. If hon. Members were really anxious to do something for this class he would ask them, and especially the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Redmond) and the hon. Member for the County of Waterford (Mr. P. J. Power), to restrain their Nationalistic influences until they found themselves in the possession of full power. In the meantime, it was not desirable to allow these men to starve, or to exist in a state of semistarvation; but by the action of the House of Commons, irrespective of the fact that there were elected Guardians, or ex officio Guardians, the time had arrived for requiring the Poor Law Unions to act upon some compulsory system.
  MR. DEASYsaid, he was sure the Committee would feel that the hon. Baronet need have made no apology for the speech which he had just delivered.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN: I made no apology, Sir.
  MR. DEASYsaid, he begged the hon. Baronet's pardon. Every one of them must be very much obliged to the hon. Baronet for his very learned speech; and they must feel indebted to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Redmond) for having afforded him an opportunity of making it. They had been told for some time that there was no prospect of the hon. Baronet ever being returned again for King's County; but, after the speech they had just listened to, he trusted that some of the Universities whose claim to representation was under discussion the other night would recognize the hon. Baronet's genius. If they would only do so, he did not think the House would any longer be charged with not having a fit Representative of learning among its Members. He now wished to put one or two questions to the Chief Secretary. The first had reference to a point which had been raised by the hon.
  922
  Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) in regard to the teachers who went up for examination not receiving from the Board of National Education any information as to the particular subjects in which they had failed. He was of opinion that, whether the managers applied for it or not, it ought to be readily supplied to the teachers who presented themselves for examination. He did not think that a more reasonable proposition could be made, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would accede to it. In many places the manager might have no curiosity to see such a Return; but whether he had or not, he did not see why the manager should be supplied with information as to the particular subject in which the teacher had failed. There was another point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway County (Colonel Nolan) which had not been answered, and it had reference to the compulsory provision of residences for the teachers at the schools. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, in any Bill he was about to introduce on the subject, would make it compulsory upon the owners of land to give a site for the teachers' dwellings. It was impossible for a teacher who had to walk three or four miles in the morning to the schoolhouse, after having spent the night in a wretched and miserable hovel, to give that attention to his duties which he would be able to give if he resided in a comfortable house beside the school. It was equally necessary that good schoolhouses should be provided for the children, because it could not be expected that children would attend to the instructions of their teachers, no matter how competent those teachers might be, if their schoolroom was uncomfortable, and not suitable for the purpose for which it was used. He was afraid it was impossible, unless some such provisions were made, for the children to obtain that complete advantage from the services of the teacher to which they were entitled.
  MR. KENNYsaid, there was another question of a somewhat similar nature which he would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. Before putting it, he would say a word upon the teacher's grievance in being refused all information as to the subjects in which he had failed in his examination. He thought

  923
  the refusal was somewhat unfair to the teacher. No similar system was carried out in England, or even in Ireland, in regard to any other public examination. The candidates in all the examinations he was aware of who passed in two or three subjects and failed in others were informed as to the subjects in which they passed; and if it became necessary to present themselves again they were not examined in those subjects. The question he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to was one which, some time ago, he brought under the notice of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), when Secretary to the Treasury—namely, the curious anomaly which existed in Ireland with regard to the cost of repairs of non-National schools. The Commissioners of National Education in Ireland were always repairing the schools vested in them at the public expense; but schools vested in local Trustees—who were generally the parish priests in the South of Ireland, although probably in the North they were Presbyterian ministers—had to be repaired either by local contributions or by the Trustees themselves. In the South of Ireland nearly all the Bishops set their faces against vesting the local schools in the Commissioners, but preferred to vest them in local Trustees, who had to repair them at their own expense. They were placed by that circumstance at an unfair disadvantage compared with the vested public schools. He was acquainted with instances in which the local Trustees had spent as much as £100—perhaps a small sum in itself, but a good deal for a small local parish in Ireland—in repairs, because, being a non-vested school, it must have fallen into disrepair if an expenditure had not been incurred. This was a grievance which was keenly felt in many parts of Ireland, especially in the Southern Provinces. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that the subject would be taken into consideration, and steps taken to remedy what was an unquestionable grievance, it would be gladly accepted.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that he had on more than one occasion endeavoured to direct the attention of the Government to the character of the school books given out by the Board of Education. He had been kindly sup-
  924
  plied with the latest edition of the Books issued. He was sorry that he had not had time to examine them closely, and he was consequently unable to pronounce an opinion upon their literary or educational merits; but from a cursory examination they appeared to him to be very defective in one respect, inasmuch as they contained nothing whatever in connection with the National history. He thought the time was rapidly passing away when it would be considered good policy, even on the part of the Government, to deprive the children of the opportunity of knowing anything of the National history. If a fairly-educated Irishman who was accustomed to writing were asked to write the history of England, he would be able at once to obtain books which would enable him to write such a history; but if he were asked to write the history of Ireland, even if he were an Irishman of considerable education, it would take him at least six years before he could collect the history together.
  MR. WARTONrose to Order. He wished to know whether, under the present Vote, which was confined to the salaries of school teachers, it was competent for the hon. Member to discuss the question of the books supplied to the National schools?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that hon. Members ought to address themselves directly to the items contained in the Vote; but he understood that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was about to put a question to the Chief Secretary with regard to the importance of affording to the school teachers certain information contained in certain books. If that was the object of the hon. Gentleman's question, he would not be out of Order.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Gentleman had stated with perfect accuracy the object he had in view; and he wished to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary with regard to the question. If the right hon. Gentleman were dealing with a Scotch question, he would, no doubt, see the utter absurdity of depriving the children of all means of studying Scotch history. By a parity of reasoning, it was absurd for the Government to deprive Irish children of the opportunity of reading and studying Irish history. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman had

  925
  already laid down the doctrine that they ought, as far as the Imperial interests of the country would allow, to govern Ireland in accordance with Irish ideas; and the necessary corollary of that position was that the Irish people should be allowed an opportunity of learning Irish history. There had been a work recently published called The History of the Kingdom of Ireland. It was not written by an Irishman, nor even by an Irish Liberal, nor an English Liberal; but the name of the gentleman who was the author of it—Mr. Walpole—suggested at once that he was the son of a distinguished Conservative statesman. Therefore, he presumed that the work was written by an English Conservative. It gave, however, a readable account of Irish history, and it was certain that it was free from anything in the nature of Nationalist bias. It gave a very impartial and readable view of Irish history; and he thought it would be of great advantage indeed if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would distribute a few copies, as an experiment, among the Irish schools, or any other work that might commend itself to his own judgment. The great object was that the new generation of Irish people now growing up should not, like preceding generations, be left without any knowledge of the history of their own country, while they were supplied with that of every other country.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANconfessed that it did appear to him somewhat extraordinary that the history of Ireland should be excluded; but, at the same time, they were all aware of the reason of that extraordinary anomaly. The difficulty was to obtain an impartial work upon a subject on which opinions were so greatly at variance. The hon. Member asked him whether in the Scotch schools the history of Scotland was not taught. He might tell the hon. Member that his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) had experienced great difficulty in regard to the school books used in the Scotch schools. It appeared that some of the school books in Scotland gave different versions of great historical facts. That was the sole reason for the absence of Irish history from Irish schools; but he might say that if any means could be invented for getting
  926
  over the anomaly no one would be more delighted than himself. The hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) had put a question to him about the vested and non-vested schools. He was aware that there was a difficulty; but his attention had not been specially directed to the grievance, and he could only promise the hon. Member that he would look into it carefully. With regard to the question of sites, and various other subjects to be dealt with in the Bill about to be introduced by the Government, he thought it would hardly be in accord with the ordinary rules, nor would it be convenient, that he should forestall, by any declaration on the subject, the contents of that Bill. He would, therefore, prefer to say nothing at all upon the subject; but he would rather that the hon. Member should wait until next week until the Bill itself would be introduced.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) had promised to introduce a Bill, and was asked to lay it upon the Table. He said that he had no objection to give a certain Return relating to it; but the undertaking had never, as yet, been redeemed, although the promise was given on the 20th of January, 1884.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANapprehended that, in the case referred to, the Return had not been moved for. When his right hon. Friend said he had no objection to give it, he probably expected that it would be moved for, although it subsequently happened that it was not. He would look into the matter and see if the Return could not be given. He thought there would be no objection to produce it. The only other point to which it was necessary he should allude had reference to a subject which had been brought before the Committee during the discussion of the Vote—namely, the question of the amount of information to be given to teachers who went up for examination as to their success or failure. He did not think that there was any practical difference between himself and hon. Members opposite. There was a difference at first sight, because the claim put forward was that the information should be furnished directly to the teachers, and not through the intervention of the managers. He had stated that that was objectionable, because the managers were

  927
  entitled to know everything that related to the professional qualifications of the teachers, and it was desirable that the teachers should not be communicated with directly by the Board on such subjects. But he quite agreed with hon. Members, and he would go so far as to say that he would see that the information was given—that was to say, all the information as to the details of the examination which were usually given should be communicated to the teachers.
  MR. SEXTONasked what the right hon. Gentleman meant by "usual information?"
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that he referred to what happened in connection with other examinations. He could not say that any particular detail, or all the details, would be supplied; but whatever details were usually communicated to those who passed an examination, or who failed to pass one, such information should be given to the managers of the National schools to be communicated to the teachers themselves.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the promise of the right hon. Gentleman held out some prospect of improvement; but he did not know what the information was that was usually given. At any rate, any information was better than no information at all. He admitted that if the manager desired information he ought to get it; but, on the other hand, if the teacher communicated direct to the Board, lie ought to receive a reply direct; and, whether the teacher or the manager applied, the information ought not to be withheld. At a future time they would bring before the House the whole question of the constitution of the Board; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would by that time have inquired into the matter, and made up his mind.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he had only a few words to address to the Committee in regard to the subject referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). In the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had made a very important statement—a statement which Irish Members would recollect. He believed it was the first time that the right hon. Gentleman had had the courage to make a statement of
  928
  the kind, which was to the effect that he was surprised, and that it was not right, that Irish history should be excluded from the schools in Ireland.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I said it was an extraordinary circumstance that it should be excluded.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that, but for one circumstance, Irish history would be taught in the schools, and that was, because it was difficult to get a history setting forth facts in a sufficiently impartial manner. Certainly, that was the tenour of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. And they had to consider this. The only reason, according to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, why Irish history was not taught was, that there was no sufficiently impartial history; he would pledge himself that there was not to be found a sufficiently impartial history. But hon. Members on those Benches wished the people of Ireland to have a knowledge of the history of their country. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the rising generation ought to be taught Irish history; he appeared to be sorry that they were not taught Irish history; and he (Mr. W. Redmond) thought that, under the circumstances, he should cause a proper history of Ireland to be written for the use of the National schools. A very impartial history might be written setting forth material facts; but Irish Members would not ask the right hon. Gentleman for a history setting forth very fairly the atrocities committed by the English Government in Ireland. The broader facts might be taught, and Irish Members would keep to themselves the duty of teaching the rising generation in certain respects what the history of Ireland had been—that was to say, the Government might teach them the broader outlines of history, and Irish Members would teach them the rest, such as the massacres at Wexford and other places.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
  (2.) £14,750, Diplomatic Services.
  MR. GORSTremarked, that this Vote included a sum for the West African Conference at Berlin. He did not wish

  929
  to call the attention of the Committee to what he might call the abnormal proceedings at Berlin, but he desired to refer to some conversations which had taken place between Mr. Meade, Dr. Busch, and Prince Bismarck. Those conversations had appeared to Her Majesty's Government of such great importance that they had laid them before Parliament in a Blue Book, called "Memorandum of Conversations at Berlin on Colonial Matters, between Mr. Meade, Prince Bismarck, and Dr. Busch." Now, it was true that those conversations appeared, in the first instance, to have been of a friendly and confidential character; but there was no doubt that the Government had adopted and acted upon the views of the Colonial Office negotiator, and therefore he did not think they could in any way throw the responsibility for what was said and done upon the shoulders of their official, but he thought that the Government must be held responsible for the course taken. He looked upon the Blue Book as a very remarkable one, and one which deserved a great deal more public attention than he was sorry to say it had yet received. The conversations took place at the time when the German Chancellor was in no very good humour with the English Government. In the month of May last, Prince Bismarck had addressed to the German Ambassador in London a despatch which probably hon. Members would never see, but which had been read by one or two of our officials, and had been called by them a very remarkable despatch. It was a despatch which he understood that Earl Granville said he had never received, and although it had been communicated subsequently to Sir Edward Malet at Berlin and Earl Granville in Downing Street, and although it was one which he was sure the whole world would like to see, it would probably never be published. However that might be, it had been described by Sir Edward Malet as a very remarkable despatch. Sir Edward Malet said that this despatch pointed out that, in the commencement of German Colonial enterprize, England might render signal services to Germany; and it said that, for such services, Germany would use her best endeavours in England's behalf on questions affecting her interests nearer home. The despatch pressed
  930
  these considerations with arguments to show the mutual results which such understanding would produce, and Prince Bismarck instructed Count Münster to say that if it could not be effected, the result would be that Germany would seek from France the assistance she had sought from England, and would draw closer to her on the same lines. That was undoubtedly a remarkable despatch, and it appeared that not only did Prince Bismarck communicate that despatch to the German Ambassador in London, but that he also sent his own son to impress these considerations on Her Majesty's Government. He failed, however, not only to obtain their assent to his proposal, but to make them even understand the inducements which were held out. The effect of that was that Prince Bismarck, to say the least of it, was out of humour with the English Government, and that in all the Colonial policy of Germany from that date forward, she contrived to keep open a sore between the two great countries in almost every quarter of the world. If he were asked to state precisely what was the character of the conversations which took place between the Colonial Office negotiator and Dr. Busch in Berlin, he should describe it as an attempt to establish a "raw" in every part of the world in which a raw could be established with this country. Now, the first subject touched upon in this conversation was the Cameroons, as to which Prince Bismarck had certainly forestalled this country. The Government had had the offer of the Sovereignty from King Bau, but not having been able to make up their minds in two years whether they would take the country or not, Prince Bismarck stepped in and hoisted the German flag. There was no doubt that our Consul and the English officials there, to use the language of the German Admiral, "had not kept quite away from a lively sympathy with rebellish negroes." That state of affairs was frankly admitted by our negotiator. Then as to Samoa With regard to this Island, it was notorious that there was a desire on the part of the Government of New Zealand to annex it, and that they had only been stopped from annexing it by the prohibition of Her Majesty's Government. On the 4th of December, the Government, through their Ambassador, made

  931
  an offer to the German Government that they would give an assurance with respect to the independence of Samoa, provided that a reciprocal assurance was given by Germany. Now, that reciprocal assurance had never been received up to the present day. One of the subjects touched upon in these conversations was the complaint of Earl Granville that he had not received any reply to his letter, in which he had offered the assurance to respect the independence of Samoa if Prince Bismarck would give a reciprocal assurance. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had said, in answering a Question put to him on the subject, that there was not in existence any document which bound the German Government not to annex Samoa. [Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I said no Treaty existed.] He (Mr. Gorst) said that there was no document signed by Prince Bismarck, or by any German authority, which would prevent Germany annexing Samoa to-morrow. He said that without fear of contradiction, and if the noble Lord thought he was wrong, he should be glad if he would produce such document. The noble Lord could, no doubt, produce despatches from Sir Edward Malet, showing what his own Government had said; he could produce a despatch from Count Münstor, showing what the German Government had said, but he did not suppose the German Government would be bound by that, unless there was also a document signed by some official of their own. But what he complained of chiefly was the scoffing manner in which the opinions and views of Colonial Ministers were spoken of. He was bound to say that he thought a Minister of this country, addressing a Foreign Minister on the subject of the Colonies, ought not to express to him the contempt which was expressed on this occasion in respect of Colonial opinions and Colonial views. Mr. Meade pointed out to Prince Bismarck that the Colonial Governments could not undertake annexation, and that in the case of Samoa, Her Majesty's Government were guiltless of that which, by implication, New Zealand was guilty. Then they spoke of the necessity of soothing the susceptibilities of Australia and New Zealand, and pointed out to the Prince that it was easy to set their minds at rest. In fact, the conversation was
  932
  practically an invitation to Prince Bismarck to enter into a conspiracy with the Government of Great Britain to carry out Imperial policy at the expense of Colonial policy by soothing the susceptibilities of the Colonists and setting their minds at rest. Having thus dealt with the Island of Samoa, the Government proceeded to deal in the most imprudent and most reckless manner with the Islands of the New Hebrides, which lay between New Caledonia and Fiji. Those Islands actually at one time formed part of the British Dominions; they were included in the Commission of the Governors of New Zealand, and they were so continued down to the time of Governor Brown in 1859, who was the first Governor who had not the New Hebrides included in his Commission. Therefore, they were at one time part of the Dominions of Great Britain. Well, in 1879, something in the nature of a Diplomatic Convention was made with the French Government, by which both countries bound themselves to respect the independence of the New Hebrides. That arrangement, which might be more properly described as a diplomatic understanding, was made without any communication with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand; it was made behind their backs without their knowledge, and it only came to their knowledge several years afterwards. The result of that was that since that date all British purchases of land and all British settlements in the New Hebrides had come to an end; but the French had gone on year after year purchasing land and occupying a position there, and paving the way for the occupation of those Islands by France. It was notorious that the Government of France desired to get possession of the New Hebrides for the purpose of turning them into a penal settlement, because they were unable to develop their penal settlement in New Caledonia. In the face of that, he said it was a monstrous piece of imprudence on the part of the British Government for such a statement to be made to Prince Bismarck that France was to be allowed to take the New Hebrides group, which would naturally fall into the New Caledonian system. To make a statement of that kind, and then to publish it to the whole world, including the Government of

  933
  France, was, he said, one of the most reckless and one of the most imprudent acts of which a Government could be guilty; and the Colonial Office, as well as the Government, seemed to have had some misgivings about the proceedings in this matter, because it appeared from the documents that an attempt was made afterwards to explain away these statements. It was admitted that the circumstance had given rise to some not unnatural expressions of opinion in the Colonies. As to why the statement was made, the only reason given was that it was intended to show Prince Bismarck that there was another Power in the Pacific Ocean besides England and Germany. He (Mr. Gorst) did not think it likely that Prince Bismarck was ignorant of the fact that there was another Power in the Pacific besides Great Britain and Germany. But in order to show that this was the case, was it necessary to make this suggestion—which was sure to be taken advantage of by the French Government, who, at some future time when their flag was hoisted in the New Hebrides, would use the words to which he had called the attention of the Committee—namely, that these Islands would naturally fall into the New Caledonian system? He did not think that anything was said at that time about soothing the susceptibilities of the Australian people, or about setting the mind of the Australian Government easy; but he could assure the noble Lord that this was a subject under which the Australasian Colonies were extremely susceptible, and unless he could give to them and to the Committee the most distinct pledge on the part of Her Majesty's Government that he would not, under any circumstances whatever, allow these Islands to be turned by France into a penal settlement, he imagined that this was not the last that he would hear of the proposal of Her Majesty's Government. He wished now to call the attention of the Committee to the case of Angra Pequena, because the gentleman who visited Prince Bismarck seemed to have had instructions to try and induce Prince Bismarck to accept some Islands lying off Angra Pequena as a sufficient reason for changing his Colonial policy and allowing great Britain to have her way in every other part of the Southern Hemisphere. Prince Bismark was rather
  934
  sore about Angra Pequena, not only because we had taken these wretched little guano Islands and rocks near the coast, but because he thought we were going to cramp his energies inland. Indeed, he seemed to have been suspicious of the Bechuanaland Expedition, because he thought it might be intended for the purpose of occuping some territories on the West of Angra Pequena, and so cramp Germany in. And he complained that our maps represented as a desert some parts of the country that were unannexed by Great Britain; he said that those parts were not deserts at all, that he believed there were elephants, trees, and grass there, and that he wanted "elephants, trees, and grass." The only offer made to him by our Government was that of these wretched little guano Islands. Prince Bismarck was told that there was a waterless tract of land extending for 30 miles near Angra Pequena, and that if he crossed that desert he might annex South Africa up to the 20th degree of longitude; and the negotiator actually went on to point out the 20th meridian of longitude on Prince Bismark's map as if he could not see it himself. And that was the way we had endeavoured to cramp the action of this great man who had formed a large scheme of Colonization. It seemed that Her Majesty's Government wanted to force these Islands upon him; and their action in that respect reminded one of a money lender who forced pictures and articles of virtu on his borrower. Prince Bismarck said he did not care about the Islands; that the guano on them would soon be exhausted. Then he asked this pertinent question—"Will you give me Walfisch Bay;" and the answer was—"No, we will not give you Walfisch Bay, but you shall have the wretched little Islands we have been speaking about." After a vain endeavour to tempt this great Prince by the offer of these guano Islands at the Equator, they went on to speak of the New Guinea question, with respect to which there was, he believed, a very serious raw as to the boundaries of the British and German territories. Now there, again, was an extraordinary instance of the obliviousness of the English authorities; because it appeared, according to the statement of Prince Bismarck, that an intimation that a German Expedition was going to the North Coast of New

  935
  Guinea, was given to the Foreign Office; and not only that, but an Aide Mémoire was left at the Foreign Office in order that the circumstance might not be forgotten. It was extraordinary that no one at the Foreign Office appreciated that information, and the Aide Mémoire, he believed, was nowhere to be found. The English Government were willing to give a pledge on their part that they would not go beyond the South Coast of New Guinea, which left it perfectly open to the Germans to annex such of the North Coast as they liked; and the consequence was that the German Government annexed a portion of the North Coast of New Guinea, and we annexed the rest of it. We were very anxious to get rid of the Germans by persuading them to give up their position on the mainland. Prince Bismarck, however, said humourously that he preferred a group of Islands all to himself to being mixed up with other people on the mainland; but he would not give up his tract of country on the mainland, and, speaking of the great Possessions of Great Britain, he said she grudged Germany a little Possession of this kind. He pointed out that we were asking him to give up some advantages which they had obtained, in exchange for nothing at all. Then he believed the negotiator played his last card; he took a telegram from his pocket and read it. It was a telegram which had appeared in many English newspapers respecting the irritation and soreness of the Colony of Victoria on receiving the news of the annexation of New Guinea. That telegram was produced to Prince Bismarck, and then the whole of the negotiations ended by Prince Bismarck saying—
  "You practically offer me nothing but these wretched guano Islands; how, therefore, can I alter my Colonial policy all over the world to meet the wishes of Great Britain?"
  That was what they were asked partly to vote this money for. The sum now under consideration was to pay, amongst other things, for this wretched, abortive attempt to mend matters with Germany, which seemed to him to have only made matters worse. He was sorry to have to detain the Committee, and should not have done so if he could have foreseen another opportunity that Session of being able to call the attention of the people of the country to the unfortunate
  936
  irritation kept up apparently without any cause whatever between this country and Germany. He thought it was desirable that that matter should be brought under the attention of the people of the country; not that he was in the least afraid of anything like a war, for it was impossible that there ever could be anything like a serious quarrel between this country and Germany, the interests of the two nations being so identical. The temper of the German people and their way of looking at political affairs were like ours, and both nations were anxious for peace and the progress of commerce. As a matter of fact, he did not believe that the ingenuity of the most reckless and foolish Government on the one side or on the other could by any possibility bring the two countries into a state of collision. The two countries ought to be friends. As he had said, our interests were identical with those of Germany, and the extension of the Colonial enter-prize of that nation was really of the greatest possible advantage to us. Why we should snarl, grumble, and growl, as the British Government had been snarling and grumbling, at Germany during the last nine months, he did not know. It would have been much better to have accepted the original proposal of Prince Bismarck; and in regard to their new Colonial enterprize, Germany should not merely have had the passive good-will of England, but their active and most benevolent assistance. They ought to have given every help they possibly could give to the Colonizing schemes of that country. Even if they could not get a quid pro quo, the opportunity of securing the support of Germany in matters near at home in regard to which Her Majesty's Government stood in most need of assistance, ought to have guided them. Even if it had only been a matter of Colonial policy by itself, it was distinctly the policy of this country to have gone hand-in-hand with Germany, and to have given her every assistance in their power in the carrying out of her schemes. He was aware that, owing to speeches made "elsewhere," it was believed that a better frame of mind now existed, and that the foolish policy of the past six or nine months was not to be continued. He believed it was generally understood that an official statement to that effect had been made, that they were now good friends with Ger-

  937
  many, and that it was unnecessary to make the protest which, he had ventured to make on this Vote. But if there was any root of bitterness still remaining between the Governments of the two countries with regard to Colonial policy, he ventured to say that there was hardly any sacrifice which the British Government could make for the purchase of the warm sympathy and friendship of Germany in the Colonies which it would not be prudent and judicious to make. He was certain that there was no occasion in this matter to in any way infringe upon the rights or susceptibilities of the Australian Colonies. He could not quite get rid of the idea that there was at one time on the part of the Government a disposition to enter into a conspiracy, as he had said, with Prince Bismarck for the furtherance of certain Imperial objects in the Pacific Ocean, without much respect or regard for Colonial opinion. They did not want that. What was wanted in Australia or New Zealand was that the Government should do nothing behind the backs of the Colonies. The time might come when their Colonies might demand to have a voice in our foreign policy. That point, however, had not yet been reached. Their demand at the present moment was much less. What they demanded was information—that they should know what it was intended to do before any steps were taken. If Her Majesty's Government would only at the present time give information to the Governments of the Australian Colonies and New Zealand as to the policy it was intended to pursue in the Pacific, he did not think there would be any difficulty with these Colonies; but, in his opinion, the interests of Australia, New Zealand, and Great Britain would alike be served by the closest and warmest friendship being kept up with Germany in regard to the course to be pursued in the Pacific Ocean.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he felt bound to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) upon his very able and interesting speech, in which he had brought before the Committee and the country matters of the highest and most vital importance to the interests of themselves and their Colonies. The Committee would not be surprised when he stated that he cordially concurred in every word of the
  938
  concluding part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech with regard to the necessity for close and intimate friendship with the German Power. During the past four years, he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had in every possible way endeavoured to bring before the House and the Members of Her Majesty's Government, who had always shown a remarkable reluctance to realize its importance, the necessity—the absolute necessity for the interests of this country—of a friendly and close alliance with Germany. The German Power, as his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) had said, was the natural ally of this country. Their interests were more or less identical with those of Germany, and they clashed with those of Germany less than with those of any other European State. They had common enemies in Europe, and both Powers were threatened from the same quarter; and in this matter Austria was in a similar position. They were all three not only natural allies, but their interests were menaced by common foes—by foes whom he might describe as the perpetual disturbers of European peace—in the extreme West and extreme East of the Continent of Europe. It was an unfortunate fact that the policy of Her Majesty's Government for the past five years had been based upon a directly contrary principle. They had sought to lean upon France and Russia, while they had turned the cold shoulder to Germany. They had refrained from the expression of any of those warm and kindly sentiments with which they had been overbounding towards the French Republic in regard to their foreign policy. They had a most interesting official in this country—the gentleman who had been sent to Berlin on the important mission with which the Committee was familiar. This gentleman had repudiated all direct responsibility; but it was perfectly certain that he could not have made the suggestions he had made without having had a general outline of the policy sketched out to him, at any rate in conversation, by the Foreign Secretary. There could be no doubt that Mr. Meade's action had been based upon instructions received from the Foreign Secretary. It was not difficult to imagine that, before he started, Mr. Meade had been empowered to offer Prince

  939
  Bismarck concessions which turned out to be absolutely worthless, and which that Statesman rejected with that sang froid so characteristic of him. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) had gone into some of the important "points of the Memorandum which was in the hands of hon. Members. Mr. Meade had tried to settle some general policy, and to place their Colonial relations with Germany on a better footing; and it was obvious, from the wide character of his offers, embracing, as they did, an offer to make concessions in New Guinea, Angra Pequena, the New Hebrides, the Cameroons, and other places, that Mr. Meade was empowered to enter into negotiations of a most important character covering the whole sphere of their Imperial relations with Germany. Now, before going into the Memorandum, he should like to call the attention of the Committee to a most astonishing circumstance which took place the other day, one which illustrated better, perhaps, than any number of minor incidents, the general character of the Colonial policy of the Government, A short time ago Prince Bismarck delivered a speech upon the relations between England and Germany of the utmost European importance—a speech which had rung throughout Europe, which had been fully reported in all the London newspapers, and which he would venture to say had been read by every Member of the Committee—with one great exception—no matter how slight his interest in these questions. In that speech Prince Bismarck, whilst censuring strongly the conduct of the Foreign Office towards the German Government, expressed the warmest friendship for the English people. Prince Bismarck had really gone out of his way to express friendship for England, and to mention the valuable advice which he had throughout these matters offered to Her Majesty's Government. Well, would it be believed that five days after that speech appeared in all their public journals the Prime Minister of this country was able, in his place in the House of Commons, to state that he had never seen it? After that, what could they expect from the present Government—what could they expect from a Government, the Head of which did not take the trouble to read the speeches of the greatest master of
  940
  statecraft in Europe on questions of most vital interest to this country? He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) thought hon. Members might give up the whole question of the Foreign Policy of the present Government as a hopeless case. Well, he trusted, however, that they had now reached a turning point in the unfortunate relations—he would say in the unfortunate reversal of the friendly relations with Germany established by the late Government. It had been his fortune on various occasions within the past four years to ask for information on this point, and to have been invariably met by a studied denial that the relations between Germany and England were in the slightest degree in danger or even changed. He must confess, however, that this denial on the part of the Government had been much less emphatic under the present Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs than it had been under his Predecessor. It had always been denied that there was any misunderstanding with Germany, although the documentary evidence plainly showed first a change of feeling, then a coolness, and ultimately an alienation which at one time almost amounted to a breach between the two countries. He hoped that the cycle of alienation, which began with the famous insult to Austria, and went on to the publication of the confidential Memorandum between Sir Edward Malet and Prince Bismarck, had come to an end. With regard to the publication of that confidential despatch, the point was one upon which the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitz-maurice) should give the Committee some information presently. He should like to know, for instance, whether Sir Edward Malet was consulted by the Foreign Office before the publication of that confidential communication of November 4, or of some date between November 4 and November 10? The Government had made an impotent and ridiculous attempt to base their policy on an alliance with France and Russia; but the attempt had, happily, been relinquished, and by the stern course of events Her Majesty's Government had been compelled to realize that their only true policy lay in a firm friendship and intmate alliance with Berlin and Vienna. That alliance effected, they might hope that the constant disasters and humiliations which had fallen upon England in

  941
  regard to her foreign relations would come to an end at last. Now, he wished to tell the Committee a little episode which happened to him the other day, which showed the absolute ignorance of Her Majesty's Government with regard to these matters. He had been in conversation with a Gentleman of considerable position in Her Majesty's Government—he would not state who he was, and Her Majesty's Ministers could, therefore, take the statement he was about to make for what it was worth. Their conversation had turned upon their relations with Prince Bismarck and Germany. He (Mr. Ashmead - Bartlett) had ventured to make the suggestion he was now offering—namely, that it was of the utmost importance that cordial relations should be established between the two countries. Upon that the Gentleman with whom he was conversing, said—"What do you mean? Why should we trouble ourselves—how can Prince Bismarck hurt us?" He must confess that this reply staggered him. That was the opinion of a Gentleman who might be taken as of the general average of the intelligence of the Government and of the Liberal Party, and it had so surprised him that he hardly knew for the moment how to answer. At last, however, he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) said—"Germany cannot invade England with her legions, it is true; but suppose you alienate her to such an extent that Prince Bismarck advises Russia to advance on India, and tells Turkey to render our position intolerable in Egypt, what would our position be?" This came in the nature of a revelation to the Member of the Government to whom he was speaking. Well, the sole and only reason for the long alienation from Germany was, he was afraid, a factious desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government to reverse everything that the Earl of Beaconsfield had done. The Committee must have a vivid recollection of what the Earl of Beaconsfield had effected, particularly in regard to that greatest feat of modern statesmanship, whereby, on the strength of the German alliance he had gained in 1878, he was enabled at the Berlin Conference to deprive Russia of more than half of the spoils of her victorious Campaign against Turkey. So long as the alliances effected by the Earl of Beaconsfield had been main-
  942
  tained, their position in Europe was secure, as also was the peace of Europe. Their alliance with Germany was practically a great peace union. Germany, Austria, and England were peaceful States, and contented with what they had—in Europe, at all events—and it was to their interests to maintain the peace of Europe, whereas the interests of France and Russia were constantly to break that peace. Here he might say that he had omitted to do what he ought to have done earlier—that was to call the attention of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) to two statements which had been given in the short Memorandum in the hands of hon. Members. They showed the German feeling towards the present Government. If the noble Lord would turn to page 4 of the Memorandum, he would see that Mr. Meade stated that he had seen there was a strong feeling in Germany against England, and that only a short time before he had noticed fresh proofs of it. This came at a time when Ministers were most free in their denial of the fact that there was any coldness between Germany and England. On page 11 it would be found that Prince Bismarck was reported to have stated that up to two years ago he had done everything he could to facilitate English policy in Egypt and elsewhere, but that he had been treated in a manner which showed that the actions of the British Government did not come up to their professions. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) took it that if it had not been for the real friendship of Germany towards England, the policy of Her Majesty's Government would long ago have led to a rupture between the two countries, because in every respect during the last four years they had either neglected or absolutely gone against the advice Germany had offered. Hon. Members, on reading the advice of the German Chancellor, would find how statesmanlike and beneficial to them it had been. Prince Bismarck had told them to increase their interest over Egypt as much as they could by friendly arrangements with its Sovereign, the Sultan of Turkey. That was what the Conservative Party had been endeavouring to impress upon Her Majesty's Government during the last four years—they had sought to impress upon

  943
  them that as long as Turkey was a powerful State, and remained the Sovereign Power of Egypt, they could act in that country by the assistance of Turkish influence; and that if Turkey were broken up, they could then remain in Egypt as her residuary legatee. He was afraid that the remarkable phrase which occurred on page 10 of the Memorandum would only too probably come about. Mr. Meade had told Prince Bismarck that his hoisting of the German flag in New Guinea would have a most "deplorable effect on Australia;" and he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) ventured to think that there was something else which would have a deplorable effect on Australia—a more deplorable effect than the hoisting of the German flag in New Guinea—that was to say, the effeteness of the defence of the interests of the Colonies by Her Majesty's Ministers. It was impossible to exaggerate the utter absurdity and impotence of the conduct of negotiations by Her Majesty's Government, as illustrated by their own Memoranda. A telegram had been received which contained a protest, in the name of Australia, against the British Government for not saving her from danger and disgrace, so far as New Guinea was concerned, and declaring that the bitterness of feeling which had been engendered would not die out for generations. The Committee knew also that Resolutions had been carried in Australia, urging the retirement of the present Colonial Minister from his position, and he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) was strongly of opinion that such a course was most desirable. Hon. Members heard a great deal about Tory legacies; but it seemed to him that the only Tory legacy the Government or the Liberal Party had a right to complain of was the present Head of the Colonial Office (the Earl of Derby). Hon. Members would probably agree with him in that view. When they remembered how easy it would have been for Her Majesty's Government to have forestalled Germany in the matter of New Guinea, and that without raising the slightest ill-feeling in Germany, because Germany was a Power which always recognized faits accompli. If Her Majesty's Government had taken possession of unoccupied land two years ago, and if the Earl of Derby had not deliberately quashed the annexation by
  944
  Australia, without any apparent reason, the whole difficulty with regard to New Guinea would have fallen to the ground. The Australian Colonies would have got what they wanted, and we should not have been placed in our present position. He found the strongest evidence in the Papers that Her Majesty's Government had only to raise their little finger to secure the possession of New Guinea for Australia, and that it would have been as easy to have obtained it as it would have been by a simple telegraphic message to have saved the life of Hicks Pasha. Mr. Meade, in one of his despatches, stated that Her Majesty's Government, if they had cared to, could have accomplished the thing in a few hours. It was evident that Her Majesty's Government had incurred the danger of falling between two stools—namely, Prince Bismarck and the Colonies. As to the interpretation put upon Mr. Scott's despatch, the document was clearly a very important one. Her Majesty's Government had declared their policy with regard to New Guinea—a subject which was of vital interest to the Australian Colonies; but it was clear that that despatch was so indistinctly written that Her Majesty's Government and Prince Bismarck found themselves able to place perfectly contrary interpretations upon it. What could the Committee think of a Government which wrote such despatches as that? That the Government were practised in writing despatches they knew from the statement of Prince Bismarck the other day. He had said that within the past six or eight months he had received from the British Foreign Office no fewer than 128 despatches. He had said that owing to some fault, not his own, Her Majesty's Ministers had, since July last year, written him 128 despatches, which was more than he had received from all the other Powers put together in six years. That showed the way in which the business of this country was conducted. The greatest distinctness was necessary in despatches. Yet it was to be feared that many others of these documents were as indistinct in their meaning as the one referred to. Prince Bismarck had gone further than charging our Ministry with indistinctness, and had said that we had full warning of what was coming. If Prince Bismarck's statement was correct, it placed Her Majesty's Go-

  945
  vernment in a very awkward position indeed, because it made them responsible for statements which were directly in the face of the facts as viewed by the German Government. Prince Bismarck said that Count Münster had been ordered to tell them that this German Expedition to New Guinea was about to be sent. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had not come down prepared for this debate that night, otherwise he should have had with him all the replies of Ministers during the Autumn Session, which, he thought, were in contradiction to the statement of Prince Bismarck that they had full warning of the German Expedition. That was a point upon which there could be very little doubt indeed. Either Count Mü;nster did tell them that this Expedition was going to New Guinea in July, or he did not. As to the apology which had been offered to Germany in "another place," he desired to say this—that he did not wish to criticize it in an unfavourable spirit, because, in view of their policy all over the world, and in view of the necessity of their making friends, that statement had a good deal of statesmanship in it. His respect for Earl Granville had been increased by the frankness with which he had made the apology. But he did not believe that Earl Granville was as responsible for the state of things which had rendered that apology necessary as the Prime Minister. He believed it had been hopeless perversity on the part of the Prime Minister which had driven them further and further away from Germany, and had prevented their Foreign Office from carrying out any manly policy, and had put the unfortunate Foreign Minister in the position of offering himself up as a scapegoat on the altar of the Prime Minister's remarkable blundering in connection with all their foreign relations. Though he regretted that an English Foreign Minister should be obliged to apologize to any Foreign Power, yet, as he had said, he could not criticize Earl Granville's apology in any unfriendly spirit. He would call attention to only two points in connection with their relations with Germany on this Colonial question. As to Angra Pequena, the whole case might be put into a nutshell. The despatches extended over more than two years. They began with a proposition from Germany that we should be responsible for the protection of German
  946
  subjects in a certain portion of South-West Africa; they went on to a repudiation on the part of Her Majesty's Government of Her Majesty's Sovereignty over that district, or the right of interference there; they went on to a statement that if Germany ventured to interfere to protect her own subjects in a place where we had repudiated responsibility, it would be an unfriendly act on the part of Germany; and had concluded with the humiliating finale that England, who had refused to protect German subjects in Angra Pequena, begged Germany to protect British subjects there. So with regard to Fiji. They repudiated and refused to recognize the German claims in the first place, and in the end finished by accepting them—by doing the very thing which at the outset they refused to do. The case of New Guinea was equally bad. They had an opportunity, two years ago, of endorsing the statesmanlike action of the Colonies. They neglected to do it, and not only that, but squashed the annexation, and they now found themselves obliged to make an apology to retain the friendship of Germany, which was perfectly secure when the present Government came into power and which Her Majesty's Government might have retained with ease, but had lost by a series of unparalleled blunders. That was the position. He shared the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that the great concessions which he understood were being made to Germany, in order to undo the long course of blundering which Her Majesty's Government had gone through, were not excessive in view of the critical position in which they now stood in Europe and Asia. To maintain the vital interests of this country in preserving the German alliance they were sacrificing a certain strip of territory on the Western Coast of Africa. He hoped those sacrifices would be as small as possible. He was not estimating them at a large amount in order to complain of them, so much as to enumerate what they were, and to show that the friendship of Germany was really worth something. They were making these concessions on the West Coast of Africa and in New Guinea, and the latter would raise a bitter feeling in their Australian Colonies. It should ever be remembered that they owed their

  947
  Australian Colonies the deepest debt of gratitude for the patriotic and noble way in which they had come forward to support the interests of the Empire in a great crisis. The recent offers of military aid on the part of the Australian and North American Colonies was in striking contrast with the cold, neglectful, snubbing, and disintegrating policy which had been pursued by the Liberal Party during the last 20 years and longer, and especially by the present Government. The action of the Colonies had struck a warm and grateful chord in the hearts of Englishmen; and it was very hard, when all felt how close the bonds of the union between the Home Country and the Colonies were being drawn, and when everyone wished that those bonds should be drawn more close and intimate and permanent, that owing to the impotence of the present Government, the Colonies should be obliged to recall the fact that considerable interests of theirs were injuriously affected by the irritation between Her Majesty's Government and Germany. But he sincerely trusted that Colonial feeling on this matter would be as moderate as possible, and would be directed not against Germany and the Home Country, but against Her Majesty's Ministers, who were responsible for the difficulties of the present position. He hoped that the Colonies would be satisfied with making a protest against Her Majesty's Ministers in this respect, and not allow these misfortunes, which were deeply deplored, which the Conservative Party conceived to be wholly unnecessary, and which could have been easily avoided by foresight and courage, to alienate Colonial good feeling from them. It would be far better to sacrifice a Secretary of State for the Colonies, or half-a-dozen Ministers for the Colonies, than that Colonial feeling should have cause to be permanently irritated against the Home Country. He thanked the Committee for the indulgence it had shown him in allowing him to make these remarks. He had frequently endeavoured to impress upon Her Majesty's Government the great importance of preserving not merely an external appearance of cordiality with Germany—beoause it might be easy to smooth over the wrinkles produced in this matter in course of time—but of
  948
  going at this question in a root-and-branch spirit. He agreed that they must establish more cordial relations with Germany if they wished to succeed in Egypt or anywhere else. They must sacrifice the rooted ideas of the Prime Minister and other Members of the Cabinet as to Russia and France, and make up their minds that Germany was their ally, and that their policy must be based upon an alliance with Germany. They must give up from the bottom to the top all this hopeless attempt to purchase a worthless alliance with the unstable Republic of France by concession after concession, for which no compensation or return whatever was obtained. Such folly only alienated from them the stable Monarchies of Austria and Germany, and threatened the interests of England in the Mediterranean and elsewhere. If he were assured that Her Majesty's Government realized the vital importance of the German alliance, and were determined to base their policy for the future upon that alliance, he should not be dissatisfied with the concessions which had been made to Germany. If it should turn out in the result that there was still no settled policy on the part of this Government to bring about a union and alliance with Germany, but merely a temporary attempt to buy off German hostility in certain parts of the world, then they would have to complain that Her Majesty's Government had sacrificed in vain not only the interests of the Colonies, but also of their own country.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he thought the Committee must have been satisfied and pleased with the two speeches which had been made on this subject from this side of the Committee, and the more so because both of the speeches were very moderate indeed in their tone. He hoped that whatever he might have to say on this subject would be characterized, at all events for the present, by the same moderation which was observable in the remarks of his hon. Friends. His hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had ever since 1880 been persistently bringing before the notice of the House this question of the friendly alliance between this country and Germany. Nearly every time that the hon. Gentleman had had an opportunity of bringing forward the question he had been met by jeers from

  949
  hon. Gentlemen occupying seats below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House; but he thought that, judging from what had transpired in the past, and from what was transpiring now, the Committee and the country would agree that his hon. Friend had been persistently right in that portion of his foreign policy. ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member who cried "Oh, oh!" had been one of the most persistent jeerers of the hon. Member for Eye ever since that hon. Gentleman had occupied a seat in the House. He (Mr. Onslow) was sure of this—that his hon. Friend's desire to obtain a friendly and stronger alliance with Germany bad been perfectly consistent throughout, and had been justified by the facts which were now before them. Well, now, what were they to say about the Papers which were now the subject of discussion by the Committee? The hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Gorst and Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had so thoroughly exhausted the subject dealt with by those Papers that he need not make any quotations from them; but what he would say was this—that there was no man who had ever been at the head of affairs in any European country who had, judging from his despatches, both public and quasi- private, so persistently endeavoured to be friendly with England as Prince Bismarck. Every despatch contained in the Blue Book just issued showed that Prince Bismarck's primary wish had been to be on the most friendly terms with this country; and it had only been by the persistent stubbornness of Her Majesty's Government that the friendly relations between the two countries had been at all estranged—stubbornness, the one result of which was the great fiasco displayed in the apologies of Earl Granville in the other House, a fiasco which, in his (Mr. Onslow's) opinion, did not redound to the credit and honour of this country. He hoped things were now changed; he hoped that bygones would be bygones, and that nothing had been done that would permanently estrange Prince Bismarck or the German people from this country, because if they were to hold their own in Europe, and maintain their Empire intact, it was utter madness for them to think they could do so without the assistance, or at least the cordial friendship, of Germany. As to the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby)
  950
  who was now the Head of the Colonial Office, he (Mr. Onslow) was sure there were many who would like to use strong words. He did not think the noble Earl, when he was Foreign Secretary under a previous Government, did the country much good, and he did not think that the noble Earl had done this Liberal Government much good as Colonial Secretary. All he (Mr. Onslow) could say was, reading history as he did, and knowing a little of the Colonial and Foreign policy of this country, that if they had had such men in the past as in the present, they never could have made the Empire what it was. ["Oh, oh!"] Of course, he was not speaking of the Earl of Derby privately, but concerning his political character, and he maintained that if they were to have many more of such men, be they Liberal or Conservative, they would never be able to hold or maintain their Empire. He could not understand how the noble Earl could retain Office after the snubbing he had received on all sides from Australia——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to connect his observations with the West African Conference, because I must remind him that that is the subject before the Committee?
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he did propose to connect his observations with the subject before the Committee—namely, the German annexations in New Guinea, and he thought he was perfectly within Order in doing so. He would not say more about the policy of the Earl of Derby than this—that it seemed to be utterly inconsistent that one who had been so treated by Germany and by our own Colonies could possibly remain a moment longer in any Government. But that, however, was a matter for the Earl of Derby himself. He was sure no one who loved the Empire—as he hoped all hon. Members did—would wish the Colonial Office henceforth to be filled by a noble Earl or a right hon. Gentleman of the calibre of the Earl of Derby. There was an item in the Vote to which he wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government. It was the item of £2,500 set down for the Earl of Northbrook's Mission to Egypt. Now, he was one of those who did not care how much they spent on missions of that kind, if such missions were only successful; but when they came to think

  951
  that all this money had been spent on a mission that was utterly abortive, which had led to no good result whatever, he thought they should have some explanation from the Government, especially as the Report of the Earl of Northbrook was not before the House or the country; he thought they had a right to some explanation from the Government how it was so large a sum was spent by the Earl of Northbrook in so short a time, and, as it appeared, to no advantage. It might be said that the Earl of Northbrook's was a very difficult mission. He recollected that, at the time it was announced that the Earl of Northbrook was to be sent to Egypt, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said he was to be sent with the full authority of the Cabinet; that they could send no one better, as the Earl of Northbrook was a Cabinet Minister, and thoroughly understood the views of his Colleagues. It was a very remarkable thing that, if the noble Earl did understand the views of the Cabinet, the Report he drew up upon his return had not yet been brought to light; even at the present time it was not certain whether the Government intended to publish the Report or not; they had given no definite assurance that they would do so. It was only due to the country that one or other of Her Majesty's Ministers should tell Parliament whether they had got a quid pro quo for the expenditure of the sum now asked for. The Earl of Northbrook was away for a very short time—two months or three at the outside; even if he were away for the outside period mentioned, he (Mr. Onslow) would like to know how it was that so large a sum as £2,500 was expended? They knew, of course, that the Earl of Northbrook travelled a great deal; they knew that he had Private Secretaries with him, and that, of course, there would sure to be many incidental expenses, and he was certain that no one would grudge a halfpenny of the money—in fact, that they would not have grudged £5,000, or even £10,000—if the Earl of Northbrook's visit had led to a successful solution of the Egyptian difficulty; but, in his opinion, the effect of the Earl of Northbrook going to Egypt had only tended to embitter the feeling of the Egyptians against us; it had only tended to alienate still further the common people of Egypt from the ruling power, which was prac-
  952
  tically this country. Now, he wished to address a few words to the Committee upon what had become, he must admit, a very delicate subject. He had taken, as, no doubt, many hon. Gentlemen knew, the deepest interest in Sir Peter Lumsden's mission to Afghanistan. He put last Session several Questions which he thought to the point on the subject—first to his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross), and then when he, in common with others, thought the replies of the hon. Gentleman were not very satisfactory, or did not elucidate matters, he thought it desirable to put Questions to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister admitted, in answer, that the matter was of great importance. It had turned out, everyone would admit, a matter of the gravest importance, and he (Mr. Onslow) did not intend to go into the minutiæ of the mission of Sir Peter Lumsden; he did not wish to discuss what was the present policy of Her Majesty's Government; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would not think he was going too far when he asked how it was that Sir Peter Lumsden undertook so important a mission without all the details being arranged beforehand; how it was that when he arrived upon the Afghan Frontier, the Russian Commissioner was not there to meet him, but was somewhere, it was believed, in Russia? The country had a right to know how it was that it was not arranged that the Russian Commissioner should meet General Lumsden, not exactly on the very day he arrived on the Frontier, but, at all events, within a reasonable time of his arrival. He assured the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that there were many people in England who considered the conduct of Russia to amount to a gross insult to this country; not only that, but he assured the Prime Minister that the conduct of Russia had been considered by the people of India to be a great insult. He did not wish to go into the policy of masterly inactivity with regard to Afghan affairs which had been adopted by Liberal Governments; but he did wish to point out to the Government that there were many of them sitting on the Conservative Benches who looked with the gravest suspicion on the mission of General Lumsden. He did not wish at all to embarrass the Govern-

  953
  ment in any way; but he asserted that the Committee ought to know somewhat definitely what were the instructions given to General Lumsden, and how it was that the Russians, who they were told had promised to meet General Lumsden on the borders of Afghanistan, were now Heaven knew where. It was of very serious moment indeed to the people of England that General Lumsden should have been sent on a fool's errand. The question of the advance of Russia and of General Lumsden's mission was now the talk of every bazaar throughout the length and breadth of India, and the Natives of India were asking themselves why the Queen's Government, at the present time, were allowing General Lumsden and his Mission to eat their heads off, as it were, on the borders of Afghanistan, and the Russians had not come out to meet them according to arrangement? It had been said that this question might be settled by a Conference of the Powers. He had seen that hinted; but he hoped that that was not to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government. This question had nothing whatever to do with the other European Powers; it was a question entirely between England and India and Russia. For the moment he would put India aside, and say that it was a matter entirely between England and Russia; it was a matter on which they had no right to ask Germany, or Prance, or Italy to interfere; they ought to undertake the responsibility—the very grave responsibility—upon their own shoulders; and he trusted Her Majesty's Government did not intend to relegate their duties to any other Foreign Potentate, or to a Conference of the European Powers. He was the last person in the world to endeavour to embarrass Her Majesty's Government in a difficult matter of this kind, and the Questions he had put on the Paper he had simply asked with the intention of getting some information from Her Majesty's Government. His simple wish was that the Government should take the Committee and the country into their confidence. He, in common with others in the House and in the country, was pleased when he heard the Prime Minister say that this was a National policy; he only hoped and trusted that the Prime Minister's idea of a National policy, as
  954
  regarded Russia and India, was the same as his (Mr. Onslow's) own. He trusted that the Government of this country would put its foot down at the present time as firmly as possible, because it was of paramount importance to the interests of England and of India that they should do so. He trusted also that when the time came for a settlement of these grave questions, Her Majesty's Government would, as far as laid in their power, see that the settlement was a permanent one. It was no use patching up a matter for a time, by some means or other, and he thought it was quite possible that those means could be found. The Russian Government should be led to understand that whatever Treaty was made, if there was to be a Treaty, it should be final and definite. He hoped he would not be considered as travelling beyond the limits of the question at issue when he said that the people of this country rejoiced to hear that the Ameer of Afghanistan was to meet the Viceroy in India. He thought that that might be—he hoped it would be—an augury of peace for the future. At the same time, he was not quite sure that it was safe for the Ameer to leave his country at the present state of affairs. He sincerely hoped there would be some definite, some final conclusion of this unhappy state of things, which had been worrying India for many years past, and which had been worrying successive English Governments for many years past. He, for one, had always been opposed to what was called a policy of masterly inactivity. For such a policy the day had long gone by; and he hoped that for the future they would show the people of India and the people of Russia that they would not allow Russia to invade one atom of Afghan territory. While upon this subject, he would like to renew a Question he put to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) not long ago. It was whether India was to pay the whole cost of Sir Peter Lumsden's mission? He had understood from the noble Lord that India was so to do; but in this Vote he noticed an item of £1,650 was set down for the Afghan Boundary Commission. He would like to know how such a sum came into this Vote? He was not at all sure that it was politic to allow India to

  955
  pay anything at all towards the expenses of this mission; but, of course, there were things to be said on both sides of the question. In conclusion, he could only once more say most emphatically that, notwithstanding the Votes the Committee were now asked to pass were somewhat high, he would not grudge one halfpenny of them if there was to be any success; if the payment of this money was to insure their rights in India, and to insure their rule over Egypt. The Government ought not to ask the country to fritter away its money upon missions which, up to date, had turned out purely abortive.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the discussion which has been raised has travelled over a very great number of points. I, of course, make no complaint against the hon. Gentlemen who have raised this discussion, although, no doubt, they felt that a discussion of a particular Vote in Committee of Supply was hardly the most convenient opportunity for raising some of the questions which they wished to bring forward. They stated they would not have done so if they had had any other opportunity. At the same time, Sir, the discussion, because we are in Committee of Supply, has been, to a great extent, one of detail. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), who opened the debate, mentioned a great number of points connected with various questions common to both the Colonial and Foreign Offices which have for the last few months attracted a considerable amount of attention. The hon. Member (Mr. Onslow) who has just sat down devoted most of his speech to the subject of Afghanistan; while the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) touched very nearly upon every conceivable subject which it is possible to mention in a speech relating to Foreign or Colonial affairs. He commenced his speech by an account of a discussion which he had with a Gentleman outside this House, who, he said, was a distinguished Member of the Liberal Party, and he treated us to such an alarming and lamentable picture of the condition to which that Gentleman was reduced after the discussion with him, that I really feel myself in a state of trepidation in following the hon. Gentleman. Notwithstanding, I shall attempt to touch upon some of the points
  956
  which the hon. Gentleman raised. Now, with regard to nearly all of those points, there was one common and general proposition. The whole of the points brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) were all urged with the view of showing that there had been, according to them, a lamentable indifference on the part of Her Majesty's Government to securing the friendship and goodwill of Germany. Now, on many occasions last year I had to contend in this House against these assertions of the hon. Member for Eye and other hon. Members with regard to our relations with Germany. They have asserted, over and over again, that Her Majesty's Government has shown, not merely indifference to the friendship of Germany, but almost a positive desire to incur the enmity of that great country. I have denied that on previous occasions, and I deny it again; and I assert that no proof has ever been adduced, either on previous occasions or on this occasion, that Her Majesty's Government has shown itself insensible of the importance of the friendship of that country. There would, no doubt, be a certain temptation to follow out the various lines of argument which were indicated by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), and to show, with regard to these different questions—the questions of Angra Pequena and New Guinea—that the allegations of the hon. Gentlemen were not justified by facts. But it seems to me, that at a moment when, to the great satisfaction of all parties—to the House and to the country in general—an announcement was made to-day in Parliament, showing that whatever slight misunderstanding may have arisen between the two countries in the past, that misunderstanding has now been happily settled, would not be the most favourable to go back upon these questions, and to open up the discussions which have now been brought to a happy and successful termination, and thereby accomplish what, it occurred to me, was the object of the speech of the hon. Member for Eye—namely, to widen again whatever unfortunate difference may have existed between the two countries. On certain

  957
  points the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), I think, gave a very remarkable proof of how entirely animated he is on these questions by Party; because, having devoted nearly the whole of his speech, to an elaborate argument to show the importance of the friendship and goodwill of Germany, he, towards the end of his speech, alluded to the statements that have recently been made to Parliament with regard to the removal of this unfortunate misunderstanding, and in connection with that he alluded to the question of the Cameroons and the settlement which has been reported in certain newspapers on the authority of a telegram from Berlin. When he came to the question of the Cameroons, and the reported settlement, he turned round and began to accuse the Government of a surrender of valuable British interests to the Germans, although he had immediately before been telling us that we had committed the very greatest folly on the Coast of Africa in not doing everything we could to welcome German extension and German Colonization. What struck me also as inconsistent in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was, that he said that anybody reading these Papers would be led to suppose we had almost entered into a conspiracy with Prince Bismarck, he having previously been showing how lamentably indifferent we had been to the friendship and goodwill of Prince Bismarck. I do not understand how, at one and the same time, you can enter into a conspiracy with Prince Bismarck, directed, as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) thought, against our own Colonies, and also show complete indifference to the friendship and goodwill with the person with whom you are entering into a conspiracy. That appeared to me to be a great inconsistency on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham. Then, again, he touched upon the question of the despatch of the 5th of May, and also of the Memorandum which was said to have been delivered to Earl Granville at an early date last year; and he really appeared to me to trench rather closely upon what may be called the courtesies of debate which exist, not only among Members of this House, but between Members of this House and those who
  958
  sit in "another place;" because I may remind the Committee that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) has quite recently made a very clear statement in regard to these questions, which has been accepted by persons of all Parties in this country and in foreign lands. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gorst) appeared to me, by the manner in which he chose his words, rather to impute, or cast some doubt upon, the accuracy of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs' statement.
  MR. GORST: I am sure the noble Lord will allow me to say that, whatever my manner may have been, it was very far indeed from my intention to cast any doubt upon a statement of Earl Granville.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I, of course, accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's disclaimer; but my hon. and learned Friend was certainly understood by many in the House to be aiming his argument to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and if he was not, I really do not understand what the point of his observations was, because, if he accepted the statement recorded in this Blue Book, and repeated in "another place" by the Secretary of State for Foreigh Affairs, and by myself in this House, he must know that the despatoh of the 5th of May was never received at the Foreign Office, and that the Memorandum was never given to Earl Granville by Count Münster. If he accepts that statement, I do not understand what the aim of the exordium of his speech was. The hon. and learned Member also alluded to the question of Angra Pequena, and the question of the Cameroons. I really do not understand whether he desires to re-open the question of Angra Pequena; at one moment I thought he did. He alluded to an assertion, an entirely unfounded one, that we had desired to shut up the Germans within a narrow strip of land along the coast; and then he proceeded from that to point to the Cameroons, and he said we had proceeded there on an ungenerous policy with regard to the Germans; that we had desired to hem them in; and in that manner had excited the ill will of the German Government. I may state that such an idea, if it exists in the mind of my hon. and learned Friend, is an en-

  959
  tirely mistaken one. The Government have had no wish whatever to shut the Germans in to a narrow strip of land along the coast; on the contrary, the Government were perfectly willing that, in the future, the German Colonists should be free to penetrate into the interior, and no doubt, as time goes on, they will do so; and if in those regions, which no doubt are inhospitable, German Colonization developes a thriving civilization, as it has in other parts of the world, no one will rejoice more than Her Majesty's Government. I repeat the words of the Prime Minister in Scotland—I quote from memory—"There is plenty of room in this great world for English Colonists and German Colonists." It is a matter of fact known to everybody who has given any attention to the history of Colonization, almost everywhere in the world, and especially in America, where English and German Colonists have found themselves neighbours, that they have been on the most friendly terms. But, Sir, with regard to the Cameroons. I was astonished that the hon. and learned Gentleman, considering the many minute points he raised in the course of his speech, did not notice, in the Blue Book presented in regard to the Cameroons, that there was a despatch that clearly showed the goodwill of Her Majesty's Government to the German Colonists in that part of the world. It is the Despatch, No. 57, of the 23rd of October, in which it is recorded that Her Majesty's Government would be glad to see an extension of the German Settlement in the South until they touched the Northern limits of the French Settlements in the direction of the Gaboon. If Her Majesty's Government had been so anxious to hem in the Germans, certainly that despatch would never have been sent; that despatch is in itself a proof of the goodwill of Her Majesty's Government to the German Colonists; and if since then we have found it advisable, and I may say, speaking generally, we have found it advisable, to carry that principle further, and to recognize that the Germans are quite within their rights in extending themselves, I assert that in this case we are simply giving further proof of what is already on record in this Blue Book. Then, Sir, the hon. and learned Member alluded to the question of Samoa,
  960
  and he returned to a charge in regard to a matter which he asked me some Questions about the other day, and as to which I had hoped to find I had satisfied him. I referred him then to the Colonial Office Blue Books on the subject, Blue Books which were issued some time ago, and which contained many Foreign Office despatches as well as Colonial Office despatches. Notwithstanding the explanation which I then gave him, the hon. and learned Gentleman again asserted to-night that there was nothing binding on the German Government in regard to the pledges given, or asserted by me to have been given, in reference to the respect to be shown by both Governments—the English and German Governments—as to the independence of Samoa. [Mr. GORST: I said there was no document.] I explained the other day there was no Treaty or Convention; I used both words advisedly, because I was quite aware there was no Treaty or Convention. There are two Treaties in existence, one between Great Britain and Samoa, and the other between Germany and Samoa; but there is no Treaty or Convention drawn up between England and Germany with respect to Samoa. There is, however, in the Blue Book, on page 145, a note of Count Munster to Earl Granville, and the reply, which is to be found on page 163, under date February 16th. There are on record, therefore, these two Papers, and in the deepatch of Count Munster, on page 145, there is a clear recognition by the Germans of the independence of Samoa. Referring to the Treaty which was reported to have been concluded by a certain German official with the King of Samoa, Count Munster speaks as follows:—
  "This Treaty will not be ratified so far as the stipulations do not harmonize with the explanations previously exchanged between Germany and England with regard to the maintenance of the independence of Samoa."
  And then Count Münster goes on to say—
  "While the undersigned has the honour of inclosing for the information of Her Majesty's Government the annexed Gorman translation of the agreement, he expresses the hope of his Government that the Royal British Government will be convinced that the points agreed upon are within the limits of the German Treaty with Samoa, and encroach neither on the independence of this group of Islands nor on the rights acquired there by other nations."

  961
  When the Ambassador of a friendly country speaks, as Count Minister in his note does, of the maintenance of the independence of Samoa as being recognized by both Governments no one can say, although there is no Treaty or Convention, that there is no document between the two Governments in which the independence of the Islands was recognized. I am persuaded that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) has not observed that despatch in the Blue Book. The hon. Member who addressed the Committee a few minutes ago—the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow)—touched briefly upon Colonial questions also, and I may say, in reply to him and to the other hon. Members who wanted to know why we had published the conversations of Mr. Meade, it is well known to the House that the German White Book gave an account of the conversation. I am not going to make any attack upon the German White Book; but it contained a certain account of the conversations, and we thought it was desirable, and I am sure the Committee will feel we were right, that this country should have our record of the conversation also; that Mr. Meade should be allowed to tell his own story; and that hon. Members should have an opportunity of judging, from an account in his own language, of what was said and done, and not merely in the shape in which it appeared in the German White Book. But, Sir, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) only touched very briefly upon Colonial questions; he rose to dwell upon those topics with which he is specially familiar, and on which his Indian experience naturally gives him a right to address the House. He again appealed to us to say something about the question of Afghanistan. Well, I am very sorry indeed to have to refuse information; it is always a very disagreeable thing to have to do so; but it is very often a melancholy duty. There are moments when we cannot make statements; and the Prime Minister has stated—and I think the country has fully endorsed his view—that this moment is not a proper one for making any declaration with regard to what is going on on the Afghan Frontier.
  MR. ONSLOW: What I asked the noble Lord was, how it was that Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission had been sent
  962
  to Afghanistan, and that no Russian Commissioner was there to meet him; how it was that all the details of the matter were not arranged before our Commissioners went out?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I enter no complaint to the question; it is perfectly natural for an hon. Gentleman who desires information on the point to put such a question; but the reply I would have to give would relate to the whole transaction; and I must, therefore, ask the Committee to curb their impatience, and allow us, when we make our statement, to make a full statement of the transactions from the very beginning. I believe that, from a British point of view, our statement with regard to the point raised by the hon. Member will be considered satisfactory. I must decline, however, at present to go into details. The hon. Gentleman raised a point with regard to the expenses of Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission. He asked me how the expenses are going to be borne. I have only to reply that this is an Indian charge, but that Mr. Stephen and his Secretary are in the employ of the Foreign Office, and therefore their expenses are put down as part of this Vote. That is the exception to my answer which proves the rule—namely, as I said the other day, that the expenses of this Commission are to be borne by India. Then the hon. Member also made a point with regard to the Earl of Northbrook's Mission, and wanted to know what quid pro quo there was for the expenses of the noble Earl's Mission. All I can say is that when the documents are published with reference to the Egyptian financial proposals, it will be found that they contain large extracts, as I informed the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) the other day, from the Report of the Earl of Northbrook, and it will also be found that many of the financial proposals made to the European Powers were made partly in consequence of his recommendations. At the same time, I may add that the Earl of Northbrook's inquiries, and his subsequent advice and counsel to the Government, were most valuable; and we believe that the expenses which were incurred by the noble Earl during his Mission have been fully met by the advantage of that advice and that counsel. These are the principal considerations which

  963
  I have to lay before the Committee upon this Vote. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) no doubt will enter more fully into those parts of the questions relating to Angra Pequena and the South Sea Islands, and the relations between the Mother Country and the Colonies which are involved. I can only say that in my opinion these Blue Books and Parliamentary Papers show that Her Majesty's Government have been actuated by an earnest desire to consult the wishes of the Colonies. It is in every sense one of the most gratifying experiences of the age in which we live that there is a good feeling between the Mother Country and the Colonies; and Her Majesty's Government are fully sensible of the importance of strengthening in every direction the ties which spring from that good feeling. I deny that the Blue Books show that there has been any neglect on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I may remind the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that, in proof of what I am just now saying, it was the desire of the Colonial Office to consult the Cape Colony which to a great extent led to the unfortunate misunderstanding which arose with Germany about Angra Pequena. The charge made by the German Government against our Government was based upon the delay which occurred. The reply of Her Majesty's Government was and is that that delay simply represented the time during which the Colonial Office and the Cape Government were communicating with one another. If we had hurried the Cape Government in the matter it is very probable we would have been exposed to the opposite attack; we should no doubt have been told that we had been trying to force the hand of the Colonial Government, and that we had not given them proper time in which to reply. The Colony at that time was undergoing a change of Ministry, and there was an unavoidable delay. Her Majesty's Government were fully sensible that it would have ill become them to have attempted to compel the Colonial Government to give a reply before it was in a position to do so. I am fully justified, I think, in quoting that to show that in all these matters Her Majesty's Government have been most anxious to
  964
  consult the Colonies. Sir, I have simply, with these observations, to recommend this Vote to the Committee, and to assure them once more that there is on the part of Her Majesty's Government a full knowledge of the great importance of the friendship of Germany to this country, and that we believe that whatever misunderstanding may have arisen during the past few months it was a misunderstanding only. On the part of Her Majesty's Government there is nothing except an anxious desire to meet the views of the German Government, and we fully believe that our good feeling is reciprocated by the Government of that great Empire.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the reply of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was scanty and unsatisfactory. The noble Lord had said that it was not a convenient opportunity to bring up questions of this kind on a Vote of Supply; but when the Committee recollected that the private Member's nights had been entirely appropriated by the Government he was persuaded the Committee would feel that hon. Members were justified in seizing any opportunity which presented itself of bringing forward questions upon which they took a deep interest. The noble Lord was very severe upon the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). The noble Lord's sarcasm, however, was not of a high order; and he was persuaded that if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had been present he would not have suffered much pain from the comments of the noble Lord. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was happy to find that the noble Lord denied all indifference to the good feeling of Germany. The dissensions he said between this country and Germany had entirely passed away, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) was actuated by Party feeling in bringing them up again. There were, however, one or two points upon which the noble Lord had been very deficient in his explanations. He, of course, accepted implicitly everything that was stated by the noble Lord, or by his Chief in "another place" (Lord Granville); but, at the same time, although Lord Granville disavowed having received the Memorandum or despatch of

  965
  the 5th of May there was no doubt that Prince Bismarck was under the impression that the contents of those documents had been communicated to Earl Granville. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) could not help thinking that if the documents were communicated to Lord Granville the noble Earl had failed to appreciate their language. The noble Lord said that no Memorandum or despatch was communicated to Lord Granville; but Prince Bismarck said that they were communicated to him.
  MR. GLADSTONE: That has nothing to do with the question.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFE: The right hon. Gentleman was very impatient of interruption himself, and he thought he might have some little consideration when others were speaking. It had a great deal to do with the question, because a great deal of the difference between Germany and this country was owing to that circumstance. He thought it could not be denied that the despatches were communicated to Lord Granville; but the noble Earl seemed to have shown a great deal of obtuseness in this matter, which was not usual in him. The noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) said that nothing was communicated; but did he deny that Lord Granville had communications with the diplomatists at Berlin? What did Sir Edward Malet write? On the 24th of January, 1885, writing to Earl Granville, he said that Prince Bismarck had shown him a despatch of the 5th of May last, which he had addressed to Count Münster, and which was a very remarkable one. It stated the great importance which the Prince attached to the Colonial question, and also to the friendship of Germany and England. Sir Edward Malet stated that the despatch was a long one, and that the Prince read it to him in German. It contained a passage to the effect that Prince Bismarck had instructed Count Münster to say that if the arrangement could not be effected the result would be that Germany would seek from France what she failed to get from England. And Prince Bismarck went on to say that not being satisfied with the result, and attributing it in part to the Ambassador not having stated the points with precision, he had sent his son, Count Herbert Bismarck, to England, in the hope that he might succeed where Count Münster had failed, but that he only succeeded
  966
  in obtaining general friendly assurances of goodwill, which were of little value in the face of subsequent occurrences. It appeared, therefore, that it was distinctly stated by Prince Bismarck that Count Münster had given the gist of the despatch to Lord Granville. That was a distinct statement on the part of Prince Bismarck. [Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, no!] If the noble Lord wanted him to read it again he would do so; he would read the whole despatch if he liked. The hon. Member again read from the despatch of Sir Edward Malet, and said that the Prime Minister, after hearing it, had the face to contradict him.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is rather a strong measure to say that I have the face to contradict in a matter where I did not contradict or interfere in the slightest degree.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he, of course, accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and regretted that he had used the expression to which he had taken exception. He desired now to refer to another question. It appeared to him that the whole communication between Mr. Meade and Prince Bismarck was of a most extraordinary character, and perfectly unprecedented in diplomatic history. This country had a Minister at Berlin, and there was a German Ambassador in England. Mr. Meade, a gentleman of whom he could only speak in the highest terms, had gone to Berlin as a delegate on the Congo Conference. As hon. Members were all aware, Mr. Meade had been for a long time in intimate communication with Lord Granville and with the Colonial Office; and Mr. Meade, on his own hook, so to speak, went to the German Foreign Office and made a distribution of the countries of the world. Mr. Meade, overlooking the Ambassadors, without, as he said, instructions from the Foreign Office, went first to Dr. Busch, and from him to Prince Bismark, and others, and of his own initiative presented to Prince Bismarck a project under which England, France, and Germany were to divide amongst themselves the unoccupied territories of the Pacific. This was a most extraordinary proceeding on the part of Mr. Meade, because he offered not only territory to Germany, but to France, territories which England had entered into an ar-

  967
  rangement should not be given to France. Mr. Meade showed the greatest inconsistencies in his statements. Writing from the Hotel Royal, Berlin, on the 10th of February, he said—
  "There seems to be some not unnatural misapprehension in England, and consequently, I fear, in the Colonies, as to my observations in regard to the New Hebrides; and I should like to explain that my reference to those Islands was solely intended to show that Germany and England are not the only Powers interested in the South Seas. The questions between England and France respecting this particular group were our own concern; and I, therefore, merely mentioned the subject, without going into the details of what we should require from Franco as an equivalent for the withdrawal of the understanding as to the independence of the New Hebrides."
  Now, what was it Mr. Meade really said? In order to carry out his explanation he gave his original words. Mr. Meade, in a letter to Lord Granville, dated December 13, wrote—
  "I pointed out that this would give Germany perfect freedom to develop their commercial enterprize in Samoa should the German Parliament make the necessary appropriation. France to be allowed to take the New Hebrides group, which lie away from the others, and would naturally fall into the New Caledonian system."
  The New Caledonian system! What was that system? It was a system of penal servitude; it was a system of depredation by convicts in those parts which had given rise to angry Correspondence between this country and France. Entirely ignoring the horror which the British Colonies had of any penal settlement being near them, Mr. Meade had actually proposed that, on certain conditions, the New Hebrides group should be handed over to France, by whom they would be made into a penal Colony. He should like the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to give an explanation of this matter; because what was the meaning of the phrase, "falling naturally into the New Caledonian system," if the New Hebrides were not to be supplementary to New Caledonia? The noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had in a very innocent way disposed of the allegations of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and the hon. Member for Guilford (Mr. Onslow). But was there no public document with regard to the partitioning of these unoccupied Islands? There was no despatch to Mr. Meade; there was no com-
  968
  munication either with him or with Prince Bismarck with regard to the offer to the German Government; and, instead of disavowing the proposal of Mr. Meade, all that the Government did was to decorate him. By decorating him at that moment, the only result would be that, both in the Colonies and Germany, the act would be taken in this sense—that the Government had not repudiated the proposals, and that, although they had not sanctioned them, they did not consider them impossible. There was another point upon which the noble Lord had laboured a great deal, but without success, and that was with regard to Samoa. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had asked the Government on several occasions whether they had any assurance in writing from the German Government that they did not intend to interfere with the independence of Samoa. The only answer which had hitherto been given by the noble Lord had been references to despatches written by Lord Granville to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin referring to reports of conversations; and now the noble Lord came forward with a document. The noble Lord since he had occupied the position which he then filled had obtained a considerable amount of self-complacency; and he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) did not think there was any more signal instance of that than in the quotation of this particular document. The noble Lord said there were Conventions between Germany, and England, and Samoa, but that there was no direct Convention between England and Germany. He did not want to convict the noble Lord of an inaccuracy; but there was nothing about explanations having been previously exchanged in the despatch from Count Münster to Lord Granville, in which he talked about the maintenance of the independence of Samoa. The sentence in the letter written by Count Münster was as follows:—
  "The note which the Royal British Ambassador at Berlin addressed on the 17th instant to the Imperial Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to New Guinea concludes with the information that the British Government has recently received Reports concerning the conclusion of a Treaty between the Representatives of Germany and the Chief of Samoa, and pre-supposes that this Treaty will not be ratified so far as the stipulations do not harmo-

  969
  nize with the explanations previously exchanged between Germany and England with regard to the maintenance of the independence of Samoa."
  Where did they see anything about explanations previously exchanged? There was not one word about them from Germany; the only explanations were furnished by our own officials. The only paragraph in which the word "independence" occurred was in a German despatch from Count Münster to Lord Granville, which said—
  "While the undersigned has the honour of inclosing for the information of Her Majesty's Government the annexed German translation of this agreement, he expresses the hope of his Government that the Royal British Government will he convinced that the points agreed upon are within the limits of the German Treaty with Samoa, and encroach neither on the independence of this group of Islands nor on the rights acquired there by other nations."
  There was not one word about encroaching on Samoa, and when Lord Granville answered Count Münster he said—
  "He did not take that as any guarantee of the independence of Samoa;"
  but he went on to say in the despatch to Count Münster of the 16th of February—
  "It will not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to accept a position of less influence and consideration than is given to Germany by the agreement under discussion. If, therefore, it should be ratified by the Imperial Government in all its essential points, it may become necessary for Her Majesty's Government to call on the Samoa Government to enter into a precisely similar agreement for the benefit of British subjects, in order to secure the most favoured nation treatment, guaranteed to this country by Article 2 of the British Treaty with Samoa of August 29, 1879."
  There was, therefore, no guarantee of the independence of Samoa. All they had got from Germany was a copy of an agreement which gave Germany certain powers; and so little did they look upon that as any guarantee of the independence of Samoa from Germany that they said they must obtain from Samoa the same guarantee for themselves. He challenged the noble Lord to produce any document in which the independence of Samoa was guaranteed by the German Government. Having touched on these points he was quite ready to go to a division; and if the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Buchanan) would tell him on what they were to divide he should be very much obliged
  970
  to him. He merely wished to point out that Mr. Meade's communications with the German Government were of the most unheard of and dangerous character, and they seemed to have sprung altogether from that spirit of concealment and reticence which the Government had on all occasions shown in the House. In the case of Egypt, it was that concealment and reticence which had drifted them into the terrible position in which they were at that moment, and which he hoped might not drift the country into similar complications with Russia. But, at the same time, he protested against an official being allowed to go to Berlin, and without authority, in the most liberal spirit, to dispose of territory in different parts of the world to Germany or any other Power; and he trusted the Committee would receive from a Member of the Government some repudiation of the proposals made by Mr. Meade, and especially with regard to the point of the occupation by France of the New Hebrides as a penal settlement.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that in all that had fallen from hon. Members opposite on this Vote he thought there were only two points which concerned the Colonial Office on which he was bound to speak. The first was the last question raised by the hon. Member who had just sat down, with regard to Mr. Meade's communications, and the publication of the Correspondence, with regard to which he must say that these Papers were laid upon the Table of the House simply because of the publication in a German White Book of some portion of the Correspondence. Mr. Meade went to Berlin to attend the Conference there, and being a gentleman of very large acquaintance with Colonial matters—geographical and political—and having made the acquaintance of Dr. Busch, came into communication with him on those questions in an unofficial manner. What was their astonishment to see the bulk of that conversation published in a German White Book. Upon this it became necessary to publish the whole story as an antidote for what had been so published. The hon. Gentleman laid hold of the passage in which Mr. Meade proposed in certain contingencies that the New Hebrides should fall to France, and in which he said they would naturally come

  971
  into the New Caledonian system. He could hardly believe his hon. Friend had really misunderstood the meaning of that term; he rather thought he intended to make a pun on the words. As a matter of fact, the words were used in the same sense as one would use them when he spoke of the planetary, railway, or any other system. Of course, what was meant was that geographically the New Hebrides belonged to the system of Islands of which New Caledonia was the principal, and stood in the same relation to them as Tahiti did to the Society Islands. And when Mr. Meade spoke in that way of the New Hebrides, he knew perfectly well that no such proposition as that which the hon. Member had supposed would be entertained, without consultation with the Australian Colonies, and without conditions absolutely satisfactory to their Governments were secured. Without dwelling on freedom of trade, and matters of that kind, he need not say that this country would never be a party to the handing over of the New Hebrides to Trance, unless there was absolute security against their being made into a penal settlement. This also was the answer of the Government to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. (Mr. Gorst) upon the same subject. And that brought him to the only other point upon which he had to speak—namely, the observation which fell from the hon. and learned Member for Chatham that Her Majesty's Government withheld information from the Colonies. If he were to allow that to pass without notice, it might be supposed that the Government had been guilty of withholding information from them. During the whole time he had been at the Colonial Office, and during the whole course of the transactions about New Guinea, the Government had never kept back any information from the Colonies. The Agents General of the Colonies were in constant communication with the Secretary of State. The Government could not always do what they were asked to do; but they certainly gave them all the information they possessed. Last October, when he was asked whether there was any arrangement that Germany should take possession of the Northern part of New Guinea, he answered "No," and that was the result of the whole information
  972
  possessed by the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office at the time. Finally, he wished to repeat his assertion most positively that they assisted the Colonies by giving them all the information they possessed—there was no system of keeping back from them the terms of any arrangement they proposed to make or any information whatever.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, there was a point which he thought properly arose on this Vote. He did not propose to go into the question of the Congo Treaty itself, but only to refer to some points in the negotiations which had taken place at Berlin. It was not the time then to go into the general question, because the whole of the Papers had not yet been laid on the Table of the House. The question he desired to raise was this—"How far had Her Majesty's Government kept the promises made to the House before these negotiations commenced?" It would be in the memory of most hon. Members that on the 3rd of April, 1883, the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) called attention to the apprehension he entertained that negotiations might be entered upon by Her Majesty's Government detrimental to the interests of this country, and that the discussion was closed by the Prime Minister, who said—
  "I am quite ready, under the circumstances of the case, to engage.…that if we should make a Treaty that Treaty should be made known to Parliament before ratification in such a way, and with the intervention of such an interval, that Parliament shall be enabled to exercise an independent judgment upon it."—(3 Hansard, [277] 1325.)
  And then he said further on—
  "I need not explain what the effect is of an intervention of a deliberative Chamber upon an unratified Treaty. We have experienced it in very important cases ourselves from other States, the effect of which is to prevent the instrument ever taking legal effect as a portion of International Law."—[Ibid. 1326.]
  Upon that statement of the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Manchester withdrew his Resolution, as he said, relying on the promise that the Treaty would not be ratified until the House had ample opportunity for discussion. Some further discussion took place on this; and his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, not deeming the assurance on that point quite sufficient, drew a further statement from the Prime Minister, who said that the pledge

  973
  he had given was well understood; and that if the Government availed themselves of the crowded state of Business for the purpose of escaping discussion they would be guilty of violating that pledge. Well, the Treaty was signed on the 26th of February, 1884. He wished to observe in passing that the Treaty did not contain anything in itself about the consent of the Parliament, either of this country or of Portugal, being required before its ratification. [Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It was to be ratified.] He was perfectly aware of that. He thought the noble Lord would see the cogency of his point when he came to it, which he would do as quickly as he could. The Treaty in terms required no confirmation by Parliament, or by the Cortes of Portugal, before it was ratified. But it concluded with a clause that it should be submitted for ratification as soon as possible. Time after time Questions had been asked in that House as to when it was to be submitted to the House; and it was not an unfair observation to say that if the Government had wished to have the Treaty discussed, they might have availed themselves of an opportunity afforded by a Motion put down by one of their constant supporters, because if it had been carried it would have supported the Government in the contentions they raised in the negotiations. But in answer to these Questions they only reiterated the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister during the previous Session. He came now to the point to which he wished to draw the attention of the Committee. Notwithstanding their avoidance of a discussion of the Treaty in Parliament, the Government, in their negotiations with the other Powers in Europe, endeavoured to obtain their consent to the views they had embodied in this Treaty. And in the despatch of Earl Granville to Baron Ampthill, dated the 26th of May (Africa, No. 7, 1884), the necessity for the approval of the Portuguese Cortes was put forward, while the rights of the British Parliament were ignored. This was shown by the following passage:—
  "Your Excellency is aware that the Treaty with Portugal, which was signed on the 26th of February last, has not yet been ratified, and that the election of a new Cortes is now necessary, before which the Treaty will have to be placed for ratification."
  974
  And Earl Granville, in the despatch of the 30th of June to Baron Ampthill, argued in favour of extending the territorial jurisdiction of Portugal in the manner proposed by the Treaty. He said—
  "I have to point out to His Highness that, but for the persistent opposition of the British Government unsupported by any other Power, Portugal would, in all probability, have long since established herself in the Congo district."
  The despatch went on to endeavour to induce the German Government to adopt the Treaty made between Portugal and this country. And the negotiations were further continued on this footing. In the instructions given by Earl Granville to Sir Edward Malet (Africa, No. 8, 1884), he found the following—
  "As Portugal, after having obtained the conditional assent of Great Britain to the recognition of her claims to the Coast from Ambri to the 5° 12'S. latitude."
  He had therefore the fullest justification for saying that the Government, having promised to bring this Treaty for discussion before the House, sent their Representatives to the Conference at Berlin with their hands tied by the statement that Great Britain had given "conditional assent" to this Treaty. It was true that the House did not yet know what the results of the Conference at Berlin were; but it was clear from the Papers from which he had quoted that, but for the intervention of Prince Bismarck, this country would have been saddled with this Treaty with Portugal, which had never received the sanction of the House. It was hardly possible to acquit the Government of having committed a breach of faith with the House. The Government were in the dilemma of either having entered into negotiations with Foreign Powers, and of having tried to induce them to enter into a Treaty which they had promised to submit to the House, but had not so submitted, or of having concealed from foreign countries the fact that they had given that pledge to the House of Commons.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Tomlinson) is entirely mistaken in reference to the charge which he has thought fit to bring against the Government. It seems to be the impression of the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government has given some unconditional pledge to lay this Congo Treaty before the House be-

  975
  fore it was entered into. No such pledge was ever asked for, or has ever been given. What was asked, and what was given, was a pledge, if it was a pledge, that before the ratification of the Treaty, if the ratification were contemplated, it would be brought before this House. The progress of investigation convinced the Government that the Treaty ought not to be ratified, and, consequently, the whole matter fell to the ground; and I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) and other Gentlemen who took a great interest in the question were better pleased with the total disappearance of the Treaty from the region of existence into the region of nonentity than they would have been by a lengthened discussion in this House for no end or purpose whatever. Therefore, Sir, with regard to the supposition that the Government were induced to conceal that pledge from a Foreign Power, which is one of the horns of his dilemma, I think the hon. Member will see that as the pledge was made openly in this House, and is recorded in our Records, reported in our debates, and printed all over the world—I leave the hon. Gentleman to judge in his own mind whether there is any force whatever in that charge. Now, Sir, I can assure the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) that there was no intention on the part of my noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) to censure him for having taken advantage of this opportunity. All my noble Friend stated was, that it was obvious that the discussion could not be entered into with perfect convenience. That, I think, is quite plain, if for no other reason, on account of the discontinuity in the attendance. I have seen the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) in his place sit out with great virtue and constancy this discussion from beginning to end; and he, with the official Gentlemen who occupy this Bench, are nearly the sole links between the beginning and the end of the debate. [Mr. WARTON: No, no!] I beg pardon. I am not going to impeach the hon. and learned Member for Bridport sedet aternumque sedebit. The hon. and learned Member is perfectly immaculate in the matter of attendance. I only spoke of those who contributed to the discussion; and I say that almost every contributor to the discussion, ex-
  976
  cepting the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, having made his contribution, has made his disappearance from the House. Now, Sir, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) said ono or two things that I cannot entirely allow to pass. In the first place, he has discovered that the Earl of Derby is a person of the most insignificant capacity, and that no such gentleman ought to be entrusted with the management of a Department of public affairs. Well, Sir, I may say that I recollect how for 20 years in this House I heard the Earl of Derby extolled to the skies for everything he did, and everything he did not do, by the other side of the House; and when I recollect that the Earl of Derby was never adversely criticized when he was a political opponent from this side of the House, I do not think that censure of this kind, coming so late in the day, will greatly affect the high character and reputation of the noble Earl. The hon. Member referred to the Report of the Earl of Northbrook, and I think he said there was a sum of £2,500 for his mission, and that the result of it was dear at the money. Well, what I would say is, let it remain until we have had our discussion on Egyptian Finance, and then we will be better able to judge whether or not that is fair criticism. The Colleagues of the Earl of Northbrook know very well the great benefit they have derived from the authoritative judgments which the Earl of Northbrook, from his visit to Egypt, has been able to form on many points of a difficult and complicated subject. I only ask the Committee to suspend its judgment until the discussion on these matters, and I think they will find that there is no ground for such criticism. I do not dwell on the case of Mr. Meade, further than to say that it is very gratifying to us to notice the just acknowledgment which the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) paid Mr. Meade for his public services. But I may observe that, if the slight mark of honour conferred upon him had been connected specially with this particular conversation at Berlin, of course it would have been conferred at the time of that conversation. That conversation took place three months ago. It is an acknowledgment of Mr. Meade's public services, but it has no relation to any particular act, and certainly not to

  977
  an act which was entirely unofficial. I need not quote the passages which mark it as unofficial. The hon. Member for Portsmouth says—"Why has it not been repudiated?" But it is not necessary to repudiate a conversation which has no official character, and which is embodied in a document which declares, both in the first paragraph and the last, that it has no official character whatever, and it appears in this book, inasmuch as it is deemed worthy of reference in a White Book published in a foreign country. Well, Sir, with regard to Germany much has been said; and there has been a good deal of censure and a good deal of controversial matter imported into the debate, which I think, upon the whole, there is no advantage in going back upon—as to how the case stands with regard to the despatch of the 5th of May. How does the case stand in regard to that despatch? There is no doubt about it—it is perfectly well known, and has been placed on official record—that Prince Bismarck was under a mistake in his belief that the despatch had been communicated to Her Majesty's Government. For my own part, I will not depend upon my own memory, for it betrays me from time to time into error; but I remember that, upon hearing of that despatch, I immediately said to Earl Granville I could, not believe my memory had so entirely and absolutely gone that I should not recollect such a despatch. Earl Granville said—"I am in the same position; I have no recollection of it." It is no wonder, because we have been in communication with the Representative of Germany on the subject, and it appears that it had never been communicated. I regret it, for at least I will say that, if it had been communicated to this country, it would have attracted all the attention, and it would have drawn all the friendly attention, which it would well have deserved. Now, Sir, with respect to the friendship with Germany, I stand behind no man in the value I attach to it. I said "no man," but I am not sure whether I ought not to make a single exception, and say that I am a little behind the hon. Gentleman the Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), because he laid down deliberately this doctrine—that it was vain for this country to think of maintaining its position in Europe or the world without the friend-
  978
  ship of Germany. I must say that I think the generous enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman betrayed him into an error when he laid down such a proposition as that. Perhaps the statement slipped from him inadvertently. I am not prepared to admit that the friendship of any country in the world is necessary, or ever has been necessary, to enable our country to maintain its position. I will go to the fullest length with him in the value he attached to the friendship of Germany. I would say one word as to the particular subject which has led to that variety of correspondence which, I feel convinced, never would have taken place at all if only there had been that general introduction to the question of the desire of Germany to become a Colonizing Power, which Prince Bismarck evidently thought he had secured by the sending of this despatch, for there is no doubt he did believe that that despatch had been communicated to us, although it never was. With respect to the colonizing of Germany, there are two limitations which ought to be placed on all Colonization. One of them, of course, is that it should conform to the Law of Nations, avoiding all nominal and fictitious claims, and be of a bonâ fide character; then it must have regard to the prior rights acquired by other countries. Another limitation is dictated, not by the Law of Nations, but by the law of morality and justice, and that is, that it should be conducted with a full and due regard to the interests and rights of all aboriginal inhabitants. In our case, there is, I may say, another consideration, because we are bound to see that fair justice is done to the reasonable claims of our own Colonists already established in those regions, having been there for generations, and having founded communities which, it is not too much to say, will eventually be the dominant communities in time to come. But, subject to these limitations, what I hold is this—that it is for Germany to say how far it is her interest to become a Colonizing Power. With that we have nothing whatever to do; but, so far as we are concerned, we ought to meet her in no grudging spirit. We ought not to enter into the discussion of the question of the occupation of this or that spot by Germany, as if it were to be conducted in a huckstering temper, with a disposi-

  979
  tion to withhold everything that it is possible to withhold. In my opinion, it is the grossest error on our part in policy and in principle to allow any such humour to prevail. If Germany becomes a Colonizing Power, all I can say is "God speed her." She becomes our ally and partner in the execution of a great purpose of Providence for the benefit of mankind, and I hail her entrance upon that operation, and gladly shall I hope that she will become associated with us in carrying the light of civilization, and the blessings that depend thereon, among the more backward and, as yet, less significant regions of the world. Now, Sir, under all these circumstances, and in all places, that is the spirit in which, irrespective of this despatch or that, irrespective of this correspondence or that—that is the spirit in which we regard the tendency and the efforts of Germany towards establishing herself as a Colonizing Power, and towards sending forth her intelligent citizens, who have proved themselves in the United States to be among the very best emigrants in the world. In that work she will have our best and heartiest wishes, and every encouragement in our power.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURremarked, that the concluding words of the speech of the Prime Minister would meet with the hearty concurrence of Members in every part of the House. He only wished the Colonial Office had been animated by such a generous spirit in its dealings with Germany during the past year. The Prime Minister appeared to think that this was a very inconvenient occasion on which to bring forward these matters; but this was likely to be the only opportunity that the House would have during the whole Session of adequately discussing the Colonial policy of the Government. He must congratulate the Government on having got off so cheaply that night. No one would assert that the Colonial policy of the Government during the last eight months had been a glorious one for this country. It had been marked by all the vacillation and indecision, and more than the ordinary ridicule, that had attached to the policy of the Government in other parts of the world. Many hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen had been absent that evening; and it was certainly to be regretted, not alone in the interest of
  980
  the Conservative Party, that those who might have spoken the mind of the Party with authority had not been present. He hoped it was not too late even now for some contribution from the Front Opposition Bench. This debate had been most useful in this, if in no other respeot—it had drawn from the Under Secretary an assurance that an adequate arrangement would be made to prevent the New Hebrides being turned into a penal settlement by the French.
  MR. WARTONasked for some explanation of the item of £9,000 for outfits
  "Payable through the changes consequent on the death of Lord Ampthill, the appointment of the Earl of Dufferin as the Viceroy of India, and the re-establishment of diplomatic) relations with Mexico."
  A sum so large as £9,000 ought to have some explanation, and the more so that some time ago on a Diplomatic Vote the Committee received four or five different accounts from the Treasury Bench as to what had been done with regard to the Embassy House at Berlin. It was quite plain that under the lump sum paid in respect of the Berlin Embassy House there were some thousands of pounds concealed which ought to have been disclosed, and he was afraid there was something of the same sort being done in the matter of this £9,000. It was a perfect farce to have ridiculously small sums paraded while large sums were concealed. He should like to hear what sum had been spent through the changes consequent on the death of Lord Ampthill, what was spent on the appointment of the Earl of Dufferin as Viceroy, and what the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Mexico had cost?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he only wished to make one observation, and it had reference to what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley). The hon. Gentleman gave the Committee to understand that communications which passed between Mr. Meade and Prince Bismarck and Dr. Busch were of a strictly private and confidential nature. Particular stress was laid on the fact that they were of a private and confidential nature, and had no official character whatever. Referring to despatch No. 2, which was very properly called "Extract from a private letter

  981
  from Mr. Meade to Earl Granville," he found a remarkable paragraph. The writer stated he had not had time to make a copy of a Memorandum, and asked for the loan of Earl Granville's copy. That appeared to him to be the most remarkable specimen of a private communication that had ever been laid before the House of Commons. He hoped that before this conversation ended the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies would be able to explain the very peculiar nature of this public-private-official communication.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he did not understand his hon. Friend's point. Mr. Meade's communications would naturally be sent to his Colleague.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, there was one question he had to ask; and it was whether the Government absolutely repudiated any intention of offering the New Hebrides to France?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICErose to reply to the question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton); the question was a very natural one indeed, and one which he fully expected would be asked in the course of the discussion. He had before now had occasion to explain to the Committee, on the ordinary Estimates for the Foreign Office, that the sum for outfits varied from year to year, and that, notwithstanding every effort that was made—he assured the Committee he had made every effort during the time he had been at the Foreign Office not to ask for Supplementary Votes—it was impossible, when the ordinary Estimates of the year were prepared, to foresee the exact sum which would be necessary for outfits. The present charge for outfits was almost entirely owing to the diplomatic changes consequent on the death of Lord Ampthill. The principal item was that of £2,500 for Sir Edward Malet. He did not think the Committee would wish him to read the list of items; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) desired to see the list, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) would be glad to furnish him with a copy. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, asked what part of the item was due to the re-establishment of relations with Mexico. The sum charged under that head was £340. To show how the charge for outfits varied from time to time, perhaps he might
  982
  point out that, in 1881, the charge was only £290; but that, in the following year, when there were several changes in the Diplomatic Service, it was £13,261. In the ordinary Estimates of the year, which were already in the hands of hon. Members, he had taken the average; but, owing to this large sum for the present year, probably next year the amount expended would be small. He hoped his explanation would be satisfactory to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton).
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £2,050, Colonies, Grants in Aid.
  (4.) £6,200, South Africa and St. Helena.

  CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.
  (5.) £17,000, Superannuations and Retired Allowances.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked how it came to pass that so large a sum as £6,000 was wanted in the Supplementary Estimates in connection with "Superannuations and Allowances, Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice." For a single Department the amount was so large that one was puzzled to imagine how the authorities could be so far out in their Estimates. It could only be excused on the ground that something unforeseen had occurred in the year, or that some great re-organization had taken place.
  MR. HIBBERTexplained that the charge was entirely owing to the reorganization in the Pay Office.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, there was a tendency to increase, which certainly ought to be repressed by those who were responsible for the Department. He noticed that in 20 years the Vote for Superannuations and Retired Allowances had grown from £183,000 to £463,000. That was, in his opinion, a very extravagant increase.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, [that perhaps his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) would be good enough to explain the large item for Diplomatic Services—how it was that so large a sum as £4,000 could not have been foreseen in the Estimates which were voted last year?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the sum included the retiring allowances made to Sir Charles White,

  983
  Sir Henry Layard, and Mr. Harrison. There had been some uncertainty as to the sums to be paid, and a legal point was raised, especially in the case of Sir Henry Layard, and therefore it was not possible to foresee what would be paid. He could only repeat that he had made every effort to keep down the Supplementary Estimates of his Department.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought there should be some sort of examination into the law which at present governed diplomatic pensions. The noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had just told them that one of the payments under this Vote was to Sir Henry Layard. It was perfectly true that for one or two years, a great many years ago, Sir Henry Layard was in the Diplomatic Service as an attaché to an Ambassador. For a long while he was a distinguished Member of the House of Commons, and because he had been an attaché and a Member of the House and an Under Secretary of State he was sent as Minister to Spain. Subsequently he was sent to Constantinople. Now, the law with regard to diplomatic pensions was that a person could only receive a pension after 15 years' service, and during 10 of those years he must have held a diplomatic position abroad. When Sir Henry Layard ceased to be Ambassador at Constantinople he had only served 10 years and three months, and he had to wait some years doing nothing, receiving no pension, until 15 years had elapsed from the time of his admission to the Diplomatic Service—that was when he first went to Spain. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not think pensions were intended for that sort of service—for paid service in the Diplomatic Corps. It might be said that diplomacy was a profession, and that the pensions were intended for those who had passed the greater part of their lives in it. Sir Henry Layard was to receive £1,700 per annum for having served as Ambassador for 10 years. Eight hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench served their country for much longer than 10 years without receiving, when they retired, a pension of £1,700 a-year. He did not think Sir Henry Layard was to blame, because, perhaps, anyone in the House would take a pension if he got the chance. Legally, Sir Henry Layard was entitled to take a pension, and he (Mr. Labouchere) never
  984
  blamed anyone for taking what he was entitled to take. But he thought that an alteration should be made in the system, and that pensions should be limited to those who had devoted their lives to the Diplomatic Service, and not given to gentlemen who were pitchforked from the House of Commons into a diplomatic position for a few years only.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) objected to Sir Henry Layard having a pension, on the ground that that gentleman had not devoted the whole of his life to the Diplomatic Service; or, in other words, on the ground that, having been in the Diplomatic Service, and having then come into the House of Commons, he was put into an Embassy because he made himself disagreeable to the Government Department to which he belonged. The hon. Gentleman should recollect that some day he might find himself in the same position. It was, therefore, quite possible that if the hon. Gentleman opposed this Vote he might be cutting his own throat.
  MR. W. H. SMITHwished to say a very few words in reference to the Chancery allowances which were included in the Vote. He understood his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) to say there had been a reorganization of the Paymaster's Office. He did not doubt that the re-organization was prompted by a sincere desire to promote the best interests of the Public Service; but he had had some experience of re-organizations, and he was bound to say they frequently disappointed the expectations of the persons who had made them. He trusted the Government and the Treasury would be extremely cautious how they entered into re-organizations which did not immediately effect a very considerable economy in the Service. No doubt there might be occasions when it was necessary to get rid of certain officers who stood in the way of great practical improvements; but there was a great deal to be said on both sides of the question. He was bound to say that re-organizations were not satisfactory which made considerable increases to the Pension Vote, and only temporary reductions of the Votes for the Effective Services. The Effective Votes had a tendency to increase in the

  985
  proportion in which it was assumed the efficiency of the Service was promoted, while the Pension Vote decreased very gradually indeed. He made no opposition to this Vote as it stood; but it did seem to him that re-organization was a proceeding which required the greatest possible caution on the part of the Treasury.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) had not given any explanation of the last item of the Vote—namely, "grants made to certain Colonies."
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the item referred to by the hon. Gentleman represented a pension granted to a late Governor, the Marquess of Norman by, on the ground of advancing age.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £890, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, in aid of the Local Cost of Maintenance of Pauper Lunatics in Ireland."
  MR. W. J. CORBETnoticed that this Vote was—
  "To meet the case of a greater increase in the number of patients during the year than had been anticipated and provided for."
  He would like to know whether the increase of insanity was real or not. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert), when he was Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, stated his opinion that the increase of insanity was real; but since then he (Mr. Corbet) found that the Commissioners had in their Report repeated the statement that had been made for so many years that the increase was only apparent resulting from the accumulation of chronic cases. He would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the figures. He found that in 1862 the number of insane persons in the United Kingdom was 55,527, and that in 1872 it was 77,013, and that in 1882 it was 98,871. He found that in 1884 the number had again increased to 103,660, an increase in two years of 4,589. The ratio of insane per 1,000 of the population, was, in 1862, 1·81; in 1872,
  986
  2·41; and in 1882, 2·84. Now, it was a very remarkable thing that the Commissioners of Lunacy should try and make it appear from their Report that insanity was not on the increase in the face of figures such as he had quoted. He did not desire to make any attack upon the public lunatic asylum system in Ireland; indeed, he only wished that there were none but public lunatic asylums, for he believed that the insane population were very much better provided for in those asylums than they were in private asylums. Owing to the vicious principle of deriving profit that pervaded the private lunatic asylum system, patients did not receive the same treatment or reap the same advantages as patients in public asylums. He would not enter further into the matter on that occasion; but he hoped to have some expression of opinion as to whether or not the increase which was minimized and made light of by the Commissioners was real or not.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Vote was one which belonged to the Department of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman); but as his hon. Friend (Mr. Corbet) had referred to him, and to a speech he made on this question, he must say that he held the opinion he expressed last year—namely, that there had been a considerable increase in lunacy in the United Kingdom, though some part of it might be accounted for in England by the fact that lunatics were now sent to county asylums from workhouses and other places. He did not think that there was the same ground for the increase in the other parts of the United Kingdom. The whole matter, however, could be discussed when the Bill, which was now being prepared, and which would shortly be introduced in the House of Lords, came before the House.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTdesired to put a question to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) with respect to the position of pauper lunatics in the county of Cork. Insane persons arriving in Cork were sent to the asylum there, and they became for ever a charge on the rates of the county and City of Cork. In such cases in England, he understood, there would be the power to send the persons to the Unions or county to which they belonged, so

  987
  that they would become chargeable to the proper quarter. In Ireland there was no such provision in the law; so that once insane persons landed in Cork, whether they came from America, Prance, Germany, or anywhere else, they must be received into the lunatic asylum. He had been asked to bring the question to the notice of the Government, and though it was not a very large one it was stated to be an injustice. He hoped that in the Bill which his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) said was about to be introduced in "another place" attention would be paid to the recommendation of the Commission which was appointed seven or eight years ago, and which went fully into the subject, and made some valuable suggestions as to the treatment of pauper lunatics in Ireland. A large proportion of the lunatics in Ireland were treated in the workhouses; but that was not the case in England. The lunatics in the Irish workhouses were in a most wretched condition, and the Commissioners made several suggestions to secure an amelioration of that condition.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) had just said a Bill was being prepared on the subject of lunatic asylums in England and Ireland.
  MR. HIBBERT: I think it is for England only.
  MR. MOLLOY: Then the Bill will have no reference to Ireland at all?
  MR. HIBBERT: None. The hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Corbet's) question had reference to the United Kingdom generally, or else I should not have referred to the Bill.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, that last year he brought forward the subject of the private lunatic asylum system in force both in England and Ireland. There was considerable discussion, and he was asked by the Government not to press the point, because the question of the private lunatic asylum system was being considered by them. The object he had in bringing up the subject was to put an end, if possible, to the universally acknowledged vicious private lunatic asylum system. He now understood from the hon. Gentleman (M. Hibbert) that the Bill shortly to be introduced would refer to England only. Would the Bill deal with private lunatic asylums?
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Bill was being prepared by the Lord Chancellor, and by the Home Office; and, therefore, he was not able to enter into its details.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, that the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) stated, during the debate last year, that a Bill was then under consideration with a view of putting an end to the existence of private asylums. Would the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) say what progress had been made with the Bill?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was not aware of the discussion last year, or of the promise that had been made; but what his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) had said was a Bill relating to England was being prepared, and would shortly be introduced in the House of Lords. The Bill would, of course, show the principle on which the Government proposed to proceed in the matter. The same principle would afterwards be applied to Ireland, if such a change was thought necessary in that country. When that Bill was published, hon. Members would be able to see the principles which the Government accepted as the proper foundations for procedure in the matter.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDwished to know whether the Committee were to understand that a Bill similar to the one for England would be introduced for Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman had said that the principles which were contained in the English Bill would naturally be the principles which would be followed in an Irish measure of the same kind. But, unfortunately, it was not at all a natural inference that principles extended to England would also be extended to Ireland. Was the right hon. Gentleman's declaration to be understood as a promise that a Bill would be introduced for Ireland?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that that, of course, would depend upon the acceptance of the English Bill by Parliament. If the Bill passed there would be an intention of proceeding further in the same direction for Ireland, and the Irish Bill would follow upon the particular lines which had been approved of by Parliament.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDthought the right hon. Gentleman surely did not mean to say that the introduction of a

  989
  Bill, dealing with this important subject for Ireland, depended on the reception which an English measure would obtain from Parliament? Whether Parliament did or did not receive with satisfaction a Bill for England could not at all alter or affect the necessity of such a measure for Ireland.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant were only another evil exemplification of what the Irish Members had to struggle against year after year and Session after Session in reference to Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman had had any experience in his present Office he would be aware that the whole history of the law in relation to lunatics in Ireland, as compared with England, showed that, though the same representations had been made from the two countries for a great many years, reform after reform had been introduced, and successfully carried, for England; but the same reforms had not been extended to Ireland. In the last Report of Judicial Statistics for Ireland the whole of this matter had been gone through again with precisely the same complaints about the neglect of legislation with respect to criminal lunatics; and with regard to pauper lunatics precisely the same thing had happened. There had been Bill after Bill passed into law for England, and especially for the Metropolitan district, until at last there was very little left in the Metropolitan district to complain of. But the grievances which were complained of in Ireland 14 years ago were still as rampant as ever. Why did not the Government go and see how the money would be expended? Let the Government send down any trustworthy official to inspect the condition of the pauper lunatics at Dingle Workhouse, in the West of Kerry. Such an official would find a large place covered in as a tool-house might be, with poor miserable walls, and no floor but the cold clay; and there he would find poor women, four or five in number, imbeciles, or otherwise mentally affected, wandering about from morning to night, and from year's end to year's end, without anybody to attend to them properly, and the unfortunate children in the workhouse were allowed to go into the room with these lunatic women, for that was their only playground. That was the sort of thing that had been
  990
  allowed to exist year after year. He (Mr. O'Connor) complained when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and that right hon. Gentleman said he would look into the matter. Then came the Recess, and soon afterwards the right hon. Gentleman went out of Office. Next there came another Chief Secretary, who also promised to look into the matter, and now there was a third, and there was no reason to hope for any improvement. He would not call this cruelty, because he believed the officials had been so bred up in the system as to be unconscious of the cruelties inflicted by the want of proper supervision; but something ought to be done for the credit of the Administration, discreditable as it was in certain respects. It would be well if something were done to put an end to the scandal which now existed.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he was not at all indifferent to the existing state of things. He knew something about it, and he quite agreed that very serious changes appeared to be desirable. But the question was one of general lunacy reform rather than one between private and public lunatic asylums, and it was with the general subject that the Bill which was about to be introduced into the House of Lords would deal. That would give a key to the line of action on which the Government proposed to proceed. He did not wish to make any promises, for it was not always so easy to fulfil them even with the best intentions; but there was nothing in which he was more interested, or in which he had greater hope of effecting some good, than the general condition of lunatics in Ireland.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid that, under these circumstances, he would limit his request to this point. He would ask the Government to send down an Inspector to see the Dingle Workhouse, and to report whether it was not the fact that the poor lunatics there were absolutely without proper supervision, that they were in a place with no floor, and that the children of the workhouse played all day long in the place where the lunatic women were kept without proper supervision.
  MR. SMALLwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had considered the question of the pay and superannuation of the lunacy attendants, and whether any improvement could be made in the position of those officers?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that he would look into that matter.
  MR. DEASYsaid, he thought that after the observations which had been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for County Cork (Colonel Colthurst) with reference to the existing state of the law affecting lunatics in Ireland, it was clear that the law as it stood was very unjust to the people who contributed the bulk of the money for the maintenance of those lunatics. Every pauper lunatic in Cork Harbour or on any part of the coast of the County Cork, or that district, or of the district of the Cork Asylum, no matter where, was at once transferred to the Cork District Asylum, and charged on the rates of that district. He believed that a great part of the money which was now about to be voted went for the maintenance of such individuals. He trusted that the Government would soon introduce their Irish Bill, and would take into account the fact that both the ratepayers and the Government contributed largely to these lunatic asylums in Ireland, and that the present system of administering the money paid by the ratepayers and voted by Parliament was defective in many respects. There was another matter to which he wished to call attention. He believed that a considerable portion of this money was misspent very often, owing to the manner in which the Boards of Governors were constituted; and that was attributable, to a great extent, to the manner in which the Lord Lieutenant and his advisers had made the appointments to these Boards. A Governing Board had been created in Cork which met with the disapproval of everybody in that county and city. He should like to draw attention to some of the recent appointments. Some years ago an application was made to the then Lord Lieutenant asking that four or five members of the Cork Town Council should be appointed Governors of the district lunatic asylum. The Lord Lieutenant, in reply, wrote, ask-
  992
  ing them to nominate three gentlemen, and saying that he should be glad to appoint them. They nominated three gentlemen, one Conservative, one from the Whig Party in the Council, and one Representative of the Nationalists. These gentlemen were appointed, and about four months afterwards the Council unanimously decided on nominating another gentleman—Mr. Alderman Nagle—who had been a considerable time Chief Magistrate of the city, and who was one of the most experienced and able members of the Council. The then Lord Lieutenant refused to appoint this gentleman; but six or eight months after that the Council again determined to nominate him for the same position, and threatened that if he were not appointed they would refuse to present for the amount required by the Governors to carry on the institution. Under the influence of that threat His Excellency wrote a very conciliatory letter, and promised that he was very likely to see his way to meet their views. Ultimately he was appointed under that threat. When another vacancy occurred last summer another gentleman, who happened to be an Orangeman, a Conservative, and a Freemason, was nominated, and by return of post the Corporation received a letter from the Lord Lieutenant approving of his nomination, and assenting to it. That gentleman did not long enjoy the office, and another vacancy very soon occurred on the Board, and a Mr. John O'Brien was nominated by the Corporation from their own body. About three months ago his name was sent to Dublin Castle; but the Lord Lieutenant did not see his way to appoint him, because he differed from him in political matters. Mr. O'Brien was again nominated; but a second time the Lord Lieutenant refused to appoint him. And he (Mr. Deasy) was happy to say that the Corporation were now about to have recourse to the same tactics which they used before, and that they intended to refuse the supplies unless this very reasonable demand of theirs was complied with. The Lord Lieutenant pleaded in extenuation of his conduct that there were no vacancies on the Board; whereas, as a matter of fact, there were three, because two gentlemen had left the country and resigned their positions, and another was dead. There was a special

  993
  reason why Mr. O'Brien should be appointed, because the ratepayers had strong grounds for believing that jobs had been carried by the Board for the benefit of the political friends of the majority of the Board. It had come under the notice of the Town Council that within the last six or eight months a con siderable sum had been thrown away on one contract alone—the woollen contract; and Mr. O'Brien, who was largely in the woollen trade, had a special knowledge of that particular branch of business, and it was believed that he would be able to put an end to such things as had been going on for very many years. He (Mr. Deasy) trusted that some explanation would be given of the course which had been taken by His Excellency in the case of Mr. O'Brien. Whenever a gentleman representing the opposite political views to those of Mr. O'Brien had been nominated, the Lord Lieutenant had never hesitated for a moment about assenting to the appointment; but the moment a gentleman like Mr. O'Brien was named, His Excellency put down his foot and refused to allow the appointment to be made. He (Mr. Deasy) did not think that such a power was rightly exercised by persons like Earl Spencer, and he maintained that the ratepayers should be permitted to have a voice in the management of these establishments for the future. It was a deplorable state of things that gentlemen of Mr. O'Brien's position in Cork, a Town Councillor, representing a very large constituency, and being one of the leading men of the city, should be denied the right to sit on such a Board, because the Lord Lieutenant for the time being did not agree with their political opinions. He did not think that such a line of action would at all tend——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I do not think the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant has anything to do with the Vote for the increase of these lunatics in Ireland. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to go on for some time, because I thought he was going to connect his comments with the increase in the number of lunatics.
  MR. SEXTON: May I submit to you, Sir, that the remarks of my hon. Friend are pertinent to the administration by the Boards of Governors of the money intrusted to them?
  THE CHAIRMAN: In my opinion, the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant has nothing whatever to do with the Vote now before us. If the hon. Member wishes to raise any question of that kind, the proper time to do it will be when the main Vote comes under consideration. The present Vote is only for an increased cost, owing to the increased number of lunatics. It is certainly not in Order to complain of the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant on this particular Vote.
  MR. DEASYwould, of course, bow to the ruling of the Chair; but he had intended to show that part of the sum which they were now called upon to vote would be misapplied, owing to the fact that the proper men were not appointed upon the Governing Boards, to see the money properly administered. But as the Chairman had ruled him out of Order, he would not, of course, pursue this line of argument any further. As to one of the questions raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst), there could be no doubt that if a proper classification were carried out in Ireland, Parliament would not be called upon to provide so large a sum annually as was now asked for on this account. Owing to the want of proper accommodation in the workhouses of Ireland, and to the fact that a great number of paupers who were really not dangerous lunatics, and for whom lunatic asylums were never intended, had to be accommodated in them, the sum asked for was much in excess of what it ought to be, and the county cess was burdened to an unfair and unjust extent. That was a state of things which should be promptly remedied. On the other hand if those poor people now in lunatic wards in workhouses could be treated differently, there might be some hope for them; but as matters stood at present, it was impossible for any of them to recover their reason, on account of their surroundings and to the want of proper provision being made for them. In fact, it was impossible for their mental condition to improve so long as they were confined to the narrow ill-ventilated and unhealthy wards of workhouses.
  MR. KENNYwished to say a few words upon the Vote which was now before the Committee, and to call the attention of the Committee to certain

  995
  features in the management of the Cork Asylum and of the Clare Asylum. It was no wonder that the cost of maintaining asylums in Ireland greatly increased under the system of management adopted by the Boards of Governors, who seemed to take so much interest in the duties imposed upon them that he found, in the case of the Cork Asylum, that three or four of the Governors placed upon the Board had not condescended to attend even a single meeting of the Board in the course of a year. In fact, it was quite clear that the only popular person who had a seat upon the Board was the Mayor of Cork, and he was about the most regular attendant at the meetings. Among the names of the Governors was that of the Earl of Mount Cashel, who had not found it convenient to attend a single meeting, and that of the Earl of Bantry, who was in the same position, and that of Sir C. D. 0. J. Norreys, who also had not attended a meeting. In fact, if he read out the whole list of names it would be found that, with the exception of one or two, none of them had attended to the duties with which they were charged. The only conclusion that could be arrived at from the registers of the Boards of Governors, was that the management of the lunatic asylums would become so defective that the cost which appeared in the Estimates would naturally become greater and greater every year. Looking at the case of the County Clare, he found that the number of meetings attended by the various members of the Boards of Governors was even less than in the case of Cork. He found that these self-nominated gentlemen, although they were not very great guns like those he had just named—there was no Earl of Bantry or Earl of Mount Cashel; they were only plain gentlemen, J.P.'s, and so on, or at the outside Deputy Lieutenants—were nearly all resident in the county, and yet they did not find it convenient to attend. He thought the system of intrusting the management of the lunatic asylums in Ireland to a body of irresponsible men who virtually took no interest whatsoever in the matters in which they were supposed to be concerned, was very scandalous, when one considered what ought to be the system of local government and local management. He found that recently the Board of Go-
  996
  vernors of the Ennis Asylum had under their attention the appointment of a resident medical superintendent. There were a great many candidates for that position, and amongst them were certain extremely well-qualified local candidates. The majority of the Board were in favour of a local candidate; but it appeared that the appointment of a resident medical superintendent to the Ennis Asylum rested with the Lord Lieutenant; and the consequence was, that in spite of the local feeling and of the feeling even of the Governors, a gentleman was brought from County Cork with no special claims. That gentleman had had some service in a lunatic asylum previously, but certainly no superior claims which would entitle him to a position among strangers upon whom he had no local claims whatever. This system of foisting candidates upon persons who did not require their services was a most objectionable one. Certainly, he did not envy the gentlemen who were appointed, because they were very likely to become lunatics themselves in the course of a few years. That had been the fate of a previous occupant of the office in the Ennis Asylum, and he did not envy the success of the present official in any way. However, if these appointments were to be made at all, they should be made in a spirit of fair play, and those who had local claims and personal qualifications which were undoubted, ought to be elected wherever they could be found. The gentleman who ought to have been selected for the Ennis Asylum had for two years at least been locum, tenens for the previous holder of the office, owing to an attack of temporary insanity, which afterwards turned out to be permanent, with which that previous holder was afflicted. The gentleman he referred to discharged the duties while acting as locum tenens with entire satisfaction, and was a man of high character and of great ability; but he had been thrown over for a third or fourth rate man, who had been brought from a distance of 100 miles away and placed over an asylum which he knew nothing about and had no connection with. He hoped that the Chief Secretary, who was responsible, would be able to give some explanation of the matter, as to whether there was any good reason why a local gentleman of superior claims was passed over by the Lord

  997
  Lieutenant of Ireland, and a stranger foisted upon the people of the locality.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was true that the local candidate had a great deal of local support, and he had not one word to say against him. No doubt, he was possessed of high qualities. As a matter of fact, the gentleman in question was dispensing officer for two months, and he served as assistant resident medical superintendent temporarily since May 1883, and he believed that was the whole of his experience in this respect. The hon. Member had said something about the appointment of these officers being left at the mercy of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but he would point out that that was a duty imposed upon the Lord Lieutenant by Statute. He could assure the Committee that no one would be more delighted than the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he were relieved of the responsibility of appointing persons to these important positions. The Lord Lieutenant, however, was responsible to the Government. With regard to the case of the Ennis Lunatic Asylum, the hon. Member seemed to think that the officer who had been appointed was a second or third rate man; but out of the almost innumerable candidates, Dr. Jocelyn was placed unhesitatingly first on the very long list of applicants for the post by the Medical Inspector of Lunatic Asylums; he was considered to be one of the first among assistant superintendents throughout Ireland. His experience was that he had been assistant resident medical officer for 14 years; whereas the experience of the other gentleman extended over about as many months, and he had not been in the regular service. Then he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) asked what would be thought of the conduct of a Government who, when a vacancy occurred, failed to give promotion to men who were perfectly well qualified? He could assure hon. Members that he had gone through the whole of the papers and seen the applications of the candidates, with the result that he believed no reasonable person could come to any other conclusion than that Dr. Jocelyn was the very best man for the position. It would have been, no doubt, a graceful act to have appointed the local candidate, against whom he had nothing to say; but, unfortunately, his testimonials,
  998
  which related principally to knowledge of his personal qualities, could not be set against the experience and long service in the other case. That was the history of the appointment, which had been made after a long and careful consideration, and he believed that appointment had received the approbation of the existing Lunacy Administration in Ireland.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought that this Vote was one which could not but be regarded with dissatisfaction by anyone interested in the administration of the insane law in Ireland. What did he find? The Government asked for £890 for the maintenance of pauper lunatics in Ireland. It was for the maintenance of a greater number of lunatics than had been provided for in the original Estimate. He thought it was a serious matter when the Government found themselves compelled to apply for more money than was originally asked for. Hon. Members should bear in mind that this increase in the expediture on account of pauper lunatics in Ireland was an increase which went on year by year, and it was not the first occasion upon which Irish Members had observed this increase. He had not been able to look to the figures for the last two or three years; but he believed he was justified in saying—indeed, he challenged contradiction—that the increase was steadily growing. Not only was the amount paid from the Imperial Treasury increasing, but it was also the case with the amount paid by the ratepayers of the country. He found that the total for the present year was £95,390; for 1883 it was £92,866. That was a very considerable difference, and one which well deserved the attention of the Committee. What made the increase more extraordinary was that it took place in a country in which the population was steadily decreasing; they had a decreasing population on the one hand, and an increasing expenditure for pauper lunatics on the other. That, he said, was a most alarming circumstance, and deserved the serious attention of the Committee, as well as a much more complete answer than had been given by the Chief Secretary. For his own part, he believed that the reason of this increase was bad management. They would not have been called upon for the £890 asked for if these lunatic

  999
  asylums were properly managed; and he submitted that the Chief Secretary was called upon to give some answer to the various points raised. He spoke with the authority of a person as familiar with the management of lunatic asylums as anyone in that House when he said that these Governing Bodies were almost entirely self-elected. A certain number of gentlemen, all belonging to a particular class of the population, when a vacancy occurred, sent to the Lord Lieutenant a recommendation of some person for the appointment. It was a system of Local Option, tempered with the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant. Would the right hon. Gentleman stand up in that House and justify this principle of self-elected Guardians, which largely accounted for the extraordinary increase of expenditure for the maintenance of pauper lunatics in the midst of a dimiishing population? He wished to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he thought it becoming, in reference to this gross mismanagement by self-elected Governors, on the part of the Lord Lieutenant or himself, to bring his influence to bear to prevent anything like a mixture of the popular element with the body of self-elected Governors—was it decent on the part of himself or the Lord Lieutenant? ["Order!"] He did not wish to offend the Chief Secretary by any language of his own; but was it seemly on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who bore his share of the responsibility for these transactions, to interfere and prevent a popular Body from having one of its most trusted representatives serving as one of the Governing Body of the asylum? He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that this was a question on which the ratepayers of Ireland would make themselves heard before long. In 1883 the entire sum paid on account of Lunatic Asylums was £219,516 for pauper lunatics, and although £98,566 was paid from the Imperial Exchequer, the ratepayers paid £123,702 of the amount. That being so, he thought that the ratepayers had some reason to exercise very stringent control over an institution which cost them such an enormous sum of money. But what did he find now? He had not the exact figures in his possession; but he understood from an hon. Friend below him, who was intimately
  1000
  acquainted with the subject, that the ratepayers of Ireland, this year, in place of paying the enormous sum of £126,702, which was the amount in 1883, were now paying something like £130,000 for pauper lunatics. It was no wonder that they should be called upon to vote an additional sum like the present, when they saw increased expenditure going on at this gigantic rate. He asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to explain whether, in any legislation he might hereafter bring forward, he would include a radical and revolutionary change in the government of these asylums? There was evidently some such reform required in the government of these institutions, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could stand up and justify the action of the Body which had refused to sanction the appointment of Mr. O'Brien? Was it to be tolerated that a body of representatives of the ratepayers at Cork should not have the right of appointing to the Governing Body of the lunatic asylum of the district a man accepted by them as a worthy mouthpiece? He was satisfied that any attempt in London or Edinburgh, or in any other part of the country of England or Scotland, to interfere in this way with the rights of the ratepayers, would not be tolerated for one moment.
  SIR PATRICK O'BEIENsaid, he had called Order during the speech of the hon. Member for Galway; but he begged to say that he had merely endeavoured to awaken a few hon. Members while the hon. Gentleman was addressing the Committee.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) expressed his surprise and indignation at the increase of the Vote for Pauper Lunatics, and he said that the Government and the Irish Administration had so mismanaged this Vote that they had now to ask for a large supplementary sum. He would point out, however, that the sum asked for was less than I per cent on the amount of the original Estimate. The Committee would be aware that in preparing the Estimates the actual number of inmates of lunatic asylums could only be guessed, and he did not think that the increase of 1 per cent was a charge with respect to which hon. Members need be tempted to use such strong Ian-

  1001
  guage. The hon. Member said that the whole of the increase was due to the mismanagement of the authorities; but the reason why the Vote had increased was that the number of lunatics had increased. It was a melancholy fact that there were many insane persons who were not registered as lunatics, and although the population of Ireland was diminishing, the number of lunatics in the asylums was on the increase. In 1875 the average number of persons in the asylums was 7,750, and the gross amount required under this Vote was £80,600; in 1882, the last year for which he had a Return, the average daily number was 9,170, and the amount required £95,868. The Committee would observe that there had been a steady increase in the number of lunatics, and although it was extraordinary, as the hon. Gentleman said, that there should be an increased charge with a diminishing population, that increased charge was due, nevertheless, to the increase of lunacy in the population; it was purely due to the increase of lunatics in the asylums. The hon. Member, in referring to the appointment to the Governing Body of Cork Lunatic Asylum, had spoken of the advantage of self-government. So far as that matter was concerned, he was entirely with the hon. Member; he wished that by some system of local self-government duties such as these could be thrown on the localities, and he trusted that it would not be long before some such system was introduced. In the meantime, however, they had to deal with things as they found them, and the duty was thrown by law on the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland of appointing Governors to these asylums. It had been said that the Lord Lieutenant had refused to appoint the gentleman referred to because he had refused to dine with him. If the hon. Member opposite thought that was the case, all he could say was that he should disabuse his mind of that idea. The truth was that the Corporation of Cork had by custom, but not by right, been in the habit of recommending Governors to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for appointment. These persons had sometimes been accepted and sometimes not; but lately the Corporation had assumed a somewhat different attitude, and had claimed, not only the privilege of recommending according to the practice
  1002
  which had been followed hitherto, but they claimed the actual right of nomination. Now, the Lord Lieutenant was responsible under Statute, and he could not divest himself of his responsibility for the appointments. When Mr. O'Brien was recommended, after a good deal of discussion, certain men were sent up from Cork Town Council in connection with a vacancy which had occurred, and Earl Spencer came to the conclusion that there was a sufficient number of Governors already, and that, therefore, there was no necessity of filling the vacant place. Then it was said that the city interest was left imperfectly represented on the Board of Governors; but, according to the numbers, he found in the documents before him the city interest already preponderated on the Board. He thought that was an important point. In 1884, the County of Cork paid £7,953 towards the maintenance of asylums, and was represented by 15 Governors; and in the same year the City of Cork paid £2,695, and was represented by 22 Governors. He begged to assure the Committee that there had been no intention whatever to put any slight upon the Corporation; and there would be no desire, when it was necessary to appoint a Governor, not to take into the fullest consideration the expressed wishes of that Body.
  MR. DEASYsaid, as a matter of fact, the Corporation had only two representatives on the Board.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid, this question with regard to pauper lunatics in Ireland was of great interest to the people. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Colthurst), who had laid this question before the Committee, had emphasized the fact that the Corporation of the City of Cork had taken into very serious account the manner of the administration of funds at the disposal of the Board; and he thought that, notwithstanding the statement of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, it had been clearly shown that the citizens of Cork had no fair representation upon that Board. So much had that been brought home to the people of Cork that investigations were instituted by the Corporation, which resulted in the discovery that a great deal of expense had been incurred by the acceptance of bad contracts, and that in this way the funds had been improperly administered. In

  1003
  that state of things the Corporation of the City of Cork selected a certain man who was an expert in some articles dealt with by the Lunatic Board of the district asylum, and they had their suspicions that the Lord Lieutenant would not appoint him in consequence of his political opinions. The person selected was a man remarkable for his business capacity, and he had already served upon public Boards to the advantage of his fellow-citizens. The Lord Lieutenant did not appoint him. And why? Because he had lain for four months on a plank bed; because he had protested against laws which he believed to be more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Hon. Members on those Benches were entitled to ask on what grounds this man had been rejected. For the information of the Committee, he begged to state that the constant refusal of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to appoint men to public Boards in Ireland in cases of this kind only increased the discontent which existed with regard to the administration of these funds; that this discontent was extending itself upwards amongst business men in the country, and it was high time that the Government should take this matter into consideration with a view to remedy the evils complained of.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the Committee would appreciate the way in which the Chief Secretary had given information to the Committee with regard to this Vote. They had a distinct conflict of evidence upon this point. The junior Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Deasy) said that the city had only two representatives on the Board. The right hon. Gentleman said there were 22. [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN": I said on the Corporation.] Their point was that when a member of the Board appointed by the Corporation died, the Corporation claimed the right to nominate. Who were the persons who represented the City of Cork on the Lunacy Board—who were the safeguarders of the money of the ratepayers? Why, here was one, the Earl of Mount Cashel, a gentleman of 90 years of age, who never thought of attending to the duties of the post. The Earl of Bantry was another—a gentleman at present engaged in hunting the kangaroo in Australia; and there were many others—J. P's and so on—not one of whom not only would not be ap-
  1004
  pointed by the Corporation, but would not be appointed to the meanest office in the Municipality by anyone who had the interest of the Municipality at heart. The fact of the matter was this—that formerly, when a death or vacancy occurred amongst the Governors of the lunatic asylum, although there were more Governors then than there were at the present time, the Lord Lieutenant nominated a new one. Now, however, when a vacancy occurred, and when the Town Council of Cork for the first time for years proposed to exercise its right to nominate a Governor, the Lord Lieutenant made the flimsy excuse that there were too many Governors already. The Lord Lieutenant and the Government, who were responsible for this, were the people who would extend the franchise, who wished for popular representation, and who desired that the people should express their opinions. A Member of the Government that night had declared that the Government wished for some system of local self-government, and yet Her Majesty's Government would not allow the people of Cork so much local salf-government as would contist in allowing the Town Council of Cork to nominate a Governor to the Cork Lunatic Asylum. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) said—"We have been anxious for years to give you a system of local self-government." Well, the Irish Members would put his sincerity to the test, and would say—"Give us as much local self-government as will enable us to nominate a Governor for a lunatic asylum and to secure his appointment—give us the power we have hitherto exercised." They were told that the Lord Lieutenant considered they were too full on the Board, and that they had enough Governors. Well, he presumed the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had a desire to obtain some amount of credit in his Office, although he was a Scotch official. The right hon. Gentleman must have some desire to please the masses of the people he was amongst. If he were sent to India, at any rate he would have that feeling with regard to the Hindoos. How could he tell them, without the merest pretence, that he was anxious to give them local self-government, when he refused to allow them the small privilege they were now asking for? Now, the Irish Members knew very well the

  1005
  reason of the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to agree to the present just demand. This reason was that Mr. J. O'Brien had got four months' imprison ment—that when the Government officials in Ireland were looking about for mauvais sujets and village ruffians, they had put this man, who was a Councillor of the city, and one of the most honest citizens of Cork, in gaol, and had given him four months' confinement for making a speech. They had punished this man for making a speech which was not by any means as violent as speeches they heard every day in that House. He (Mr. Healy) wished he could have a sovereign for every speech of a stronger character he had made in the House. The Government not being satisfied with having plank-bedded this gentleman, with having shaved his head and shaved his beard, and kept him on skilley for four months—this not being enough for them, they now refused to allow him to be appointed a Governor of a lunatic asylum. Before he (Mr. Healy) passed from this case, he would say that the best way for the Corporations of Ireland to bring the Lord Lieutenant and all Lord Lieutenants to their senses, was just to give them a taste of the quality of the Limerick Corporation. The Corporation of Cork paid thousands of pounds a-year for the keeping up of its lunatic asylum. Let them pay no more. If Earl Spencer, whilst pretending to desire to make the people loyal, insisted upon excluding them from the management of local institutions——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that we are not engaged in a discussion as to the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant. The Vote is to provide for an increase of pauper lunatics, and this is not an occasion for reviewing the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant on this subject. If that matter is discussed at all, it must be discussed on the Main Question. This Vote is for an increase of pauper lunatics, and I cannot allow the debate to wander off into an attack upon the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had been misled into irrelevancy by imitating the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, to whom he had been replying. He should like to ask whether this asylum was the one with which Dr. Eames was connected? He had been intending to bring the case of that
  1006
  doctor forward. Dr. Eames was one of the gentlemen brought up to Dublin by the Government to give a professional Report upon the condition of Mr. James Ellis French. He had given a bogus Report, declaring that Mr. James Ellis French was weak in the understanding, weak in the hips, weak in the legs, and weak in every way, and that he was perfectly incompetent—that was to say, he was so incompetent that he was unable to plead to an indictment. This gentleman, together with Dr. Curtis and Dr. Gordon, had been brought in to declare that Mr. James Ellis French, now undergoing two years' imprisonment in Her Majesty's prison, was absolutely ruined in his faculties. If any of his (Mr. Healy's) hon. Friends were anxious to know how bad Mr. James Ellis French was in the opinion of this Dr. Eames, who was the doctor of the lunatic asylum in question, and a man through whose hands lunatic patients passed, they would find on inquiry that his view was that Mr. French was an idiot. That in itself was enough to show how this man Eames was fitted to be intrusted with the doctorship of a lunatic asylum. But there was another case connected with Dr. Eames, which was still more remarkable. The first case was that of a man who was said to be incapable of pleading, but who was afterwards found able to plead, had pleaded, had been found guilty, and was now undergoing two years' imprisonment. The other case had formed the subject of an action. It appeared that a man had been delivering milk to the asylum, and through some extraordinary hallucination Dr. Eames had shown himself to be not only a doctor in connection with the asylum, but a person to provide the asylum with inmates, for he had seized upon this unfortunate milkman, put him into a straight-jacket, and flung him into a dark cell, on the ground that he was mad. Dr. Eames had got out of this difficulty by paying £5 to the unfortunate man, who had brought an action against him for false imprisonment. Well, he (Mr. Healy) put it to the Committee whether this Dr. Eames was a man whom they ought to have at the head of a great lunatic asylum? On the one hand, he declared Mr. James Ellis French to be mad after it was shown that he was not so; and, on the other hand, he

  1007
  seized an unfortunate milkman, whom he found on his rounds, and put him into a dark cell, on the ground that he was a lunatic. The sooner they had a fresh medium for the appointment of such men as these the better. He should have thought such a scandal as this would have at once attracted the attention of the Government. Unless they had a proper system of supervision over these institutions they would continue to have doctors of this kind. If the Cork Corporation were able to send to the Governing Body of the asylum Governors of proper calibre, who would see that the doctors they employed discharged their duties properly, scandals of this kind would be avoided; but so long as the Governing Body consisted of deadheads, such as the Earl of Mount Cashel, who never went near the place at all, they would have such officials as Dr. Eames. What worse scandal could there be than that of putting an innocent milkman in a straight-jacket and in a dark cell for hours, under the pretence that he was a lunatic, when, as a matter of fact, there was nothing the matter with him? With regard to James Ellis French's case, this was Dr. Eames's certificate, dated from the asylum—
  "Lunatic Asylum, 20th April, 1884.—We, the undersigned, having been appointed by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant to examine and certify, for His Excellency's information, our opinion as to the present state of health of County Inspector James Ellis French, R.I.C., beg to report that, having visited that officer, we are of opinion that he is suffering from mental disease, softening of the brain, and great nervous debility, with impairment of bodily health; that from this infirmity of mind and body he is incapable of discharging the duties of his situation, and that such infirmity is likely to be permanent."
  This Report was signed by Dr. Eames and by the other two doctors he had mentioned, and he contended that the man who said that this ruffianly County Inspector, who was now picking oakum and doing hard labour in Richmond Convict Prison, was of unsound mind, was the man in charge of the lunatics in Cork Asylum. The Lord Lieutenant did not want on Boards of Governors persons of an inquiring turn of mind. He would rather have Mount Cashells, aged 90, who never went down at all to see whether Alexander Eames was properly discharging his functions, or to see how the place was getting on. He and some other of the Irish Members had had, in
  1008
  their short experience, a course of three Chief Secretaries, and all of them in succession seemed to be determined to learn nothing from their Predecessors. The Irish Members had addressed many grievances to them, and had requested that they should give attention to these grievances; but, though they were appealed to in this way day after day and week after week, they never obtained redress. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary think the Irish Members moved in these matters for their own amusement? If he did, he was sadly mistaken. The Irish Members could enjoy themselves much better elsewhere than by going through this process. But, be that as it might, the Irish Members had to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give attention to these grievances, which were very galling and very grievous to them. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary meant to carry out his functions in an effective and thorough manner, he (Mr. Healy) would ask him not to be swayed by the information he got over from the Castle as to the Cork Lunatic Asylum having a sufficient number of Governors upon it. He would ask him to treat the matter in an impartial spirit, and to give due weight to what he heard from the Irish Members in the Committee. If he continued to act as his Predecessors had done, and to go from pitfall to pitfall, and from failure to failure, he would, at the end of his tenure of Office, whenever that might be, go out of it a wiser but a sadder man.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he thought that this matter was one of far greater importance than English and Scotch Members, from a general inception of it, might think. In this matter, which the Irish Members had brought up that night, was involved the question of self or local government. Her Majesty's Government, and he believed the Prime Minister himself, and he knew the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, had declared themselves in favour of local self-government in Ireland. Well, he believed that that would be doing a great deal towards satisfiying the people of Ireland, and allaying the discontent which existed there, if they could be brought seriously to believe that the Government were in earnest in their protestations in favour of this local self-government. Up to this, however,

  1009
  the Irish Members had absolutely nothing before them in support of the statement of the Government that they were in favour of local self-government except mere words. If the Irish Members could believe that the Government intended in the future to introduce some measure which would give to popular representatives complete control over all such institutions as lunatic asylums, they would gladly refrain from these criticisms. But they could not believe that Her Majesty's Government really did intend to do anything towards extending the power of the people of Ireland, unless they had something besides words before them. Here was a case in which the Government might, if they had liked, by a little fair and judicious action, have given to the people of Ireland abundant proof of the fact that they were desirous of extending local self-government to the Irish people; and how could the Irish Members be supposed to credit sentiments such as they had heard that night from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the effect that he was anxious to see the power of the people extended, and to see local self-government instituted in the country, when in the very same breath the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues refused to give proof of the earnestness which prompted them to make that statement? He knew that the discussion of matters like this must be very trying to hon. Members who represented English and Scotch constituencies. They knew very well that in bringing forward questions of this kind they laid themselves open to be viewed by a very considerable degree of prejudice by the people of this country and the Members of that House who represented English and Scotch constituencies; but when it was remembered that the Irish Members had absolutely no method of expressing grievances such as that with which they were now dealing, except by speaking on the floor of that House, he thought that even the most prejudiced amongst the English and Scotch Members would admit that they had some little right and were deserving at least of some consideration in bringing these matters forward. Of course, at that hour of the morning (1.25 A.M.) hon. Members would be glad to see such a discussion as this postponed; but if the Irish Members did not ventilate their
  1010
  grievances in connection with the treatment of these lunatic paupers that night, the Committee knew very well that they might not in this Parliament be able to secure another opportunity of doing it. Somebody or other had once said that an opportunity only came once in a lifetime. Well, it might be said that an opportunity only came once in the lifetime of a Session. The present was the opportunity of the Irish Members for expressing the particular grievance in connection with the lunatic asylums of Ireland, and the Irish Members would not be true to the interests of the people they represented if they did not avail themselves of that opportunity to its fullest extent. Hon. Members might feel uncomfortable at being kept up so late; but he would remind them that those who were presenting the case had to consider, besides their own comfort, and that of their Colleagues, the treatment of the unfortunate lunatics who looked to them, and to them alone, to ameliorate their condition. It would be hard for him to present the case which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst) in a new light. Several of his Colleagues had emphasized the case, setting forth the injustice imposed on the City of Cork by the refusal of His Excellency to appoint to a position of trust an eminent citizen who had won for himself the respect and the confidence of his fellow-citizens; but even at the risk of being considered guilty of tedious repetition, he (Mr. W. Redmond) was bound to say, seriously and honestly, that he did not remember for many and many a day having heard such a flagrant instance of the violation of the rights of the people by the Government in Ireland than the action of the Lord Lieutenant in refusing this appointment of Mr. J. O'Brien. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would have them to believe that the Lord Lieutenant had not appointed Mr. J. O'Brien, Town Councillor, upon the Governing Body of the asylum because he was not wanted. If the Asylum Board were at its full complement, the Irish Members would not consider so much the injustice of the refusal of the Lord Lieutenant to accept the nominee of the Corporation; but what made them feel doubly grieved in this matter—and to this he invited the special attention of

  1011
  the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—was that they knew very well that the appointment of Mr. O'Brien was refused by the Lord Lieutenant, not because of his unfitness for the post, not because he had not capacity for administering the affairs of the asylum in a proper manner, but because he was what might be called a personal enemy of Earl Spencer and of his rule in Ireland. The men who were anxious for Mr. O'Brien's appointment were Nationalists, and that was the secret of the thing. But who was the last man that the Lord Lieutenant had appointed to be one of the members of this Governing Board? "Why, Mr. Barry Shehan, one of the most notorious anti-Nationalists in the whole of Cork, a man who was thrown out of the Mayoralty, and a man who could not claim to have anything like the confidence of the majority of the people of Cork. This gentleman had been appointed. Why? The reason was that every time a Royal Duke came down to Cork, and the citizens did not want to receive him, Mr. Barry Shehan was always there to crawl in the gutter and kiss the sacred foot of that Royal Duke or anyone else that might come there. This Mr. Barry Shehan was a servile supporter of Earl Spencer in all his aots—good, bad, or indifferent.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Again I feel it necessary to remark that this is not an occasion upon which to attack the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Vote before the Committee is to provide for an increase of pauper lunatics. The hon. Gentleman has developed his observations to a great extent, and I must really beg of him now to confine them to the Vote before the Committee.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman would do him the justice to consider that in speaking that night he was not at all actuated by any desire either to transgress the Bides of the Committee, or to bring any adverse ruling unnecessarily upon his own head. If he had been led into transgressing the Rules of the Committee, he now asked the Committee to believe that it was wholly on account of the interest he felt in this case, and the desire he felt to put it as strongly as possible before the Committee. The point which he was endeavouring to put was that he considered the citizens of Cork had a perfect right to nominate, if not to elect, the men who
  1012
  should be upon the Asylums Board, and who should have the administration of the money which the Committee were now called upon to vote. It had already been pointed out to the Committee that the administrators of the Asylums Board were, to a man, not the representatives of the people, but the nominees of the Crown or the Crown's representatives. Now, the principle for which he contended was that this was public money. He and his hon. Friends would vote the money freely, because it was for the purpose of sustaining a necessary charitable and praiseworthy institution; and because it was for the purpose of maintaining an institution which was supposed to protect, but which he was afraid did not protect as well as it ought, those who had been deprived by the act of the Almighty of their senses. He and his hon. Friends acknowledged that this Vote was wanted; but while supporting it they did say, and he believed the majority of Englishmen and Scotchmen would endorse his statement, that it was only fair and just that where there was public money to be expended, that public money should be disbursed by people who were elected by the ratepayers, and who were responsible to the ratepayers. Now, the money that the Committee were going to vote, the money that had been voted, and, under the present system, all the money that would be voted, would be disbursed, not by the representatives of the people, but by a lot of decrepid, old noble Irish landlords, who had no sympathy with the people, and who had not got the confidence of the people, but who were only administrators of this Board simply because they had the favour of the Lord Lieutenant. The best proof of the truth of the statement that had been made that the Lord Lieutenant refused to appoint Mr. O'Brien because he was a Nationalist was to be found in the fact that he (Mr. W. Redmond) had endeavoured to press upon the attention of the Committee—namely, that the very last gentleman who was appointed by the Lord Lieutenant was a man who had been hissed in the streets of Cork. He (Mr. W. Redmond) was as anxious as any Member of the House to see peace and contentment reign throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain and Ireland. He had no desire to see the people of his country for ever distracted

  1013
  and discontented; but sincerely did he say-that as long as institutions of this kind were governed by the nominees of a foreign Lord, and not by the representatives of the people, so long would there be discontent, and so long would it be the unpleasant but necessary duty of Irish Representatives in that House to keep the British Parliament up late, and to keep some Members of the British Parliament out of their beds listening to Ireland's grievances. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would only say that the Lord Lieutenant would reconsider his determination in appointing Mr. O'Brien; if words would come from the Chief Secretary's lips to the effect that he considered that the nominees of the Corporation and citizens of Cork ought to be put upon the Board; if the right hon. Gentleman would only say that he would try that, for the future, the people's nominees should not be overlooked, his words would be read to-morrow with great pleasure throughout the whole of Ireland, and would do much towards making his stay in Ireland pleasant. But the right hon. Gentleman's dominant and persistent refusal to give hon. Members any encouragement that, in the future, money like this would be administered by the people's representatives was calculated to give new life to agitation and to discontent; indeed, he (Mr. W. Redmond) fervently hoped that the Irish people would keep up agitation until such grievances as he had detailed were wiped out once and for ever.
  MR. LEAMYasked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) whether he really intended to give the Irish Representatives any explanation in regard to the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) with respect to Dr. Eames and the milkman? Of late, a great deal of attention in this country had been attracted to the management of lunatic asylums, and he hoped that this attention would be continued until some reform was brought about. But he asked hon. Gentlemen whether they really believed that if a doctor managing a private lunatic asylum in England was shown to have been guilty of such ignorance—to put it mildly—as Dr. Eames displayed in the cases of James Ellis
  1014
  French and the milkman, he would be allowed to continue in his office? Would any rich man, who was unfortunate enough to have some member of his family afflicted with insanity, put such a person in an asylum which was managed by a man who had shown himself so incapable of diagnosing insanity? But the asylum over which Dr. Eames had superintendence was a pauper lunatic asylum, and surely if any asylum needed consideration from the Members of the House of Commons, it was an asylum for pauper lunatics. In many cases, pauper lunatics had no friends at all, or, if they had, their friends were poor, and probably lived at a great distance; and, therefore, to leave pauper lunatics under the care of a man like Dr. Eames was positively disgraceful. Dr. Eames gave a certificate that James Ellis French was mad. It was proved that that was wrong, and that French was not mad. Then, again, Dr. Eames was charged with the most extraordinary conduct, of which he (Mr. Leamy) never heard until to-night. It was said that this Dr. Eames, on his own motion, dragged a milkman, who was in the habit of going to the asylum, within the gates, locked him up, and put him in a straight-waistcoat. This man, too, it had been shown, was not mad; and yet Dr. Eames was allowed to retain his position. What gain could there possibly be by the Chief Secretary for Ireland supporting actions of this kind. Suppose there was such a man in any asylum in London who was capable of such conduct, and that his conduct was brought under the notice of the House, would he be allowed to remain in his position 24 hours? No; he would be at once suspended. It appeared that Dr. Eames was to be retained. The least the Government could do was to institute an inquiry into the sanity of Dr. Eames himself, because either the man was a scoundrel or he was insane. He could not have given certificates with regard to two people, both of which it had been proved were false and wrong, if he knew his business. If he did not know his business, he should not be continued in office. His patients were only pauper lunatics; but surely they had a right to expect the protection of the House. The question of the non-appointment of Mr. O'Brien had been already dealt with, and he would not allude to it further, except to say that,

  1015
  unfortunately, it was impossible to expect that the Chief Secretary of Ireland would, in any way, recognize a man in whom the people of Ireland trusted. What he wished to lay special stress upon was a matter which had common humanity for its advocate. He asked, whether these unfortunate pauper lunatics were to be put under the care of a man who was thoroughly incompetent? If the right hon. Gentleman wished to get his Vote to-night, some information must be afforded with regard to this man, Dr. Eames. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was not prepared to give them an explanation, he (Mr. Leamy) would consider himself justified in moving that the Chairman do report Progress.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that the facts relating to French's insanity were somewhat complicated. The original certificate was signed by three medical men, of whom Dr. Eames was one. Dr. Eames was selected to examine French, because he was an eminent and experienced man, whose opinion would naturally carry weight. At the trial, he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) believed that Dr. Wheeler, one of the most eminent doctors in Ire land, gave independent evidence to the same effect. That evidence, however, was contradicted by other physicians; but there was nothing in that to show that Dr. Eames behaved like a rogue or lunatic, as had been inferred. Whether Dr. Eames acted wisely or not he was not prepared to say. The Court decided French was sane, and, therefore, it must be presumed that Dr. Eames was in error. Certainly Dr. Eames had some ground to go upon, seeing that his opinion was assured by other medical men. With regard to the case of the milk man, of which he had not heard much——
  MR. HEALY: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland know all about it?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he understood that the milkman brought an action against Dr. Eames, and that at the trial Dr. Eames obtained a verdict.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had made an extraordinary statement with regard to French, for he had said that French might or might not be mad. Was that, or was it not,
  1016
  the statement of the right hon. Gentleman? If there was a doubt as to French's insanity, was not the right hon. Gentleman, as the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, bound to have an immediate inquiry made into the matter? The Lord Lieutenant was the dispenser of mercy in Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman was his Secretary. In order to save this man, Dr. Eames, it was now said that French, who had been found guilty of a most horrible crime, might or might not be mad. What did that involve?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that French might, or might not, have been mad at the time; he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was not competent to pronounce an opinion upon the subject. All he had to say was, that there was a certain amount of medical evidence for French's madness, and a certain amount of medical evidence against it. Dr. Eames went for his madness.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had stated that French might or might not be mad at the time. He (Mr. Healy) understood that the present view of the right hon. Gentleman was that French had since recovered sanity.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had no view on the subject at all. He did not mean to express his own opinion. How could he say whether French was mad or not? What he said was, that there were certain eminent doctors for French's madness, and that there were others against it. The case was brought up for trial, and it was determined that the evidence was stronger in favour of the man not being mad than otherwise.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that Dr. Eames was a brother Freemason of French's, and he was the first person in Ireland who was chosen by the Lord Lieutenant to test the sanity of French. The certificate which Dr. Eames gave with regard to French's condition was dated from the Cork District Lunatic Asylum, and Dr. Eames's signature was the first signature on the document. This, however, was not merely a question of the man's madness. Madness might have been feigned by French; but it must be remembered that the certificate practically divided itself into four branches. The certificate was in these words—

  1017
  "We are of opinion that he is suffering from I mental disease and softening of the brain, and great nervous debility, with impairment of bodily health, and that from this infirmity of mind and body he is incapable of discharging the duties of his station, and that such infirmity is likely to be permanent."
  If it was a certificate of the man's madness, he could understand it being said that the man might have been feigning at the time, and that possibly, in the view of the doctors, he might have been an insane person; but Dr. Eames certified also as to infirmity of body, and that the infirmity was likely to be permanent; and therefore the question he (Mr. Healy) put to the Committee was this—"Is a person who has given a certificate of that character a proper person to be in charge of a lunatic asylum?" If a man like that was in charge of lunatic patients from day to day, was he not likely to be a judge of insanity? If he was not, why did he occupy his present position? French might have deceived Dr. Eames as to his sanity; but how could he deceive him as to infirmity of body? Surely a doctor was, at all events, a judge of the soundness of body and limb; surely he could tell whether a man's body was in a fairly sound state. A man could hardly feign that he was such an infirm cripple that he was quite incapable of discharging the duties of his situation, and that his infirmity was likely to be permanent. He asked any Member of the Committee who was not fettered by official relations, whether a doctor of this kind was one who ought to have charge of a large pauper lunatic asylum, containing hundreds of patients—an asylum upon the Board of which the Government refused to allow a single representative of the people to be nominated by such an independent Body as the Cork Corporation? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that Dr. Eames was acquitted. Why, as a matter of fact, Dr. Eames paid a sum of money into Court, and the jury found that, as the man was only imprisoned for a few hours, that sum was sufficient compensation for the imprisonment. There was no actual acquittal. It was not denied that Dr. Eames forcibly imprisoned the man. It was not denied that Dr. Eames ordered the man to be straight-waist-coated, and, therefore, was he (Mr. Healy) to be told that because Dr.
  1018
  Eames escaped with such a small penalty he was a proper man to have charge of a lunatic asylum? The sum and substance of the whole thing was that Dr. Eames was a Freemason. If he had been a Catholic he would have been turned out of his office within 24 hours. Could the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland get up, and, at the Table of the House, attempt to convince hon. Members who knew the full facts of the case? Why, the right hon. Gentleman had not even convinced his own supporters with reference to these facts. It was required to ascertain the sanity or insanity of one of the worst scoundrels in the entire country, and it was of the utmost importance that the ablest man should be selected to make the examination. The whole country was ringing with the case of James Ellis French. A popular newspaper in Ireland had attacked the man, and the whole of England, as well as of Ireland, rang with the case of this County Inspector, who was charged with the most heinous and terrible crime, and then, in order to shield him, the Government employed Dr. Eames; and when it was found that Dr. Eames had made a great mistake, the Government, through the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, attempted to screen him by saying that French might or might not have been mad at the time. According to his sentence, French was now undergoing penal servitude for two years; he was supposed to be breaking stones and picking oakum, and doing all the other terrible and dreadful tasks imposed on a convict; and yet he was the man of whom Dr. Eames had expressed the opinion that, with his infirmity of mind and body, he was incapable of discharging the duties of his situation, and that such infirmity was likely to be permanent. All he (Mr. Healy) could say was, that a Government who first of all employed a man like Dr. Eames to screen a man like French, and then, when Dr. Eames had done all the dirty work, turned round to screen him by saying that French might or might not have been mad at the time the certificate was given, was just worthy of being a Government represented by Lord Spencer.
  DR. LYONSsaid, that Dr. Eames was a gentleman whom he had had the pleasure of knowing for several years

  1019
  past, and to whose character he could bear testimony. Dr. Eames had filled a responsible and important position for a considerable period, with, so far as he (Dr. Lyons) knew, complete satisfaction to all concerned. He believed Dr. Eames to be absolutely incapable of lending himself to any sort of a sham certificate, such as it was supposed had been furnished in the case of James Ellis French. The case of French was by no means uncommon. It very often happened that a man for a considerable time successfully shammed lunacy, and hon. Members knew, from the correspondence of French which had been published recently, that he was a man capable of exercising a considerable amount of ingenuity. He (Dr. Lyons) believed it was a part of French's case, as indeed it was a common part of such cases, to attempt to starve himself, and thereby diminish his general bodily condition.
  MR. HEALY: Why, French was not in the gaol at the time of the certificate.
  DR. LYONS: During part of the time he was in gaol.
  MR. HEALY: The certificate was given on the 30th April; but French was not arrested until June.
  DR. LYONSsaid, he nevertheless believed that French attempted to starve himself, and to reduce his physical condition as to weight, and to produce an appearance of delicacy. It must be admitted that he succeeded in imposing on the physicians who reported on his case. What had happened in French's case was by no means an uncommon occurrence in the history of lunacy. He (Dr. Lyons) personally had been aware of such eases, and it was only by long and repeated examination that he had succeeded in exposing them. What he desired particularly to say was that from his own personal knowledge of Dr. Eames—a knowledge which extended over a very considerable period—Dr. Eames was totally incapable of lending himself to any such misrepresentation as had been alleged by his hon. Friends sitting on the opposite Benches. Dr. Eames had pursued his profession with satisfaction to all with whom he came in contact, and he had certainly discharged the very laborious and onerous duties of his position as head of a great lunatic asylum with great satisfaction to the Governors and Directors. That a man,
  1020
  under certain circumstances, should be misled with regard to well-acted lunacy was not to be wondered at, when they considered the extraordinary ingenuity which persons sometimes adopted.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, that all the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin City (Dr. Lyons) had said was that, in his opinion, Dr. Eames was incapable of lending himself to a sham certificate. Allowing, then, that that was not a sham certificate, it only showed that the man who made it was incompetent to diagnose a case of lunacy. [Dr. LYONS: He made a mistake.] Possibly, he made a mistake; but if this man had the experience of lunatics which the Committee were told he had, he should be the last man in the land to make a mistake. The hon. Member had led the Committee to suppose that French confused the mind of Dr. Eames, because he was in goal and tried to starve himself. Now, that was not the fact, because, when the certificate was given, French had not been arrested. Now, as to the case of the milkman, he (Mr. Leamy) thought they had a right to a statement of the exact details from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker). In the case of French, Dr. Eames made a wrong certificate, and in the case of the milkman, he, of his own motion, seized the man, whose business brought him to the lunatic asylum every day, threw him into a cell, and put a straight-waistcoat upon him. Now, he (Mr. Leamy) wanted an explanation of these matters. Dr. Eames might have made a mistake in the case of French, and he might have given a certificate, because he was invited to do so; but, in the second case, he acted entirely upon his own responsibility; he outraged the law by seizing the man and imprisoning him, and his ground for doing so was that the man was a dangerous lunatic. He (Mr. Leamy) wanted to know whether the Government intended to keep such a man over an asylum of pauper lunatics; or were the Committee to understand that it did not matter who superintended pauper lunatics, so long as the man happened to be a friend of the Government? Dr. Eames might be an estimable gentleman in private life; but there was one thing very remarkable, and that was, that every Government official who was attacked, from these

  1021
  Benches was a man of the most stainless character. [Mr. HEALY: Until he is found out.] Now, with regard to the second case brought against Dr. Eames—namely, that as to the milkman, he and his hon. Friend demanded an explanation from the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that the examination of French was made for the purpose of ascertaining whether the man was or was not capable of discharging his duties. Very much more was involved than the sanity of the man, and it was well the Committee should know that the opinion of Dr. Eames was attested by two other eminent medical men.
  MR. HEALY: Also Government officials.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Now, he had been asked about the case of the milkman who had been detained at the asylum. The man represented himself as a fit patient for the lunatic asylum. The warder took charge of him for a short time, and Dr. Eames allowed him to be put into a cell for a few hours. The man afterwards brought an action against him, and Dr. Eames lodged £5 in Court, which the Jury found was sufficient; and it was under these circumstances that Dr. Eames had been so violently assailed.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that if what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had stated were correct, Dr. Eames had committed no act whatever, but had simply allowed the warder to act. He would be glad to know whether that was a correct statement of the case? Were they to understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ire land, professing to know all the facts of the case, deliberately stated that Dr. Eames had not imprisoned the man; that it was the warder who did it? He (Mr. Callan) understood that that was the very reverse of the truth. Was it true that the hon. and learned Gentleman had the audacity——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to use that language at all.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he withdrew the word "audacity," and would substitute for it "effrontery."
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had never heard a more extraordinary statement from the Treasury Bench than that of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland. Dr. Eames, at all events, gave a certificate that French had softening of the brain, great nervous debility, and infirmity of mind. He need not question then the bona fides of the Government for calling in Dr. Eames; it was not necessary for his purpose to do so. With regard to the milkman, he was surprised that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland should make the statement he had made. Had he been counsel for the man, he (Mr. Healy) had no doubt he would have made a very different statement to the jury. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the man wanted to become a patient, that the warder took him in, and that Dr. Eames allowed him to be kept in a cell a few hours, and that Dr. Eames had paid £5 into Court for damages in the action which was brought against him. The facts of the case were these. The man wanted to tender for a supply of milk to the asylum; he went there, and it would appear that, because he tendered for milk, they treated him as a lunatic. But why had Dr. Eames paid £5 into Court, if he were an innocent man? He need not have paid one farthing. Now, he (Mr. Healy) asked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he could expect that hon. Members on those Benches could give credit to his statement, which just showed how the Law Officers appraised the intelligence of the House of Commons? Any story would do for the House of Commons; they thought anything would go down with those whom they supposed to be blockheads in the House of Commons. He said it was really astonishing that the hon. and learned Gentleman should come forward, at that time of the morning, and tell the Committee such a yarn. Dr. Eames had proved himself to be incompetent both with regard to the certificate in the case of French and the treatment of this milkman. It was absolutely necessary that some person of independent character, like Mr. O'Brien, should have a seat upon the Board of the asylum; and he would advise the ratepayers that, until they had this, they should not pay one penny of the contributions demanded of them for the

  1023
  equipment and salary of men like Dr. Eames.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he should like to know whether it was permitted to warders to put people into straight-jackets and cells without instructions from the prison doctors? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland said that the man asked to be taken in as a patient, and that Dr. Eames allowed it to be done. But was that a candid statement? Were those the real facts of the case? It appeared to him that, throughout the course of this discussion, there had been, on the part of the right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken from the Treasury Bench, a distinct want of candour. Was it candid to tell the Committee that the reason why they had not appointed Mr. O'Brien to be one of the Governors, was that the Board of Governors was already sufficiently full? Would it not have been better to say that the Lord Lieutenant did not like to have imposed upon him representatives of this kind? And he put it to the Committee whether they did not fully believe that that was the case? Might they not hope that, at a future time, there would be a little more candour on the Treasury Bench with regard to these statements? Was it not hard for the Committee to listen to, and be expected to swallow, such stories as this? He (Mr. Sullivan) said that Mr. O'Brien was well known to be a reputable citizen, a man of integrity and honour, whose character was not in the slightest degree blackened because he had fallen under the censure of the Lord Lieutenant. On the contrary, his character stood out stronger than it did before he had fallen under the censure. He would not, however, dwell further upon the subject than to observe that the Committee might as well have been treated to a chapter from the Arabian Nights, or Alice in Wonderland, as to such stories as these—that the Lord Lieutenant considered the Board of Governors was already sufficiently full, and that that was the reason he had not appointed Mr. O'Brien. He (Mr. Sullivan) said that it was not for the credit of Parliament that such stories should be bandied about by Gentlemen occupying the high positions of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Hon. Members on those Benches regarded it as an outrage, and thought that it ought to be so re-
  1024
  garded, that the Committee of that House should be asked to listen to stories so bare of plausibility.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he had heard the greater part of the conversation with regard to this matter, and as the case had been put by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, it seemed that Dr. Eames was either an ass or a scoundrel. He might take his choice. He was either perfectly stupid and ignorant of his profession, or he was a dishonest person. He (Mr. Biggar) did not blame the Government for refusing to examine into the case, under the circumstances. If nothing had been known of the character of Dr. Eames at the time, the Government would have been justified in asking him to examine French; but the difficulty was that, knowing now that he had been proved to be either dishonest or incompetent, they should continue him in his position. That was the ground on which he found fault with the Government, and it was in keeping with the whole course of their conduct in matters of this kind. With regard to the lunatic asylum at Cork, it was known that the persons who were Governors of that asylum did not pay any proportion of the rates. They were landlords, and not occupiers, who did not contribute in proportion to the rates which supported the lunatic asylum; and they knew that the Government, notwithstanding their alleged desire to give local self-government to the people of Ireland, and to extend the franchise amongst them, continued to uphold the present system. He thought they gave very little evidence of their desire to extend popular rights and liberties by their conduct in connection with the Cork Lunatic Asylum. Because, instead of appointing to one of the Governorships of that asylum a person who had the confidence of his fellow-citizens, they appointed a man who was most unpopular with them. He would ask the hon. Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) if he would give the Committee the benefit of his opinion with regard to the conduct of Dr. Eames, and whether, under the circumstances, the Government were justified in continuing his salary.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) was not in Order in calling on an hon. Member to speak.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, in that case, he would ask the Chairman to call on the hon. Baronet to state whether he was satisfied that French was a person of unsound mind, and whether he thought the case of the unfortunate milkman who was detained was one which could be justified, and whether he thought the Government were justified in screening the conduct of Dr. Eames? Hon. Members on those Benches thought the Government were, on these grounds, to be censured; and he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £200, the amount of Dr. Eames' salary for three months.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £690, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, in aid of the Local Cost of Maintenance of Pauper Lunatics in Ireland."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 61: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 51.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): It is necessary that I should now explain the position in which we stand as to Supply. The Committee will remember that last year the question as to the time within which certain Votes must be taken was fully discussed and considered. The result was that as on the Thursday corresponding to the present Thursday we had not finished the Supplementary Estimates, we had to take the Supplementary Estimates on the following Saturday, with the scandal of having to sit into Sunday. I think we ought to finish to-night the Supplementary Estimates, over which, I am bound to say, we have been spending an unusual amount of time, instead of taking them on Saturday, and possibly having to repeat the scandal of finishing them on Sunday morning. If the Committee are desirous of knowing why there is a special necessity for that being done, I may say that there is even more necessity for it this year than last. There was not so
  1026
  much controversy last year over the Navy Votes, and it was found possible to take a Vote on Account also on the same day; but I think everyone who knows what has to be discussed on the Navy Vote will see that it is very doubtful whether we shall be able to do that this year. Therefore, as next week is the last week in which we can take the Army and Navy Votes, it will be absolutely necessary to give the whole of it to Supply. It is therefore a matter of urgent necessity that we should finish the Supplementary Estimates to-night; and I can only say that I am quite ready to sit up all night for the purpose, rather than repeat what we did last year, and finish them on Sunday.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) had omitted one important fact—namely, that last year the Session commenced on the 6th of February. This year, in consequence of the extraordinary call made upon hon. Members at the end of last year, the Session did not begin until the 19th of February. Where was the necessity that the whole of next week should be given up to the Army and Navy Estimates. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might easily arrange to apportion some of next week to the Supplementary Estimates. And, again, why should to-morrow's Sitting be given up to the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, for which, notwithstanding that there was no need to hurry in the matter, the Government had obtained precedence? He asked the right hon. Gentleman to put down Supply for to-morrow as the first Order of the Day, and retire the Order for Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. He had sat in the House during 10½ hours already, and certainly did not wish to sit up all night for the purpose of passing the Supplementary Estimates.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): We cannot assent to the proposal of the hon. Member, for Supply has no privilege except on Mondays and Thursdays. The effect of the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be, that we should not have the same means of going into Supply on the day he names which we have on Mondays and Thursdays.
  MR. SEXTONasked what would be the effect if hon. Members undertook

  1027
  to make no Motions on going into Supply?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I am afraid that is a matter beyond me. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot control or govern the House in that respect; and it is, therefore, quite out of my power to assume that any other days in the week will be devoted to Supply but Mondays and Thursdays.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman applied only to the Supplementary Estimates; he had not spoken of a Vote on Account.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I stated that last year we did take the Navy Estimates and the Vote on Account on the same night, because although there was a great deal of discussion on the Army Estimates, on the Navy Estimates there was very little discussion indeed.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave as a reason for not taking these Votes to-morrow that Motions might be put down on going into Committee of Supply. Well, presumably the right hon. Gentleman had full control over his own Members; and as the only Members of the Tory Party now present were the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. N. Fowler), neither of whom were likely to hunger with any very urgent desire for an opportunity to put down a Motion, and the Irish Members were not likely to put down Motions—taking these facts into consideration, and knowing that Motions could not be put down for tomorrow, unless Notice were given of them now, he hoped the course pointed out would be adopted by the Government. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT said, Motions could be put down.] If that were so, of course it could not be helped. At any rate, it was better to take the chance that Motions on going into Committee of Supply would break down at a reasonable time than to refuse the reasonable request of the Irish Members. It was better to do that than to drop the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill at a reasonable hour to take Diplomatic and other Votes, in which the Irish Members were not particularly
  1028
  interested, and then expect them to sit up to a very unreasonable hour discussing Votes upon which they had a great deal to say. It was stated by the Government that the Votes Irish Members wanted to consider would take a long time to discuss; but he would remind the Committee that the Diplomatic Vote had lasted four hours, and that, at the best, the discussion upon it was only of an academic character. The amount of money now involved was £3,500,000; and, in his opinion, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted that sum to-night, he was hardly likely to get it. There was material enough in these Votes to enable the Irish Members to discuss many points for a considerable time. Even if they sat up all night, they might find themselves unable to dispose of all these subjects; and it might be necessary to sit up for two nights—that was to say, if the Government thought to cram these Votes down their throats. Last year the Irish Members, at the request of the Government, who offered a compromise, forewent their discussion; but months wore on, and they ultimately found that absolutely nothing was given to them in return for the course they had taken. His experience of wrangles of this kind was that they came to no good, and his advice to the Government was—"Go to bed early, if you can." When these wrangles were continued, it was not unfrequently the case that towards the close Members of the Liberal Party got disgusted with the business, and put pressure on their Leaders to bring the wrangle to a close. Moreover, the officers of the House found their health ruined by these arrangements, and the result was a general cave in all along the line. Well, he (Mr. Healy) was always in favour of amicable arrangements—[Laughter, and "Hear, hear!"] He was only giving an opinion for himself—for no one else. He approved of amicable arrangements; and he would, therefore, suggest that they should dispose of the Superannuation Vote, the Inland Revenue Vote, and the Telegraphic Vote to-night, and leave the Civil Contingency Vote and the Temporary Commission Vote to Monday. In the Vote for Temporary Commissions an important question would arise. The Irish Members had come down to-night, not expecting the

  1029
  Diplomatic Vote would last so long, and believing that they would have had an opportunity of discussing the boundary question. The material to be used in this discussion was voluminous. Then, in the Civil Contingencies Vote, he found such an item as this—
  "The Right Hon. A. W. Peel, equipage on election as Speaker of the House of Commons, £1,000."
  He should like to have some explanation of that. Then there was another item—
  "Payment to Surgeon Wheeler for attendance on Mr. Shaen Carter in pursuance of a verdict against the Crown given in the Court of Exchequer in November 1883, £1,147 18 s."
  That also would have to be remarked upon; and, lastly, there was—
  "The compassionate grant to Mrs. Eliza Colgan in consideration of loss caused by the misconduct of Crown Solicitor in Ireland, £250,"
  on which they would have a good bit to say. These were matters of importance in themselves; and he hardly thought it was the way to treat the House of Commons, to take it by surprise at that hour of the morning, and inform it, for the first time, that it was intended to ask to-night for this £3,500,000. It would have been more candid for the Government to have informed the Irish Members earlier that they intended to apply for all these Votes, and then Members would have known what to do. The great argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be that an All-night Sitting had led to a "Sunday scandal." Well, he (Mr. Healy) thought, with regard to Sitting on Sunday, that the better the day the better the deed. His recollection of what occurred during the last Sitting which ran into the Sunday was, that it was remarkably enjoyable. He (Mr. Healy) did not belong to the Sunday Rest Association, therefore he had no objection to the Votes being postponed until Saturday; and if it should be necessary to go on with the debates after 12 o'clock, he saw no reason to believe that his constituents would object to having their grievances exposed and discussed a minute after midnight any more than a minute before midnight. Let the disputed Votes be put
  1030
  down for Saturday. To his mind, it was much more important that the Government should, at that hour of the night, enter into a friendly understanding as to the discussions to be taken in Committee, and that they should put their heads together for the purpose of arriving at a general friendly understanding, and that they should postpone the Votes, and take them either tomorrow or Saturday.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, that, under existing circumstances, it seemed to him that a Saturday Sitting was absolutely necessary; because, supposing even though they remained there all night, the items before them would require so much discussion that they would of necessity involve a Saturday Sitting. No matter how much goodwill might be shown in this matter, it was impossible to hope that a discussion on all the items could be disposed of in a night, unless some arrangement were concluded between the different Parties in the House. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that it was impossible to bring on the Supplementary Estimates to-morrow, because Notices of Motion would be put down, and would have to be disposed of before the Speaker could leave the Chair. He did not think there would be any waste of time of particular importance, so far as he could gather. He (Mr. Molloy) could foresee that, under any circumstances, they would have to take a Saturday Sitting. As the Irish Members were willing to discuss the Votes on Saturday, and as the Government were willing to make an effort on their part, surely the compromise suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) could be agreed to. Let them have these Votes brought on in an orderly and proper manner, and disposed of on Saturday, instead of being fiddled with to-night.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, if he could see an opening for a reasonable compromise he should be glad to accept it. He thought, from what had fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it was possible to meet them half way. He noticed that there were a good many disputed items on the Civil Contingencies Vote, and it was also suggested that

  1031
  there were questions to be raised on the Vote for the Boundary Commission. But perhaps hon. Gentlemen had not observed that, as there was a Bill before the House in which the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners were embodied, those recommendations could not be considered in Supply. The House would have to discuss them on the Bill; and the only question that hon. Members could discuss in Supply would be the constitution of the Commission. He would not, therefore, propose to postpone that Vote; but he would agree to postpone the Vote on Account. If they took the rest of the Votes before the Committee, the Vote for General Gordon and others which were purely formal, then, on Monday, they could proceed with the Civil Contingencies Vote, the Vote on Account, and the Excesses Vote, on the understanding that the House would allow them to be taken at whatever hour they might come on.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was of opinion—and he believed his view was shared by hon. Gentlemen who sat near him—that they had better accept the offer made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in such a conciliatory spirit.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that, if they did so, it was rather because they were always ready to recognize any evidence of an amicable spirit on the part of the Government, than that they accepted all the conclusions of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were perfectly sound and irresistible with regard to all the Supplementary Votes. It was necessary that these Votes should be taken on a certain day, in order that the Appropriation Bill might be got through before the end of the financial year; but he was at a loss to know how it was that a Vote on Account, which related to the next financial year, was so absolutely necessary.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (7.) £107, Redemption of Consolidated Fund Allowances.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to call attention to this Vote, his object being to insure a full and accurate statement
  1032
  in the Estimates. He saw in the Vote the following item:—
  "For commutation of a yearly payment of £2 1s. 10 d. to the lord of the manor of Appuldurcombe under 36 and 37 Vic. c. 57, and for the purpose of sufficient Capital Stock of Three Per Cents. Annuities for transference to the official Trustees of Charitable Funds to enable them to take over the payment of a yearly allowance of £1 12 s. to the Master of Oswestry School under the Act 46 and 47 Vic. c. 56, s. 18, £107."
  It would be seen that this Vote of £107 was made up of two items; separate statements were given with regard to these; but the Vote was a lump sum for the two. There could be no question about paying the item, because the sum was one which they were not only bound to spend, but which probably they had spent already; but his object was to have everything in these items stated as distinctly as it could be.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he agreed that it would have been much better if the amounts had been put down separately. If he had any power in the future, he would take care that they were put down separately.
  Vote agreed to.

  GLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
  (8.) £3,800, Temporary Commissions.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he had said a few minutes ago that the Irish Members had a desire to ask for further information than the Boundary Commissioners had laid before the House. The Commissioners had presented maps of the final boundaries, and certain documents called Reports, which, however, were very meagre in their character. They assuredly had not guided the Commissioners in arriving at their final scheme. That information was exclusively stored in certain rooms of Whitehall; and he therefore asked that hon. Members might have access to it. The Irish Members intended to dispute the decisions of the Boundary Commissioners in certain instances. The Irish Members desired to have the evidence collected by the Commissioners and used by them in coming to a final decision, and they wished to make the Commissioners the servants of the House instead of its masters. The House would be better able to reverse the judgment of the Commissioners with the evidence before

  1033
  it upon which the Commission itself founded its judgment. He had no doubt the information he required could be given without inconvenience.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he should like to know, in addition upon this Vote, how the amount was to be appropriated? There was, he understood, £3,800 asked for as a Supplementary provision; and he should like to know whether the Commissioners, at least as far as Ireland was concerned, were being paid, because he had some reason to believe that such was not the case, and that these gentlemen were doing the work for nothing? He thought that men of this kind should be paid for their work, conceiving it to be very undesirable that they should be going about the country declaring that they had been fulfilling these important functions for nothing. He desired to have some information beyond that which was at present available to hon. Members, concerning certain districts in which he and his hon. Friends were interested—for instance, Tyrone, Down, Armagh, Derry, Donegal, and Dublin City. They were not so particular with regard to Tyrone and County Down; but they were very particular with regard to the others. He would go further than the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) as to the evidence which they would require. The evidence upon which the Dublin City divisions were decided upon were certainly somewhat extraordinary. The Commissioners had adopted a scheme of the Conservative Party which had not been presented on the day appointed for the discussion; it was handed in next morning at a totally different inquiry—to the inquiry relating to the City of Dublin. The scheme was considered to be altogether absurd; and it was believed that it had not the slightest chance of being adopted. It was laughed at as a joke on the part of the Orange Emergency people. The Irish Members would, in addition to the information his hon. Friend wanted, like to have the scheme proposed by the Conservative Party in this case. It was only five or six schemes that the Irish Members asked for. As to the maps the Commissioners had drawn up, so far as Ireland was concerned they had good reason to complain of them. In England, where they had no baronies, it did not much mat-
  1034
  ter how the outlines of the divisions were shown; but in Ireland, where the Lord Lieutenant's instructions were that baronies should mark the line of division, baronies should be shown. In the Irish map, however, there was nothing to show these divisions. The City of Derry was not shown in the map of Donegal—Derry, as hon. Members were aware, being on the other bank of the Foyle. The object of preparing the plans in this way had, no doubt, been to throw dust into the eyes of the public. Then take the Lough of Strang-lord; to look at the map, no one would imagine, who did not know the district, that there was water there at all; it was divided so awkwardly, and the map was so inexpressive. Probably, if it were not for Lough Swilly, hon. Members might have no idea that there was a lough there. It was not candid, he maintained, to use maps in that way, simply, as he believed, for the purpose of blindfolding the House.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought he could meet the hon. and learned Gentleman on certain points. Ear from admitting that he thought the maps were so bad, his opinion really was that they had been prepared with great care. He had to admit that the map of Dublin City was difficult to make out. City maps were always difficult to make out. He had been able to understand the county maps very easily; but the map of Dublin City he admitted had been a puzzling one. With regard to the hon. Member's request that maps showing the original scheme should be given to the House, the hon. and learned Member had not put the request tonight in exactly the same form which he had put it in the House some time ago; and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) might be able now to meet him. The hon. and learned Member wished to know whether he could circulate amongst Members a map showing the original scheme. It would not be difficult to do that with regard to six or seven schemes only; but he thought if they agreed to the request they would soon be asked to do the same in the case of all the English schemes. The more important question of the hon. and learned Member was that with regard to some further statement of reasons by the Commissioners; and upon that point he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would

  1035
  endeavour to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman. To-morrow he would be able to see one or two of the leading Members of the Boundary Commission; and he would ask them, if they had not themselves got sufficient facts to make a proper statement before the House, to obtain the facts from those who held the inquiries; if they could make a distinct Report he would ask them to make it, and lay it before the House. Of course, he could not pledge himself to the exact form of the Report; but he would do his best to obtain the information which was desired. He was not allowed on this Vote to discuss the details of the changes which had been made; but he might say, in passing, that, whatever case the hon. and learned Member might make out with regard to certain boundaries, he had been misled by considering the case of Dublin County by itself. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were to look at some of the Scotch schemes, at some of the Middlesex divisions, at the Tyneside divisions, at some of the South Wales divisions, he would find them very similar indeed to the Kingstown division in the county of Dublin. As he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had already stated to the Committee, Sir John Lambert served on all three Commissions. Sir John Lambert was in a very delicate state of health, and yet he came forward and gave an amount of time and labour to the Commission such as had seldom been witnessed. Sir Francis Sandford followed his example, and asked not to be paid. The other gentlemen had been paid at the rate of so much a-day—in some cases at the rate of five guineas a-day, and in other cases at the rate of three guineas a-day.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had ventured a defence of the boundaries of the county of Dublin; but when the time came he (Mr. Sexton) and his hon. Friends would be able to show that there were aspects and features in the boundaries of county Dublin which had no parallel in the Three Kingdoms. He would like to know if the Assistant Boundary Commissions were still in existence, or if their powers were exhausted; because, in Committee, it might be found necessary to refer to the Commissioners themselves.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the three Boundary Commissions ceased to exist a day or two before the House resumed its Sittings; but he had asked Sir John Lambert, Sir Francis Sandford, and Colonel Owen Jones to continue to advise him, and they had kindly consented to do so. Whenever a point arose, he should suggest that it should be referred to those gentlemen.
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) £15,400, Inland Revenue.
  (10.) £20,000, Post Office Telegraphs.
  (11.) £20,000, Grant to the Family of the late General Charles George Gordon.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I think I ought, on this Vote, to give the reason why, after the lamentable fate of General Gordon—he was a personal friend of mine, and no one deplores his loss more than I do—it became part of the duty of Her Majesty's Government to consider whether any grant should be made to his family. There were doubts whether certain members of his family would wish to receive any grant of public money, and also it was difficult at first to know what might have been General Gordon's own wishes in a matter of that kind, and how, if this grant were made, he would wish it to be divided amongst the members of his family. Perhaps I may say now that the Prime Minister would have made the statement I am now making, had he been able to be in his place. I know, however, that I represent my right hon. Friend's views on the subject. The first question we wished to ascertain was, what would probably have been General Gordon's wishes in this matter; and, secondly, what would be the wishes of his family if Parliament thought fit to propose a grant for them. The Committee will observe that we have worded the grant in this way—
  "This sum will be paid to trustees, and will be applied by them for the benefit of General Gordon's family, in accordance, as far as possible, with his last wishes, and in such manner as Her Majesty may direct."
  Now, after some trouble, we ascertained that General Gordon expressed his latest wishes in a paper which may, perhaps, not be called a will, but which was

  1037
  equivalent to a will. Those wishes were that any capital sum he might receive—and he expected to receive a considerable sum from the King of the Belgians—should he expended in a particular way. The Committee will remember that General Gordon was in the service of the King of the Belgians at the time Her Majesty's Government asked him to go to the Soudan, and that his service with the King of the Belgians would probably have resulted in a considerable pecuniary benefit to him. He expressed, in the paper I have referred to, a wish that the interest on whatever sum he might receive should be applied for the benefit of his sister, or some of his sisters, in the first instance, and that the capital sum should ultimately be divided amongst the whole of his nephews and nieces. That, we are satisfied, was his intention as to any sum he might receive from the King of the Belgians. I do not remember the exact number of his nephews and nieces; but it is a large number. I think General Gordon left three sisters, two of whom are married. There are also the widows of two brothers, and altogether in the families of his brothers and sisters there are a considerable number both of sons and daughters. We propose, then, to follow out what we believe were General Gordon's wishes, of course reserving, in the words of the Resolution, to Her Majesty power to make any other direction as to the appropriation of the grant, should further information be received as to the deceased's wishes in the matter. I have given the Committee all the information I have at this moment.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERthought the Committee generally would agree with the proposition the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer put before them. The purpose for which he rose was to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. There was a movement, on a large scale, to raise a memorial to General Gordon; but he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) did not think that any private memorial could express the feeling of the country. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider with his Colleagues whether it would not be within the power of the Government to propose a Vote to the House to erect a national monument to the memory of the gallant General
  1038
  in St. Paul's Cathedral? He threw the suggestion out to the right hon. Gentleman, because he thought that its adoption would meet with cordial approval both in the House and in the country.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he would inform his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. N. Fowler) proposed; and he was sure it would receive the right hon. Gentleman's serious consideration.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, that, in connection with this Vote, it was proper to ask the Government whether they would not take into consideration the propriety of making a grant to the family of Mr. Power? Mr. Power died in the service of the country, and had some claim, he (Mr. O'Kelly) thought, to the consideration of the Government.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Kelly) that it would give great satisfaction to many people if the Government were to make suitable provision for the family of Mr. Power, a gentleman who, like General Gordon, lost his life in the public service. It was well he (Mr. William Redmond) should say that he was speaking altogether without any knowledge of what the feeling of the family was; but he knew Mr. Power personally, and he had a great admiration for his character.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that he would not fail to represent the wishes of the hon. Gentlemen (Mr. O'Kelly and Mr. William Redmond) to the Prime Minister. It was well, however, to point out that Mr. Power was an unpaid commercial Consul, and the services of such Consuls were not counted as public services.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that the fact that Mr. Power's services were not paid for was a very bad reason for not making his family compensation. Mr. Power was a man who underwent considerable hardship, faced extraordinary peril, and ultimately lost his life in the public service. Seeing how often Mr. Power's services had been described and acknowledged in the country, in the Press, and even in the House by Ministers of the Crown, it would be ungracious in the

  1039
  Government of a wealthy nation if they did not compensate his family.
  Vote agreed to.
  (12.) £292,500, Army.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The reason for asking this Vote is given on the face of the Estimate; but I may be allowed to add a few words of explanation. The Vote will form no charge whatever on the taxpayer, but is necessary because the original Estimate for 1884–5 assumed that a large amount would be received from the Egyptian Treasury on account of the Army of Occupation; whereas this amount will not be paid during the present financial year, but early in 1885–6. The state of Egyptian finance justified our postponing, from time to time, calls on Egypt for the instalments of this contribution as they became due; and we did so in the full belief that the new loan would be raised before the end of this month, and that all the payments would then be made. But delays, with which the Committee is acquainted, have occurred, and the Convention and Decree under which the loan will be raised are not yet signed. We must, therefore, vote what Egypt was to contribute, and recover the amount after the 31st instant. This explanation covers the next Vote also. In all, Egypt contributes £4 per month per man, of which £3 5s. is credited to the Army, and 15 s., for transport and other services, to the Navy.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £52,200, Navy.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)explained that this sum also ought to have been paid by the Egyptian Government before the 31st of the present month. They would not, however, be able to pay it until after the 1st of April, when the loan would be raised. The money would then be paid and received in the coming financial year instead of in the present one.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that this was an exceedingly peculiar arrangement. He believed the impression of the public had always been that the loan proposed to be raised was not to meet the annual current expenditure of Egypt, but to make good some capital charges.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, it was to meet a deficiency in the contribution due to us this year by Egypt. The amount would be paid out of the loan.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked, if the sum borrowed from Messrs. Rothschild would be repaid?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the loan would cover that, of course; but this Vote had nothing to do with that. The payment of this sum by Egypt had been postponed until after the 1st of April. Her Majesty's Government did not wish to press the Egyptian Government until the loan had been raised.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, why there would not be a reduction on the Estimates of- the coming year corresponding with the addition to the Estimates of the present year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had studied the rules as to bringing to account grants in aid. If more money came in aid than was shown in the Estimates, the amount would be paid into the Exchequer. This sum, when received from Egypt, would be paid into the Exchequer.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, if the right hon. Gentleman had it in his power to cite a single instance in which the Estimates of the appropriations in aid were verified by the actual results?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes; I think so.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  ELECTIONS IN COUNTIES (HOURS OF POLL) (re-committed) BILL.
  (Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Grey, Mr. Stafford Howard, Mr. Cochran-Patrick.)

  [BILL 85.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Hours of polling in counties) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Definitions).
  On the Motion of Mr. SEXTON, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 18, after "alderman," insert "or any commissioner."
  On the Motion of Mr. SEXTON, the following Amendment made:—
  In page 1, line 30, after "same," insert "and includes a place subject to the Act of the ninth year of the reign of King George the Fourth, chapter eighty-two, or to 'The Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854,' or to any local Act providing for the election of Commissioners in any town or place for purposes similar to the purposes of the above-mentioned Acts."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Repeal of 41 & 42 Vict, and 47 & 48 Vict., c. 34) agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON,in moving to insert, after Clause 3, the following new Clause:—
  "During the twenty-four hours, from midnight to midnight, within which the poll at an election subject to this Act is taken for any place defined in section two, such plaoe shall be exempt from the operation of section eleven of 'The Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, 1882,'"
  said, the police had very considerable powers in Ireland after dark, and hon. Members knew full well to what lengths constables would sometimes go in derogation of their rights. The object of this clause was to secure to the voter free access to the poll.
  New Clause brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was not in a position to accept this clause, and he could not accept it that night for reasons which he would very briefly give to the Committee. This Bill, should it become an Act, would come into force at the end of the present Parliament. Now, the Crimes Act was a temporary Act, and the question of its renewal, as a whole or in part, would shortly have to be considered by himself and his Colleagues. Up to the present, no decision had been come to on the point which would justify him in debating upon the merits of a clause relating to a particular portion of the Crimes Act. It was impossible, therefore, for him to accept the clause.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that if the right hon. Baronet's (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) argument was a good one, it would have been a proper one to set up in the
  1042
  case of the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act. In that Act he (Mr. Healy) got a clause inserted, to the effect that the Crimes Act should not apply to any offence which was in the former Act. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, fell to the ground. He and his hon. Friends were glad to hear that the Cabinet had not yet decided to renew the Crimes Act; but, after all, the right hon. Gentleman's statement did not correspond with a statement recently made by the Government Whip (Lord Richard Grosvenor). The noble Lord, who did not fling away his words, either in or out of the House, told his constituents the other day that it was the intention of the Government to renew the Crimes Act, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) was reported in the Irish papers to have made a similar statement. [Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE: I did not say that.] At that time of the morning (3.30), he could not ask the hon. Gentleman what he did say. Anyhow, if the Government did resolve to renew the Crimes Act, the least thing they could do was to provide that its Curfew Clauses should not extend to polling. If the Government did not intend to renew the Crimes Act, the blot now existing in the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act should be removed.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he took it, from what had been stated, that the Government had as yet formed no intention as to the renewal of the Crimes Act. That was an interesting statement, and enabled him to indulge a hope that they might, at a later period, be able to inform the House that they did not intend to ask for its renewal. If, on the contrary, they should propose to renew it, there would still be an Irish Party who would use every endeavour to oppose it. He would now ask leave to withdraw the clause.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WARTONrose to move the insertion of the following Clause:—
  "Part II. of the First Schedule of "The Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1883,' shall be read and construed as if the words following were not contained therein, viz., 'not exceeding the amount authorised by the Act of the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth years of Victoria, chapter eighty-four.'"
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the clause the hon. and learned Member proposed to move was one which it was clearly not in the power of the Committee to insert; and he should, therefore, rule that the clause was out of Order.
  MR. WARTONrose to Order. He wished to point out that the Bill made an alteration in the hours of polling; and by extending them would, therefore, extend the labour of the Returning Officers. Owing to a singular blunder in the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, which he had noticed at the time, there was an inconsistency which was very curious; and the result was that a Returning Officer might charge more than he had a right to charge, and a Member might lose his seat. He, therefore, submitted that some consideration should be given to the point.
  MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTrose to Order. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was persisting in moving a clause which the Chairman had declared to be out of Order.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport was speaking to a point of Order.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he was pointing out that if the poll were kept open hours longer than hitherto the labour of the Returning Officers would be increased, and the payments would necessarily be larger.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he felt bound to rule that the clause was out of Order, and that it was not in the power of the Committee to insert it; but it was perfectly competent to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport to move it on Report.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it might save time, and prevent the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) putting the clause down for the Report, if he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) were now to state that the point raised was one on which his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would propose some legislation, as he fancied it would be necessary to adopt some such provision as the hon. and learned Member proposed.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be considered To-morrow."
  MR. WARTONsaid, he would suggest that the Report stage should be considered that day week, as some Notice would be required for the clause promised on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, if the hon. and learned Member would give to the Clerk at the Table the Amendment which the Chairman had ruled out of Order in the Committee stage there need be no further Notice.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked, whether it was understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would bring in a clause?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, if the hon. and learned Member for Bridport would place the clause in the hands of the Clerk at the Table without delay, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would inform his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General what was proposed to be done. He perfectly understood the object of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, and his impression was that to meet that object it would be necessary to insert the clause in another Bill; but if it were handed in at once he would consult the Attorney General, and inform the hon. Gentleman as to the course that would be proposed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  MUNICIPAL VOTERS (RELIEF) BILL.
  (Mr. Attorney General, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Hibbert, Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  [BILL 64.] CONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED.

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Consideration read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
    MR. HEALYsaid, he understood that no Amendment had been proposed or made in the Bill; and he wished to ask, as a point of Order, whether there was really any stage of the Bill before the House? As there had been no Amendment to the Bill, in his judgment the heading given to it in the Orders of the Day was inaccurate, and the Bill could not come before the House under the stage of a Bill to be considered, as amended.
    MR. SPEAKER: The stage has not been abolished, although there has been no Amendment to the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill, as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

MOTIONS.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SECOND BALLOT) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BRETT, Bill to amend the Law relating to Parliamentary Elections by providing for a Second Ballot in certain cases, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRETT, Mr. JOHN MORLEY, and Mr. BROADHURST.
  Bill presented, and road the first time. [Bill 94.]

  BARRISTERS ADMISSION (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CALLAN, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Admission of Barristers in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CALLAN, Mr. PARNELL, Mr. JUSTIN M'CARTHY, Mr. HEALY, Mr. LEAMY, and Mr. KENNY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 95.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Four o'clock in the morning.