SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

HC Deb 18 May 1885 vol 298 cc723-843

SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a further sum, not exceeding £3.300,500, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, viz:—

CIVIL SERVICES.
CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
Great Britain:—	£
Houses of Parliament	6,000
Ireland: —
Public Buildings	30,000

CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSE OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
England: —
Home Office and Subordinate Departments	10,000
Foreign Office	10,000
Colonial Office	7,000
Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments	4,000
Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments	10,000
Charity Commission (including Endowed Schools Department)	6,000
Civil Service Commission	5,000
Exchequer and Audit Department	10,000
Friendly Societies, Registry	1,000
Land Commission for England	3,000
Local Government Board	40,000
Lunacy Commission	2,300
Mint (including Coinage)	5,000
National Debt Office	3,000
Patent Office	7,000
Paymaster General's Office	4,000
Public Works Loan Commission	1,500
Record Office	3,000
Registrar General's Office	6,000
Stationery Office and Printing	50,000
Woods, Forests, &c. Office of	3,000
Works and Public Buildings, Office of	5,000
Secret Service	15,000
Scotland: —
Exchequer and other Offices	1,000
Fishery Board	2,500
Lunacy Commission	500
Board of Supervision	1,000
Ireland: —
Lord Lieutenant's Household	1,000
Chief Secretary's Office	4,500
Charitable Donationsand Bequests Office	300
Local Government Board	10,000
Public Works Office	10,000
Record Office	1,000
Registrar General's Office	2,000
Valuation and Boundary Survey	2,000

CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
England: —
Law Charges	13,000
Criminal Prosecutions	25,000
Supreme Court of Judicature	60,000
Wreck Commission	1,500
County Courts	50,000
Land Registry	1,000
Police Courts (London and Sheerness)	3,000
Metropolitan Police	150,000
Special Police	4,000
County and Borough Police, Great Britain	1,000
Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies	30,000

	£
Prisons, England	60,000
Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain	70,000
Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum	4,000
Scotland: —
Lord Advocate, and Criminal Proceedings	15,000
Courts of Law and Justice	10,000
Register House Departments	4,000
Prisons, Scotland	15,000
Ireland: —
Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions	25,000
Supreme Court of Judicature	10,000
Court of Bankruptcy	1,000
Admiralty Court Registry	300
Registry of Deeds	2,000
Registry of Judgments	300
Land Commission	10,000
County Court Officers, &c.	15,000
Dublin Metropolitan Police (including Police Courts)	25,000
Constabulary	250,000
Prisons, Ireland	20,000
Reformatory and Industrial Schools	20,000
Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum	1,000

CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ARTS.
England:—
Public Education	600,000
Science and Art Department	30,000
British Museum	25,000
National Gallery	1,500
National Portrait Gallery	400
Learned Societies, &c.	4,000
London University	2,000
Scotland: —
Public Education	100,000
Universities, &c	3,000
Ireland: —
Public Education	170,000
Teachers' Pension Office	300
National Gallery	500
Queen's Colleges	1,000
Royal Irish Academy	900

CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
Diplomatic Services	20,000
Consular Services	20,000
Slave Trade Services	3,000
Colonies, Grants in Aid	3,000
South Africa and St. Helena	5,000
Subsidies to Telegraph Companies	9,000

CLASS VI—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.
Superannuation and Retired Allowances	110,000
Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.	10,000
Pauper Lunatics, Scotland	15,000
Pauper Lunatics, Ireland	35,000
Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain	500

CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
Temporary Commissions	3,000
Total for Civil Services	£2,350,500

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.	£
Customs	20,000
Inland Revenue	80,000
Post Office	500,000
Post Office Packet Service	180,000
Post Office Telegraphs	230,000
Total for Revenue Departments	£1,010,000
Grand Total	£3,360,500

MR. HIBBERT

wished to give a short explanation of the reason why the Vote on Account was asked for. For several years a Vote on Account had been taken in the latter part of the month of May. Last year it was taken on the 22nd of May. The present Vote would not have been taken until the end of the month had it not been for the intervention of the Whitsuntide Holidays, which compelled the Government to ask the Committee to allow them a Vote on Account earlier than would otherwise have been necessary. The period it was intended to cover was not from the present time, but six weeks from the 1st of June. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had threatened to move to reduce the amount of the Vote by the sum of £2,000,000. Of course, a reduction of £2,000,000 would be a very serious matter, and would compel the Government to come again to the House for another Vote on a very early day. It was only upon certain Votes that the money would be taken for six weeks; in other cases they were asking for money for less than six weeks—such as the Vote for Education. A portion of the Vote on Account would be applied to the Revenue Department Estimates, in reference to which considerable payments would have to be made in the course of a few weeks. With respect to the Secret Service money, it had generally been the custom to vote half of the amount before the end of June, as it was required in the early part of the year. He would only add that, looking at the wants and demands of the various Departments, which had been carefully and thoroughly considered, if the Amendment which the noble Lord intimated his intention to propose were carried, it would involve the inconvenience of an application for another Vote on an earlier day than would be necessary if the Vote were not reduced, because the money would be actually required.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down does not quite understand the position I am anxious to take up in this matter. Of course, he is very anxious for the convenience of the Government; so am I to a certain extent; but there are other things which I value a great deal more. It should be in the power of the House, on an early day after Whitsuntide, if necessary, to compel an immediate discussion of the Central Asian Question; but if the hon. Member takes a Vote on Account for as long a period of time as six weeks, no Member of the House will be able to call attention to the question until six weeks after the re-assembling of the House. That is the position we have to face. It is not one that the Government are likely to sympathize with, but it is one which should be appreciated by independent Members below the Gangway on either side of the House. We do not know what situation might arise in which, however unwilling the Government might be, hon. Members would desire to raise a discussion in a formal manner. Therefore, my object in endeavouring to reduce the Vote would be to compel the Government to come to Parliament at an earlier period. I do not know why that ought to be considered exacting or unreasonable. The object might, perhaps, be gained if the hon. Gentleman, with the acquiescence of the Prime Minister, would consent to the reduction of the Vote by £1,000,000; and in that case I will make that proposal, instead of moving the reduction by £2,000,000. I do not expect that the Government will be at all surprised if a conversation should arise upon the Blue Book issued on Saturday. Certainly, I do not know what was the case with other hon. Members; but it caused me to pass a very melancholy Sunday morning in endeavouring to master its contents. It is a most sorry record of official diplomacy. Of course, one cannot help one's thoughts being influenced by the fact that news had come to this country that morning of the great, distinguished, and, as it appears, quite unusual rewards conferred by the Russian Government on General Komaroff. One cannot help feeling that the Russian Government had every rea- son to confer unusually high rewards on their officers, and that the House of Commons, at any rate, had no reason to confer any rewards on Her Majesty's Government, in the shape of showing confidence in them, or of abstaining from proceedings which may be disagreeable to them. I do not generally pay much attention to the Press of this country; but, if I do pay attention to it, I am inclined to follow a precept laid down by the Prime Minister some years ago, when he said that the most important portion of the Press was the Provincial Press, and that it reflected the mind of the country more accurately than did the Metropolitan Press. I was very much struck to-day by a quotation in an evening paper from one of the most important papers in the North of England—The Leeds Mercury—owned and directed, I believe, by one of the leading and most prominent Nonconformists in this country. It has been always a most devoted and faithful supporter of the Liberal Government, and particularly of the Prime Minister, who in certain circumstances would have occupied the position of Member for Leeds. The passage is rather remarkable; it may cause the Government to pause and reflect. It will show them that the sentiments we put forward on the Central Asian Question are not confined to the Tory Party, and are not put forward in order to bring about a war or to embarrass the Government. It may indicate to the Government the great national sentiments which are held by the majority of the English people. This is what The Leeds Mercury says about the Blue Book— The insolence and "bad faith, of Russia have been even greater than the most bitter of Russo-phohists had imagined. It is impossible to read the Correspondence without feeling that all through the pretended negotiations of M. de Giers with Earl Granville on the question of the delimitation of the frontier, the Russian Government were deliberately bent upon tricking and defrauding this country. Mr. Gladstone will have to take the responsibility for the existence of the opinion abroad that Sir Peter Lumsden is coming back in something like disgrace, if ho fails to make some striking counter-demonstration to that which the Czar, in the fulness of his power, and of his contempt for the public opinion of England, has just been pleased to offer to the world. Now, I wonder what would have been the exclamations of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Press if such language had come from any Member on this side of the House. Yet here we find language far stronger than any I have used. ["Oh!"] Yes, far stronger than any I have used, in what I may call the most representative paper of Liberal feeling throughout the country. ["No!"] I believe that to be the character acquired by The Leeds Mercury. I now propose to make a few remarks upon the contents of this Blue Book, with such references as will justify the inquiries I propose to address to Her Majesty's Government. There is much in the Blue Book which is extremely obscure, and much which is only too clear. I say that there is much in it that is obscure. I doubt very much whether any Blue Book submitted to Parliament was ever more edited than the present Blue Book. There are extraordinary gaps in it which are really without parallel. I have done much to study the Foreign Office Blue Books, and have worked hard at them; but I never knew one which had such extraordinary gaps in it, or in which the Papers were more mixed up in a way that can only have been intended to embarrass and confuse the public. The first point to which I would direct attention is the statement made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister on the 13th of March—the most important of all the statements which the Prime Minister has made on this subject. On page 171 of the Blue Book will be found a despatch from Earl Granville to Sir Edward Thornton, dated March 14, which is as follows:— Mr. Gladstone made a statement in the House of Commons last night to the effect that it has been agreed between this country and Russia that no further advance should he made by the Russian or Afghan Forces respectively to points within the debatable or debated ground. This statement was founded on the assurances recorded in my despatches of the 19th ultimo and 3rd instant, and on those given in M. de Giers's Memorandum of the 24th February, and in your telegram of the 5th instant. I have to instruct your Excellency to inquire of M. de Giers whether he agrees that the assurances referred to constitute an agreement to the effect stated by Mr. Gladstone. Her Majesty's Government would be glad to receive an immediate answer on the point, as a Question will be asked on the subject in Parliament on Monday."—[Central Asia, No. 2 (1885), p. 171.] Well, Sir, the first thing that strikes one in reading this despatch is that the Prime Minister stated that an agreement had been come to upon a subject of the utmost importance between two great Powers, and that the next morning the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs telegraphed to our Ambassador at St. Petersburg to know whether the Prime Minister was correct in making that statement. I referred at once to the assurances contained in Earl Granville's despatch, and I maintain that there is nothing whatever in those assurances to warrant the Prime Minister in making the statement he did—a statement which totally misled the House of Commons. These were the words of the Prime Minister on the 13th of March— As regards the advance of the Forces, it has been agreed between Russia and England that no further advance should be made on either side."—(3 Hansard, [295] 1085.) And, in reply to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), the right hon. Gentleman said— I cannot state the precise date of the agreement; but perhaps it is not very material."—(Ibid. 1086.) On Tuesday, the 17th of March, the Prime Minister said the word "agreement" was a little fallacious. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] That is the way in which the right hon. Gentleman is reported. If two parties agree upon any particular subject, I want to know if the result of the action of the two parties does not make the agreement, and how it is possible to call an agreement fallacious after it has been agreed upon? On pages 152 and 154 of the Blue Book will be found the assurances upon which the Prime Minister relied; and the House will see that there is nothing whatever in the statement of M. de Giers which the Prime Minister made to the House. Here is the telegram—No. 196, on page 152 of the Blue Book. It is from Sir Edward Thornton to Earl Granville, in reply to a request from Her Majesty's Government that the Russian troops would withdraw from the positions which they occupied, to which request the Russian Government peremptorily declined to accede. The telegram says— I have just received a Memorandum from M. de Giers, in which I am informed that the Russian Government cannot accede to the request that the advanced Russian posts at Sari-Yazi and Zulfikar Pass should be withdrawn; but assurances are at the same time given that orders have been issued to the Commanders of these posts carefully to avoid conflicts with the Afghans, and that such complications need only be feared in the event of the Afghans attacking the Russian posts,"—[Central Asia, No. 2 (1885), p. 152.] There is nothing in that telegram to warrant the statement made by the Prime Minister that it had been agreed between England and Russia that no further advance should be made. There is still another despatch on which the Prime Minister based his statement. It is No. 215, on page 164. Sir Edward Thornton writes to Earl Granville on March 5th in the following words:— M. de Giers admits that Russian troops may be making movements within the line which M. de Staal, under instructions from his Government, had recently proposed to your Lordship, but declares that they will on no account go beyond it, and that they will not attack any Afghan troops which they may meet. M. de Giers expresses the greatest confidence that a collision will be avoided unless the Afghans should attack the Russian troops."—[Ibid. 164.] I want to point out that the line alluded to in that despatch was far in advance of the actual position occupied by the Russian troops, so that there was nothing whatever in the telegram to justify the Prime Minister's statement that it had been agreed between the two Governments of England and Russia that no further advance should be made on either side. But the most striking confirmation of that will be found on page 177—No. 244, where there is a most interesting despatch from Sir Edward Thornton as to his interview on this subject with M. de Giers. Earl Granville having written to Sir Edward Thornton to ask whether the Prime Minister was justified in making the statement, our Ambassador goes to M. de Giers; and there is a picture in this despatch, to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, which shows the position our Ambassador occupies at St. Petersburg. Sir Edward Thornton writes on the 17th of March— My Lord,—On the 15th instant (Sunday), when I had the honour to receive your Lordship's telegram of the 14th instant, I called upon M. de Giers; hut as ho had several people with him on business, I could not obtain admittance. I therefore wrote to him, and begged that his Excellency would receive me on the following morning. He acceded to my request."—[Central Asia, No. 2 (1885), p. 177.] That, as I have said, shows the position of our Ambassador in St. Petersburg. A most urgent message was sent to him on a matter involving at any moment a war between the two countries; and upon going to M. de Giers, he is told that he cannot obtain admittance because M. do Giers had several people with him on business, and that he might call the next morning if he liked. I do not know how that strikes other hon. Members, but it strikes me as altogether inconsistent with the dignity that should belong to the position of Ambassador to the Queen. Passing from that episode, I will come back to my original assertion that the Prime Minister was not justified in making the statement of which I have referred. Sir Edward Thornton visited M. de Giers the next morning. He says in the despatch to which I have alluded— I began by informing him of the statement which had been made by Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons on the night of the 13th instant, and I inquired whether he had any objection to make to that statement."—[Ibid.] The Prime Minister's statement was that Russia and England had agreed to a certain course, and our Ambassador commences by asking M. de Giers if he had any objection to make to the Prime Minister's statement. Sir Edward Thornton continues— His Excellency replied that, as far as he was personally concerned, he could say that ha had already informed me that no advance would be made to any point beyond the line which had recently been proposed by M. de Staal as a boundary."—[Ibid.] Yes; but that line was far in advance of the position held by the Russian troops; and therefore the agreement not to advance from the actual position held, and not to advance beyond the line of M. de Staal, are two totally different things. Sir Edward Thornton goes on to say— I replied that I understood that Russian troops now occupied posts at Pul-i-Khatun, Zulfikar, Ak-Robat, Ak Tépé, and Pul-i-Khisti, and that his Excellency had more than once assured me that no attack would be made on Penjdeh, nor upon any Afghan force, unless the Russians were attacked by the Afghans. Would he authorize me to announce to your Lordship that Russian troops would not advance from the positions they now occupy, unless the Afghans should on their side advance from their positions."—[Ibid.] The Prime Minister, therefore, stated that an agreement had been come to, and the day afterwards our Ambassador at St. Petersburg was found endeavouring to negotiate that agreement. Now, what does M. de Giers say? Sir Edward Thornton says in the same despatch— M. de Giers replied that he would wish on this point to consult the War Department, and perhaps to take the orders of the Emperor, before giving me a final answer."—[Ibid.] This is the agreement, or the sacred covenant, which has opened so largo a book, and which Her Majesty's Government have found it so difficult to close. The agreement which the Prime Minister announced on the 13th of March turns out to be an absolute fiction and phantom, and there is not the slightest justification for it in the smallest possible way. Our Ambassador asked if there was any agreement, and M. de Giers said that as far as he was personally concerned he should not object to restrict the advance to a line far in advance of the positions which the Russians then occupied; but he added that it would be necessary first to consult the War Department, and perhaps to take the orders of the Emperor, before giving a final answer. [An hon. MEMBER: Bead on!] I am going to read on. Sir Edward Thornton, still in the same despatch, says— I then informed his Excellency that your Lordship had expressed a desire to have an immediate answer, because a Question would be asked on the subject in the House of Commons the same evening. M. de Giers then said that ho had no objection to state that the Russian Forces would not advance from the position they now occupy. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] Wait a minute. The sentence concludes— Provided the Afghans should not advance or attack them, or unless some extraordinary circumstance should happen, such as a disturbance in Penjdeh."—[Ibid.] Yes; but mark how the matter stands. The Prime Minister made the bold statement to the House of Commons, without qualification, that it had been agreed between the two Governments that no further advance should be made on either side. Having made that statement without any justification whatever—at any rate, as far as the public records go—he then proceeds, as far as possible, to get an agreement from Russia which shall bear him out; and what does he get? He gets a perfectly worthless document, because the reservation of M. de Giers— Unless some extraordinary circumstance should happen, such as a disturbance in Penjdeh, covers the whole circumstances of the advance of General Komaroff. It is a very serious matter that the Prime Minister should give the House of Commons information at a critical moment that a solemn covenant had been arrived at between two great Powers, when, as a matter of fact, there had been nothing of the kind, and that he should then instruct Her Majesty's Ambassador, if possible, to extract some kind of agreement, which might be twisted into something or other which would justify the premature statement ho had made. That premature statement was not founded upon facts, and it has cost the country £11,000,000. If this premature statement had not been made, the worthless agreement extorted by Sir Edward Thornton from M. de Giers would not have been necessary. Unfortunately, it was necessary that Her Majesty's Government should put a construction of the utmost value upon such a worthless agreement as that which has been broken by General Komaroff, and the breaking of which induced the Prime Minister to come forward with the violent speech which the House so well recollects, in which he declared that the book had been opened, and could not be closed. I do not know which is the more to be deprecated in the diplomacy of this country at the present moment, the fervid imagination of the Prime Minister, or the weak ineptitude of the Foreign Secretary. I do not know whether the Prime Minister will consider it consistent with his dignity to offer an explanation. I now come to another point—that is, that I hold Her Majesty's Government primarily responsible for the attack of General Komaroff upon the Afghan position of Penjdeh. It was in their power to prevent that attack on several occasions long before it took place; but they deliberately and wilfully threw away their opportunities of preventing it. I will ask the House to look at certain of the despatches. On page 152 of the Blue Book will be found a despatch from Sir Peter Lumsden to Earl Granville, received on February 24, about a month before the attack. In this despatch Sir Poter Lumsden tells Earl Granville— Matters have come to a crisis by the simultaneous movements of Russia on Sunday last on the Murghab and the Heri-Rud. No southern limit to zone having teen fixed, Russians may consider themselves at liberty to advance to limit indicated by them and remain there. I cannot advise Afghans to allow post after post to be forced, and trust Her Majesty's Government will lose no time in sending me instructions."—[Central Asia, No. 2 (1885), p. 152.] Again, Sir Peter Lumsden telegraphs to Earl Granville, No. 194, page 152— On perusal of your Lordship's despatch to Sir Edward Thornton of the 10th November, and in view of the threatening attitude of Russians on the Murghab, as reported in my telegram of 9th, I have deferred my departure to Guslan viâ Penjdeh, and I shall wait till supplies can be removed to upper route by Morachuk and Chemeni Beed; other routes not practicable owing to dearth of supplies. I have written to officer commanding at Merv, pointing out necessity of both sides avoiding friction, and have proposed that, as I have urged Afghans to limit their patrolling to Orush Dushan, he should limit Russian patrolling to Sari Yazi. Reports as to outposts incident conflicting; Russians, however, retired, but may be induced by fact of passive action of Afghans to return and push further. It is reported that 1,000 Khivan Cavalry have arrived at Merv."—[Ibid.] Again he asks for instructions. On February 25th Earl Granville gives him instructions— You should strongly urge the Afghan authorities not to advance."—[Ibid. p. 153.] Those instructions are in No. 199 of the despatches. "Strongly urge the Afghan authorities not to advance." That is all the instructions Earl Granville gives. We shall find, if we turn to No. 201, page 154, that Sir Peter Lumsden again telegraphs to Earl Granville on the 19th February, saying— Your Lordship will, I feel sure, see the necessity of sending me early instructions as to course Her Majesty's Government wish me to take under present circumstances."—[Ibid. p. 154.] He goes on to describe the critical situation, and in No. 203 he telegraphs— Russian troops to-day occupied Zulfikar Pass, Ak Robat, Pul-i-Khisti. In No. 209, in a telegram dated March 2nd, Earl Granville merely tells Sir Peter Lumsden, with reference to all the information as to the advance of the Russian troops, the threatening positions which they occupied, and the imminent danger of a collision— I have received your telegrams of the 17th, 19th, 22nd, and 23rd ultimo relative to the affairs of the Afghan Frontier, and I have to state that your proceedings as therein reported are entirely approved by Her Majesty's Government. As regards your future action, continue to be guided by my telegrams of the 20th and 25th Fob."—[Ibid. p. 162.] These telegrams told him only to urge the Afghans not to advance. For the telegram of February 20th I must look back to No. 191, on pages 150 and 151. It approves the action of Sir Peter Lumsden, and says that instructions had been sent to Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg. Earl Granville, in a despatch to Sir Edward Thornton on the previous day, February 19, says— On the 20th Nov. last I instructed your Excellency to represent to the Russian Government the embarrassment likely to arise from the presence of Russian troops at Pul-i-Khatun, and to press strongly for their withdrawal to Sarakhs, in which case steps would be taken to obtain the retirement to Penjdeh of the Afghan detachment said to have advanced to Sari Yazi. I added- that unless the Russian frontier authorities abstained from forward movements pending the commencement of the work of the Commission, it would be difficult to restrain the Ameer and his officials from taking such steps as would appear to them necessary in order to safeguard Afghan rights. I have to request your Excellency to remind the Russian Government of this communication, and to point out that in spite of this remonstrance the Russian troops not only continue to hold Pul-i-Khatun, hut have now advanced to Sari Yazi, and that unless these proceedings are immediately arrested collisions will ensue which may lead to the most serious consequences. Her Majesty's Government could not advise the Afghans to withdraw from territory which they claim as their own; but if the Russian Government will give orders to their Military Commanders, pending the decision of the Joint Commission, to withdraw from Sari Yazi, and to make no further movement in advance, Her Majesty's Government will call upon the authorities of the Ameer not to allow any advance of Afghan troops actually in their occupation."—[Ibid. p. 150.] This was a month before the outbreak took place. The Russian Government declined altogether to give any guarantee not to advance, and they also declined to withdraw their troops from Sari-Yazi. In a despatch which I have quoted to the House before—No. 212, page 163 of the Blue Book—Earl Granville tells Sir Peter Lumsden that all his action with regard to the Afghan authorities and the Russian commanders are approved by Her Majesty's Government, and asks him to "continue to hold similar language." He adds— Her Majesty's Government cannot advise the Afghans to attack the Russian troops in order to dislodge them from the positions they now occupy; but Her Majesty's Government consider that the further advance of the Russians should, subject to military considerations, be resisted by the Afghans."—[Ibid., p. 163.] That is, on the 3rd of March. Therefore, on the 3rd of March, knowing the critical situation, knowing the imminence of a collision, knowing that the Russians refused to withdraw their advanced troops, or to give any pledge not to make any further advance, Earl Granville positively directs the Afghan Commander, through Sir Peter Lumsden, to resist the further advance of the Russian troops. Then there is this curious paragraph in the same despatch— Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to your remaining in Afghanistan, where your presence may he the means of stopping further advances of the Russian troops, and preventing the outbreak of hostilities."—[Ibid.] Look at the position which was taken by Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government address a demand to St. Petersburg, telling the Russian Government that they fear a collision, and that their troops must be withdrawn. The Russian Government refuse to accede to the request, and then the English Government telegraph to Sir Peter Lumsden, instructing him to urge the Afghans to resist; but all the while they accept the refusal of the Russian Government, in the communication from St. Petersburg to London, to withdraw their troops. They thus forced on the Afghans a conflict in which they must have known the Afghans would get worsted, by reason of the inferiority of their arms and the superiority of those of their adversaries. Her Majesty's Government never attempted, at that time—I will not say by strong diplomatic negotiations at St. Petersburg, but by the despatch which was absolutely necessary at the time of an Ultimatum to the Russians, delivered at St. Petersburg—to support their unfortunate Allies on the Frontier at Penj-deh. What right had the Government to direct the Afghans to resist the Russians, and then themselves to adopt the exceedingly pusillanimous line which they took in their negotiations with the Russian Government at St. Petersburg? There is one telegram from Earl Granville to Sir Peter Lumsden which is a perfect picture of that nobleman's pecu- liar style and state of mind. I think it is No. 222. On the 4th of March Sir Peter Lumsden had sent this telegram to Earl Granville— Matters remain as reported by me on 1st March. General Komaroff is at Yulatan, and the guns and Infantry are said to be coming on with him. I have impressed on the Afghans the necessity of refraining from action."—[Ibid.,p. 165.] On the same day he sent another telegram to say— The Sarikhs are again greatly excited, and are holding meetings to decide what course to adopt. It appears impossible to maintain any longer the passive attitude enforced on Afghans and adopted by Her Majesty's Government. It is reported that 1,000 Infantry and 4 breech-loading guns have arrived at Merv, and that strong reinforcements are expected."—[Ibid.] Then he asks for instructions, and this is what Earl Granville, after receiving this news, replies on the 10th of March, No. 222, page 166— We are anxious to give you full support in present very difficult circumstances. What an extraordinary wailing kind of message for a Minister to send to a Representative asking for instructions at a most critical time— We are anxious to give you full support in present very difficult circumstances. What did it mean? Sir Peter Lumsden has been recalled since; but what did it mean at that time? Did it mean that Sir Peter Lumsden was to take the responsibility of directing the Afghans to advance and attack the Russians, or of joining the Afghan Forces to resist the Russians? What on earth did that telegram mean at that critical moment— We are anxious to give you full support in present very difficult circumstances. As a matter of fact, Sir Peter Lumsden had no support at all from them. The only support which the English Government could give to Sir Peter Lumsden was by taking up very strong ground at St. Petersburg. That was the only way that Her Majesty's Government could give support. It would have put a stop to the advance on Penjdeh; and it was an important matter to stop the Russian advance on Penjdeh, because Her Majesty's Government could not send troops to Penjdeh, nor could they make the Afghan troops superior to what they are. But they could have supported the action of Sir Peter Lumsden by energetic action at St. Petersburg, and that was exactly the support which it was in their power to give him which they did not give. The only answer the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could give to the Envoy who sought instructions in the very difficult circumstances in which he was placed was this wretched, wailing, lamenting kind of telegram, which signified nothing at all, and probably only deluded Sir Peter Lumsden, because he would naturally think that if he took stronger action than he felt himself justified in taking on his own account, he would be backed up by the negotiations going on between London and St. Petersburg. Under all these circumstances, I say that Her Majesty's Government are greatly responsible for the collision which occurred between the Afghans and the Russians, and for the slaughter of the Afghan Forces. They had ample warning of what was going on, for on the 13th of March Sir Edward Thornton telegraphed to Earl Granville another warning. It will be seen in No. 224, page 166, that Sir Edward Thornton telegraphed to Earl Granville on the 13th of March as follows:— A rumour has just reached me, in a manner which gives me ground for believing it to he true, that a telegram has been received by the Russian Minister of War from General Komaroff, Commander-in-Chief in the Trans-Caspian region, to the effect that for the safety of the Russian troops on the Afghan Border it is absolutely necessary that Penjdeh should be taken, and that the General had asked leave to order that place to he attacked. It was added that the Russian Government are now considering what answer should be sent to the above-mentioned telegram. Earl Granville said, in reply— Her Majesty's Government desire that Your Excellency should urge in the strongest manner upon the Russian Government that if this report be true, orders may he immediately given to prevent the proposed attack."—[Ibid., pp. 166–7.] That was on the 13th of March, and on the 10th of March Earl Granville had informed Sir Peter Lumsden that the Government would give him full support. I do not call that full support. The only thing which would have been giving really full support would have been for Earl Granville to have directed Sir Edward Thornton to tell the Russian Government that any attack on Penjdeh, or any attack upon our Allies, the Afghans, would be a casus belli be- tween England and Russia. If you had given your Ally that full support, the attack on Penjdeh, in all human probability, would never have taken place. I find, also, in No. 243, at page 176, a curious instance of Earl Granville's singular weakness. The Ambassador to St. Petersburg had taken a very strong line on the 16th of March, and this is what Sir Edward Thornton says— I called upon M. de Giers, on the afternoon of the 14th instant, and mentioned to His Excellency the rumour which I had the honour to report to your Lordship in my telegram of the 13th instant. He expressed great surprise at this rumour, said that, of course, no such telegram could have reached St. Petersburg without his having heard of it, and assured me there could be no foundation for it. I expressed my satisfaction at this assurance, and pointed out to him that, in my opinion, any such incident as an attack upon Penjdeh would put an end to any possibility of negotiations between the two countries, and might lead to the most disastrous consequences."—[Ibid., p. 176.] Here you have Her Majesty's Ambassador acting absolutely on his own responsibility. He did this without orders from Earl Granville. He had no instruction whatever; and is it not curious that, although with regard to the action of our Ambassador, wherever it is described in these despatches, there is shortly afterwards another despatch saying that the action of our Representative is approved—it will scarcely be believed that this is the only instance where there is no despatch in this Blue Book from Earl Granville to Sir Edward Thornton expressing an approval of what the Ambassador had done? It is the only time there was an approach towards anything like an Ultimatum to Russia, and it is made on the authority of the Ambassador himself without instructions from his Government, and it is the only one act of the Ambassador at St. Petersburg which is not approved by Earl Granville. So much for that matter. My contention is that the Government is mainly responsible for the conflict in Penjdeh, which was attended with the rout and slaughter of their Allies. It was in their power, long before that conflict took place, to have prevented it. I pass to another point; it helps in laying the foundation for a debate which probably will come off sooner or later. I wish to come to the suggestions of the Prime Minister with regard to the discoveries which we should make when we got certain Papers in our hands. There has been no precedent, so far as I can find, and I doubt whether the Prime Minister can instance one, for a Minister of the Crown making use of Papers not produced, as the Prime Minister did, on Monday last. He said—"When, you get the Papers, suppose you find so and so." In all my experience I know of no such precedent. He said—"Suppose you find the Ameer does not care about Penjdeh, about which you are so anxious." But after the Prime Minister has made that statement, seeing that the Papers do not bear it out, I should certainly like to press for further information bearing on that point. I am inclined to doubt the possibility of the Ameer being in the frame of mind in which the Prime Minister suggested that he was. What are the facts of the matter? We find the Ameer's troops advanced to Penjdeh in June last. He reinforced his troops when the Russians came nearer, and he thought they were going to be attacked. The Russians still advanced, and eventually the Afghan troops, acting under the Ameer's orders, risked a battle with the Russians in which they were defeated with great loss. Is that the action of a man who does not care about Penjdeh? The action of the Ameer from June, 1884, to March, 1885, has been constantly to protect and guard Penjdeh, and yet the Prime Minister suggests that the Ameer did not care about Penjdeh. But there is something in this Blue Book which casts the greatest doubt on the suggestion of the Prime Minister. The Committee will find, in the early part of the Blue Book, a despatch from Sir Peter Lumsden to Earl Granville, stating that the Ameer had written to him protesting strongly against the continued occupation of Pul-i-Khatun by Russian troops. On page 122 there is a remarkable despatch from Sir Peter Lumsden, inclosing a letter from the Ameer, to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee. I will not read the whole of the letter, but merely part of it. The Ameer, wrote to Sir Peter Lumsden in the most friendly manner, in answer to another letter sent by Sir Peter Lumsden to himself. He says— I hope that you will with great courage and valour negotiate with the Russian Agents regarding the disputed frontier line, and that you may rest assured that they have not in hand a dot in writing from me at any time which may be a pretext to enable them to enter and take possession of the Afghan land. I am so firm in resisting for my rights, that if the Russian Agents should wish to take a piece or fragment from the ruins of the Afghanistan frontier, it will be impossible for them to do so as long as the Afghans have strength and power to resist."—[Ibid., 122.] That was the Ameer's frame of mind with regard, to all the positions held by the Afghan troops on the 31st of October last; and bearing in mind the action taken by his troops long after that, and the battle they fought in defence of Penjdeh, unless the deliberate statement of the Prime Minister is supported by Papers laid on the Table, I do not think the country will readily give its consent to the theory that the Ameer did not particularly care about Penjdeh. But with regard to Penjdeh itself, even if the Ameer wore inclined to give it up to Russia, the Committee must be aware that the Government are flying in the face of the deliberate opinions of Sir Peter Lumsden, Colonel Stewart, and Colonel Ridgeway, and every single officer of experience who is able to give reliable information, and the Committee will find most important documents in this Book bearing on the value of Penjdeh. A high authority, yesterday, whom I asked whether in his opinion Penjdeh was vital to Afghanistan or not, replied—"All I can tell you is that if the Russians have got Penjdeh they have got the key of Afghanistan." I mention this because I desire to have further information from the 'Prime Minister as to the state of Penjdeh. I want to press the Prime Minister to give some assurance whether, in the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government have or have not ceded Penjdeh to Russia? I think it is a fair question to put to the Government. There are several other questions I should like to address to the Government; but I fear I have detained the Committee too long. There are other Members who will also have questions to ask, and I will therefore content myself with these. In order to put some pressure on the Government to answer this inquiry I will move to reduce the Vote by the sum not of £2,000,000, which I gave Notice of, but of £1,000,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a further sum, not exceeding £1,260,600, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886."—(Lord Randolph Churchill)

MR. GLADSTONE

With respect to the Vote before the Committee, I must tell the noble Lord that we cannot possibly accede to his Motion. In framing this Vote, we have adopted what I believe is the usual course fixed for the second Vote of Credit which it may be requisite to ask for—namely, six weeks on account. We have endeavoured, in what has passed in the course of the Session, to do all we could for the purpose of getting on with Supply, and that is all that is usually expected, or that can be equitably expected from the Government in connection with the arrangement of Parliamentary Business. I believe that the effect will be that the sum asked for six weeks would really last four or five weeks. The state of things in which we stand is really this. The House of Commons will meet afresh, I believe, on the 4th of June, and it will then meet with the finances of the year settled, with legislative Business of urgency and importance to carry forward, especially that which relates to the Crofters' Bill, and with the possibility that reasonable claims may be made to proceed on some day or days with a discussion of our policy. Under these circumstances, it is impossible for us to agree to a reduction such as that proposed by the noble Lord, whether he proposes to reduce the Vote by £2,000,000 or £1,000,000. The noble Lord has taken a course to-day which I believe to be entirely unusual, and, without any Notice of his intention to raise a debate upon the contents of a Blue Book of great importance, he has made his own comments upon that Blue Book. I do not complain in the least of the noble Lord so doing. There is no limit to the right of Gentlemen to introduce subjects with Notice or without Notice; but the noble Lord's position and mine are rather different. My mind is occupied from day to day with a succession of questions of public interest, of difficulty and moment. It is impossible for me to enter into the details of a Blue Book, so as to be able to pretend to give the Committee any satisfactory information with regard to it, unless I had the opportunity of carefully examining that Blue Book beforehand. I shall, therefore, be very limited in my replies to the noble Lord. I observe the noble Lord proceeds in this form. He states that all he has said is in the nature of inquiry. I do not know whether it is in the nature of inquiry, but it was in the nature also of the broadest measure of condemnation, when the noble Lord took it upon him to state that Her Majesty's Government were responsible for the action at Penjdeh, which, he said, they might have prevented. He did not point out in what way they might have prevented that action. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Yes.] I entirely failed to hear of that in the speech of the noble Lord. I was obliged to spend my time in turning over page after page of the Blue Book, as the noble Lord proceeded with his quotations, in order to ascertain what the points were which the noble Lord urged in support of his accusation. Of accusations I have heard plenty, but of suggestions as to what Her Majesty's Government were to do, I did not hear anything from the noble Lord. The position of Her Majesty's Government was one of very great difficulty and delicacy. The one object to which it was their duty almost entirely to confine themselves was, while they were preparing for the ultimate negotiations as to the Frontier, to take the best measures they could both with Sir Peter Lumsden on the spot, and likewise at St. Petersburg, to prevent a collision. They did take those measures with incessant care from day to day, and I do not believe that the noble Lord will be able to show that anything has been done or anything omitted which could possibly have that result. The noble Lord, in another part of his speech, said it was impossible to suppose that the Ameer of Afghanistan can have been indifferent about the retention of Penjdeh, because his troops fought for it. The noble Lord spoke as if the Ameer had been on the spot, and had the power of considering from day to day what the troops were doing at a great distance, and with difficult means of communication.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I beg the Prime Minister's pardon. Does not the right hon. Gentleman direct the troops in the Soudan? What is the difference?

MR. GLADSTONE

The difference is this. In the first place, it is not true without qualification that we do direct the troops in the Soudan. It is not true without qualification that we direct the details of the military movements. ["Oh!"] I must say I am astonished at the ignorance which is shown by Gentlemen opposite as to the details of military affairs. It is also true that Her Majesty's Government have the greatest confidence in their military officers in the Soudan, and that they can trust and rely on the character and proceedings of the British Generals and British troops; but, at the same time, they do exercise a control over them, and they do exercise a control over them which it is impossible for them to exercise over the troops of the Ameer. Does the noble Lord perceive that difference?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

No.

MR. GLADSTONE

The noble Lord does not perceive that at all. He thinks we have just the same power of controlling the troops of the Ameer as our own.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

No. What I said was that the Ameer had the same control over his own troops as Her Majesty's Government have over the British troops in the Soudan.

MR. GLADSTONE

The noble Lord is flying from the point. [Opposition cries of "No!"] Well, Sir, the clamour which has become usual on that side of the House is, unhappily, establishing new Rules for the conduct of Business, which will have the effect, I am afraid, of establishing not only new Rules, but forming new impediments to the progress of Business at a time when I am no longer here either to profit or to suffer from these altered methods of procedure. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) does not seem to understand that there was a different point raised by the noble Lord. The noble Lord raised two points—one with regard to the Ameer, and the other with regard to our control over the troops in the Soudan. He chose to establish that comparison, and it was my duty to point out the difference between those points. I was pointing out the difference—[Cries of "No!" and "Order!"] I must say that some of the Gentlemen who interrupt me should either alter their modes of proceeding, or suggest a method by which hereafter the debates of this House are to be carried on. It is hardly possible, I am afraid, under present circumstances, to do justice or to pay proper respect to the House, and preserve the proper and necessary continuity of my remarks, if conduct so extraordinary, so unparalleled—[Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No.] Yes; I must tell the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire that it is unparalleled. I am sorry that he should give it encouragement.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I should like to say that I was extremely sorry at the interruptions; but what I endeavoured to express a negative view upon was the statement that they had been unparalleled. I have heard interruptions of the same kind ever since I have been in the House.

MR. GLADSTONE

I have not heard such interruptions; but I accept thankfully the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he regretted the interruptions on the present occasion, and I withdraw my criticism upon what I thought to be the sentiment that he entertained. Coming back to the point under consideration, I said that there was a great deal of difference between the control which Her Majesty's Government exercised over their own troops and their own forces and the control which they could exercise over the forces of the Ameer. I say does the noble Lord admit that difference? I understood him to say that he does not admit it.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

No.

MR. GLADSTONE

The noble Lord does not admit that difference?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I have no desire to interrupt the Prime Minister; but the right hon. Gentleman has really mis-stated my case altogether. I said that if the Ameer did not care about Penjdeh he would not have allowed his troops to fight for it; and then I said that the control of the Ameer over his troops was as great as that of Her Majesty's Government over the forces in the Soudan.

MR. GLADSTONE

That was not my point. The point which I was discussing at that moment was not the control of the Ameer over his troops, but the control of the British Government over the Ameer's troops. I was pressing upon the Committee that the position of the British Government was most peculiar, in as much as they had responsibility for a Frontier defended by troops over which they had not the usual, or any complete military control. Have I made that point clear as far as the noble Lord and the Committee are concerned? Then the noble Lord says that the Ameer had as complete control over his troops as the British Government had over the forces in the Soudan. I entirely differ from that proposition. I entirely deny it. In the first place, the control of this Government is not required to the same extent, and it can be conveyed by telegraph in the shortest possible time. The Ameer, on the contrary, is at a distance, and was at this period at a distance of I know not how many days, with no telegraph, with no rapid means of communication, and with the greatest difficulties in regard to the nature of the country to contend with. Therefore, my position, in answer to the noble Lord, is that you cannot infer that because the Ameer's troops, in the exercise of their duty, as they supposed, defended a particular point, the Ameer was a party to their defending that point at that time. Still less can you infer that the Ameer attached, or did not attach, any importance to the permanent retention of that point. The noble Lord says that his speech is one in the nature of an inquiry. As to the painful subject upon which I just touched, I assure hon. Gentlemen that if I take notice of these interruptions it is not really on my own account. They matter very little to a person whose future intervention in political conflicts is much more likely to be measured by weeks than by months, and certainly by months than by years. It is because of the deep conviction I have that a great blow has been struck at the liberties and the dignity of this House by the modes of proceeding which have within the last few years—the last very few years, speaking with great respect for the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach)—been introduced into its debates. The noble Lord says that his speech is in the nature of an inquiry; but his inquiry did not prevent him from declaring his conviction that Her Majesty's Government are responsible for the conflict at Penjdeh. When we come to a deliberate debate, it will be found that Her Majesty's Government have given every support that they could to their Agents on the spot, to Sir Peter Lumsden, and at St. Petersburg; and the question how the agreement of the 16th of March failed to be fulfilled and how bloodshed resulted will be submitted to a high and impartial authority. The noble Lord referred to what he calls "my unusual course" in speaking of the possible contents of the Papers on the views of the Ameer regarding Penjdeh. A variety of matters connected with the Central Asian Question had been stated; and all I said was, "What defence will you have if, when the Papers are published, you find that you were wrong in this or that particular?" The noble Lord says that was an unusual proceeding; but it was a proceeding drawn forth by a proceeding still more unusual, for the general practice of this House is that when great questions of policy are depending to wait for the production of the Papers, and when the Papers have been produced, then to have a discussion upon them. It was my duty to warn hon. Gentlemen opposite of the dangerous ground upon which they were entering, and I believe the warning I then gave has been proved to have been needed. The noble Lord now says that he finds reason to doubt whether my warning was justified. I say that it was justified. I am not entitled to quote Papers which are not before the House, and I am not entitled, therefore, to state what specific expressions formed the grounds on which I proceeded; but it would have been extremely wrong on my part to say as much as I did if I had not been in possession of information which warranted my statement. The noble Lord will find that the inferences he has drawn are perfectly baseless. The Ameer says, in the passage which the noble Lord quoted last, that the Afghan troops would fight for every part of Afghanistan. Undoubtedly; the Afghans are a brave people, and they would fight, and have fought, for everything they believed; to belong to the territory of their master, or any territory held in the name of their Sovereign. In the letter of the Ameer there is no reference whatever to Penjdeh. There is no reference to any territory in particular; but there is a statement which speaks of Afghan land, and of a determination to hold it. The noble Lord has entered upon another question in regard to which I perfectly admit he is entitled to an explanation from me, though it is impossible for me to give that explanation at the present time. The noble Lord thinks that I made on the 13th of March a statement which is not justified by the facts, and the questions which are raised are these. First of all, whether what I stated was accurate with respect to the substance of the communications that had passed between the two Governments? Now, Sir, that question I must reserve, for it is totally impossible, I am afraid, for me to recollect what I said on that occasion or on subsequent occasions. But the noble Lord has quoted the description of what I said given in a despatch from the Foreign Office, which he was perfectly justified in quoting. I quite admit the legitimacy of that proceeding; but I must take the liberty to ascertain, as exactly as I can, what was said, in order that I may be able to state to the Committee whether I recited with perfect accuracy the state of the communications between the two Governments. But there is one point which the noble Lord does not seem to understand. He appears to think that because I stated that there was a concurrence of view between the two Governments on certain matters, therefore it was wrong for the Foreign Office to refer to St. Petersburg, and to endeavour to obtain an authentic declaration upon that matter from the Russian Government itself. There the noble Lord will, perhaps, allow me to say he is mistaken; for the basis upon which. I proceeded was this. Certain negotiations were going on, and communications had been received from Sir Edward Thornton. I had no right to hold the Russian Government bound by these communications; but I had a right to believe that a concurrence of opinion had been arrived at, and I had a right to recite the fact, because I believed it to be true, that a concurrence of opinion had been arrived at. I had no right to assume that the Report of a British Ambassador to his Government was a document binding upon the Russian Government. Consequently it was perfectly regular, and, as I think, very prudent, to make a reference to St. Petersburg at once, for the purpose of removing any doubt upon the subject, and of obtaining that which could be relied upon as the actual utterance of the Russian Government. And, Sir, I am happy to observe that there does not seem to be any great discrepancy in this matter. The Committee is aware of all the recent information we have received. The Committee knows that from day to day we endeavoured to tell exactly what had happened, after the alarming news which came from the Frontier. Long before that we endeavoured to give to the House all the information which reached us. We were engaged in endeavouring to obviate the risk of a conflict on the Frontier. We had no reason to believe that the question we were negotiating was one of hopeless difficulty; but we had reason to believe that an armed collision would tend very greatly to complicate the question, and we were therefore anxious, in the first place, to obtain from the Russian Government an assurance that there would be no advance of her troops. That would have obviated all risk. Secondly, in order to allay excitement in this and in other countries we desired to make known what the position of the question was. On the 13th of March I made the statement which the noble Lord impugns. And whether that statement was or was not accurate at that time, in regard to it at present I make no assumption. But, having been reported at St. Petersburg, it was accepted there with an addition, which was immediately stated to the House. The main object, that there was to be no advance, was attained; and if there was a question of advancing beyond the positions occupied, or of advancing beyond a certain line, at any rate it could not have acted upon the minds of hon. Members for more than a very few days. The noble Lord understood that which I think is clear to the Committee, that when our Ambassador at St. Petersburg had recited to us his conversation with the Foreign Minister, it was our duty to endeavour to obtain the substance of that interview in an absolutely authentic form. The noble Lord has alluded to a sacred covenant, and he appears to think that what I referred to on the 13th of March was the "sacred covenant." It was nothing of the kind. It was to this matter, and not to my statement of the 13th of March, that I applied the term "sacred covenant," and in my opinion that was a just and proper description of a covenant, a failure to keep which involved the loss of hundreds of lives, and shook the whole civilized world with the apprehensions of war. A covenant of such a description well deserved to be described by me as a sacred covenant. But that is not what I spoke of on the 13th of March. That was a preliminary statement subject to verification. The verification was obtained from the Russian Government, with an addition which we thought it wise at the time to accept, but which has since been described, and truly described, as a material addition. The Russian Government, with that addition, accepted the terms we had used. That I say was the sacred covenant, but it was not the language I had used on the 13th of March. On the present occasion I can go no further. I will endeavour to examine and see how far I am responsible for the accusation which the noble Lord has brought against me, and whether I have been guilty of some slight inaccuracy in my communications to the House. At present I am not in a position to affirm or deny; but as soon as I can I will take care to ascertain the exact position of the facts, and to put them in the possession of the House.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Sir Arthur Otway, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has not only challenged the proceedings of my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) for raising these questions now, but he has also blamed us for raising a discussion on this subject before we were in possession of Papers. Last week, when on the occasion of the Report of the Vote for £11,000,000 we had a most legitimate opportunity for calling attention to the subject, and were proceeding to inquire into the facts that had led to that Vote, we were told to wait until we had the Papers in our hands, which it was said would throw light upon the negotiations, and we were further told that if we went on without those Papers we should be liable to go entirely wrong. We were likewise informed that when we examined the Papers we might find that we were altogether in error in regard to Penjdeh, because it might be found that the Ameer did not attach any importance to the possession of that place. What is our position now? When we come to look into the Papers we find that they contain very inadequate infor- mation on many important points. We find that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister challenges even statements made on the strength of those Papers, because there are other Papers which have not been presented; and he not obscurely intimates on one particular point on which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock questioned him that there was something very important still to come forward with regard to it in Papers that would be laid upon the Table of the House. The noble Lord asked—"What is your authority for saying, or intimating, or giving the House to suppose that when we see these Papers we might find that the Ameer does not attach any importance to the possession of Penjdeh?" The noble Lord, at the same time, referred to the letter of the Ameer, written at the time of the appointment of Sir Peter Lumsden, in which the Ameer said— I hope that you [Sir Peter Lumsden] will with great courage and valour negotiate with the Russian Agents regarding the disputed frontier line, and that you may rest assured that they [the Russians] have not in hand a dot in writing from me at any time which may be a pretext to enable them to enter and take possession of the Afghan land. I am so firm in resisting for my rights, that if the Russian Agents should wish to take a piece or fragment from the ruins of the Afghanistan frontier, it will be impossible for them to do so as long as the Afghans have strength and power to resist."—[Central Asia, No. 2 (1885), p. 122.] Those were the views of the Ameer, and, Sir, Her Majesty's Government seem to have understood the matter in the same light. If we turn to page 163 of the Blue Book, we find that Earl Granville, writing to Sir Peter Lumsden on the 3rd of March, 1885, said that Her Majesty's Government could not advise the Afghans to attack the Russian troops in order to dislodge them from the positions they then occupied; but that Her Majesty's Government considered that the further advance of the Russians should, subject to military considerations, be resisted by the Afghans. Thus you had before you the impression formed and expressed by the Ameer with regard to the Frontier of Afghanistan, and you have endorsed a gloss upon it by the instructions given by Her Majesty's Government. But you cast imputations upon the Ameer and say—" Suppose when you have the Papers you find that the Ameer does not care for Penjdeh?" The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister intimates still that there is matter in the other Papers not yet presented which may change the whole situation. Then, Sir, I ask when are we to discuss this question? All that we can obtain from Her Majesty's Government is that we are to wait for Papers; that they are not ready yet; that they are coming in a week or so, and that when we do get them we shall, perhaps, find that they alter the whole state of affairs. Then, with regard to another observation of the noble Lord, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister says—" What do you mean by this? You charge us with being responsible for the slaughter which has taken place and the destruction which has fallen upon the Afghans. How do you show that? The noble Lord makes no attempt to prove so grave an assertion." But it seems to me that the noble Lord did make the attempt. I do not pretend to say what the right hon. Gentleman's exact words were; but, in point of fact, he did take exception to the noble Lord's not having, as he said, proved the statement which he made that Her Majesty's Government were responsible for what had taken place. The right hon. Gentleman asked how the Government wore to have prevented it? The noble Lord expressly dwelt upon the point, and said that it was to have been done not by sending troops to Penjdeh, not by encouraging Sir Peter Lumsden to expect support from Her Majesty's Government, or by sending him absolutely useless telegrams, but by putting pressure on the Russian Government at headquarters—at St. Petersburg. That was a reasonable view which might very well be put forward and urged, and I think the noble Lord pressed that view in a very powerful manner, and that he had shown it was in that way that assistance should have been given. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has also dwelt upon that passage in the speech of the noble Lord, in which he referred to the assurance given to the House on the 13th of March last that an agreement had been come to of a certain character, which agreement, when we came to see the Papers, we ascertained had not been made. The right hon. Gentleman said that was a matter of explanation, and he gave us the best explanation that we have been able to obtain—namely, that there was a qualification in the words; and it will be recollected that we mentioned at the time to the House that there was such qualification, and that it created a certain sensation when it became known. But what we want to point out is, that in these important matters, when we are relying on the statements of Ministers, we are anxious to know how far we can rely upon the statements they make, and that if we find that those statements, made in an authoritative manner, are not after all supported by the despatches, it leads to this result—that our confidence is shaken in all that has been said by Ministers with regard to this matter. It is entirely within the right and province of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, or any Member of this House, to put interrogatories to Her Majesty's Government for the purpose of ascertaining precisely the position in which do stand, and to obtain some explanation of things which on the face of the Papers are of great importance to the nation. The matter is one of such importance that I do not think the Committee is at all to blame for exercising thereon a considerable amount of curiosity, and I cannot think that a short discussion upon it now does in any way prejudice the question between this country and Russia.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, that the plea put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister with regard to the agreement with the Russian Government might justly be described as factitious, because he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) believed that that plea had been invented or revised by the right hon. Gentleman under the influence of those subterranean diplomatic agencies which had been so long rife in the country. At all events, they knew that the agreement had altogether failed. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he was justified in describing the arrangement as a binding and sacred covenant; but he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) held that anyone who studied the Papers would see that if the Prime Minister was not justified in doing so on the 13th of March, much less was he justified in describing it as a binding agreement on the 27th of April. So far from that being the case, the Russian Government had added a reservation as to the disturbance at Penjdeh which made it utterly valueless. No- thing, then, could justify the Prime Minister in speaking of the arrangement as a binding agreement. He now wished to call the attention of the Committee to what had taken place last week. On Monday or Tuesday last, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister came down to the House with another important statement with regard to the Prussian Government. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Earl of Kimberley and M. de Staal had agreed upon a new Frontier line, and he led the House to hope that they had arrived at a settlement of the boundary between Afghanistan and the Russian Dominions. But said the right hon. Gentleman—"it is sent to St. Petersburg to be ratified." What had occurred since? Why, it was the old thing over again—the right hon. Gentleman came down three days afterwards and said he was mistaken in reference to that agreement. Now, he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) asserted that they had a right to know, and without delay, what was that new Frontier which the Russian Ambassador had accepted. They had a right to know, because by the withholding of information the country had undoubtedly drifted into a position in which a surrender of all that we had hitherto claimed was almost inevitable, and further surrenders might take place while the country and the Opposition were endeavouring to obtain information from Pier Majesty's Government with regard to the actual position of the Afghan Frontier question. What was the Frontier line that had been agreed upon? Was it arranged that Penjdeh or Akrobat should be given up to Russia? He could tell Her Majesty's Government that if they would be frank and state to the country the line of Frontier that had been agreed upon, they would receive far more strength than weakness thereby. If the contents of the Blue Book which he held in his hand had been published before Easter, he believed that the Russian Government would not have dared to make the attempts to advance which they had made since that time. Her Majesty's Government assumed that they were making peace certain by an abject surrender; but he ventured to tell them that they were making war certain, and that probably within a short space of time. They were destroying the belief of the Afghans in the power and deter- mination of Great Britain, and they were encouraging the Russian Government to continue to seek successes, by the very policy to which might be traced the breach of all covenants and previous agreements in respect of Afghanistan. The House were told that the Ameer did not care for Penjdeh. There could be no doubt whatever that that place constituted a most important position he did not know whether or not the Ameer was a great strategist; he did not know that the Ameer had ever been to Penjdeh; but he did know that the leading strategists in India and in this country regarded Penjdeh as a point of vital importance to the defence of Afghanistan. And how did Her Majesty's Government regard it? They had urged the Afghans to keep Penjdeh; they approved of their occupying that position and strengthening themselves there; they had advised the Afghans not to yield Penjdeh to Komaroff's threats. He would like to know how Her Majesty's Government could come down to the House of Commons and confess, under those circumstances, that they had surrendered Penjdeh to Russia? He did not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was not very well acquainted with the contents of the Blue Book; but he wanted to point out that as long ago as March last Her Majesty's Government were clearly informed in one of the despatches that Penjdeh had formed part of Afghanistan ever since Afghanistan became a Kingdom, and that, as one of the Dependencies under the rule of Shore Ali, the tribes there paid tribute to the Ruler of Afghanistan. That was not his opinion, nor the opinion of the Ameer; but it was the solemn and deliberate opinion of Her Majesty's Ministers in March last. Hon. Gentlemen on those Benches wanted to know what were the reasons of Her Majesty's Government for abandoning Penjdeh to Russia? What had happened since the Prime Minister, on Monday or Tuesday last, stated with regard to the disputed Frontier that a line had been agreed upon? Why, one of the most striking events, at any rate, which had happened had shown the people of England how little the Russian Government cared for the Government of Great Britain, and how little it was desirous of preserving a good feeling between themselves and the British Government. The Czar had conferred the highest honours in his power upon the unprovoked aggressor of Penjdeh; he had written him an autograph letter, thanking him for his conduct in Afghanistan, which was conveyed to him at Pul-i-Khisti, and he was also presented with a jewelled sword. And, further, all the time that had been going on fresh attempts were being made on the Frontier, which the House were led to believe had been settled last Monday. Sir Peter Lumsden had been recalled from the position to which Her Majesty's Government had sent him; our prestige in the East was being rapidly destroyed, and the recall of that distinguished officer, as contrasted with the honours which had been conferred on General Komaroff, would, of course, be taken as a sign of weakness alike in Europe and in Asia. He would ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to the way in which the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in this matter was regarded in Foreign States and in India amongst our subjects there. Notwithstanding the case with which the Prime Minister was accustomed to dispose of the opinions of the Foreign Press and the leading organs of Europe, he could tell him that those opinions were far more nearly akin to the real sentiments of the people of this country and the view which would be taken of this matter in future history than the opinions of those organs in England that supported the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The number of these was, he felt bound to say, sufficiently scarce at the present time. One of the leading Russian organs said that the British Government had solemnly renounced its unreasonable pretensions, and bowed to the strong will of Russia, in consenting to accept the Russian programme for the arrangement of affairs in Central Asia, and that it was enough to make the shadow of concession to England in order to give her the means of escaping from the dangerous dilemma in which she was placed. That was describing, in language which could not be exceeded, the surrender of the Government of Great Britain. But he would also refer to the opinion of one of the leading journals of India, which more nearly concerned them than the opinions of the Russian Press. The Hindoo Patriot said that the Russian Government was carrying things entirely in their own way; that the people of India were witnesses of England's humiliation; that their regret knew no bounds, and that, as people loyal and faithful to the Grown, they felt covered with shame and degradation. That was the language of a very influential organ which circulated largely amongst our fellow-subjects in India. He repeated that they had a right to demand from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister a statement which would give the House a clear idea of this new Frontier line. They wished to know to what extent Her Majesty's Government had thus far consented to surrender to Russia in order that they might strengthen their hands, enable them to show a little determination, and, if possible, to obviate further surrender in the future. The House at that time knew pretty well what form the demands of Russia were likely to assume—they knew that the discovery had been made by Russia that the Sarikh Turkomans wanted pasture land further South than Penjdeh; they knew, also, that further insidious advances were being made Eastward; and he said that they had a right, in view of the surrenders which the Blue Book foreshadowed, and which would no doubt increase, to demand from Her Majesty's Government a clear definition of the boundary line on which Earl Granville, the Earl of Kimberley, and M. de Staal had agreed upon between themselves. The Blue Book published a few mornings ago made some very extraordinary disclosures; it showed, in the first place, that Her Majesty's Government had no excuse whatever for self-deception in this matter. The Russian demand was set forth with the greatest clearness in the despatch of M. de Giers of the 3rd of October, in which the Russian Foreign Minister demanded a Frontier extending as far down as the Paropamisus Hills. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) ventured to say that if the people of this country had at the time found that the Russian Government demanded that the Frontier should be extended as far South as that range, the Government would have had considerably more strength in their negotiations with Russia than had been the case. It was shown that there had never been any intention on the part of the Rus- sian Government to send a Boundary Commissioner to the Frontiers of Afghanistan earlier than the month of February or the month of March. The Memorandum relating to the Frontier contained an extraordinary clause, which he had ventured to read to the House on the occasion of his having put a Question to the First Lord of the Treasury, to the effect that the Russians would only accept that extreme Southern boundary as far as the Paropamisus Hills, on condition that the Afghans would not fortify that Frontier in such a way as should be a menace to the neighbouring population. The Committee would know very well what that meant—it meant that the Ameer should not fortify his Frontier at all; the Russian Government would say that any fortification of the Hills was a menace to the Sarikhs or the Turkomans, of whom the Russian Government had made so much use. If any hon. Gentleman had any belief in the honour and in the pacific intentions of the Russian Government, he recommended them to read this Blue Book very carefully, because he did not think that the contents of any Blue Book ever laid on the Table of House made greater revelations to Parliament than this; and he had no doubt whatever that it had been very considerably expurgated. He did not altogether join with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) in his critical, and, he was bound to say, very effective, denunciation of the conduct of Earl Granville in this matter. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) was not a great admirer of that noble Earl in his foreign policy, and he had little doubt that there were some Ministers on the Treasury Bench who would not be altogether sorry to see Earl Granville overthrown; but, with regard to the despatches from which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had quoted, he did not think that there was much fault to be found with Earl Granville in that case, because the weakness had, in his opinion, been far more in the Cabinet than with Earl Granville. He believed the weakness rested far more with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who always advocated a policy of scuttling, than with the noble Earl; and he thought it was juster to lay the blame where it ought properly to be placed than upon a Minister whose probable failure was his misfortune rather than his fault. There were traces in the Papers that Earl Granville, although he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) was at that moment in a position to lay his finger upon them, did appreciate the seriousness of the crisis, and did write a despatch which, if followed up, would have had a salutary effect. But the noble Earl had always been pulled up by that mysterious agency behind him, and the divided councils of the Cabinet, arising from the influence of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, no doubt, but particularly from that of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who, as he had said, was always the advocate in that House of the policy of "scuttle." There were facts stated in those Papers which proved that Earl Granville was early in the day alive to the real meaning of the Russian advance. Lord Granville wrote for an explanation to M. de Giers, and in rather an ingenious way, for he did not say that Her Majesty's Government took the view; but he said that if the Russian Government did not withdraw their Force, and did not prohibit General Komaroff to advance, Her Majesty's Government would find it very difficult to make the Indian Government refrain from taking proceedings. He could not give the exact words of the despatch to which he was referring; but he believed that he had fairly paraphrased it; and it showed that the Indian Government, at all events, were alive to the danger which the progress of Russia on the Frontier of Afghanistan involved. He regretted the more that he could not at the moment give the number of the despatch, because it went to the noble Earl's credit. Well, then, he believed that the weakness displayed by the Government had arisen mainly from the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and not so much from the action of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As he had said, there were evidences in the Blue Book that the noble Earl had seen the danger of the situation, although there was no doubt he had been pulled back by the action of the Cabinet. He did not wish to detain the Committee on this subject further than to say that the Blue Books were full of important and suggestive matter, which illustrated the truth of the remarkable prophecy or statement of Viscount Palmerston with regard to the action of Russia, and to which he would particularly call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. Viscount Palmerston said that the policy of Russia was to push her encroachments as fast and as far as the want of firmness on the part of other nations would allow her to go. That was exactly what had been done by Russia on the Afghan Frontier. While the Russian Government had been putting off Her Majesty's Government and allaying apprehension by smooth language at home, the Russian officers had instructions to push on and seize everything they could; and there could be no doubt that they were so instructed from St. Petersburg; because the answer of General Komaroff to the British officer was that he was acting under Royal orders; that his orders were to advance to Pul-i-Khisti; and the General appealed to our officer and said—"You also are officers of a Sovereign, and you know that orders must be obeyed;" and if further proof were needed that the instructions of the Russian General were sent from St. Petersburg it would be found in the fact that the Czar himself had conferred the highest decoration on General Komaroff and upon his aide-de-camp, and written the former an autograph letter endorsing all that had been done. On the 24th of October last Earl Granville, writing to Sir Edward Thornton, said— I mentioned, however, the delays which were at present occurring, and the difficulties which were made in regard to the date and place of meeting of the Afghan Boundary Commission, and which I thought were very unfortunate. These difficulties were almost certain to be considered by the Government of India as being purposely created by the Russian Government, with the object of postponing the operations of the Commission until the Russian authorities on the spot had had time to arrange matters in the manner they thought most favourable to their views."—[Central Asia No. 2(1885), p. 95.] That was a pretty plain hint that even Earl Granville saw what the real meaning of the Russian action was, and yet the Government kept back all information from the House. He suspected that when they came to examine some of the statements which had been made by Ministers in the House in answer to Questions, and in debate with regard to the different advances of the Russians, they would find very grave discrepancies between them and the statements made in the Blue Book. What were the facts with regard to the Afghan Frontier? Last July the Boundary Commission was agreed to. The Commissioners were to meet in October, and our Commissioner was ready on the spot early in November. The Russian Commissioner had not yet appeared upon the scene, but the Russian Forces had advanced. The next point of interest was the demand of Her Majesty's Government for the withdrawal of the Russian Forces. That was the only piece of real firmness the Government had displayed; but that was allowed to lapse. What was the reply of the Russian Government to the demand for the withdrawal of its Forces? Why, it was another leap forward of from 40 to CO miles all along the Frontier, coming close to Zulfikar and Akrobat and up to the bridge at Pul-i-Khisti. Then came the famous agreement of the 13th of March, an agreement which seemed to have been entirely devised—he would not say invented—by the Prime Minister out of his inner conscience. The right hon. Gentleman's Colleagues were so astonished to hear of the agreement that they insisted upon a telegram being sent to St. Petersburg to ascertain whether it was correct. Then came back the halting ratification or approval from M. de Giers, that the Russians would not advance unless some extraordinary circumstance occurred. That was the modification which enabled the Prime Minister to inform Parliament that the agreement was no longer a fallacious agreement or arrangement, but a solemn and binding covenant. That was the burden of the Prime Minister's argument that night. The right hon. Gentleman had said that night that on the 13th of March there was an agreement, that he telegraphed to know whether the Russian Government sanctioned the agreement, and on the 17th of March he received the answer that Russia did sanction it plus this extraordinary reservation. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) maintained that, so far from turning the agreement or arrangement of the 13th of March into a "binding and solemn covenant," the reply of M. de Giers made the agreement absolutely worthless, and that was the view which the St. Petersburg Press and Government took of the reply of M. de Giers. But when the Prime Minister made his bellicose speech of the 22nd of April in order to carry the Vote of £11,000,000, he, with all the flowers of oratory, developed the fallacious agreement or arrangement of the 13th of March into one of the most solemn and binding covenants ever made between two nations. In this case, unfortunately for Her Majesty's Government, the Russians were less open to the charge of perfidy than usual. They hinted pretty clearly all through that they meant to get up a disturbance at Penjdeh, and therefore everyone was prepared for that disturbance. What was the object of that disturbance? It was to obtain a strategical position of great value, to terrify the Afghans and destroy our repute amongst those people, and to establish amongst our Allies throughout Central Asia a belief in the Czar's irresistible might. That object the Russians fully attained. Now, the statement of the Prime Minister with regard to the Frontier line bade fair to be as fallacious as that with regard to the agreement. The Frontier line said to have been agreed upon last Monday had not yet been agreed upon, and Parliament did not know that it ever would be agreed upon. A case for fuller information had been made out. The House had the right to demand, not only that the new Blue Book should be published at once, but that Her Majesty's Government should inform the country just how much they were now prepared to surrender, and whether their surrender included Zulfikar, Penjdeh, and the other places which it was known that the Russian Government were trying to obtain.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that when he referred to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), he stated that the noble Lord did not suggest what the Government ought to have done in the event of any armed collision. He now was given to understand that the noble Lord did point out what the Government ought to have done, and that was to declare that any advance of the Russian Forces would be a casus belli. If the noble Lord said that, undoubtedly his (Mr. Gladstone's) remarks were not warranted.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he did not point out what the Government ought to have done, but he ventured to indicate the course that might have been adopted under certain circumstances. He wished now, as there was to be no division, and as the Government were not inclined to give way, to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Motion be, by leave, withdrawn."

MR. ONSLOW

said, he should like to take that opportunity, the first he had had since the Blue Book was published, of bearing his testimony to the admirable way in which Sir Peter Lumsden had done his work. He should have thought that after the rewards which had been given to General Komaroff the Prime Minister would have felt it incumbent upon him to take the first opportunity of acknowledging to the House and the country the admirable manner in which Sir Peter Lumsden had performed his work, and of giving expression to the confidence which the Government had all along had in that gallant officer. It was only due to that officer, who had had to perform a task, perhaps, as difficult as that which any Envoy ever sent from this country had had to discharge, that he should receive some public recognition from Her Majesty's Government, and yet the Prime Minister had not said a word on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that when Sir Peter Lumsden left this country he left on the clear and distinct understanding that all arrangements had been made for the Russian Envoy to meet him at a certain time, he believed at Sarakhs. What were they to say when a General of Sir Peter Lumden's position, one who was intimate with Afghan affairs, one who was on the best of terms with the Ameer, received no recognition from the First Minister of the Crown? He (Mr. Onslow) should like to know if Sir Peter Lumsden had been recalled at the instigation of Her Majesty's Government, or if he in any way hinted before he was recalled that he was of no use and could not agree with the policy of Her Majesty's Government? Did the intimation come originally from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that Sir Peter Lumsden was no longer required on the Frontier of Afghanistan? There was no doubt whatever that there were many despatches of great importance, which had not found a place in the Blue Book; and, putting two and two together, his own impression was that Sir Peter Lumsden had more than once hinted he could do no more on the borders of Afghanistan. It was not often that officers trained in India had to deal officially with officers representing European Powers; but he (Mr. Onslow) contended that no man could have acted in this matter with greater tact than Sir Peter Lumsden had displayed; he had in every way endeavoured to prevent a conflict between the Afghans and the Russians, and it was no fault of his that he had not succeeded. He (Mr. Onslow) desired to say one or two words about the agreement which the Prime Minister had referred to that night. He was in the House on the 13th of March when the Prime Minister said that an arrangement had been arrived at with the Government of St. Petersburg; and he, in common with everyone else, thought the words of the right hon. Gentleman were most portentous. Just before the House rose on the 13th of March the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was not in the House; but the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) were present, and the Government were asked to explain more fully what the agreement was. His (Mr. Onslow's) impression was that there was not a single Member of the Cabinet who believed there was any agreement arrived at, and that impression was justified by the remarks of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War. The noble Marquess, on being pressed to give his opinion, said— I was not in the House when the Prime Minister gave his answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) this evening; but it is now asked of me somewhat to extend the declaration which the right hon. Gentleman made. I feel that I should be taking a great responsibility, affecting not only the Government, but interests far transcending those affecting any Government, if I were to attempt now to extend any answer given by the Prime Minister, the purport of which I am not sufficiently acquainted with."—(3 Hansard, [295] 1195–6.) It struck many hon. Members at the time that the noble Marquess had at least been told what the Prime Minister said earlier in the evening; certainly there were several Members of the Government present who could have told the noble Marquess exactly what the Prime Minister said. Reading between the lines, it appeared to him (Mr. Onslow) that the Prime Minister, when he made use of the word "agreement" and afterwards "arrangement," went too far even for the Members of his Cabinet. He hoped that the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) or some other Member of the Government would now rise in his place and state the opinion of the Government of the way in which Sir Peter Lumsden had done his work, and in that manner somewhat counteract the influence that had been spread abroad by the announcement of the rewards showered upon General Komaroff.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the Prime Minister had expressed annoyance at some interruptions which took place, during the course of his speech, in the quarter of the House in which the Irish Members sat. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was very sorry that a blow was being struck at the character of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman felt stung because he was treated as plenty of other Members had been treated, and were treated nightly. He might say, judging from his experience in the House, extending now over many years, that no Minister who had ever sat on the Treasury Bench had struck greater blows at the character of the House of Commons than the Prime Minister himself. The right hon. Gentle man had been a party to the suspension of certain Members of the House—

THE CHAIRMAN

The remarks of the hon. Gentleman have no relevancy whatever to the Question before the Committee, which is that the Amendment be withdrawn.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he objected to the Amendment being withdrawn, and he might be permitted to say that upon the Amendment which was moved by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) the Prime Minister made a remarkably weak speech. On one day the Prime Minister said that an agreement had been entered into with the Russian Government; but on the very next day a telegram was sent to the Government of St. Petersburg to ascertain whether they would confirm what the Prime Minister had said. In his (Mr. Biggar's) opinion, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have obtained the assent of the Government of St. Petersburg to the agreement before he stated that the agreement existed. The position of the Prime Minister on that point was perfectly untenable, and not only so, but the position of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly untenable with regard to the allegation or insinuation that the Ameer of Afghanistan did not care for that part of his Dominions in which Penjdeh was situated. That statement or insinuation was entirely upset by what the Ameer wrote—namely, that he would defend every part of his Dominions. In point of fact, what the Government had done was to mislead the Ameer, for they had led him to believe that they would support him and protect him from the attacks of the Russians; but when it came to the point they were not prepared to do so. The Government had simply acted the part of traitors to the interests of the Ameer. It was one thing for the Earl of Dufferin to make a parade of troops, but quite another thing to meet the Russians. At the same time, he (Mr. Biggar) did not believe with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) that the English Government could, by any pressure they might have brought to bear on the Government of St. Petersburg, have stopped the advance of the Russians. The Russians knew their power, and they knew England's weakness. The great mistake the English had made in dealing with the Ameer was to make him believe they were prepared to do what they had not the power to do. The Ameer had found out the weakness of the British and the cowardice of the English Government; he had come to know the power of the Russians, and the result would be that we should soon find that the Ameer and the Czar were fighting on the same side as the common enemies of England. The Prime Minister said that night that the Government were always willing to give the House information. He wondered the right hon. Gentleman was not ashamed to make such a statement. It was a notorious fact that, night after night, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) and other hon. Members, including the Leader of the Opposition himself (Sir Stafford Northcote), had put Questions to the Prime Minister and the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), with the result that the Questions had been evaded, and no information whatever given. The Prime Minister seemed to think that anything at all was good enough for the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman made the most outrageous statements, and thought that no dissatisfaction should be expressed from any quarter of the House. He (Mr. Biggar) never heard a weaker speech than that which the Prime Minister had delivered that night. He certainly thought that if the Government of this country was to be carried on, the Leadership should be in stronger hands than those in which it was at present.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 74: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 195.)

Original Question again proposed.

W. H. SMITH

said, there was one question he wished to ask his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert). Some time ago it was arranged that the work of the City Parochial Charities Commission should be transferred to the offices of the Charity Commission; but, unfortunately, for some reason or other, the arrangements had been delayed, or had not been carried out as completely and as fully as they ought to have been. He wished to obtain an assurance from his hon. Friend that the alterations or additions to the offices of the Charity Commission should be completed forthwith, so that the valuable labours of the City Parochial Charities Commission should be facilitated as much as possible.

MR. HIBBERT

said, there had been some delay in carrying out the alterations in the offices of the Charity Commission; but he was hopeful that the alterations would shortly be completed.

MR. BRYCE

said, it was a matter of very considerable importance that the City Parochial Charities Commission should, as had been promised so far back as the end of last year, be housed in the same building as the Charity Commission. He would remind the Secretary to the Treasury that the duties of the City Parochial Charities Commission were confined by the Act of 1883 to a fixed period of years, and that, therefore, it was desirable that the most rapid progress should be made with the work. Larger London—London outside the ancient city for whose benefit the funds were to be applied—was looking with some anxiety for the Schedules of the Commissioners, and for the schemes which where to follow, and while the bringing together of the two offices was delayed, progress was necessarily retarded.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he was afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) could scarcely have read the last Report of the Charity Commissioners, because, if he had done so, he would have found that in the month of November last sanction was given to the proposal to enlarge the building, and that the necessary works were now far advanced towards completion. [Mr. BRYCE: I am aware of it.] If the hon. and learned Member was aware of it, he (Mr. A. O'Connor) did not quite see what the hon. and learned Member's purpose was in rising to address the Committee, because he did not inform the Committee that that was the state of the case. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) had a much more interesting question connected with the Charity Commission to raise than one in regard to the building. The Commissioners represented that they would require a very considerable increase of staff. It seemed to him there was every indication of a larger demand being made upon the Votes for the Charity Commission, and therefore he thought it behaved the Treasury to put a little check upon that demand. He supposed the increased accommodation was necessary; but with regard to the prospective increase on account of staff, he thought it would be well if the Treasury led the Commissioners to understand that they were not at liberty to make what drafts they liked on the public money. Before the Vote was passed, he wished to ask one or two questions upon the different matters included in it. There was the matter of the Secret Service. Inasmuch as £10,000 a-year came out of the Consolidated Fund in respect of Secret Service, and as the question of Secret Service was one attracting very careful investigation at the present time, he did not see why the Treasury should not consent to eliminate from this Vote the item of £15,000 for the Service. It was perfectly clear that it was not necessary to vote this money; £10,000 had already been voted, and the further sum now asked for would exhaust the whole Vote. They wore told that this Vote was wanted to enable the Government to go on for six weeks; but the Government really wished to take money for the 12 months. As the Consolidated Fund was never audited, the Committee ought to pause before they handed over to the Government the whole of this Vote. Then there was another matter on which he desired to address a question to the Government, and that was the grant in aid of Cyprus. He did not see that anything was taken on that account, and he ventured to inquire whether the Government had abandoned their intention of asking for any grant in aid of Cyprus? Having resorted to ail the sources of information open to him, his own opinion was that there was no real necessity for any grant in aid of Cyprus; that the administration of Cyprus was so dishonest and scandalous that the enormous amount of money taken from the taxpayers of this country on that account had not found its way into the local Exchequer; that the peculations, notorious and recognized by judicial tribunals, had been so great—["Order!" Mr. GLADSTONE: This is irrelevant.] He thought he was perfectly in Order in showing why it was that an omission from the Vote appeared in so strange a connection as the Cyprus Vote; and the Prime Minister's suggestion to the Chairman that his remarks were irrelevant might have been made in a lower tone of voice. He wanted to know why in this Vote the whole of the Secret Service money was taken, while nothing was taken for the Cyprus grant in aid? It was an indication, or it was not, of a change of policy on the part of the Government with regard to Cyprus. He wanted to know whether the Government had so changed their policy that they had abandoned their intention of asking for any more money on account of Cyprus? There was another question to which he should like to obtain an answer if he could. It was with regard to the Vice Consul of the Levant. The Vice Consul of the British Government in the town of Caifa, on the bay of St. Jean D'Arc, was a German. Running down to that bay was a range of mountains called Mount Carmel, and on the spur of those mountains was a very famous monastery. He believed that the inmates of that monastery claimed that their Order was established as far back as the days of the Prophet Elias. He could not answer for the correctness of their traditions; but in a country where there were so many Freemasons who dated from the Creation, the antiquity claimed by the inmates of this monastery was not surprising. The monks of Mount Carmel were now claiming the protection of the Consuls and diplomatic officers of the different nationalities in that neighbourhood against the aggressions of a number of Germans. There were along that coast many Germans who called themselves Templars or Millearians, and they were under the leadership of a man named Hoffman, who had established himself at Jerusalem, and who was at the head of what he was pleased to call the theological school of Wurtenburg, having branches at Jaffa and Jerusalem.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he failed to see how the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were relevant to the present Vote.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, that in the Vote was included £20,000 for Consular Services, and he was interested in pointing out the position of a certain Consular officer in the town of Caifa in the Levant. He presumed the salary of the officer was included in the Vote, and therefore he should not feel himself justified in assenting to the Vote being taken until he had obtained something like a satisfactory explanation as to the officer's position. The British Vice Consul at Caifa was a German, and a number of Germans under the leadership of a man named Hoffman had made a sudden raid upon the possessions of the ancient monastery of Mount Carmel. They had broken down the boundary walls; they had by force dispossessed the monks of their property; they had made a road across what used to be the ground of the monastery; and generally they had imperilled the legal position of the monastery, and done a great deal of damage to the property of the establishment. The French Consular officer at Beyrout had so far been able to do something to protect the monks; but at Caifa, which was the Consular station immediately adjoining Mount Carmel, the British Consular officer was not an Englishman, Irishman, or Scotchman, but a German—a Mr. Johan Schmitz. This officer was placed in a very embarrassing and invidious position. If he was called upon to vindicate the claims of those who were British subjects and members of the community at Mount Carmel, he had also, on the other hand, to consider that the aggressors were his own countrymen; and what made the position of Mr. Schmitz still more difficult was that the man who led the aggressors was Mr. Phillip Keller, brother of Mr. Pritz Keller, the German Vice Consul. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) thought it obvious the Government should take steps to secure the absolute independence of the British Vice Consul at Caifa.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he had listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and he did not hear him say that the inmates of the monastery were British subjects.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I did not say they were.

MR. GLADSTONE

If they are not British subjects, what title has the British Vice Consul in the neighbourhood to interfere on their behalf?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he did not say the inmates of the monastery were British subjects, neither did he say they were not—that was after the Prime Minister's own style of argument. There were a number of Englishmen and Irishmen in the neighbourhood; but how far they represented in their own individual personalities the property of the community he was not able to say, because he was not conversant with the rules. He believed the Order of Mount Carmel was one of those Orders in which it was customary to take the vows of poverty; and, therefore, he supposed no individual could claim to have a legal right to any portion of the property of the monastery. The Prime Minister must know that there were persons of all nationalities in the community, as there had been for centuries. The papers which he (Mr. A. O'Connor) held in his hand showed that there were in the monastery, at any rate, two or three different nationalities. There were, for instance, Bavarians; but the Bavarian members of the community appeared to think they had little chance of redress at the hands of their own Government or Vice Consul, because they had addressed their remonstrances, not to the Germans at all, but to the French Consular General at Beyrout. What he (Mr. A. O'Connor) was concerned in was not so much the property of the monastery, not the individual interests of any monks, none of whom he knew personally; but what he wished to point out was that a number of Germans had made a raid upon the monastery, and by the use of considerable violence—they used firearms in their attack—had broken down a portion of the inclosure of this beautiful monastery, and caused the inmates to submit to all sorts of encroachments. The British Vice Consul at Caifa was a German, a countryman of the aggressors. So far, the Vice Consul had acted very fairly; but the community felt they had not the same protection from the gentleman, whose countrymen were the aggressors, as they would have if the Vice Consul was not of the same nationality, but of an independent nationality, like the British. All he was anxious to secure was that the Government would extend to the Vice Consul at Caifa that amount of support as would place him in a position of absolute independence with regard to this matter.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, he thought the Committee would not be surprised if he stated that some of the facts which had been stated by the hon. Member (Mr. A. O'Connor) were facts in regard to which he should like to make some inquiry before giving a reply. The Vice Consul at Caifa had generally been a German, and for this reason—that at Caifa there was a largo German Colony, and it was more easy to find in that Colony a German gentleman able to take the Vice Consular office than it would be to send a gentleman from England. The hon. Gentleman had said the Vice Consul was Mr. Johan Schmitz. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Schmitz, and he was much struck by that gentleman's ability. He formed the impression that he was speaking to a man, not only of very high character, but one who possessed an intimate acquaintance with that part of the world, and one in whom the people would have great confidence. He was glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman made no specific complaint against Mr. Schmitz in regard to this particular matter. It seemed that because Mr. Schmitz was a German, it was supposed he was not an altogether impartial man. Well, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was bound to say that in his belief any such fear was quite groundless. He did not understand there was any allegation that the inmates of the monastery were British subjects; but, nevertheless, he would undertake to make inquiries, and, if he found it necessary, proper steps would be taken. He was very anxious, however, that no impression should be left on the minds of hon. Gentlemen that the Foreign Office had any reason to doubt the ability or impartiality of Mr. Schmitz.

MR. ABTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he was obliged to the noble Lord for the terms in which he had answered his inquiry, and he should be perfectly content to leave the matter in the noble Lord's hands. He wished only to say that he had received a letter from Jerusalem in reference to this matter, and in the letter this passage occurred— The English Vice Consul at Beyrout has acted well so far, hut he is a German. There was not the least imputation upon the character of the officer.

MR. PARNELL

wished to address a few words to the Committee with regard to this Vote of Credit, and to make a suggestion which he hoped might be regarded by the Government as a practical one. A Vote on Account—and this was the second which had been asked for by the Government that Session—practically withdrew from Parliament all control over the Estimates. A Vote on Account had always been held to be a Vote of a somewhat unconstitutional character. That was repeatedly said in past Parliaments. He recollected it was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Member for Limerick (Mr. Isaac Butt), who formerly led the Irish Party in the House of Commons—he recollected that hon. and learned Gentleman, who was admittedly one of the greatest Irish authorities on British Constitutional Law, pointing out how, practically speaking, enormous Votes on Account deprived Parliament of all control over the Estimates. This Vote on Account was to extend over six weeks. In all probability Parliament would then be very near its close, and if the Government used the sum of money which they proposed to get by this Vote on Account, they would practically be relieved from the necessity of bringing forward Supply in the usual manner on Mondays and Thursdays during the interval. Consequently, Supply would very possibly be thrown into the last week of the Session. It would be admitted by any candid person that such a result as that would absolutely deprive Parliament of control over the Estimates. Now, the Government were very backward with Supply—["No, no!"] He thought they were very backward, having regard to the very large number of important Irish questions which would arise this Session on the Estimates, and having regard to the fact that Parliament would in all probability rise much sooner than the middle of the month of August, which was usually the time of Prorogation. Prom the point of view of absolute time, the Government might be as forward with Supply as they had been in previous Sessions; but having regard to the circumstances of the Session, they were certainly backward in this respect. The objections to relegating Supply to the last days of the Session had been repeatedly urged upon the Government from time to time; and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in the Pules of Procedure which he submitted to Parliament and devoted an entire Session to passing, arranged that there should be given two days a-week, clear of Motions against the Speaker leaving the Chair, on which the Committee of the House should discuss items in Supply. The object of that was that every facility should be afforded for Supply being properly considered. Monday and Thursday were now at the disposal of the Government for the purposes of Supply, and what he wished to ask of them was this. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was the proper person to address his inquiry to. He wished to know whether in future the Govern- ment proposed to devote Monday and Thursday for the purpose of obtaining Supply until Supply was obtained? Every Session hon. Members found themselves placed in this position—that they were compelled to pass Supply without due discussion, or were threatened with physical force. They were constantly told that the House would be required to sit up all night, and in the end the Votes were passed with little or no discussion. The result of that state of things was the Irish Estimates were usually thrown over until the last fortnight or 10 days of the Session, and really received no discussion at all. That was a most inconvenient practice, and it was absolutely destructive of the interests of Ireland. He believed that enormous good would result from the full and efficient discussion of the Irish Estimates, and that such light would be thrown upon the system of government by permanent officials in Ireland as would surprise the House of Commons and open its eyes upon a great many matters in regard to which it was now ignorant. Therefore, what he asked was whether the Government proposed to take advantage of the Standing Order of the House, which enabled them to bring on Supply on Mondays and Thursdays without preliminary discussion, in such a way as to secure Mondays and Thursdays for Supply during the very short period of the Session which still remained until that Supply should have been obtained? His hon. Friends and himself had many questions which they desired to raise in Committee of Supply, and he was afraid that they would be compelled to raise some of them on the present Vote on Account, if it were made apparent that Mondays and Thursdays were not to be used for purposes of Supply, but for some other purpose. For his part, and he believed he might also speak for his hon. Friends, if it were certain that Her Majesty's Government would devote Monday and Thursday to Supply during the rest of the Session, until Supply was taken, they would be willing to forego their right to raise these points, which in despair of obtaining another opportunity they proposed to raise on the present Vote.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that at the present moment Supply was more forward than usual. The hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken in supposing that it was unusually backward. More time had been devoted to Supply in the pre sent Session up to that period than in former Sessions, and they were only asking for a Vote on Account which would enable he Public Services to be regulated for about six weeks after Whitsuntide. The hon. Member said, looking at the certain fact that in about six weeks hence the Session would be nearly closed—

MR. PARNELL

I never said anything about a "certain fact."

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. Member spoke of a confident assumption.

MR. PARNELL

No; I said there was a probability.

MR. GLADSTONE

continued. The hon. Member, whether he spoke of it as a certain fact or a confident assumption, undoubtedly intimated that the Session would be near its close about six weeks hence; and he then proposed that the Government should set aside every Monday and Thursday for the rest of the Session for the purpose of bringing forward Supply. Almost in the same breath the hon. Member asked when the Government were going to proceed with the Labourers Bill. What was the meaning of that request? The hon. Member must know that it was a question which it was absolutely impossible for him (Mr. Gladstone) to answer. If the hon. Member would number up the days which had already been secured for Supply in the course of the present year, he would have no reason to complain. Of course, it was the natural desire, not of the present Government only, but of any Government, to got forward with Supply as much as they could. In this case they had already indicated that desire, and they had reduced the number of Bills they were about to present to Parliament. Indeed, he did not know whether they had not even gone too far in the exercise of that desire; but, at any rate, having, in the three months of the Session which wore already passed given substantial evidence of their desire to got on with Supply, it was impossible for them to say that every Monday and Thursday during the rest of the Session would also be devoted to Supply until Supply was obtained. What, in that case, would become of the other Business of the House. Take Votes of Censure for in- stance. There had already been four or five Votes of Censure upon the conduct of the Government, moved by hon. Members on the other side of the House. He presumed that the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) felt very great interest in those Votes of Censure, seeing that he invariably supported them.

MR. KENNY

Quite right. [Cries of "Order!"]

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he could not understand why, under such circumstances, the hon. Member should desire to bar the door against more Votes of Censure. It was enough, however, to say that it would not be consistent with his public duty if he wore to give the assurance asked for by the hon. Member; but, at the same time, he would say that it was the desire of the Government to devote as much time as possible to the speedy prosecution of Supply.

MR. HIBBERT

wished to add one word to the observations which had been made by the Prime Minister, in order to show the number of days which had been devoted to Supply in the present Session and in some three or four previous Sessions. This year there had already been 13 nights devoted to the consideration of the Estimates in Committee of Supply. In 1881, up to the 31st of May, there were only two; in 1882, two; in 1883, five; and in 1884, only one. This year there had already been 13 Supply nights, and it must be borne in mind that all the Votes were much more discussed now, he would not say than in any previous year, but certainly more than was generally the case in previou.3 years. In 1882 only five Votes were taken up to the end of the month of May; in 1883, 30 Votes; end in 1884, only three. This year, up to the present date, 26 Votes had been taken, and they had been obtained under the greatest difficulty, because, as hon. Members opposite would allow, nearly every Vote had been very seriously discussed. In regard to the opportunities which would still remain for discussing the Votes not yet disposed of, he would point out that the total amount of Votes to be taken was £26,000,000, and the Government were now asking for a Vote on Account to the extent of £3,200,000, having previously obtained about £3,300,000, which would still leave more than £19,000,000 to be taken hereafter, so that ample opportunities would exist for discussion. There was one other subject to which attention had been called by an hon. Member (Mr. A. O'Connor) who spoke earlier—namely, the Secret Service money. No answer had yet been given to the inquiry of the hon. Member, and it was only right that an answer should be given. The amount asked for on account of Secret Service was not the whole amount of that item. A sum of £10,000 had already been voted, and an additional sum of £15,000 was asked for that night; but £25,000 would still be left. In previous years it had been the custom to give part of the Secret Service money in every Vote on Account.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

remarked that there was a further sum of £10,000 charged upon the Consolidated Fund.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he refrained from going into that matter, because it formed no part of the Vote asked for that night. The Committee, indeed, had no right to consider it in discussing the Estimates, as it was done by virtue of an Act of Parliament. Then, again, in regard to Cyprus—there was no money asked under that head in the present Vote. It had sometimes been the custom to ask for a reduced amount upon every item contained in the Estimates; but wherever it had been possible to do without a Vote on Account, he had withdrawn that particular Vote, and had, consequently, been able to reduce the total amount of the Vote asked for.

MR. WARTON

wished to put a question to the hon. Gentleman. He wanted to know whether, bearing in mind the Vote on Account already voted, and adding it to the Vote on Account now asked for, there would be any one item in the Estimates in respect of which there would be no balance left to be voted hereafter?

MR. HIBBERT

No, none; except the Votes already passed.

MR. SEXTON

said, it was quite plain, from the contention of the Prime Minister in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that the Government had no intention of facilitating the discussion of the Estimates themselves, and when the Session was a little further advanced the pressure of Public Business would be pleaded by the Government as a ground for passing the Estimates without adequate consideration or debate. He thought the request of his hon. Friend was an extremely reasonable one. A year or two ago, under the new Procedure Rules, the Government obtained from the House special facilities for pushing forward the Business of Supply. The Standing Order now enabled them to devote the whole of Monday and Thursday in every week to the Business of Supply, without the intervention of those Motions with regard to grievances which Members were formerly able to bring forward. The request of his hon. Friend was that the Government should devote to the Business of Supply—that being one of the chief functions of the House—those days in the week which, at the expenditure of great time and labour, they had procured from the House for Supply, so as to prevent any interruption from dilatory Motions. The Prime Minister chose to be jocular and satirical. Without the slightest necessity the right hon. Gentleman referred to Votes of Censure, and very irrelevantly dragged in the remark that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the Irish Members who sat upon those Benches were usually found voting in support of Votes of Censure. It was not the Irish Members alone who were of opinion that Her Majesty's Government were among the most condemnable persons in the Realm. That opinion was shared by a considerable body of Members in that House, and when Votes of Censure had been proposed the Irish Members had felt themselves obliged to come to the conclusion that the balance of merit lay on the side of those by whom the Votes of Censure were proposed. It might be their misfortune or their fault; but, undoubtedly, that had invariably been the case. Occasionally they found the Prime Minister of a very exacting temperament; but certainly that evening the right hon. Gentleman had taken a most amiable and easily satisfied view of the financial condition of the country. The right hon. Gentleman denied that Supply was at all backward. If they compared the number of Votes obtained in this with other Sessions, and the amount of money in hand as compared with other years, perhaps it might be found that they were not very much behind; but there were seven Departments of the Civil Service for which the House had to vote Supply, and each contained various important sub-sections. At present they had only just reached Class II., so that practically there were still six Classes to be voted, and they had not as yet touched any of the great Revenue Departments. They were now on the eve of the Whitsuntide Recess, and they had before them a programme which included several measures of the greatest importance, one of them a measure relating to Ireland, which would provide ample material for discussion for the rest of the Session, even if no other measure was to be considered. Yet with this programme of legislative work, including the Crimes Act, the Government, with cheerful hopefulness, persisted in the assertion that Supply was in a forward condition. He was afraid that it would not be possible to undeceive them on that point except by the test of experience; but, before the Session was brought to a close, he was of opinion that they would find that the condition in which Supply was left was not altogether favourable to the progress of legislative work. The proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was one that was well calculated to promote the general Business of the House. It was that every day in the week except Monday and Thursday should be taken for other Business, and that Monday and Thursday should be devoted to Supply. The remarks of his hon. Friend as to the insidious and persistent manner in which the control over Supply was now withdrawn from the House was amply borne out by the experience of the last few years. Hon. Members sitting on those Benches had watched with something akin to anxiety and alarm the gradual growth of this easy, slothful, and immoral system of tiding over the regular Business of Supply by Votes on Account. It could scarcely be forgotten that the House practically did no Business in Supply at all last year. In the first place, the Government asked for a Vote on Account, then at Easter they asked for another Vote to make up for deficiencies in the Supply of the previous year, and, having obtained two Votes of that kind before Easter, the Government took a third at Whitsuntide. By that means the Business of Supply was put off until the month of August, when, the Votes were discussed in empty Houses after midnight. He contended that it was nothing less than a fraud upon the overburdened taxpayers of the country to Vote millions and tens of millions of money in empty Houses after midnight, because the Government knew that under such circumstances effective criticism of the Estimates was not possible at the end of August, and by the immoral course they pursued they wore able at one stroke to get rid of discussion in the House of Commons and to hoodwink and cheat the taxpayers of the country. If the taxpayers of the country knew what grave and serious evils were produced by this practice of postponing the real consideration of Supply, they would take to heart the words which had dropped from his hon. Friend that evening, and the task of exhorting the Government to restore to the House of Commons the Constitutional function of supervising and checking the Public Expenditure would not be left to the Irish Members, but on both sides of the House there would be a united voice of protest and condemnation from Members of all Nationalities in every part of the House against these easy methods by which, from Easter to Whitsuntide, and from Whitsuntide to August, this process of stealthily dipping their hands into the public purse and plundering the taxpayer was carried on. His hon. Friend proposed that the Government should put an end to this system. If they would agree, even from this day, to devote the two days a-week which the House had given to them uninteruptedly to Supply, the House would have some little assurance that the expenditure of hundreds of thousands and even of millions of the public money would be checked with something dike that degree of intelligence and care which a man would devote to the conduct of his own private concerns. Was it tolerable that £80,000,000 a-year should be paid in this country for the maintenance of the Public Service, and that it should be thrown away, or its application placed entirely at the discretion of the Government officials themselves, who paid this enormous sum of money out of the public purse without any check whatever from the accredited Representatives of the people? That was the system which was going on now; and unless the Government retraced their steps and adopted a more satisfactory policy in regard to the expenditure of the public money, he thought they would find that the exhortations of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would appeal to the common sense of the subjects of the Queen, without regard to nationality, who would require proper and adequate facilities for the discharge of such important Business, and would strongly and effectively protest against the generally easy method now adopted of disposing of such questions.

MR. KENNY

said, he had intended the other evening to call the attention of the Government to the case of the brothers Delahunty—

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. KENNY

resumed. He said, he had had worse luck the other evening, however, than he had now, for on that occasion the House was counted out, and he had no opportunity to bring on the case. He brought the matter forward now in the hope that the Government would exercise that equity in the case which the facts of it demanded. Now, the two men to whose case he referred were accused in the year 1882 with an offence under the Prevention of Crime Act. They were accused of having fired at a man named Donnellan. They were immediately arrested under the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act, and were conveyed to the county gaol at Ennis, which was about 22 miles away from the scene of the alleged outrage. The alleged offence was one which in no way could be considered as an agrarian outrage, because it was not connected with any dispute about land, and it was not connected with any conspiracy, as far as any person had yet ventured to assert; and he was entirely at a loss, therefore, to understand what was the reason which influenced the Government to bring the case under the exceptional law, unless it was that the Prevention of Crime Act was an exceptional law which at that time the Goverment were desirous of experimenting upon. The prisoners instructed a local solicitor for their defence; and when he returned from the locality in which the outrage was supposed to have been committed, the day before they were to be brought up at Ennis, he was informed that they had been conveyed another 30 miles, to another part of the country, and had there been returned before magistrates to whom they were strange. Having been returned for trial, they were kept in gaol until the Cork Winter Assizes, when they were brought up on this charge. The evidence against them was purely circumstantial. It was perfectly true that the man who was fired at alleged that he saw these two men fire at him; but as it was alleged by the witnesses that only one shot was fired, both of those men could not have fired. He was not certain whether the weapon used was a rifle or a pistol; he could not say whether there were one or two shots fired, and no injury whatever was done. It was on a charge of this kind that these two men were sent to penal servitude for life. The evidence might have been strong enough to find these two men guilty; but the evidence for the defence was managed in an exceedingly bad manner, mainly owing to the fact that the solicitor for the defence was not present at Cork to instruct counsel who were appearing for the defence. He had to point out in regard to that, however, that after the Government had deprived these men of the solicitor whom they selected to defend them, they had been obliged to instruct a man who did not pay proper attention, or perhaps was not able to devote that attention, to the case which it deserved. But there wore other matters which he wished to bring forward. The evidence was of a particularly suspicious character. It was that class of evidence which was well known in Ireland, and was always used when no other evidence was forthcoming—the evidence of informers. The Crown suborned various witnesses to appear at Cork, and amongst them was a man named Michael Hayes, a blacksmith. His evidence was of vital importance to the prisoners; but the Crown kept him in their custody in Cork, and then at the last moment refused to call him. Mr. D. B. Sullivan, who was the barrister appearing for the defence, thereupon exercised what he (Mr. Kenny) thought was a wise discretion in refusing to call a man for the defence who for a whole fortnight had been in the safe custody of the Crown officials. Then, again, not more than a year since a man named Patrick Slattery made a dying declaration, in which he stated that he had been suborned by a police sergeant to give false evidence against the Delahuntys. That man made two distinct declarations on two different occasions—one about two weeks before his death, and the other about a week before his death. The last of those was made before two magistrates of the county, and the first and original document was made before the parish priest and the man's own brother. Now, he claimed this—that if a dying man in England left a declaration behind him that he had been suborned to give false evidence against two men in prison, that would be considered sufficient by the Home Secretary to justify an inquiry into such a case. He claimed, moreover, that in the case of the notorious burglar, Charles Peace, when he stated that he, and not a man in prison, had shot a certain policeman, that was not only considered sufficient for the Home Secretary to make inquiries into the case, but to liberate the prisoner and compensate him. This was not an agrarian case. It was not arising out of land, and was not a special question at all. The whole fact of the matter was that it was a case in which two men took occasion to vent their spite on two other men at whose hands they believed they had received some injury. It was on account of some injury, or an imaginary injury, that this charge was launched against the Delahuntys. Now, the two men who were in prison under a sentence of penal servitude for life were men against whom no evil report was ever launched previous to their arrest on this occasion. It was true that about two months before this charge was made the two Donnellans had made a charge against them, and they were taken to the Ennis Bridewell; but the gentleman on the Bench knew the spite of the Donnellans, and would not listen to their charge, and liberated the Delahuntys. The alleged outrage arose this way. The boy Donnellan alleged that he was driving cattle about 700 yards from his father's field. Donnellan, himself, said that as he was passing through the furze bush he was fired at by one of the Delahuntys, and that they then ran away. He (Mr. Kenny) had seen the place where the outrage was said to have occurred, and the distance would certainly not be more than four yards between the place where Donnellan said he was walking and the place where it was alleged the Delahuntys fired the shot.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he had endeavoured, but he had been unable, to trace any connection between the observations of the hon. Member and the items of this Vote; and he must say that if the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, endeavoured to retry in that Committee, or go through, a case which had already been tried by a judicial tribunal, he did not see how it would be possible to get through Supply at all, and he must call the serious attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he was really retrying a case and advancing opinions of his own upon it, and he (the Chairman) did not see that it had anything to do with the Votes before them.

MR. KENNY

said, he would respectfully point out that there was a Vote for Law Charges for Criminal Prosecutions in Ireland, and he believed that this case would come strictly under a heading of that kind, He submitted that he was perfectly in Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member would be in Order in referring to a case under that Vote, but not in retrying it. He was giving all the evidence in the case, and was giving them his own version of the case; and if every hon. Member adopted a similar course they would never get through Committee.

MR. KENNY

said, that any statement he made in that House must necessarily be an ex parte statement. All he was endeavouring to do was to give reasons in support of the request which he wished to make to the Government to grant an inquiry into this case. If the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) would rise in his place and say that there should be an inquiry, he would resume his seat; but, failing that, he must use all the arguments he could in support of an inquiry. Well, Donnellan said he was shot at; and the boy, 700 yards off, said he heard a gun shot or pistol shot, and about 10 minutes afterwards he saw the Delahuntys coming in the direction from which the shot was fired. That would have been scarcely sufficient to have convicted the two Delahuntys; and it was after that that the suborned witness was suborned to corroborate the statement of the young Donnellan as to the circumstances under which the shot was fired.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he must again point out to the hon. Member that he was endeavouring to establish that the decision given upon a certain trial had not been in accordance with the evidence, and in that he was not in Order. That Committee was not competent to try such a case. If there was any allegation against any person in Ireland whose salary came under that Vote, there would be no reason whatever why the hon. Member should not state the reasons for rejecting that salary.

MR. KENNY

said, it would not be necessary for his purpose for him to go into detail as to the evidence that was given at the trial, and he was quite willing to drop that portion of his remarks, although he claimed that it was an interference with the continuity of his remarks that he was not allowed to go into that matter. But he would ask the Chairman's leave to state one fact which occurred at the trial. It was this. The counsel for the defence was placed at a great and grave disadvantage on account of the fact that the solicitor who had originally instructed him had left Cork, and did not return until after the trial had taken place. He would show that that was material by showing what an important bearing his absence had on the action of one witness, who alleged that a certain girl had given one of the Delahuntys a pistol. Counsel was unable to call a witness to refute that statement, owing to the absence of the defendant's solicitor. But he (Mr. Kenny) had in his possession an affidavit from the girl, who said that, so far from her having given a pistol to one of the Delahuntys, she never had such a thing in her possession. In consequence of the ruling of the Chair, he (Mr. Kenny) was prevented from making out his case as he otherwise would; but he must point out this. This suborned witness, Michael Slattery—he did not say he was not a man of bad character; but if there was a moment when such a man would tell the truth it was the moment in which he was about to die, and the fact that at that moment he had made the declaration he had made ought to have been quite enough to induce the Lord Lieutenant to grant an inquiry. Now, this boy said he was driving cattle in the neigbourhood; but he (Mr. Kenny) had evidence from the boy's own mother that at the time the alleged outrage occurred he was seven miles away. He would not believe that any woman would falsely accuse her own son, under such circumstances, of having committed perjury.

MR. GREGORY

rose to Order, and said he believed they were now upon a Vote on Account; but the hon. Member was now taking them into the most minute details concerning a certain trial, and involving the administration of justice and the conduct of a Judge and jury, which, he contended, was altogether out of Order. It had been sprung upon them without Notice, and without any Papers on the subject having been placed before them; and he would ask, therefore, if the hon. Member was in Order?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he had already twice stated that the hon. Member appeared to him to be exceeding the privileges accorded by the House even in Committee of Supply. His arguments would be valid and good if they were upon a substantive Motion, but they were not so on a Vote in Committee of Supply. The points to which the hon. Member alluded, important as they were, had no connection with the Vote before the Committee. He was unwilling to proceed further; but, in his opinion, the remarks of the hon. Member did not apply to the Vote.

MR. SEXTON,

on the point of Order, contended that his hon. Friend was entitled to put his case before the Committee. His remarks did not deal with the trial, but with what had happened since. He would respectfully point out that this portion of the Vote was for Law Charges for Criminal Prosecutions in Ireland, and contained the salary of the Attorney General for Ireland, who might or might not advise the Crown as to the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy in the case of those men "who were now in penal servitude. In his opinion, his hon Friend had made out a complete case for endeavouring to obtain an inquiry into the case of those men, whom he believed should be released from penal servitude.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that if the hon. Member desired to impugn the conduct of the Attorney General for Ireland, whose salary was contained in this Vote, it would be a different matter; but he had brought before the Com- mittee various legal matters which the Committee was not competent to decide, and which had nothing to do with the salary of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. KENNY

said, he thought that if he was allowed to go into some of the evidence he ought to be allowed to go into all of it. He had no objection, however, to name Mr. Peter O'Brien, who conducted the prosecution, as the official whose conduct he would impugn.

THE CHAIRMAN

asked whether Mr. O'Brien's salary was included in the Vote?

MR. KENNY

said, he believed it was. He was Grown Prosecutor in those cases. He (Mr. Kenny) could not say exactly what he was; but he was in the habit of going round the country prosecuting on behalf of the Crown. He was referring, when he was interrupted, to the woman's statement that the evidence of her own son was not true; but, beyond that, he had further affidavits showing that an effort was made to suborn other people before Slattery was obtained.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he should be obliged to call upon the hon. Member to resume his seat if he continued in that strain. He could not allow the ease of the Delahuntys to be tried over again.

MR. KENNY

said, that, of course, if he were ruled out of Order in referring to this subject, he would resume his seat; but, at the same time, he should have preferred not to have been called upon to resume his seat in that way.

MR. SEXTON

pointed out that the hon. Member had given an outline of the case he wished to bring forward, and had asked the Government to grant an inquiry into the case of two men now in penal servitude. Ho would now call upon their Attorney General, therefore, to reply and state whether he could grant an inquiry or not.

MR. KENNY,

rising to Order, desired to know if it would be competent for the Attorney General for Ireland to reply to a case which ho had not been allowed to finish?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not be in Order in replying in detail to a case which had boon only half-opened by the hon. Member.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, that last Session they impugned the conduct of the then Chief Secretary, and opposed the grant of his salary. They endeavoured to obtain a promise that there should be an inquiry made into the case of Bryan Kilmartin. He had been sentenced to penal servitude for life for shooting at a man. The Chief Secretary rose in his place and said that, having seen all the Papers in connection with the case, he was of opinion that the conviction was right, and that Bryan Kilmartin ought to remain in prison. But Kilmartin had the good fortune to have the sympathy of some other Members in that House, and tho hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), and another Member sitting opposite, got up and said that the Irish Members had made out their case. The consequence was that the Prime Minister got up and threw over the then Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary, and promised an inquiry. The inquiry was held, and it then turned out that that trial and sentence of Kilmartin were unjust. The right hon. Gentleman opposite made use of an exclamation which he (Mr. O'Connor) would like to have translated into a more articulate expression. If the sentence was not unjust, why was Kilmartin released from penal servitude? But, however that was, the Chief Secretary at that time was thrown over. In this Vote the salary of the Chief Secretary was involved. Now, in order to make himself perfectly in Order in this matter, he emphatically stated that it was the deliberate intention of the then Chief Secretary, and it must be the whole effort of the person who occupied the position of Chief Secretary, to smother and suffocate inquiry into such cases as this in order to strengthen their own plea in support of the re-enactment of the Prevention of Crime Act. On the general question he shared the opinion of nine out of every 10 people in Ireland, who believed that, by the "white terror" which the present Lord Lieutenant had established in Ireland, the Delahuntys had been driven into penal servitude without sufficient evidence; and the best work which the present Chief Secretary could apply himself to would be to institute inquiries into all such cases. The right hon. Gentleman who now held the Office of Chief Secretary could not do better than inaugurate his appointment to his present position by instituting an inquiry into this case.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

confessed that he did not understand the object of the speech which had just been delivered. The hon. Member had introduced into the discussion another case which had been brought before the House last Session. That was another case altogether. The question which they were now discussing was whether the hon. Member was entitled to bring up all these matters on a Vote on Account, and that was the point which the Chairman had decided in such strong terms over and over again. He did not see any connection between the two cases.

MR.T.P.O'CONNOR

Same charge; same trial; same sentence!

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

But it was a different case altogether. The hon. Member had stated that the Chief Secretary was thrown over. He had stated that the Chief Secretary's object was to huddle up—

MR.T.P.O'CONNOR

Smother up!

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

To smother up such cases as this; but the trial of the Delahuntys had nothing to do with the Prevention of Crime Act.

MR. KENNY

They were tried under that Act.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

They were tried at the ordinary Winter Assizes, without any reference to the Prevention of Crime Act whatever.

MR. KENNY

By a Crimes Act Special Jury!

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

contended that the trial had nothing to do with the administration of the Prevention of Crime Act. The question was whether upon a Vote on Account such as this the hon. Member should be allowed to go into such matters. The hon. Member had introduced the name of Mr. Serjeant O'Brien, who had happened to prosecute on the occasion referred to; but there was no certainty that Serjeant O'Brien would be so employed in future, and, therefore, the whole point of the hon. Member fell to the ground.

MR. SEXTON

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland stated that he failed to see any analogy between the two cases cited. The right hon. Gentleman was not usually so difficult of perception, and he (Mr. Sexton) thought that he could in a few words show that there was a perfect analogy between the cases. These men, Bryan Kilmartin and the Delahuntys, were both accused of the same crime; they were both tried by juries specially selected from the panels by the Government in Ireland; they were both convicted of that crime and sent into penal servitude; and after the Delahuntys and the other man got into penal servitude, a man dying made a confession which threw a new light upon the case. Now, there was the analogy, and he regarded it as very instructive, and as a very complete analogy. When the man said he had done the crime, it was at first laughed at, scouted, and represented as grotesque in the House of Commons; but hon. Gentlemen on these Benches happened to excite the sympathy of two Members. On that occasion the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel) and the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) happened to be in the House when he brought forward the case. The House heard the matter with its usual inattention, for the voice was the voice of an Irish Member; but owing to the fact that the two Members referred to were present, he and his hon. Friends managed to get a hearing, and the promise that an inquiry should be held. Well, that inquiry was held, and at the first blush it appeared to the legal mind of the gentleman who attended the inquiry on the part of the Crown that the man who was then suffering penal servitude was innocent. Did the right hon. Gentleman now ask where was the analogy? It was in the fact that a man on his dying-bed, knowing himself to be about to die, had said not that he had done the crime himself, but that he had himself been suborned by the police to suborn witnesses to make their case good. Did the right hon. Gentleman say there was any difference? There was no difference whatever; all the circumstances in the two cases were parallel with each other. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland get up at the Table of the House and say that he persisted in the statement of the Chief Secretary, that there was no analogy between the two cases? The argument of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was that Bryan Kilmartin, having been released after inquiry because a dying man confessed that he had done the crime for which the other was condemned to penal servitude, an inquiry ought to be held equally in the case of the Delahuntys, and that it should be granted by Her Majesty's Government on the ground that a man had made a solemn confession of subornation on his dying bed. Would anyone say that there was a flaw in that reasoning? If there was a proper case for inquiry in one instance, there was, he contended, a proper case for inquiry in the other. But the right bon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland said there was no point in the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway. They all knew that the Government wanted to continue the Prevention of Crime Act in Ireland, and it was the policy of Irish officials accordingly to turn a deaf ear to arguments such as his hon. Friend had addressed to the Committee; they knew also that Earl Spencer was opposed to the advocates of Home Rule, and they were all aware that the right hon. Gentleman was the mouthpiece of Earl Spencer, and, notwithstanding the child-like simplicity of the right hon. Gentleman, they could hardly suppose him to be in favour of such a demand as that which his hon. Friend the Member for Galway had made, that an inquiry should be granted. And what was the objection of the Government to the granting of that inquiry? He would tell the right hon. Gentleman. It would show that convictions had been repeatedly had and sentences given on suborned evidence; the disquiet existing in the public mind, caused by the conviction of Kilmartin, would be doubled; and not only would a stronger feeling be spread against the Prevention of Crime Act in Ireland, but all honest Englishmen would say to the Government—"If you procure convictions on this evidence under the ordinary law, so much the more reason is there why we should deny you the further powers asked for." Did that suit the argument of the right hon. Gentleman? When they found that the law in Ireland was such as to put the lives of innocent men in peril by the tricks of the Crown Prosecutors, they said that the powers which put special facilities into the hands of the police for hanging men should not be given, and that Her Ma- jesty's Government should rely upon the ordinary law alone. He would now refer to the Tubbercurry case. That case had already been several times referred to; it was a matter not relating to officials in Dublin Castle; it had nothing to do with the Prevention of Crime Act; it concerned 12 men of his own district who had been suddenly seized in their beds and hurried away to Sligo Gaol. He might say, at that point, that when the Government in Ireland took a man out of his bed at night, they never failed to make a plump charge against him; the charge was usually in keeping with the melodramatic effect of the arrest. Accordingly, these men were charged with treason-felony and intent to murder; they were thrown into gaol; they were forbidden to see each other, and forbidden to see their legal advisers. While they were segregated, the police went to their private houses, and went into every detail week by week and day after day in their private lives. Then followed a series of remands which lasted from the month of April to July; in the month of July the Assizes were held, but the Crown, after having got its informers together, refused to go on with the trial; the men were sent back into gaol; they were taken from Sligo to Dublin, and from Dublin to Sligo, until the month of October last. He (Mr. Sexton) had repeatedly raised this case in the House of Commons; he had asked that the evidence should be again considered, but the Government knew what they were about; they put an informer in the cell with the accused persons, who endeavoured to worm himself into their confidence. At last the Government found that this system of dealing with the prisoners was of no avail, and they brought them to trial. The jury, when they heard the evidence of the informer, failed to convict the first man tried; they acquitted him, and they added to their verdict a strong expression of opinion. The 11 other men remained to be tried; and now what he had to point out bore upon the question of expenses. There was a large sum in the present Vote for Law Charges, and he objected to voting any money for that purpose until he heard what was going to be done in the Tubbercurry case. The law provided that where people were brought away from their place of abode to be tried, the Crown should pay the costs of the defence. The Crown had agreed to pay the costs and the expenses of the prisoners in question. He was aware that the sums expended by the prosecution upon witnesses were so excessive, that one gentleman who spent only 20 minutes in Court altogether had a cheque sent to him for a sum of money so extravagant that he felt bound in self-respect and manly shame to send the cheque back. What did that mean? It meant to convey to the people in Ireland that any man who was ready to give evidence against innocent persons would have any sum of money placed at his disposal. This was the most shameless system of corruption and bribery that it was possible to conceive. These men were kept up to last October in gaol; at the last moment they were brought upon a charge of treason-felony and conspiracy to murder. He (Mr. Sexton) happened to be in Court at the time, and knew most of the persons accused. He offered himself as bail; the Crown refused; he went day after day to the Court, and would it be believed that afterwards the Crown accepted him as bail in the sum of £200 for the whole of the prisoners—those 12 felons and conspirers to murder? Could anything furnish a more clear proof than this of the shameless and bogus character of the case? If the Crown had had in their possession a shadow of proof, he asked the Committee to say whether they were likely to have accepted the bail of one man? Eventually the case fell through. The informer would not swear to the men. Then came the question of the expenses of these persons who had been put upon their trial at a distance from their place of abode. Some of them were shopkeepers who had been taken away from their homes and businesses; they had witnesses to the number of 40; their neighbours and other people who knew them had been brought from the North-West of Ireland, by ear and by railway, to Sligo and Dublin; they had been kept in Dublin during three weeks, lodging and living there at their own expense, and hanging on the will of the Crown Prosecutor. Then they were told that they might go home, as there would be no trial at all. The Crown Prosecutors, after bribing informers, failed to make out any case against the accused persons, and they were told they might go away. They obtained a sum of money on account in October last. He was speaking in the month of May, and from the former time to the present he had never ceased to call upon Her Majesty's Government to fulfil the common duty of honesty by paying these men their expenses. The Government were ready enough to pay £500 to a man who committed perjury; any man who was ready to commit perjury, to supplement the story of informers, or to back up and assist the police in bringing innocent men to the gallows, would not have to wait 24 hours for the payment of his expenses; but when people came into Court and said—"I know these men; I believe them to be innocent," they would have to wait weeks and months without having their claim listened to. A man so placed might have to return home 160 miles at his own expense, and his Representative in that House might very likely go on for another year asking for his expenses. He had repeatedly appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in that House, and he had first assured him that he was in communication with the solicitor in Sligo, and then that efforts were being made to get the money paid. Then another change of venue was tried, and the matter was put into the hands of the Treasury at Whitehall. Ten days ago he asked whether the Treasury meant to pay the money or not? Half a-year had passed, and he asked whether the men were to be ruined for the want of the costs incurred in defending themselves in a bogus case, which the Government had shirked and failed to bring before a jury? Ten days ago the right hon. Gentleman said that an order had been issued; whereupon he (Mr. Sexton) tried to ascertain by whom that order had been issued, but he had failed to get any satisfaction; he could only learn that it was issued by the Treasury. He suffered himself then to believe that the Crown had at last paid the money to these people for the defence that had been thrown upon them; but what was his amazement at getting a letter that morning from the solicitor for the defence to say that he could not understand the reply given to him, that he had received his own costs, but that he could assure him that these costs incurred by the witnesses early last year had not been paid up to the present moment. Well, he thought the career of a footpad, who openly robbed on the highway, was more respectable than to admit of an action of this kind. The Government had been guilty of taking 12 respectable farmers and men of business out of their own county, thrown them on their defence, kept them in Dublin for weeks and weeks together, and then, after a year, still deluded their Representatives in the House of Commons with promises which were never carried into effect. He did not know how, after this experience, innocent people were to be protected from false charges by the testimony of respectable persons who knew them; but it appeared that to such a pass as this had they come with respect to Irish prosecutions.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)

said, that after the ruling of the Chairman, he should not be in Order in going into the legal case referred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he had no objection to raise to the manner in which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had referred to the expenses of the witnesses in the case of the men arrested at Tubbercurry. Those persons were entitled by Act of Parliament to their expenses and costs; it was their right to be paid. It appeared before the trial came on, and in order to enable them to be present to give evidence, the sum of £120 was paid on account for the expenses of the witnesses for the prisoners. After the Crown declined to proceed, the solicitor for the defence, who had a right to be paid his bill of costs, furnished a bill of costs claiming a large sum. The Crown Solicitor alleged that the £120 paid were sufficient, and that the bill of costs was too large; and the result was that ultimately the bill of costs of the solicitor for the defence was referred to Mr. Coll, the Crown Solicitor for Dublin, for taxation, and he certified the amount to the satisfaction of Mr. Tully, the solicitor for the prisoners. That bill ought to have included, according to the usual practice in all such cases, the expenses of the witnesses, as well as his own professional charges. The bill was then referred to the Treasury for payment, and an order for the amount certified had been made in the usual way—because, although the officials in Dublin acted in the first instance, it was from the Treasury that the order must proceed—and the solicitor for the defence had received the amount. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman suggested that the bill in question did not include the witnesses' expenses; if so, he thought it would be well for him for him to make inquiry on the subject. If the bill did not include the expenses to which the Act of Parliament entitled the parties, it was the fault of the solicitor who prepared it; but so far as he was at present aware, all the expenses properly claimable were included, or ought to be. If that be so, the question was one between the parties and the solicitor; and he was perfectly sure, judging from the practice, that the hon. Member would find that it was so, and that Mr. Tully was mistaken when he said that his bill of costs was distinct from the costs of the witnesses.

MR. O'BRIEN

said, he noticed that, in trying to explain the extraordinary system of arithmetical deception under which the men of Tubbercurry had been victimized, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had given no explanation whatever of the extraordinary reluctance on the part of the Irish Government to make any inquiry in cases like that which the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) had managed, at an earlier period of the evening, to place before the Committee. He (Mr. O'Brien) again referred to the case of the Delahuntys, because, as in that case, so in a great many others, there was suspicion on the evidence that a gross and cruel miscarriage of justice had taken place, and the proof was just as clear and convincing as it was in the case of the Tubbercurry prisoners. The fact was, as he believed, that the question which the Government asked themselves was—"How will an investigation affect other cases?" And it was that fact which made the Irish Government so fearful of entering into an investigation of these cases. The position sometimes taken up by the Irish Government appeared to be that there were other numerous cases in which there was reason to suspect that there had been fearful wrong and injustice done, and that, because there were so many cases, none of them ought to be investigated, for fear that it might turn out that in some of those cases innocent men in Ireland had been sent to the gallows. It was idle for Irish Members to argue, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had that night attempted to do, that there was no analogy between the two cases brought forward, or that the suspicions in the one case were not just as strong as in the other. The conviction of Bryan Kilmartin had been as strenuously upheld by the Government in that House as the conviction of the Delahuntys would be. It was so upheld until an inquiry was forced upon Earl Spencer, and Kilmartin's case was shown to be a fallacious one. He believed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not come forward in the House and give a guarantee that, if an inquiry were granted, the result would not be the same—namely, the release of these men. He (Mr. O'Brien) was able to say, as the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had said, that the people in Ireland believed that the Irish Government—he would not say knew, but, at all events, strongly suspected that in this case the result of an investigation would be to show that a frightful scandal in the administration of justice had occurred, and that it would result in the liberation of these men. The fact was, that Earl Spencer and the English Government knew, in the case of the Prevention of Crime Act, the mot d'ordre had been to obtain convictions by any means. They knew that the trials in all the cases under that Act had been scrambled through in haste, in a state of panic, and that little regard had been paid to the defences of the prisoners; that all sorts of witnesses had been pressed into the service of the prosecution, and that a number of gross miscarriages of justice were the consequence. He believed that it was because Earl Spencer was afraid to re-open that dark and blood-stained page of his administration in Ireland that there was now this extraordinary reluctance on the part of the Government on this occasion to grant Irish Members an inquiry into the case of the Delahuntys by an independent tribunal, which would show how convictions were obtained in Ireland. At all events, so long as the Government maintained the attitude they had taken up with regard to this case, and in so many others, he said that the House could not be surprised that the Representatives of the Irish people should resist to the utmost extremity any proposal to arm Earl Spencer again with powers that had been so misused that it was impossible to expect from them in future anything like an honest result.

MR. GREGORY

said, he did not think it ought to be allowed to go forth that that House was at any time in the slightest degree indisposed to discuss any case that might be brought before it if it could be shown that any useful purpose would be served by such discussion. He did not think it had ever shown the slightest indisposition to listen to any case that was properly brought forward and represented by any of its Members; but, at the same time, he could not help thinking it was a highly inconvenient course, and one that did not tend to raise the character or the credit of that House, to have questions of the kind that had just been raised—questions of a judicial nature, involving important considerations connected with the administration of justice—suddenly sprung upon the House without having been previously put upon the Notice Paper, without even a moment's warning, and without any evidence or documents upon which the House could decide, but altogether unexpectedly entered upon and discussed in the manner in which hon. Members seemed disposed to raise them on that occasion. The discussion that had been introduced by hon. Members below the Gangway had turned upon two cases, and presented two different aspects—one with regard to the treatment of the Delahuntys, and the other with regard to the action that had been taken in the case of the Tubbercurry prisoners, the latter being a matter not so much with reference to the administration of justice as with respect to matters affecting the Government of Ireland subsequent to the institution of judicial proceedings; and he could not but think that this latter case had been fully met by what had been stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. It appeared, from that statement, that the Government had made an allowance for the expenses of the defence in connection with that case. That allowance was, as he understood, made, in the first instance, by the pay- ment of a sum of money on account for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the defence; and, in the second place, by a payment very properly made for the remuneration of the solicitor. The solicitor would, indeed, have failed to do justice to himself or his clients if he had not sent in an account of the expenses unpaid on the previous account; and he thought it might he assumed that such an account was sent in, and that the expenses were paid by the Government of Ireland. But another question, which was wholly inappropriate to such an occasion as the discussion of the Vote under consideration, had also been raised by hon. Members from Ireland, and that was the case of the Delahuntys—a case on which points had been presented, involving questions as to the administration of criminal justice, the conduct of the case before the Court in which it had been tried, the action of the Judge and jury, the verdict the jury had returned, and the evidence on which that verdict had been found. He thought it a most inconvenient course that such questions should be raised before that House, and that it should be asked to take upon itself the functions of a Court of Criminal Appeal. But, at any rate, if the House were to be called on to perform such duties, it ought at least to have placed before it a full Report of the evidence on which the trial it was asked to review had proceeded. It should be in possession of all that had been stated by the witnesses who had been called, the ruling of the Judge, and the record of the sentence that had been pronounced. The House ought, indeed, to have a complete record before it of everything that had taken place before it was asked to form an opinion. For his own part, he did not wish to be called upon to pronounce an opinion until he was in possession of the fullest information; and he did not think it was within the functions of that House to occupy the position of a Court of Criminal Appeal; at any rate, if it were to be called upon to act in that capacity, it ought to have all the facts fully laid before it. He remembered a case that had been brought before the House at the beginning of the Session—he alluded to the Maamtrasna case, in which he had taken a good deal of interest; but he had thought, at the time it was brought forward, it was inconvenient to raise it in the manner in which it was then put before the House. But having carefully looked into that case, he had felt no doubt as to its nature, and he had ventured to say so to the House in support of the opinion he had then expressed. He should do the same in any other case of a similar character that might be put before the House, and on which it might be called on to pronounce an opinion. As a member of the Legal Profession, he should think it his duty to express his opinion, not merely by the vote he might feel called upon to give, but also orally, and in detail, as to the grounds on which that opinion was based. With regard to the case of the Delahuntys, which had been introduced into this discussion, he had before him now a statement of that case, which he had reserved for consideration, and which he should be prepared to go into and discuss at such a time as it could be properly brought before that House. He should be willing to entertain the questions arising upon it whenever it could be properly brought on, and to give a judicial decision on its merits as far as his powers would allow; but he must, on the present occasion, protest against the bringing forward of cases of this kind, involving questions as to the administration of justice—cases that had been submitted to a jury, and conducted with all the forms of procedure belonging to a trial by jury. He protested against such cases being made matters of oral statement in that House without any evidence being submitted by which the House might be guided to an opinion, for the House could not have any opportunity of forming anything like a reasonable judgment, or of entering into the evidence that was given, or the facts upon which the verdict had been founded, from the way in which the case had been brought forward. He very much regretted that the discussion could not have been stopped at an earlier period of the evening; and, as far as he might be allowed to do so, as a very humble Member of that House, he protested against the course that had been adopted. He objected to the continuance of a discussion on a question of this kind, although, as he had stated, he was willing to enter into the matter whenever it could be brought on after proper Notice, and with a proper opportunity of considering it. He trusted the Committee generally would concur in this protest against such cases being suddenly sprung upon it, and its being called upon to pronounce an opinion on such very imperfect evidence as had been brought forward on this occasion, when the matter under discussion was merely made the subject of vague declamation and loud clamour against the Government of Ireland.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had protested very strongly against two things. He had protested against their going into a discussion on the administration of justice in Ireland; and he had also protested against the bringing forward of cases such as had been referred to without proper Notice. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not aware that, in reference to the case of the Delahuntys, the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) had obtained the first place on the Notice Paper of last Friday for the discussion of that case upon a Motion of which he had given four weeks' Notice. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kenny) was fully prepared on that occasion to have gone into the whole of the circumstances connected with the case; but the Government had succeeded in preventing his doing so by permitting the House to be counted out, and the practical result of that proceeding was that the discussion of the question involved in the Motion had to be postponed from Friday until Monday. Had the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory), who had so sharply commented on the misconduct of those who brought forward this case without Notice, looked at the Order Book, he would have seen that four weeks' notice had been given of the intention to discuss that particular matter. He (Mr. Biggar) thought the Committee would agree with him that four weeks afforded sufficient opportunity for hon. Members generally to have considered the case, and ample opportunity for the Government to defend the course that had been taken with regard to it, if they had any defence to offer; but, for his own part, he did not think they had any defence at all. Surely a period of four weeks was sufficient for the hon. Member for East Sussex to have read up the Delahunty case, so as to have enabled him to give his judicial verdict upon the facts. The hon. Gentleman had stated that those who brought forward these cases were in the habit of making vague and declamatory speeches in that House. He (Mr. Biggar) was inclined to dispute the dictum of the hon. Member on that point. On the contrary, he was inclined to think that his hon. Friends who brought forward these cases were in the habit of stating them, chapter and verse, and of giving all the facts they had to bring forward with very great moderation. It ought to be remembered, on the other hand, that the Government were in possession of the Crown briefs, and of all the facts and circumstances connected with these cases, and that consequently they were in the best possible position for defending what had been done, if they had any defence to offer. But, as he had said before, he did not think they had any defence. What, he asked, was the defence of the Irish Members for the course they pursued? Their defence was that such a thing as justice did not exist in Ireland. They asserted that the system of hiring perjurers to give evidence in the Law Courts was notorious. They stated, moreover, that the authorities packed the juries, and changed the venue of trials in such a way that if any person who happened to belong to the popular Party in Ireland were proceeded against before a jury so selected, rightly or wrongly, he was sure to be convicted, with or without evidence; while, on the other hand, if an offender were proceeded against who did not belong to the popular Party, it was equally certain that the jury would, rightly or wrongly, acquit him. In the Newry case, the prisoner was brought to Belfast, where they had not the slightest idea of justice. It was, in fact, well known that a Belfast jury never gave an honest verdict, and he founded this statement upon his own knowledge. In that Newry case, the charge was that of firing out of the window of the Newry Orange Hall, and the prisoner was taken to Belfast, in order, as the Attorney General for Ireland would put it, to obtain an honest verdict from a Belfast jury, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) knowing very well that such a thing as an honest verdict from a Belfast jury was what could not possibly be had. Let the Government cease to hire perjured witnesses; let them cease to pack juries; let them cease to change the venue of trials to places where it was well known conviction or acquittal would take place, just as it suited their own particular views, and the Irish Members would have no cause to complain. But so long as they persisted in taking care that justice was not honestly administered, so long would the Irish Party protest against their proceedings, and draw the attention of the House to what was going on, whenever the opportunity occurred. He thought the complaint of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) against the Irish Members was unreasonable. They knew the cause of these packed juries, and that the Government were guilty of being accessories after the fact in all these cases of misconduct. They suborned juries, and perpetrated all the crimes they could possibly conceive, and yet the Attorney General for Ireland was ready to got up and declare that they had never packed a jury, although the fact that they did so was well known to everyone in Ireland.

MR. KENNY

said, he desired to call the attention of the Chairman to the question on which he had a short time ago ruled him (Mr. Kenny) out of Order. On the point of Order he would refer the Chairman to a case analogous to that which he had mentioned—namely, the case of Bryan Kilmartin. During the last Session of the present Parliament, a question was raised by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) in Committee on the identical Vote on which he (Mr. Kenny) had endeavoured to raise the question arising out of the Delahuntys' case; and inasmuch as the point was discussed in Committee, and not on the Motion to go into Committee, he had now to ask whether he was not entitled to continue the discussion of the Delahuntys' case, on the ground that it was of the same nature as the Kilmartin case which had been discussed last Session?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the case to which the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) had referred as having been discussed last Session was not ruled out of Order, and he could not say that the Chairman was wrong on that occasion. He could only judge of each case as it was presented to him. He had considered that the hon. Gentleman was giving in his speech too great development to the details of a case that had been tried before a Judge, and there- fore it was that he had advised him not to continue in that course. He could not say that the Kilmartin case being considered in Committee of Supply was improperly allowed to be discussed; but he must point out to the hon. Member that the Question before the Committee was a Vote on Account, in which there were various items put down for the Civil Service, and it was impossible to conduct the Business of Supply if cases that had been tried in Ireland were on such occasions as this to be tried over again in that House.

MR. KENNY

said, he would ask whether, in the event of his not carrying the case he had endeavoured to bring forward any further, the Attorney General for Ireland would not be entitled to reply on behalf of the Government, and state what action the Government proposed to pursue in regard to the prisoners?

THE CHAIRMAN

asked whether the hon. Member merely put the question as an inquiry addressed to the Attorney General for Ireland, or whether he wished to know if the Attorney General would be in Order in replying?

MR. KENNY

said, the Chairman had declared him to be out of Order in the statement he was making; but he had now shown that a perfectly identical matter had been allowed to be brought forward in Committee of Supply on a previous occasion, and as the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) was enabled to reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), he trusted the Attorney General for Ireland would be considered equally in Order in replying to the remarks which he (Mr. Kenny) had made on the case of the Delahuntys.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, until he heard the Attorney General for Ireland, he could not say whether it would be in Order or not.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)

said, the Government were not prepared to institute an inquiry, as the case to which the hon. Member for Ennis had referred had been fully and fairly tried, and to re-try the case in that House would not only be extremely inconvenient, but would, as the Chairman had already ruled, be out of Order. If, however, the hon. Member would bring the case forward on a future occasion as a substantive Motion, he should then be prepared to state the reasons why the Government were not prepared to grant an inquiry.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, the statement just made by the Attorney General for Ireland was one that would greatly disappoint the expectations of the Irish people, and he was still more disappointed at finding that the present Chief Secretary had not availed himself of the opportunity of replying to the distinct challenge that had been offered to Her Majesty's Government. He very much regretted that after his hon. Friend (Mr. Kenny) had been permitted to bring forward his case, even in the mutilated form it had assumed through his not having been able to complete it, the Chief Secretary had not taken the opportunity of offering some opinion upon it. The Attorney General for Ireland had got up and stated that it was most inconvenient that cases of this kind should be brought forward and retried in that House. That was the stereotyped answer that was always given when a demand was made for inquiry into any Irish case which he had ever known brought before that House. It was invariably said that the course pursued in bringing the case forward was most inconvenient, and that the House could not judge the matter. This was a piece of cant which he should have thought would by that time have been expelled from the Parliamentary vocabulary even of Law Officers of the Crown. He would point out that when the Irish Members had brought forward the Kilmartin case the same sort of thing had occurred. The Chief Secretary for Ireland then said— The case was carefully gone into by the Judge who tried it. All the papers were sent to the Chief Secretary, whose sole function it is to represent the mercy of the Crown, and the power which the Crown has of re-trying the case. [Mr. SEXTON: Who was the Judge who tried it?] Judge Lawson. [Cries of "Oh!" from the Irish Members.] Yes; Judge Lawson, than whom, I must say, there is no abler nor juster Judge. The Lord Lieutenant went carefully into the case himself; and as an application had been made to me in this House, and as it was not improbable that the question would come before the House upon the Estimates, His Excellency submitted the papers to me, and I studied them with great care. I may say that I entirely concur with the judgment of His Excellency and of Judge Lawson that the case stands quite complete and separate from the confession of Gauly, and that that confession does not shake the case as it stands in the very least particular."—(3 Hansard, [291] 1193.) And within two months the man, who had been sentenced to penal servitude for life, was restored to liberty. He (Mr. O'Connor) had ventured in that case to raise his voice in favour of the man, and the Home Secretary then said— In dealing with a matter of this kind, it certainly requires the calmest exercise of judicial faculties, and I hope that it will not be approached in the spirit of the speech to which we have just listened. We are, however, used to the violent and abusive language in which the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has indulged."—(Ibid. 1200–1.) He (Mr. O'Connor) would like to know what hon. Members would say if he were to apply the same sort of language to them. The right hon. Gentleman had proceeded thus— I say that habitually the language used by the hon. Member, and by hon. Members sitting by him, towards my right hon. Friends is violent, abusive, and most unjustifiable."—(Ibid. 1201.) The result, however, of his (Mr. O'Connor's) most violent, abusive, and unjustifiable language was that the Irish Members had forced an inquiry down the throat of the right hon. Gentleman. If they had the Prime Minister present, and one or two English Members were to get up and join their voices to those of his hon. Friends who had brought forward the case of the Delahunty's, an investigation would doubtless be ordered, the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have to swallow his words, and the unfortunate prisoners would be restored from a penal servitude which was almost worse than death to their homes and families. He thought the conduct of the Government in refusing the inquiry asked for had been most unreasonable.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he doubted whether he was in Order in making any statement upon this subject; but, while he could only repeat that the Government were not prepared to institute the inquiry asked for, he might also say that if the subject were brought up as a substantive Motion, his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would be prepared to go into the whole case.

MR. DEASY

said, he could not understand the attitude assumed by the Government in regard to this question. It appeared that if his hon. Friends had been enabled to bring the case before the House on a former occasion—which they had been prevented from doing—the Attorney General for Ireland would have been prepared to have met their statements. If that were so, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to meet the ease and to refuse the inquiry asked for, why had not the Government kept a House, so that the matter might have been discussed last Friday? His hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) had given Notice of his Motion four weeks ago; and, although it would have come on at an early hour last Friday, he was not aware that at the time it was to have been gone into there was a single Member of the Government on the Treasury Bench, with the exception of the Attorney General for Ireland. There might possibly have been one or two others present; but, in any case, the Government had made no attempt to keep 40 Members in the House. He remembered at one time seeing 13 Members of the Government seated on the Treasury Bench; but every one of their followers was sent out of the House, so that the Irish Members should not have an opportunity of entering upon the discussion of the Motion that had been put upon the Paper. If there were any desire on the part of the Government that the question should be considered, why did they not otter the Irish Members a night on which it could be discussed in a more regular form than it could take on the present occasion? As far as the case had already been gone into, he submitted that it had been made out by his hon. Friend (Mr. Kenny), and that, inasmuch as the Chairman had allowed the hon. Member to proceed with a great portion of his speech, it was clear that the Attorney General for Ireland would have been perfectly entitled to go into at least that part of the speech which had not been ruled out of Order. He had, at any rate, placed such a statement before the Committee as would have persuaded any fair-minded man that an inquiry was necessary in order to ascertain the truth of the charges that had been made with regard to the conviction of the unfortunate men for whom he had pleaded. In his opinion, it was perfectly idle to sup- pose that any hon. Member sitting on those Benches could believe that the Government of Ireland, or any single individual connected with the administration of justice in that country, was disposed to do what was right and just. They knew that perfectly well, because they lived in the country, and had witnessed the acts of injustice that were constantly being perpetrated. They knew that no Irish official ever cared what became of the unfortunate people of Ireland, as long as he could maintain the confidence of his superiors and draw a salary. The Irish Members had from time to time furnished many instances of that. During the present Session, unfortunately, the Government had debarred the Irish Members from taking any important discussion on the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland. That was not the first occasion on which they had, during the present Session, endeavoured to impugn the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and had been ruled out of Order. It was very difficult, there fore, for them to know what course they ought to take with a view of having Irish grievances discussed by that House. If the Government continued the practice they had began with regard to the conduct of Business in that House, their time would be so monopolized that they would not be able until the end of the Session, and until the Prevention of Crime Act had been renewed, to find an opportunity for debating matters of that kind. They, therefore, felt it to be their imperative duty to avail themselves of every possible opportunity, no matter how unfavourable it might be, of bringing under the notice of the House the conduct of the officers of the Crown in such eases as those of the Delahuntys and the Tubbercurry prisoners. The Irish. Members had been reviled by an hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) for not having given sufficient details to enable him to form a correct judgment on the case that had been submitted. If the hon. Member to whom he referred were then present, he would remind him that they were not allowed to go into the question in the way they desired to do. If they had been permitted, they would have been able to have enlightened that hon. Gentleman to a considerable extent, so that if he were not absolutely prejudiced on the subject, he would have felt bound to have voted with the Irish Members; but he had no confidence in the kind of judgment the hon. Gentleman would have been likely to have formed. He had stated that he had had in his possession for some time a pamphlet containing a statement of the facts; but, notwithstanding that there had for some weeks been a Motion on the Paper for a discussion of the question, the hon. Gentleman had not yet opened that pamphlet. He did not think hon. Gentlemen opposite had come into the House prepared to take a fair view of the subject. He was afraid that most of them came there prejudiced against anything which the Irish Members might bring forward, and that it was, therefore, impossible to convince them, no matter what facts might be brought forward. He would not be astonished at anything that would be said against Irish law officials or against special jurors. He would give one of the reasons why. Mr. Peter O'Brien had given the greatest offence to Catholic jurors in Cork by his conduct as Crown Prosecutor in challenging Catholics on special juries—such offence, indeed, that those gentlemen had signed a Memorial against his conduct, and had declared that if they could possibly avoid it they would not serve even upon a common jury, seeing that they were not to be permitted by the Crown to serve on special juries. The moment the names of those gentlemen were called in Court they were, one after another, told to stand aside as being unworthy of belief on their oaths, whilst those who were empannelled were almost invariably Masons and Orangemen. Masons and Orangemen were put on the juries wherever it was possible; and he submitted that so long as such conduct was allowed to go on in Ireland—and there was no Court of Appeal there in criminal cases—and so long as Irish Representatives had to come over to the British Parliament, they would be obliged to bring such matters as these under the notice of the House of Commons. It was all very well to say that the House of Commons was not to be made a Court of Appeal; but if it was not made a Court of Appeal, what Court of Appeal were the Irish Members to resort to? The Irish Members came here, very much against their will, to discuss these matters. It was not a pleasure to them to have to raise such questions—to bring before the notice of the House such glaring instances of cruelty as they had to raise from time to time. They did it with the greatest reluctance; but they were obliged to do it in the due discharge of their duty. He regretted that the Government had taken the course they had taken with regard to the Irish Members this Session. He himself had had a Notice on the Paper with regard to a most important matter involving the conduct of certain officials who were paid under the Vote now under consideration, and he had obtained an opportunity for bringing the discussion on; but the Government had taken the evening from him. On other occasions, when Irish Members bad had Questions on the Paper, the Government had monopolized the entire time of the House, and the result had been that they had been unable to bring under the notice of the House and of the country, through the House, the manner in which the Lord Lieutenant and his underlings had behaved. He did not suppose that anything the Irish Representatives could say or do would influence the majority of the Members of the House; nay, he did not expect any English Members would go into the Lobby with them, because those who came to take part in the division would come in from the Smoking Room or the Dining Room simply to vote for the Government, without having heard a word that had been said by the Irish Members, or knowing anything of the subject, or caring anything about it. But this course on the part of English Members, however persevered in, would not prevent Irish Representatives from bringing forward these questions, and debating them as fully as the Rules of the House permitted, if they believed that by so doing they enlightened public opinion outside. Of course, it would be highly inconvenient to Her Majesty's Government, if there were a full House, to hear the representations of the Irish Members. In the course of a week or two the Prevention of Crime Act would be before the House—a Bill would be introduced to renew it; and if a full House heard the just demand of the Irish Members for an inquiry into this case it might accede to it; the result, there could not be the slightest doubt, would be the release of the men now suffering penal servitude, and that would be a strong argument against the renewal of the Act. The men had been convicted because they were tried by a tribunal upon which no reliance could be placed. It only required some impartial tribunal to investigate such cases, and within a month they would have the majority of the men convicted under the Prevention of Crime Act set free. It might be said that if that Act were done away with Earl Spencer would resign. But what would that matter to the Irish people? Under any circumstances he could not be much longer in the country; and when he went the people would, at any rate, have the consolation of knowing that he could not be succeeded by a worse Lord Lieutenant. But even though the Lord Lieutenant threatened resignation, and even though to prevent that resignation certain clauses of the Prevention of Crime Act were renewed, he (Mr. Deasy) did not see that that justified them in keeping in prison men who were innocent of the offences for which they had been tried. But it was useless for him to go more fully into the matter now. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had had an opportunity of replying to the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny); but he had not availed himself of it. They knew why he had not done so. It was not because in adopting that course he would have been out of Order, but because he had no valid reason to give for the course the Government had taken in the matter. It was useless, therefore, to endeavour to impress upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the desirability of granting an inquiry. It was waste of time to tell him that they believed these men to be innocent, because there could be no doubt he knew it as well as they did themselves.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, he did not wish to say many words on this question. He was only anxious to support the statement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Deasy) in the view of the case he had just put before the Committee. The Government at present were tied to the car of Lord Spencer, and wherever he led them they were bound to go. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was anxious to quote a passage which had come under his eyes only that evening in turning over the letters of Junius. Junius, speaking of a certain politician, said— In what repute can he conceive that he stands with his people when he sees, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that, whatever be the office, the suspicion of his favour is fatal to the candidate? He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) contended that that was the position in which the present Viceroy of Ireland found himself, and that if that had been written by a writer of the present day it could not have more correctly described Lord Spencer's repute amongst all classes of the Irish people. Such was the condition of Ireland, because while the Viceroy was really the Leader and the despot of the Government in Ireland they could have nothing but dissatisfaction, both in large cases and in small, in all Departments of the Government. Irish Members could only do as the hon. Member for the City of Cork had done—namely, endeavour, by impressing that condition on the House of Commons again and again, to awaken them to a sense of the impossibility of the Government, under such conditions and under such a Leader, acting in a manner satisfactory to the Irish people.

MR. DEASY

said, he had another question to raise which he had brought before the House at an early period of the Session, but which, owing to the Forms of the House, he had been unable to state for more than a few minutes' time, Mr. Speaker having ruled him out of Order. However, having brought the subject under the notice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, he felt sure that by that time he would have informed himself upon it, and would be able now to give a reason why Mr. John O'Brien, Town Councillor of the City of Cork, had not been placed upon the Board of Governors of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum. He (Mr. Deasy) had to complain of the manner in which that Board of Governors discharged its duties. The manner was unsatisfactory, and it was because of the kind of men who wore placed upon it by the Lord Lieutenant, who had the making of the appointments in his own hands. But, before he went any further, he (Mr. Deasy) would point out to the Chairman that there was a sum for the salary of the Lord Lieutenant included in the Vote before the Committee, and that, therefore, he was entitled to refer to a body of Governors whose appointment was vested in the Lord Lieutenant, and who had intrusted to them, the administration of money that was paid under a different class altogether to that which was paid under these Votes. Boards of Governors generally in Ireland were mainly constituted of the landlord classes, the people who made the money and paid the rates for the maintenance of those asylums having no representation? whatever upon them except by the goodwill of the Lord Lieutenant—and he must say that, as a general rule, Lord Lieutenants in Ireland had not evinced any very general disposition to place on those Boards men at all representative of the people whose money the Boards squandered. Take, for instance, the composition of the Board in Cork. There were such men upon it as Lord Mount Cashell, who was about a century old; Lord Bantry, who spent the greater part of his time in Australia and other places abroad; and others of the same kind who never for a moment considered the interests of the people or the amount of money they squandered so long as they were able to appoint their own friends to lucrative positions. The Corporation of the Cit of Cork contributed £7,000 annually towards the maintenance of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum, and the Government contributed largely. Of course, he had no objection, under those circumstances, to the Government nominating a certain portion of the Board; but he had a great objection to the ratepayers of the City of Cork not being allowed to appoint a single representative of their own on the Board of Governors, without the permission of the Lord Lieutenant. The ratepayers had had grave reason to be dissatisfied with the conduct of the Governors. Four or five years ago they found that a number of contracts were improperly given in connection with the Asylum, and they had good cause to believe that a great deal of the money found by the ratepayers was misspent. The Corporation had been in the habit of nominating members of the Board, with the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant; but when two vacancies occurred some time ago, and two gentlemen were nominated to fill them, Earl Spencer only selected one of the nominees, and that gentleman he had appointed the very day after his nomination, doubtless for the reason that he was a member of an Orange Lodge and one of the leading Masons of Cork. The other gentleman, Mr. John O'Brien, the Lord Lieutenant had absolutely refused to appoint. It was now well understood why Earl Spencer had refused to confirm the nomination. It was because Mr. O'Brien had refused to be present at a dinner given to the Lord Lieutenant about a couple of years ago, and because Mr. O'Brien had been sentenced to two months' imprisonment and a plank bed. The imprisonment and plank bed were bestowed upon Mr. O'Brien for making a speech which he (Mr. Deasy) should consider moderate. Another reason why that gentleman had not been appointed was because the Lord Lieutenant feared that if he were put on the Board of Governors the little game of the Orange Freemasons on the Board would be, to a certain extent, spoiled—that they would be no longer allowed to vote addresses to Earl Spencer without opposition. The District Asylum had been the only place in Cork at which the Lord Lieutenant had received a cheer when on a visit to that city a short time ago, and probably he did not wish to have the apple of discord thrown in amongst his devoted friends. At airy rate, whatever the reason was, his Lordship had refused to appoint Mr. John O'Brien in spite of his nomination by the Corporation. The people of Cork complained of that, because they had been anxious to have Mr. O'Brien on the Board in order to advocate reforms, particularly in regard to the giving out of contracts, as it had been ascertained—in the woollen business especially—that tenders had been refused which were at a far lower figure than those which had been accepted, the reason being that the persons who had sent in the lowest tenders did not quite come up to the Dublin Castle standard. The interests of Cork, in fact, had been to such an extent prejudiced by the action of the Lord Lieutenant, by refusing to appoint the nominee of the Corporation of that city, that it was almost time to advise the Corporation to bring the Lord Lieutenant to reason by refusing to grant the supplies necessary for the working of the Asylum. There was a Motion down for consideration in the Town Council to take such a step, unless the Lord Lieutenant could see his way to appoint Mr. O'Brien. The Board did not want to be intruded upon by any outsider who would be anxious to act honestly and in the interest of the ratepayers; and it could be easily understood why they were reluctant to be so intruded upon, when it was borne in mind that only 12 months ago the auditors had surcharged the Chairman and two other Governors £250 for illegal expenditure. The auditors were under the Local Government Board, which was under the control of the Lord Lieutenant; and ultimately, the matter going before the high officials on the representation of the Governors, the items in respect of which the surcharge was made were admitted. This was a gross fraud on the ratepayers of the district, and he hoped that the Government, as they did not seem inclined to bring in a Bill for the reform of County Government, or any measure which would deal with a question of that kind, would at least see that in those matters the interests of the ratepayers, who contributed so largely to the maintenance of pauper lunatics, were properly represented on the Board of Governors. There was not upon the Cork District Lunatic Asylum Board a single representative of the agricultural classes—a single person representing the farmers of that vast county, although they had to pay a large proportion of the expenses of the Asylum, the landlords in respect of their property contributing not a single farthing'—that was, contributing nothing in respect of that part of their property which they did not occupy themselves. There was every reason why the people of Cork, as well as the tenant farmers, should complain of having the present system in force any longer; but, as that was not the question under discussion, he should confine himself to urging upon the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant the desirability of reconsidering the case of Mr. John O'Brien, and of advising the Lord Lieutenant to have that gentleman appointed on the Board of Governors of the Cork District Asylum in compliance with the demand of the Corporation of the City. If the right hon. Gentleman did not do that, he would probably hear more about that matter than he had heard that evening, because there would not be a Vote coming under the notice of the House which related to County Government in that county, to the contributions for the maintenance of pauper lunatics, or the salary of the Lord Lieutenant, upon which he (Mr. Deasy) would not be prepared to raise this question. He should like, also, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was the intention of the Government to retain in office in the Asylum Dr. Eames, a doctor whose case had been discussed more than once in that House? It would be remembered that Dr. Eames was one of the physicians appointed by the Government to examine into the case of James Ellis French, and one of the physicians who pronounced James Ellis French to be insane, though a short time afterwards he was declared by a jury to be perfectly sane, and was sent to gaol. That case of French was not the only one in which Dr. Eames had shown his incapacity to take charge of cases in the Asylum. About 12 months ago one of his (Mr. Deasy's) own constituents applied to Dr. Fames for a form of tender, or a form for a milk contract. Dr. Eames told him he wanted a form of committal; and before the unfortunate man could show that he was perfectly sane, and that he only applied for a form for a milk contract, a strait-jacket was put on him and he was placed in a cell. The man afterwards brought an action against the doctor, and the doctor paid him some damages. So that in the brief period of about 12 months two clear cases of incompetence were proved against Dr. Eames. The Irish Members, however, might as well hold their tongues as mention the matter at all except through the House. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would promise to make an inquiry into the capacity of Dr. Eames for filling his present post, because he had himself serious doubts of the man's sanity. He made the statement with great reluctance here; but there was a general impression abroad that Dr. Eames was not a fit man to be intrusted with the care of the unfortunate people in this Asylum. Another question in connection with this matter which he should like to raise was—

THE CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. Member whether Dr. Eames's salary is included in the Vote before the Committee, because the question was gone into very fully a few days ago, and it was not admitted then that he was a salaried servant of the Government. Is his salary in any way included in this vote?

MR. DEASY

said, Dr. Eames's salary would come under Class VI., which was for the maintenance of pauper lunatics in Ireland. There was another Vote for the salary of the Lord Lieutenant which, he maintained, would render this subject in Order. But his further remarks would not have so much to do with Dr. Eames as with pauper lunatics, which would come under the head of Class VI., Vote 5. The Cork Asylum was built for about 1,200 patients; but at present there were not 900 in it, while the workhouse was overcrowded with poor people, and had to accommodate 300 pauper lunatics. Those unfortunate lunatics had no chance of recovering on account of their surroundings, no proper provision being made for them; and his contention was that they should be removed to the Cork District Asylum, where there was ample room for their reception, where they would be properly treated, and where the percentage of recoveries would be far and away higher than in the workhouse. So long as there was room in the Asylum those people ought to be sent there for proper treatment; and he submitted that the Board of Guardians ought to be compelled by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to send their pauper lunatics there under a doctor's certificates, and the Board of Governors obliged to receive them. If the Government would be content to pay a portion of the expense of their maintenance there was no reason why those helpless people should not be admitted into the District Asylum. Hundreds of people were treated in the Asylum, the expense of whose maintenance should not, under any circumstances, be thrown upon the rates. People were taken in, no matter where they came from—whether from England, America, or Australia—and became chargeable to the Cork ratepayers. The people of Ireland had not the privileges that people similarly circumstanced possessed in England, consequently the people of the City and County of Cork, and the people of Kerry, were saddled with large and very unjust expenses in respect of lunatics who were landed at the ports within the district who ought not to be treated in Ireland at all, but who could not, under the existing law, be sent back to the Unions to which they belonged. In conclusion, he wished to express a hope that as the Government did not intend to introduce their County Government Bill that Session, the Chief Secretary would take care that power was conferred upon the authorities in Ireland enabling them to compel Boards of Governors to levy the rates fairly and to expend them honestly.

MR. JOHN O'CONNOR

said, he would endeavour to draw the attention of the Committee to a few figures which bore on this subject. The ratepayers of Ireland paid nearly £130,000 per annum for the support of pauper lunatics—they paid £123,702, whilst the Government contributed £98,200 this year, according to Vote 5 in Class VI., and in 1883 they contributed £92,866. Those figures showed a very great increase, and whilst the figures were increasing for the support of pauper lunatics they had the anomaly that the population of the country was decreasing at a great ratio. He thought he should be correct in stating that the population of Ireland had decreased since the last Census by 200,000 persons. Then, what was the cause of the increase in the amount expended on pauper lunatics—was it that pauper lunatics in Ireland were on the increase? No, that was not the fact, as the figures showed; then it must be due to some extravagance on the part of the Directors, who were appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. That had been particularly the case in Cork; and the Corporation had discovered that great irregularities prevailed on the Board in connection with the issuing of contracts. Those irregularities had been conspicuous in connection with contracts for the purchase of the woollen materials used in clothing the pauper lunatics. Well, the Cork Corporation, as they had contributed so largely to the support of the pauper lunatics, and as the Lord Lieutenant, on a former occasion, acceded to their request to have a certain number of their body appointed on the Governing Board of the Cork District Asylum, thought it would be advisable to send to the Board a man who was an expert in the matter of those contracts, and upon whom would devolve the duty of seeing that the pauper lunatics were well treated, and that the taxpayers and the Imperial Revenues were not cheated by the maladministration of the Governors appointed by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant. Therefore, they decided to send to the Board a man who was an expert in the woollen trade, and they selected a Councillor of great integrity and repute, Mr. John O'Brien. The name of that gentleman was sent up to the Lord Lieutenant, and day upon day, week upon week, month upon month elapsed, and yet Mr. O'Brien was not appointed to the Board. Why was it? "Was it because he was not a competent business man? No; that could not be the case, because he had made his own business a success and he (Mr. O'Connor) held that anyone capable of making his own business a success was a fit and proper person to look after the business of other people. Was it, then, because he was a bad public man? That could not be either, because he was a respected and faithful representative of the people in the locality in which he dwelt. Then, what was the reason? They could come to one conclusion, and one only—namely, because he had slept for two months on a plank bed for the commission of an offence and a breach of laws the Irish people considered more honoured in the breach than the observance. He (Mr. O'Connor) held that the offence Mr. O'Brien had committed was no reason why he should not be intrusted with the administration of the affairs of the Cork District Asylum. The Government saw amongst the Irish Members many who had suffered the miseries of imprisonment, and yet they asked them to come here and aid and assist them in the enactment of laws for the better government of Her Majesty's subjects. The Irish Members were, therefore, entitled to ask—"Is what is right in St. Stephen's wrong in connection with the Cork District Lunatic Asylum?" Yet such was the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Government hinted at the passing of laws for the better government of Ireland—they promised them laws for the development of County Government and for the improvement of Local Government generally, and it would be in the hands of such a Viceroy as Earl Spencer that they would place the administration of those laws. Look at what a muddle the Lord Lieutenant had brought things to in Limerick—see the collision he had brought about between the authorities of Dublin Castle through the imposition of an unjust tax; and yet the contest that was going on between Dublin Castle and Limerick was taking place elsewhere, although it had not received equal notoriety. And yet they would sustain in his position a Lord Lieutenant who placed himself in opposition to localities in this way, and would, furthermore, place in his hands the administration of those laws which had been promised to the people of Ireland for their better government.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, the question which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Deasy) had raised was, after all, only a portion of a much wider question which he thought the Government, whatever might be the pressure on their time and resources, ought to take in hand at the soonest possible moment. Every year, whenever occasion offered, he had urged this matter on the attention of the House; and he should think he was remiss in his duty if he failed on that occasion also to state what he thought ought to be done in this regard. The question of the whole treatment of paupers and pauper lunatics generally in Ireland was a question which could scarcely be studied without feelings of indignation and disgust. Only two months ago he had put a question to one of the officials of the Government as to the condition of the district lunatic asylums in Ireland. He had asked whether it was not the fact that out of 22 asylums there were not 11 in which the number of inmates far exceeded the number for which the buildings were registered? The Government had to admit that it was a fact; but in palliation of it it was urged that there were other lunatic asylums which were not up to their full establishment. But that had nothing to do with the case. In at least 50 per cent of the district lunatic asylums of Ireland, the number of patients was so great that there was not adequate accommodation for them, and the staff was insufficient to look properly after them. Another portion of the case related to lunatics who were the inmates of workhouses; and he supposed there was not in the United Kingdom any class more deserving of commiseration, and having a greater claim on the attention and time of the House, than this unfortunate set of people, who were absolutely unable to do anything for themselves. What was the fact? Why, in many of the pauper establishments in Ireland there was absolutely no classification whatever. The consequence was that lunatics were the habitual, daily, and nightly companions of persons who were sane. In certain poorhouses in Ireland—however it might amuse the Home Secretary who was laughing—they were habitually required, day after day, to spend the whole of their time from morning till night in the company of lunatics. He had mentioned more than once the case of Dingle Asylum, in West Kerry. They there found female lunatics left in a large shed which could not be called a room, with no floor but the cold earth—a shed which served also for the children's playground. In the whole of Europe no people could be found who were in a more mournful condition than those in that place. He had cited the case of that institution now for three years in succession, and not only that case, but the treatment of paupers generally in the workhouses of Ireland deserved a very searching investigation. He had on more than one occasion observed, and he would observe again, that the amount of nourishment given to many of those paupers would not keep a mere idle person in a normal condition of health. Three years ago he had privately obtained particulars of the amount of food given to the adults, and the sick, and the children in some of those workhouses. He would not go into the amount of nutritious elements—the nitrogen and carbon—contained in the food, nor the weights, nor go into a comparison of the quantity and quality of the food supplied to those poor people and that supplied to prisoners in England; but he had shown, and could do so again, to conviction that the state of the unfortunate people in the Irish workhouses was something disgraceful. He had submitted the figures to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), who had admitted that the quantities as marked out were fairly open to challenge. The right hon. Gentleman, at his (Mr. A. O'Connor's) request, after investigating the Roturn submitted to him, handed it to the then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster). That right hon. Gentleman had promised that in the ensuing Recess he would cause a careful investigation to be made into the subject; but he (Mr. A. O'Connor) was sorry to say that investigation was never made. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford was succeeded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) a similar promise was obtained from him; but it was kept in precisely the same way. Now, in his turn, he wished to ask the present Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) if he would cause some inquiry to be made, not only into the condition of the lunatics in the Irish workhouses, but into the amount of food given to the rest of the inmates? Such an inquiry would not be a very difficult thing to institute. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was willing to lay on the Table of the House a Return of the scales of dietary in force in the West of Ireland—in the two Provinces of Connaught and Munster? He was certain that if the right hon. Gentleman would obtain such a Return, and would submit it when obtained to competent authorities to report to him as to the amount of nourishment to be obtained from those scales, and necessary for ordinary adults in fair health, and even without the necessity of doing anything like heavy physical labour, he would come to the conclusion which the medical authorities who had been consulted had come to already—namely, that there was not a sufficient amount of nourishment given to those poor people to keep them in a normal state of health. The consequence was that they had an amount of debility, helplessness, and hopelessness in the Irish workhouses that would not be dreamed of in this country, and that the mortality amongst the workhouse children was greater than it was amongst the children of the poorest people outside the workhouses.

COLONEL NOLAN

trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would now reply to the various points raised, as he (Colonel Nolan) desired to touch upon a different topic.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor), he refers to certain promises which have been made to him—he does not unfold a tale of a very encouraging character. He says he received promises from my two Predecessors, which, in neither case, were fulfilled. Well, Sir, I shall avoid the somewhat dangerous step taken by my Predecessors. I will say this, however—that I fully recognize the importance of both the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. With respect to the dietary scales in workhouses, perhaps the best way to proceed will be for the hon. Member to kindly communicate to me the facts which he wishes to bring out, and I can assure him that I shall be very glad indeed if anything can be done to satisfy him with regard to the matter in question—I shall be especially glad if any disclosures lean bring about will lead to any necessary amelioration of the dietary of the workhouses. As to the other point—namely, the pauper lunatics, I quite appreciate the great importance of that matter; and I shall be very glad indeed if, by any attention I can bestow upon it, it can be put on a better footing than it is. I am not without a little experience with regard to investigation on that particular point. I will not go very far in giving additional promises; but I admit with the hon. Member that the subject is one well worthy of being inquired into, and if he can suggest any particular way in which an improvement can be effected I shall be very glad to meet him. As to the other points alluded to at considerable length by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Deasy), I can only say that these matters connected with the Cork District Lunatic Asylum were fully brought up and discussed in Committee on the Supplementary Estimates. The whole question concerning the conduct of Dr. Eames, and of the appointment of another Governor, were brought up, and I was then able to make a reply on the whole case, with the facts and papers before me. I have nothing to add to the reply that I then made. I was able, for instance, to show the hon. Member that the reason why no appointment was made to the Board of Governors by Earl Spencer was because there was no necessity at that moment for any addition to be made to the Board, especially of representatives of the town. I showed that in proportion to the money paid by towns were more liberally represented than were the country districts. I am speaking now from memory, and I have not the figures before me. It was on that ground, and on that ground alone, that no appointment was made at the time it was proposed. The Cork Corporation claimed the right to nominate, which, as a matter of fact, was never conceded to them. It has always been customary, as far as possible, to consult local interests; but the responsibility for appointing proper people for the position rests with the Lord Lieutenant. It is not a responsibility that the Lord Lieutenant covets or desires to retain. He would be much bettor pleased if in the process of time, as I hope it may be, the whole duty is handed over to some Local Authority; but as long as the duty falls upon him he is bound to discharge it, and cannot devolve it on any other body.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary give me, if I move for it, a Return of the dietary scales in force in the workhouses?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I do not see that there can be any objection; but I will consult with the hon. Gentleman on the subject. I can make no promise.

MR. PARNELL

The reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the junior Member for the City of Cork as to the question of the appointment or the non-appointment of Mr. John O'Brien on the Board of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum is singularly illustrative of the policy of the Irish Executive, and of the difference which exists between that policy and the supposed policy of the Liberal Cabinet and Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in his speech just now, stated that the Lord Lieutenant is most desirous that the duties in connection with the governing of this lunatic asylum shall be handed over to some Local Authority, and certainly the action of the Lord Lieutenaut is very indicative of the extent of his power for the handing over of these duties. The law, as it stands at present, does provide for a certain amount of local action and responsibility—a very small amount of local action and responsibility—on the part of the Cork Corporation. As the law stands, the Cork Corporation have the right of nominating for the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant three members out of 60 who compose the Board of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum. Up to very recently the Corporation had the right of nominating four. As a matter of fact, they have that right still. On a recent occasion a vacancy occurred in this number of four nominated by the Corporation, thus reducing the members so nominated to three. Well, the Corporation of Cork met to consider who they should nominate to fill this fourth place. Due notice of the nomination was given, and all the formalities provided by the law were complied with. It was not contended that their action was illegal, ultra vires, or irregular in any respect. The result was that, after a formal debate and division, the Corporation, by a majority, decided to recommend to the Lord Lieutenant, as their nominee, Mr. John O'Brien, one, I believe, of their own number—a Town Councillor of the City of Cork, and consequently a gentleman admirably fitted for the discharge of the duties of membership of the Cork Lunatic Asylum. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has told us that Earl Spencer is desirous of effecting an extension of local elective responsibility; but in this particular case, where an opportunity was given to him to recognize that responsibility and that authority, what did he do? Why, he threw it on one side. We have been told by the Government for a number of years, and especially by the Prime Minister, what their desire to extend the system of elective local authority in Ireland is; and where it does exist, even to such a small and partial extent as a right to nominate four members out of a Board consisting of some 60, nearly all the balance of the 60 being nominated by the Government, what does the Lord Lieutenant do? He thrusts upon one side, without ceremony, the nomination of the Local Authority, limited as their power is, being, as they are, only a nominating authority, the Lord Lieutenant having the right to override their nomination. The Lord Lieutenant refuses to accept the nomination, and he leaves the representation of the Corporation of Cork upon this Board—which manages the affairs of a lunatic asylum, towards the expenses of which the Corporation of the City contributes £7,000 a-year out of the rates of the citizens—at three instead of four members. Now, the City of Cork pays one-fourth of the income of the Asylum. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is the Chief Secretary of a Liberal Government which is most desirous of extending local self-government in Ireland—which, in fact, are in tears because, owing to the necessity of passing a Coercion Act, they cannot pay any attention to the enlargement of the local responsibility of the country. The Government is most desirous, and has been for a number of years, of doing this; and here we see an Irish Chief Secretary coming forward to defend the action of a Lord Lieutenant who absolutely tramples on all the principles of local self-government in Ireland, and of the representation of the taxpayers. Here is the City of Cork, which contributes a quarter of the income of the Lunatic Asylum, asking for four members out of 60, or 1–15th of the representation on the Board, and its demands are ignominiously flouted by Earl Spencer, no valid reason being given for that conduct, which the Irish Members contend is entirely inconsistent with all the representations of the Government and of the Liberal Party. The right hon. Gentleman said, a while ago, that this question had been fully discussed on the Supplementary Estimates, and that he had already given a full reply. Now, I venture to contend that neither of these questions was discussed on the Supplementary Estimates, and that the right hon. Gentleman did not give a full reply. I have before me a report of the discussion. I find that the Chairman of Committees—I am quite sure most properly ruled—that the discussion was out of Order, and refused to allow the junior Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Deasy) to proceed with it. He found that, it was not germane to the Vote. The Vote then before the Committee had reference to a limited portion of the Asylum, and had no relation to the question of the appointment of Mr. John O'Brien. The Chairman ruled it out of Order, and it is, therefore, preposterous for the right hon. Gentleman to say that a question so ruled out of Order, as beyond the intention of the Vote, was fully discussed.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

We discussed the question for quite an hour.

MR. PARNELL

Hansard does not mention how long the discussion took; but I have before me the ruling of the Chairman of the Committee, in which he decided on two occasions that the discussion could not proceed, and decided it during the speech of the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the City of Cork, who was bringing the matter forward. Now, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is reasonable to suppose that a question can be fully and properly discussed on a Vote when the Chairman rules that that Vote is not of sufficient scope to allow it to be discussed in accordance with the merits and facts of the case? I turn to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not find there any sufficient reply to even the limited arguments that were used by my hon. Friend, or which my hon. Friend had been permitted to use up to the time of the Chairman's intervention. Before sitting down I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether we are to suppose that the attitude he has exhibited in reference to this question, and the spirit which he has shown in defending the acts of Earl Spencer in reference to this matter, are an indication of the spirit in which the Government intend to propose a settlement of the question of local self-government in Ireland? I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that so long as we see such action as that of Earl Spencer in reference to a matter of this kind, and such action as that of the right hon. Gentleman, and so long as we hear such speeches as those that have proceeded from the right hon. Gentleman in defending Earl Spencer's action in reference to this matter—which is not a question connected with the maintenance of law and order and the administration of justice, or the integrity of the Empire, or the upholding of the Union, or any other of the great functions and things that Englishmen are ready to die to maintain—so long, I say, as we see this spirit on the part of the Irish Executive, so long shall I entertain the opinion that it will be better for them to leave local self government alone. I say that if the spirit of Earl Spencer is to be the spirit with which the Liberal Cabinet and the Liberal Party intend to propose a settlement of the question of local government in the next Parliament they had far better not put their hands to it.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

The hon. Member who has just sat down has not precisely represented the state of affairs as to what he calls the rights of the Corporation. The Cork Corporation have no rights in the matter at all, in a legal sense. The Corporation have no right in the world to nominate or take any steps in the matter; but out of courtesy it is usual to listen to the recommendations made by the Corporation. The person upon whom responsibility devolves under the Act of Parliament is the Lord Lieutenant, and there is no question at all under the Act of any right or privilege whatever belonging to the Corporation. It is a mere question of courteous interchange of opinion. As a rule, the recommendations of the Cork Corporation have been acceded to. [Mr. PARNELL: Always.] No; not always. I am speaking from knowledge on the matter, and from having had in my possession all the Papers bearing on the point. I am able to say that there have been cases before in which the nomination of the Corporation has not been adopted. The reason this particular name—Mr. John O'Brien—was not put on the list was because the list was already full, and there was no occasion to appoint a new Governor. It rests with the Lord Lieutenant to say whether he will appoint many or few, and in his opinion there was no occasion to appoint more at this time. As to the number which may be nominated by the town of Cork, it is not limited to three or four. But, considering the proportion of the expenses contributed by the town, the Executive have to consider how many of the Governors shall belong to the town, whether their names are submitted by the Corporation or not. It will be found that there are a larger number of townsmen in proportion to their contribution than there are country members. That is my recollection; but I only wish to put the hon. Gentleman right by saying that the Corporation has no legal right in the matter, and that the whole responsibility rests with the Lord Lieutenant. So long as that responsibility rests on him, which he himself considers, and which I consider, to be almost an anomalous position of things, it is impossible for him to devolve it upon the Corporation of Cork, or anyone else.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

asked whether it was not the unbroken cus- tom and usage to appoint the City Members as Governors of the Institution? Was not that the unbroken custom and usage down to the time when his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) became Member for the City of Cork; and when he did become Member for the City, was not the hitherto unbroken custom broken through? Was it not the fact that at the present time neither of the Members for the City of Cork was a Governor of the Institution? Was it not the fact that the present Government, which professed to be thirsting for the establishment of local institutions everywhere, had gone in this case entirely against the spirit of the locality, and had, so to speak, disestablished the popular Members for the City of Cork, while they had established in perpetuity the less popular—he would not say the unpopular—Members for the county?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

was sorry to say that he was unable to refer to any Papers on the subject, and that was one of the consequences and inconveniences of bringing the matter on in that way. When the question was raised on the Supplementary Estimates, when the Vote for Lunatic Asylums was under discussion, he took care to have all the Papers and all the necessary information at hand; but now he had nothing to refer to. Still, he remembered the facts as to the question of the Members for the City of Cork being necessarily supposed to be also members of the Board of Governors.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

I did not say "necessarily;" I said "by usage and custom."

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Well, by almost invariable custom and usage. According to the best of his recollection the custom had not been invariable; and he thought it was departed from at a more remote date than that to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had referred. But the question was raised by the Cork Corporation, and he certainly had not been able to discover that it had been at all associated with the advent of the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Parnell). The Corporation wished that the practice should be revived; and when his (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's) opinion was asked, he said he did not think the Member of Parliament for the City was necessarily a proper person to be put upon the Board of Governors, because such a Member was not always connected with the borough in any other way than by his Membership. Many Members had no connection with the locality they represented at all. They did not reside there, they had no intimate knowledge of the facts necessary to be known for the efficient discharge of local duties, and they would be altogether undesirable persons to appoint upon such Institutions. He knew that if there was an asylum in his own constituency he should be very unwilling to be put upon the Governing Board, because he was very seldom there, and he was not properly qualified in regard to an intimate knowledge of local requirements; but the county Members in most cases were resident in the county. They were gentlemen who could take an interest in its local affairs, and they were in an altogether different position from Members of Parliament, who had no local qualification, and who were merely associated with a place in a Parliamentary sense.

MR. SEXTON

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had complained of want of Notice. If those Irish Members who were interested in the question had not been able to give Notice, the fault was not theirs. The Government now came forward for a Vote on Account for a certain number of weeks' Supplies. They must have known what they wanted beforehand. They must have been well aware a week or a fortnight or a month ago that they would want this particular Vote that week. Why, then, did they not say so? Why did they only give Notice late on Friday night that the Vote would be asked for to-night? The Irish Members had had no time to collect Papers or information. The fact was that the precipitancy of the Government in asking for the Vote was entirely due to their own studious reserve in refraining from giving any Notice of it until the last possible moment. As to the complaint of want of Notice, they were all quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman did not really want Notice, for what he wanted in documents he was always able to make up in ingenuity. The right hon. Gentleman had put forward this argument—that Members of Parliament were elected to Asylum Boards when they were really connected with the locality, and that the county Members were placed upon the Board for that very reason. Well, if that were so, why was not his hon. Friend the junior Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Deasy) appointed? That hon. Gentleman lived within two miles of the city, within the Parliamentary boundary, was an elector, was a ratepayer, was a Member for the city, was a member of the Board of Guardians—in fact, he combined in himself as many urban qualifications as a local candidate could possibly have. But because he did not troop after the Government Whips in the Lobby, but followed his Colleague in the representation of the city (Mr. Parnell), and took an independent view of Irish questions, he was not fit, forsooth, to sit upon the Cork Lunatic Asylum Board. Such was the principle upon which Members of Parliament were excluded from posts of public importance and honour in Ireland. If the speech of the right hon. Gentleman meant anything, it meant that. The right hon. Gentleman had tried to account for the fact that a merely nominal Home Ruler like the Member for the county, or a fossil Tory like the late Member for the city, was good enough to sit upon the Cork Lunatic Asylum Board; but that, according to the wise and discreet exercise of the jurisdiction and privileges of Earl Spencer, a Member of the really National Party headed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) was not fit for anything of the sort. The right hon. Gentleman had crammed more inaccuracies into his speech than he (Mr. Sexton) had ever heard in a speech of the same extent. He had said that the number of vacancies upon the Board was filled up. As a matter of fact, there was no particular number to be filled up.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

No; I did not allude to a fixed number.

MR. SEXTON

You said there were no vacancies.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I did not allude to a fixed number.

MR. SEXTON

Then what was it that was to be tilled up? The Lord Lieutenant could make 100 or 1,000 Governors at his pleasure.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I did not use the phrase. I said that on a former occasion the Board was filled up. What I said was that Earl Spencer did not make these particular appointments because he considered the number of Governors was sufficient; there was no necessity to make more. If I used the phrase, "The number was filled up," I did not mean to convey what the hon. Gentleman assumes at all. It rests with the Lord Lieutenant to appoint many or few, as he thinks fit.

MR. SEXTON

said, the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, so far, was satisfactory. No doubt, the number of members who should be upon the Board was quite within the power of Earl Spencer, who could make as many or as few as he chose. But what was the next point? The right hon. Gentleman had declared that this was not the first refusal which the Lord Lieutenant had given to the county, and that he had done on former occasions what he had done now. The object of that argument was to show that the Lord Lieutenant was not, on this occasion, influenced by any objectionable or indefensible motive. But ho (Mr. Sexton) maintained that nothing of the kind ever occurred before. It was true that the Lord Lieutenant at first refused to appoint Alderman Nagle; but in the long run he did appoint him.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Perhaps he may appoint this one, too.

MR. SEXTON

dared say he might. If the Lord Lieutenant had any sense lie would do so, because he would find that the inconvenience which would spring up from an absolute refusal to appoint this Gentleman would be much greater than would be compensated by any self-satisfaction which the noble Earl might derive from the refusal. The only instance which could be given was not a case in point, for there was no refusal in the end. The Corporation had always had four members appointed; but now they had only three. The annual income for the support of the Asylum was £26,000, and of that sum the Cork Corporation paid £7,000, or one-fourth. The Asylum had 40 Governors, and the Corporation, according to any reasonable calculation, ought to have the appointment of 10 of them. If this inequality between the proportion of cost defrayed by the Corporation and the power of nominating members of the Governing Board were to be found to exist, say, in the case of Liverpool, or in the case of the particular Scotch town in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was interested—what would be the result? Sup pose there was an Asylum there, and the Corporation paid one-fourth of the total income, and the Corporation, by law, reason, usage, or custom, had acquired a right to nominate a certain number of the Governors, what would the Scotch people say the proportion ought to be? Why, not four, but 10, of the members of the Governing Board; and the Lord Advocate would have to get up in his most oily and honeyed manner, and say that the matter should be made right. If the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate were informed that a Corporation in Scotland was paying one-fourth of the income of such an Institution, he would say that common sense and equity alike dictated that that Corporation should have a corresponding share of the government of the Institution, and in 24 hours it would all be made right. But the Irish people in such a case were to be put off with all manner of fallacies and delusions, which practically amounted to this—that the Corporation of Cork were to have the right of suggesting a certain number of members, but that the Lord Lieutenant was to have the right of rejecting them. That was a very unequal kind of right. He (Mr. Sexton) maintained that this Corporation, which paid a certain proportion of the money for the maintenance of this Asylum, ought to have, 1d. for 1d., a share in its government proportionate to that amount. There was no other reasonable arrangement which could be come to, and why should Earl Spencer be allowed to overturn and upset the reasonable and ancient Constitutional maxim that representation should accord with and follow taxation? He had only one fact to add. There were two vacancies in the past year, and the Lord Lieutenant had refused to fill them. The Corporation used to have four members upon the Board, and now they had only three; and not only did the Lord Lieutenant refuse to fill up that Corporation vacancy, but he had also refused to fill up the two vacancies that had arisen outside the Corporation, be-3ause, if he filled up either of those, the object of refusing to fill up the Corporation vacancy would at once be apparent. Earl Spencer was, therefore, forced to allow the other vacancies to remain unfilled. It was the shallowest pretence to say that because certain Governors lived in the city they might be regarded as representing the city. The citizens' money was paid out of the purse of the Corporation, and the Corporation had a right to elect a fair proportion of the Governors who were to administer the fund. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had made many feeble attempts to defend lame cases during his short period of Office, but never had he excelled the feebleness and lameness of that night.

COLONEL NOLAN

pointed out that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary admitted that the case was anomalous, he was not the first person to use that phrase in this connection, and could not lay claim to originality, because a Predecessor of his in the Office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant—the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach)—spoke more strongly still about nine years ago, and said it was "the most anomalous method of appointment he knew anywhere," and that "it ought to be remedied." Well, they had four years of a Conservative Administration after that, and there was no remedy. They had since had five years of a Liberal Administration, and not the slightest shadow of a remedy. Considering that they were now within three or four months of a General Election, he did not think the Liberal Chief Secretary had spoken nearly so strongly as the Conservative Chief Secretary, and not in so favourable a sense, because the Conservative Chief Secretary gave them very strong promises. It was true that those promises were never realized, but still they were very strong; whereas the promises of the present Chief Secretary were very mild indeed. As to the placing of Members of Parliament upon the Asylum Governing Board, the action of the Government was as far as possible the adoption of the local feeling of the aristocracy and county residents. The Sheriffs took the greatest trouble to keep the Home Rule Members of Parliament out of everything. About two years ago there was some arrangement made—some word went round that the Home Rule Members were to be kept off, and there had been a regular systematic attempt, which had increased of late, to keep the Home Rule Members from everything as far as possible, and that had been done in several cases. In one case in his (Colonel Nolan's) own county the3' had to keep off his Colleague, who sat on the Government side of the House, because that Colleague must suffer for his (Colonel Nolan's) politics—a most unfortunate matter for the hon. Gentleman he referred to. That, at all events, was the general opinion of the county. As a matter of fact, the Irish Home Rule Members were there to vote the money, and then the English Members and a few of the aristocracy of Ireland administered it. That was a system which was of very little importance so far as the Asylums were concerned; but it was important in the way in which it affected the general system of the administration of Imperial and local funds. In that respect this case of the Asylums was about as strong and fair an illustration of the general system as could be brought forward. Hon. Members were simply brought there to be good boys and vote millions of money. He was very glad that the Irish Members took no part in voting the Credit of £11,000,000 for the preparations against Russia. The fact was that the Leader of the Opposition did not get up at the proper time to exercise his natural functions, and so the Vote was unexpectedly agreed to. The Irish Members objected to the general system under which they were brought there to vote away money the administration of which was to be left entirely to other hands. However, he did not wish to dwell so much upon that point as to draw attention to two or three practical facts. The Irish Members had, at all events, this advantage, that they could make themselves heard in this place. They had no power of administration in their own country, and no power of dictating foreign policy; and they were now getting to this condition, that they did not vote all this money—it was taken from them whether they liked it or not. But though they were not allowed to share in the administration of their country, they could, at all events, talk about it, and he would like to bring one or two facts before the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. In the first place, he rather thought these Votes on Account were too much objected to and abused. They were really an excellent system, for they gave an opportunity two or three times in a Session of bringing the general state of Ireland before the country. The only objection that he had to the present Vote—nearly £3,500,000—was that it was too large. He would rather see it brought forward £1,500,000 at a time, for then it would afford more opportunities for discussion. That was the more important, as the Prime Minister had confiscated all the days on which private Members had the opportunity of bringing questions before the House. It was most important, then, that the Irish Members should use these opportunities when they did arise. There were two or three questions which he wished to bring under the notice of the Committee. The first question related to the Police Act, under which the people had to pay heavily, and that constituted a great grievance in his own county of Galway. He had no objection to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland giving directions for individual protection where it was needed. It had been done in Galway; but in his part of the county he could see no necessity for it. He said that where this individual protection was given it should come from the ordinary Constabulary Force, and be paid for in the ordinary way out of the sums annually voted for that Body by Parliament. He believed that the law of the country, if properly administered, was ample for the protection of the people. The Constabulary Force was managed to a certain extent by the Government, and to a certain extent by local men. If it was said by anyone that there were not enough constables in a county a larger number were sent there, and the poor people in the districts had to pay for them. And it was that which constituted the grievance of which he had to complain. He believed that if there were an Official in that House whose position was dependent upon his pleasing the people, this matter would have been inquired into in order to see how the law was administered, and then he was convinced that it would have been found that the sum at present voted by Parliament was sufficient for the requirements of the country in respect of police protection. Whether the practice he was complaining of was continued for the purpose of keeping open a sore he knew not; but whether it was so or not, the money was being screwed out of people who could not pay it, and, under the circumstances, he thought it constituted a very proper case to bring forward in that House. The second subject to which he desired to call attention was the extraordinary inaction of the Board of Works so far as arterial drainage was concerned. When the Land Act was passing through Parliament he had suggested that the tenant farmers should be allowed to get small sums for the purpose of draining their land. That was agreed to, and embodied in the Act; but he believed the minimum sum to be advanced was fixed at £50—at any rate, it was fixed at £50 by the Board of Works. He had never contended that the tenant farmers should be able to obtain small loans of £5 or £10, because that would be on the face of it bad and careless legislation; but he did contend that several tenant farmers, having each to do drainage to the value of £10, should be allowed to club together, and by thus making up the required minimum get their small amount of drainage done. But they were not allowed to get the money in this way, as he was informed, owing to the laziness of the officials of the Board of Works in Ireland. He did not expect the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to go into these matters of detail; but he did hope that he would pay some attention to the subject, and that he would not always be looking after the police work of the country. That had been the case with the right hon. Gentleman and his Predecessor, although he would not say that it had been so with the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under the late Conservative Government. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he would look into the matters he (Colonel Nolan) was laying before the Committee, and would do something to remedy the grievances complained of, he would make a greater change in the state of Ireland in six months than had been made by the Government in 10 or 15 years. He did not blame the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for the existing state of things, because he did not consider that the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of Office had been long enough to enable him to understand the question thoroughly; but, as he had stated, his experience of Chief Secretaries during the last 10 years was that they had chiefly occupied themselves in watching the Dublin police who were brought up to take their orders from the Chief Secretary. If the police in Ireland were placed under a more enlightened system the people of the country would, instead of looking upon them as their enemies, regard them as their best friends. The next subject he wished to refer to was the Irish Privy Council, with regard to which he had given Notice of a Motion. It was quite true that he had secured a day for the discussion of that Motion; so he had with regard to other Motions; but the days on which they would have come forward had been confiscated, and it was very likely the same thing would happen with regard to the Motion about the Privy Council, seeing that it related to matters connected with Ireland. He should not be surprised if it were to be confiscated in order to give Her Majesty's Government an opportunity for talking on the Coercion Law. Now, with regard to the Privy Council, Ireland. The late Lord Chancellor was an eminent lawyer, and against his memory he had nothing to say. He had, however, to refer to his action in the case of a railway in his county of Galway, which passed through a district which was doubtless well known to many Members of that House, and which, because of its romantic character, was very much visited. The baronies had voted a large sum of money—as much as 2s. 8d. in the pound—for that railway, which, although he would not go into the question whether it was a good or a bad railway, he was under the impression was a good and useful one. Now, the railway in question, although it had passed all the other Bodies, was thrown out by the Privy Council. He was not going to say that the Privy Council were extremely wrong in the course they took; but his own opinion was that the railway ought to have been passed. In this matter the Tramway Act had broken down.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. and gallant Member must not pursue that subject now. He could not anticipate his Notice on this Vote.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he should, of course, obey the ruling of the Chairman, and would branch forth into another matter, which was not altogether without connection with that on which he had been speaking. He pointed out the inexpediency of voting any money for Privy Councillors or any Judicial Officers on the Treasury Bench. Without saying that they were not good Officers, which was entirely beside the question, he was of opinion that instead of the Privy Council there ought to be some Local Body in Ireland more or less elected by the people. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), although ho had not gone into the matter at length, had already spoken upon that proposal. He was satisfied that, if they had in Ireland a body of men constituted in the manner he had described, instead of the Privy Council, to attend to these matters, they might, in a comparatively short time, effect a number of necessary useful and permanent reforms in the country.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. and gallant Member could not continue to discuss the subject of the Privy Council. There was nothing in the Vote relating to that Body.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he knew that hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House were not very much in favour of the proposal he made with regard to the Privy Council. The Government would not allow Irish Members to have any voice in the spending of the £8,000,000 voted for Ireland, and even when he and his hon. Friends remonstrated in connection with any portion of the money voted they would not listen to them. He said it was more than hard—it was in the nature of tyranny—to extract Irish money from the pockets of the people, take the whole of it, administer the whole of it, and then to refuse to listen to reasonable remonstrances, which had for their object the improvement of the condition of the Irish people. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was a member of the Privy Council, and there was the Supreme Court of Judicature connected with the Privy Council. He wished to point out that the Privy Council in Ireland was a Body which consisted almost exclusively of paid members. He believed that the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland was a member, and with that exception and one or two others all the members of the Privy Council, were paid under the Vote before them.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. and gallant Member was not in Order in discussing that subject. There was nothing whatever on the Estimate for the Privy Council.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he should take an early opportunity of objecting to the Privy Council in Ireland; and he would now urge some objections against the Vote for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant, and move its reduction by the sum of £1,000.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would, of course, be in Order in referring to the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but he would not be in Order in moving the reduction of the Vote.

COLONEL NOLAN

asked on what Vote ho could discuss the question of the Privy Council?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be in Order in discussing it when a Vote for the Privy Council was proposed.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he objected to the item of £50,000, and he did so on the ground of the appointment of the Officers of the Privy Council. In England they did not have Judges on the Privy Council; a few of them were, no doubt, Privy Councillors; but in Ireland the words Judge and Privy Councillor were synonymous, and their salaries were voted in that House. He acknowledged that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was a great authority on the subject; and ho believed that the hon. Member said they were not paid out of this Vote, but from the Consolidated Fund. He (Colonel Nolan) knew that was the case; but he and his hon. Friends contended that, although they were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, they received a good many extra allowances under these Votes. The three points to which he had called attention were—first, the grievance of the people of Ireland with regard to the Constabulary; secondly, the inefficient action of the Board of Works in relation to drainage in Ireland; and, thirdly, the objectionable constitution of the Irish Privy Council, for which, ho contended, another Body ought to be substituted. Those three points, if not cardinal, were, at all events, in the second class, and were well worthy of the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. If the reforms he had indicated were carried out, it would show the people of Ireland that their welfare was a matter of concern to their Governors; and, in that case, he believed that they would have a much greater respect for them than they had at present.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he had not the figures relating to the police with him, and did not wish to quote them from memory; but if the hon. and gallant Member would be good enough to put a Question to him in the House upon the subject, he believed he should be able to give him a satisfactory reply, and one that would show that a very considerable reduction had been made. With regard to the Board of Works, he quite saw the importance of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated; but the matter in no way came under his supervision, and he was, therefore, afraid that he could give no information on the question of loans to tenant farmers. Then with regard to the Privy Council in Ireland, the hon. and gallant Member was well aware that this question of dealing with railway and other schemes was not peculiar to Ireland; it had reference also to England. There had been, he believed, either a Bill or a Motion before the House that Session to constitute a Body in the Provinces—in some parts of England, Scotland, and Ireland—to deal with all those questions. In some respects it was thought that that would be more satisfactory than the existing arrangement. The Privy Council in Ireland was very different from the Privy Council in England—it corresponded to what was in England called the Judicial Committee; but the subject was too large for him either to form an opinion upon or to discuss at that time in the morning (1 A.M.), although it was one well worthy of attention.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.