Commons Sitting of 21 May 1885

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolution[May 18] reported;—Postponed Resolution[May 7] considered and agreed to.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order ٭ [194]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) ٭ [192]; Intermediate Education, Wales [195].
Second Reading—Local Government (Gas) Provisional Orders٭ [170]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) ٭ [168]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4)٭[169]; East India Loan (£10,000.000) [109]; Princess Beatrice's Annuity ٭ [187].
Select Committee—River Thames (No. 2)٭ [90], nominated.
Report of Select Committee—Post Office Sites [No. 208].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment٭ [139], and passed.
Report—Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1) ٭ [131].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Honorary Freedom of Boroughs [153], and passed.
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 2)٭ [155]; Waterworks Clauses Act (1847) Amendment [152], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE—DISTRICT INSPECTOR HURST, STRABANE.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a Letter, dated £5th April, has been received by Colonel Bruce, complaining of the conduct of District Inspector Hurst, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, in making insulting observations on the Irish people, and drinking "The glorious, pious, and immortal memory of William III.," &c. in. the public smoking-room of Sims' Hotel, in Strabane, Inspector Hurst at the time being in uniform and Catholics present in the room; and, whether any action has been taken in the matter by Colonel Bruce?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Colonel Bruce received a letter to the purport referred to; but the writer of it, a Mr. Gallagher, disclaims having made any complaint. Colonel Bruce will take

  1015
  such action as he thinks necessary in the matter.

  SUPPLY—THE VOTE OF CREDIT.
  MR. SALTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, inasmuch as it appears that £7,250,000 were spent previous to the passing of the Vote of Credit, From what sources and on what authority-such large sums of money were drawn?
  MR. HIBBERT(who replied) said: My right hon. Friend did not say that £7,250,000 had been spent. He said that it had either been spent, or was due for liabilities incurred. The actual expenditure of the Army and Navy up to date is quite within the sums already granted by Parliament, exclusive of the Vote of Credit.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—THE LATE ROYAL COMMISSION—EXPENSES OF MEDICAL WITNESSES FOR PAYMENT OF SUBSTITUTES.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the case that the medical officers of Her Majesty's Prisons in Ireland, who attended to give evidence in Dublin before the late Royal Commission on Irish Prisons, are being compelled by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to pay out of their own pockets the substitutes appointed by the Prisons Board to do their duties in their absence, and that under threat of dismissal if they do not comply; and, whether this is in accordance with the decision of Baron Dowse at last Summer Assizes in Galway in the case of "Rice v. Her Majesty's Prisons Board?"
  MR. HIBBERT: No, Sir; the facts are not correctly represented in this Question. The medical officers of Her Majesty's Prisons in Ireland, who gave evidence in Dublin before the late Royal Commission on Irish Prisons, received the same allowance as is paid to medical men appearing as witnesses before other Royal Commissions and Select Committees of this House. This allowance is calculated to cover professional losses, which include the payment of a substitute where necessary. If, therefore, the gentlemen who performed the duties of these medical officers during their absence had received any direct remuneration from the public funds, the same payment would have been made twice
  1016
  over. I feel sure that any objection on the part of such medical officers to pay the due amount to their substitutes must be founded on a misapprehension. The judicial opinion referred to is in substantial accordance with the Government's practice, though the technical form in which the payment is made is different.

  EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION)—THE SUAKIN-BERBER RAILWAY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for War, If there is any truth in the statements of the Suakin Correspondent of The Times of 15th May, alleging failure and friction in the making of the Railway there through Messrs. Lucas and Aird; and, how much of the amount already expended on or due for that work is to be paid to Messrs. Lucas and Aird for their own behoof (apart from the payments to men engaged through them), viz. how much for Railway plant bought or hired from Messrs. Lucas and Aird, and how much for other services rendered by that firm?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There have been no Reports received showing failure or friction in the working of the arrangement with Messrs. Lucas and Aird, though at the commencement of the undertaking some unexpected difficulties somewhat retarded its progress. The accounts are not yet sufficiently advanced to enable me to state the sums paid or due to the firm "for their own behoof;" but I may remind the hon. Member that the conditions of remuneration are clearly stated in the agreement with Messrs. Lucas and Aird, which has been laid before Parliament.
  In reply to Mr. CREYKE,
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he believed all the conditions between the War Department and the contractors were stated in the Papers.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL—THE SPIRIT AND BEER DUTIES—INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS.
  MR. SALTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What arrangements will be made with respect to those persons who have paid Duties coming into force under the Customs and Inland Revenue

  1017
  Bill, in the event of that Bill being modified, so as to remove the Duties in question; and, whether any precedent exists for the delay of some weeks in pressing forward a Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, involving a large amount of additional taxation, with the result that Duties are enforced merely upon a Resolution of the House that may or may not be supported by the necessary authority of an Act of Parliament?
  MR. HIBBERT (who replied)said: Should the proposals of the Government for increasing the Spirit and Beer Duties be simply rejected by Parliament, the sums paid in excess of the amounts authorized by statute would, where possible, be refunded, unless Parliament thinks fit to authorize by statute the retention of the additional Duties collected. There are abundant precedents for the collection of additional Duties under a Resolution of this House some time before the passing of the Act raising them. The most striking is that of 1860, when two Resolutions were passed increasing the Spirit Duty—one on February 29, and the other on July 17; whereas the Act confirming them did not receive the Royal Assent until August 28.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, what would be done with the sums now paid in excess if the Government simply dropped their proposal to increase the duties, and there was no adverse vote of the House of Commons?
  MR. HIBBERTwas understood to reply that they could still be refunded, if the Government thought proper to make the order.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked whether the exemptions from the proposed Duty on property of bodies corporate and unincorporate, contained in the seven sub-sections to Clause 19 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, provided any enlargement of the exemptions under the Income Tax Acts?
  MR. HIBBERT: Speaking generally, the exemptions from the proposed Duty are the same as those under the Income Tax Acts. But there are some cases in which property which pays Income Tax cannot fairly be charged with the new Duty, because it is already subject to Probate and Legacy Duties when it changes hands owing to a death. The simplest instance I can give is that of the profits of a Trading Corporation,
  1018
  composed of a number of shareholders, where the profits pay Income Tax, while Probate and Legacy Duties are charged upon the value of the shares.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—TRANSFER OF SERGEANT PRICE FROM STEWARTSTOWN, CO. TYRONE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the transfer of Sergeant Price from Stewartstown (county Tyrone) has been cancelled; and, if so, under what circumstances; whether it is the case that, after the intimation of his transfer arrived, a meeting of his brother Freemasons was held in the Sergeant's room at the barrack, at which it was decided that Mr. Hunt W. Chambre, J.P. should exert himself to have the order recalled; whether any representation with that object was made by Mr. Chambre or other Orangemen or Freemasons; and, what steps have been taken to redress the inequality of Catholics and Protestants in the local police force?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The transfer in question has not been cancelled; but the Inspector General informs me he has permitted it to pend in consequence of the receipt of a strong Memorial from the magistrates of the Petty Sessions District, expressing their entire confidence in Sergeant Price, and their regret at his intended removal; and requesting that he might be permitted to remain. The Inspector General's intention to transfer was not due to any fault, but simply with the view to replace the Sergeant by one of longer experience; and this, if found necessary, will still be done. There is every desire to equalize the police of the different religions both at Stewartstown and elsewhere; but the hon. Member must not suppose that the Government will give any encouragement to the idea that the men are to be interfered with on the ground of their religion, unless it can be shown that they allow their religion to interfere with the proper discharge of their duties.

  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT—SPURIOUS BUTTERS.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the Report recently presented to the House respecting legislation in Foreign Countries on the subject of

  1019
  spurious butters, he will be good enough to state what action, if any, Her Majesty's Government propose to take to insure these spurious articles of food being imported, and sold under their proper names?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The importers of butterine are now required to declare the quantities and values of such imports; and the monthly trade and navigation accounts show the quantity and value of butterine imported and the country from which it is brought. As regards the sale of butter substitutes, I believe that the Sale of Food and Drugs Act gives the purchaser protection; and that any person selling any of these substitutes as butter would render himself liable to the penalties prescribed by that Act.
  In reply to a further Question by Mr. R. H. PAGET,
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the Board of Trade had really nothing to do with the question of adulteration, which came rather within the Department of the Local Government Board; but the Act threw upon the purchaser himself the responsibility of seeing that he was protected.

  EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION)—STORES FOR THE SOUDAN.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether it is true, as stated by the Woolwich correspondent of the Press Association, that the shipment of stores for the Soudan, which had been entirely stopped, was on Friday last resumed at the Royal Arsenal, and that among the stores being shipped were 1,000 tons of iron water-pipes; and, if so, the construction of a railway for strategic purposes having been abandoned, for what purpose are the water-pipes intended?
  MR. BRAND: No, Sir. The statement referred to is entirely incorrect. No shipments have been made since the orders to cease the despatch of stores to the Soudan were given.

  EGYPT—THE CAMPAIGN OF 1882—THE MEAT CONTRACT.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether the claim against the Government for compensation in connection with the meat contract for the British Army in the
  1020
  Egyptian Campaign of 1882 has yet been settled; and, if so, how?
  MR. BRAND: The claim in question was submitted to the arbitration of Mr. Holl, Q.C., who gave a decision in February last. The War Office offered £9,000 without costs, and the contractors claimed over £24,000. The award, including contractors' costs, which were borne by the Government, amounted to £15,730.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND)—WATER SUPPLY AT URLAUR—ACTION OF THE SWINEFORD SANITARY BOARD.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board refused to interfere with the discretion of the Swineford Sanitary Board in the matter of water supply at Urlaur; whether it is true that the sanitary officer of the district threatened several persons with heavy expenditure if they would not oppose the motion for increased water supply; whether it is within the duty of the sanitary officer to ask the aggrieved party who would pay the sanitary officer for his trouble in the matter; whether any Poor Law Guardian in the Dispensary District opposed the motion for water supply at Urlaur; whether, after the usual notice, the first opposition was that of an anonymous communication; whether some families have to go over half an Irish mile for water; and, whether the Local Government Board will hold an inquiry into the facts of the ease, to see whether the subject was properly attended to?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Local Government Board have declined to interfere with the discretion of the Sanitary Board in this matter. On a house-to-house visitation being made in the village, only one inhabitant was found to be anxious for an addition to the existing water supply, which is stated to be of excellent quality, and it is not considered necessary to put the district to the expense of increased facilities for the convenience of one person. The medical officer denies that he used threats or sought payment for his trouble, as appears to be implied in the Question. There is no reason for an inquiry in the case.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY.
  MR. CRAIG SELLARasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland intend to take any, and, if so, what, steps to carry out the proposal of the Senatus of the University of Aberdeen, contained in their Letter of May 9th, 1884, supplemented by their detailed scheme of May 6th of this year, for the establishment of a Training College in connection with the University; and, whether any communications have been received in the Education Department from other Universities or Colleges in England or Scotland, containing suggestions or proposals for giving University training to Elementary school teachers; and, if so, whether, before the consideration of the Education Estimates, he will lay the Correspondence with the University of Aberdeen and with the other Universities upon the Table?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I received a deputation from Aberdeen University, at which the hon. Member was present; and while I expressed my concurrence in the general principle of the scheme, I explained that, under present circumstances, it would not be possible to take any immediate steps in the matter. I have received communications from Aberdeen, St. Andrews, and from the Education Committee of the Church of Scotland on the subject of the scheme, and there will be no objection to produce the Papers if the hon. Member wishes. I have received no communications from the English Universities; but the subject has engaged their attention, and suggestions have been made to us through one of the Inspectors of Training Colleges, which will be referred to in his forthcoming Report.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND)—IRREGULARITY OF A RATE COLLECTOR AT ARKLOW.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (for Mr. W. J. CORBET)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the circumstances under which the rate collector at Arklow left his rate book in Lord Carysfort's Estate Office; what was his object; who called upon him to do so; and, will he inquire if other landlords,
  1022
  or their agents, have taken a similar course?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It appears that the rate collector at Arklow left his rate-book with Lord Carysfort's agent, on the application of the latter, with the view of facilitating the numerous Returns which he had to make under the Representation of the People Act. The Local Government Board are not aware of any similar cases. They propose to address the Guardians in the present instance on the subject of this irregularity.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked, whether the clerks would be instructed to leave their rate-books with the secretaries of branches of the National League also?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; it is irregular altogether.

  CIVIL BILL OFFICERS (IRELAND).
  MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. SMALL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state what has been the result of the Memorial presented in last December to the Treasury, through the Irish Government, by the Irish Civil Bill officers?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As I stated on the 8th instant, this matter was under the consideration of the late Lord Chancellor at the time of his death. It will probably come before his successor in due course.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—UNEQUAL SENTENCES.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will direct that there be laid upon the Table of the House a copy of the depositions of the witnesses or of the shorthand writer's notes of the evidence which was adduced in the case of the woman Jeffries, who was lately convicted of keeping disorderly houses in Chelsea; whether he has received any communication from the magistrate who adjudicated on the case explanatory of the leniency with which this woman was treated, and of the reason for which a fine was inflicted and not a sentence of imprisonment; and, whether he will grant an unofficial and impartial investigation by a Committee of this House into the whole of this case and its attendant circumstances, and also into the case of Inspector Minahan, and the cir-

  1023
  cumstances attending his dismissal from the Police Force, and how far these were connected with the case of the woman Jeffries? The hon. Member had also the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the sentence of six months' imprisonment, with hard labour, passed on Thursday last at the Middlesex Sessions on James Barrett for keeping a disorderly house in Clerkenwell; and, whether the great discrepancy between this sentence and that passed on the woman Jeffries is in any way due to the social difference between the persons concerned in the two cases?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This was not the sentence of a magistrate, but of the Court of Quarter Sessions. I have no authority to revise sentences, except in connection with the prerogative of mercy. Therefore, the magistrate or the Court owe no responsibility to me for the sentences which they pass. That would be to confound the Executive and Judicial functions. I cannot lay the depositions with a view to a Committee inquiring into the matter. I think it would be a most unsafe and dangerous thing to invite this House to take upon itself the office of reviewing sentences and examining the evidence upon which they are founded. My hon. Friend points to another sentence, apparently by the same Court, and asks me to say whether I think the two sentences were not inconsistent, and whether they were not founded upon some improper motive apparently of the Court with reference to social differences. I cannot compare sentences, nor can I inquire into the motives of the Court; but I have made myself acquainted with these facts regarding the man named, that he had previously been sentenced to terms of eight months', three months', and six months' imprisonment for warehouse-breaking, keeping a brothel, and other offences; and, therefore, it appears that the sentences may have differed with reference to the previous character of the two prisoners. As to the second part of the Question, I have done what is incumbent upon me to satisfy myself that the conduct of the police has not been improper in this matter. I am responsible to this House for the conduct and discipline of the police; and I think it would be very unsafe to agree to the
  1024
  course proposed by my hon. Friend—namely, to investigate the subject by a Committee of this House. The ease of Mr. Minahan was brought before me more than a year ago, and I very carefully inquired into it then, and I have now read the papers again. Minahan was at that time an Inspector of Police. He brought a great number of charges not connected with this matter of Mrs. Jeffries alone. That was the incident only of a great number of charges which he made against various officers, both superiors and subordinates, in the Force. I ordered a strict inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner and the District Superintendent. They made a careful inquiry into the matter, and I examined the case myself. It was brought under my notice by the hon. and learned Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth), and I will read what I wrote to him on the 28th of January, 1884. That will show plainly enough that it was not connected with this particular case:—
  "I have before me a Petition praying for the re-instatement of Minahan as an Inspector in the Metropolitan Police Force. I had already inquired into the case, and ascertained that Minahan's resignation was voluntary. He had been an Inspector, and in consequence of the unfavourable reports of his conduct he was put down to the rank of sergeant, whereupon he resigned; and he afterwards put pressure in all sorts of ways upon me to re-instate him. His resignation was voluntary, and was consequent upon his reduction to the rank of sergeant. After the most careful inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner and District Superintendent into a series of charges which he brought against the Superintendent of the Division and other officers, all of which were proved to be without foundation, I see no ground to review the decision of the Commissioners."
  I may mention that Minahan had done the same thing in another Division in which he had previously served; and on that occasion, in consideration of his length of service, he was merely transferred to a different Division, and he expressed his gratitude for the leniency which was shown to him. Well, I came to the conclusion which I had stated in January, 1884, and I have seen no occasion to alter it since; but if my hon. Friend or anyone else can bring any further circumstances to my knowledge which ought to affect this decision, I will most carefully inquire into them, with a desire that justice should be done in the case. It has been suggested that in the prosecution of Mrs. Jeffries the police in one way or another connived

  1025
  or desired that the case should he hushed up, or a light sentence passed. I am prepared to say, from my knowledge of the case, that there is no foundation for that aspersion. If there were very grave suspicion of such a thing it would be my duty to interfere. But the police did not conduct this prosecution; they had nothing to do with it or the sentence. I have before me a Report of a Committee of the Chelsea Vestry acknowledging the value of the services rendered them by the police in closing disorderly houses, and I am bound to say I do not believe they have acted improperly in the matter.

  EGYPT—SUPPRESSION OF THE "BOSPHORE EGYPTIEN."
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that The Bosphore Egyptien has reappeared, or is about to reappear, in Cairo; and, as far as Her Majesty's Government knows, will its publication be under the same conditions as before its suppression?
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: I have also a Question to put to the noble Lord with regard to the Papers which were published this morning in reference to this subject. In the first Paper is a despatch from Earl Granville to Sir Evelyn Baring, stating that the publication of the newspaper should no longer be allowed, and that there was no cause for interference with such action as the Egyptian Government might desire to take with regard to it. I wish to ask whether Earl Granville or the Government have taken any steps to ascertain what legal course should be followed in this matter before writing that despatch?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In reply to this Question, and to a subsequent one by the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. J. W. Lowther), I may state that the newspaper in question reappeared last evening. Her Majesty's Government were informed by the French Government previously to its re-appearance that positive assurances had been received from the editor that the paper would create no difficulty by the tone of its articles; and that the editor would be warned that, if he published any matter which could give reasonable offence, the French Consul had instructions to afford assistance to the Egyp-
  1026
  tian Government for the suppression of the paper. In reply to the further Question, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to put it upon the Paper for tomorrow.
  MR. GIBSON: With reference to the answer which the noble Lord has just given, I wish to ask whether Sir Evelyn Baring did not, when he first drew the attention of the Government to this matter, state that the misrepresentations of the paper could not any longer be tolerated without danger to the public tranquillity; whether the decree for its suppression is not still in force; and, whether the Prime Minister did not state, on the 5th of May, that the paper would not be re-issued?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In regard to all these Questions, which raise points of detail, especially that as to the opinion of Sir Evelyn Baring, I think it would be better that I should reply to them at the same time as I reply to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question arising out of this subject, of which I have given private Notice, with reference to Earl Granville's despatch of the '28th of April to Sir Evelyn Baring—namely, Whether the exchange of views between the English and French Governments with regard to the publication of this paper, and the change in the Press Laws contemplated in the despatch of Earl Granville, has yet taken place; and, if so, with what result?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman states that he has given me private Notice of this Question; but it has certainly miscarried. I received his letter as I took my place in this House, and that is not private Notice. I only mention that fact because, had I received the Notice in time, I might have communicated with Earl Granville in reference to it. Speaking from my impressions and recollections, as far as I know, I do not think that that exchange of views had been completed before the republication of The Bosphore Egyptien. There are, however, further communications on the subject going on.
  MR. ONSLOWasked who was to be the judge of reasonable offence?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot answer that Question now.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—WINE, SPIRIT, AND BEER DUTIES.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will take an early opportunity of stating the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the provisions of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill affecting the Duties on Wine, Spirits, and Beer, in order that the House may be aware of any changes in the proposals explained in his Financial Statement, before it is asked to proceed with the Second Beading of the Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE (who replied)said: We have not thought it right to refer in any manner to this subject while the negotiations with Russia were going on, and we must still persevere in that course. I understand the object of the Question to be that, before we ask the House to read the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill a second time, a clear expression of our intention should be given with regard to the provisions affecting the Duties on wines, spirits, and beer. We will take care that that shall be done.

  CENTRAL ASIA—AFGHANISTAN—PROCLAMATION OF THE AMEER.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Has Her Majesty's Government received confirmation of the statement in The Times of May 19tb, that the Ameer has issued a proclamation complimenting his troops on their gallantry at Penjdeh, and laying stress on the value of the British alliance; and, whether he will lay a Copy of the Ameer's proclamation upon the Table?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: We have no information as to the contents of the Ameer's Proclamation.
  MR. GIBSON: Will not the noble Lord make some inquiries?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Ameer, we are informed, did issue a Proclamation; but no details whatever are given. I have no objection to make inquiries.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE AMEER AND THE VICEROY OF INDIA—THE MEETING AT RAWUL PINDI.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether
  1028
  the Papers entitled Central Asia (No. 4), will contain an account of the meeting between the Ameer and the Viceroy of India; or if he intends to include it in any other Blue Book to be laid upon the Table before the Whitsuntide holidays?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Papers giving an account of the meeting between the Ameer and the Viceroy are not yet ready for publication, nor will they be presented before the Whitsuntide Holidays. I think the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire will agree with me that their publication before the arrangements now pending between England and Russia are concluded would not be for the public interest.

  ARMY—OFFICERS OF THE ROYAL ARTILLERY.
  MR. WARTON (for Mr. GREER)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that Captains of the Royal Artillery are now obtaining their promotion to the rank of Regimental Major in a little over sixteen years, and that Officers of the Militia Artillery have been brought in to do the duty with service batteries of the Royal Artillery; and, if so, is it in contemplation to temporarily extend the period of seven years under which Regimental Majors of the Royal Artillery are now placed on half-pay as Lieutenant Colonels under the Royal Warrant of 1st July 1881?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The last Major had a service of 16 years and three months on attaining that rank. Some Militia officers have been temporarily employed with batteries of Royal Artillery during the absence in the Soudan or South Africa of officers of those batteries specially detached for service there. It is not proposed to extend the service of Majors of Artillery beyond the period fixed in the Royal Warrant.

  ENGLISH MASTERS OF ENGLISH SCHOOLS ABROAD.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Foreign Office claims the right to protect English masters of English schools Abroad against the interference of the Government of the Country in cases of undue severity practised by masters or monitors, on the ground stated by the masters, that the Home Government permits the masters

  1029
  of English schools to punish boys in any manner they may think proper?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am afraid I cannot, undertake to answer hypothetical Questions. So far as I am aware, no such ease has been brought to the notice of the Foreign Office.

  LAW AND POLICE-PUBLIC MEETINGS—TRAFALGAR SQUARE.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, on the occasion of the recent meeting held in Trafalgar Square, to protest against the increase of the Beer and Spirit Duties, special instructions were given to the Metropolitan Police to prevent the basement of the Nelson Column from being used as a platform by the speakers and representatives of the press, although at previous demonstrations it was so used, without interference of the police?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that orders had been given on all occasions that the Monument should not be used as a platform for meetings, and special instructions were issued to keep it clear. It had not been so employed on any occasion.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND)—REGULATION AS TO THE PRISONERS' LIBRARY AT LIVERPOOL.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that, in obedience to the orders of the Prison Commissioners, the works of Gerald Griffin, and, more recently, Chambers' Journal, have been withdrawn from the prisoners' library in Liverpool; and, whether, if this be a fact, he can tell the House why prisoners in Liverpool are not to be allowed to read Gerald Griffin's novels and Chambers' Journal?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I really cannot undertake a censorship of the Press in regard to prisoners, nor interfere with the Commissioners as to what books they do or do not allow prisoners to read, for the hon. Member will see that that would involve my reading the books.

  WAYS AND MEANS—INLAND REVENUE—THE INCOME TAX—SCHEDULE B.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (for Mr. ROUND)asked Mr. Chancellor of
  1030
  the Exchequer, If he is aware that a farmer incoming at Michaelmas is called upon to pay a half year's Income Tax under Schedule (B) in the following January, though he cannot produce his accounts till the end of his first year, and. in the event of such accounts showing a loss, cannot get the tax refunded for fifteen months after the payment; and, whether, under those circumstances, the Commissioners would be justified in allowing the payment to be deferred till the farmer can produce his accounts?
  MR. HIBBERT (who replied)said: I am informed that, in the circumstances stated, the farmer could obtain a refund within nine months.

  CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT—EXAMINATION OF BAGGAGE AT ENGLISH PORTS.
  SIR EDWAED WATKINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that, since the beginning of the year, the handbags and small baggage of ladies and gentlemen arriving from France have been, examined, in search of explosives, at English ports; whether, at Folkestone alone, about 35,000 small pieces of baggage have been thus examined, without the discovery of any objectionable article whatever; whether this new examination does not cause great delay to the passengers and detention, and produces irregularity of the trains of important International services; and, whether he will order the discontinuance of this useless examination, at all events during the summer months?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am afraid that, under existing circumstances, I cannot undertake to relax the order.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked if in any single case any person had been detected endeavouring to smuggle explosives into the country?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I cannot give the figures. But even if there was not one case, that would not prove that we should not take precautions.

  INDIA—MILITARY PREPARATIONS—EXPENDITURE.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will state the amount of expenditure incurred by the Government of India in

  1031
  its military preparations, and how it is proposed that that expenditure shall be met?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: On the 3rd of May the Viceroy telegraphed that the extra military expenditure during the next three or four months—from April to July—was estimated at 306 lakhs of rupees. This is in addition to certain demands for ordnance, the cost of which is estimated at £385,000. The Government of India are considering how far the extra charges can be met by reduction of expenditure before a final determination is arrived at as to the manner of meeting the deficiency.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE AFGHAN BOUNDARY COMMISSION-SIR PETER LUMSDEN.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the communication in Earl Granville's De-patch to Sir Peter Lumsden, of 3rd March 1885, in these words—
  "Her Majesty's Goverment attach great importance to your remaining in Afghanistan, where your presence may be the means of stopping further advances of the Russian troops, and preventing the outbreak of hostilities;"
  again, in telegraphic Despatch from Earl Granville to Sir Peter Lumsden, of 13th March—
  "We are anxious to give you full support in very difficult circumstances,"
  Whether these communications were sent to Sir Peter Lumsden in consequence of a wish or suggestion on his part that, after what had taken place, he desired to be relieved of the duties imposed upon him?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have referred to the telegrams alluded to in the Question, and they raise a question which cannot be answered, except by the production of the telegrams in full; and on account of the references they contain to the transaction on the frontier, they could not be produced without disadvantage.
  MR. ONSLOWasked whether they would appear in any future Blue Book on the Afghan Question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: They contain free comments on things that were going on at the time, and there would be no public advantage in producing them.
  MR. ONSLOW: I shall take the earliest opportunity of moving for the production of the Papers.
  MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. E. POWER)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, having regard to the fact of the distinctions which it appears have been conferred upon General Komaroff, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to confer any marks of honour or distinction upon Sir Peter Lumsden?
  MR. GLADSTONE: This is one of those Questions with a preamble which entails the necessity of explanation, and it is put in view of distinctions which appear to have been conferred upon General Komaroff. In my opinion, those distinctions are not in pari materiâ with any distinctions that may be conferred on Sir Peter Lumsden. General Komaroff, it appears, has received a conspicuous mark of honour from his Sovereign in consequence of what his Sovereign deems to have been distinguished military service which he performed on a certain occasion. But Sir Peter Lumsden is a Civil servant of the Crown. He has been engaged under circumstances of difficulty, and certainly, in a physical sense, under circumstances far from agreeable, in a long course of watchful proceedings on the Afghan Frontier; and therefore, in giving an answer to the hon. Member, I do not give it in view of the case of General Komaroff. When a series of transactions of this kind reaches its close, then is the time when it is the custom of Her Majesty, in the exercise of Her prerogative of grace and favour, to consider, on the advice of her Ministers, what marks of honour should be given in each particular case to those who have performed these burdensome and important services; and I do not hesitate to declare that it must be reserved for the Executive Government to advise Her Majesty on this occasion, and that their discretion cannot be altered by any Question which may be put in this House.

  THE SUEZ CANAL—INTERNATIONALIZATION—PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE IN PARIS.
  SIR R.ASSHETON CROSSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can now give the House any information as to the proceedings of the Conference in Paris upon the subject of the Suez Canal?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; these negotiations have been making progress; but I do not think it would be

  1033
  possible to convey a clear or satisfactory idea of them by a partial statement. As hon. Members are already aware, they will be put in possession of the whole information before anything is done to commit Parliament.
  SIR B. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would ask the Question again on Monday, the 8th of June.

  NAVY—NAVAL PAYMASTERS AND SURGEONS.
  MR. BORLASEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is a fact that the Assistant Paymaster in H.M.S. Devastation, who has nearly sixteen years seniority in that rank, is thirty-seven years of age, and has been twenty years in Her Majesty's Service, is still junior in relative rank to the surgeon of that ship, who has been only fifteen months in the Service, and is about twenty-three years of age; and, if so, if it is the intention of the Admiralty to allow so great an anomaly to continue?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: The figures given by the hon. Member for East Cornwall are approximately correct. The age of the surgeons of the Devastation is some three years more than stated in the Question. No material change is contemplated with reference to the relative rank of Paymasters and Surgeons. It is anticipated that the promotion of Assistant Paymasters will become more rapid in the future; but Medical Officers, who can only enter the Service on the completion of a long, expensive course of professional training, will always be in a position to claim superior relative rank.

  OATHS BILL.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the public interest attaching to the Oaths Bill, he will endeavour to afford facilities, soon after the holidays, for the Second Beading?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. and learned Gentleman will probably have anticipated my answer. In the present state of Public Business it is impossible for me to make any promise with regard to a much contested measure. Even if the Government were able at the present moment to assign a day for the purpose of taking the second reading of the Oaths Bill, they had not the slightest title to assume that the debate would not be ad-
  1034
  journed. The opinion of the Government on the measure remains the same; and if a reasonable opportunity should exist for pushing it forward, I shall be most anxious to do so.
  MR. P. A. MUNTZ: If this measure does come under discussion, will the Government support it or not?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  BURIAL GROUNDS BILL.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the general understanding that no contentious Business should be taken on the first two days after the holidays, and that the Burial Grounds Bill has been put down for Thursday 4th June, he will fix some other day for its Second Beading?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, he did not admit there was any understanding that no contentious Business should be taken on the two first days after the Holidays. There was a general understanding that Business of the first class should not be taken upon those days. He was not prepared to say that any absolute pledge could be given that this Bill would not be brought forward, if there was a fair and reasonable opportunity for doing so.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE RUSSO-AFGHAN FRONTIER-THE ARBITRATION.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the new frontier agreed upon between Baron de Staal and Earl Granville follows the southern limits of the zone asked by Russia on 7th April; and, whether it assigns Zulfikar and Penjdeh to Russia, and brings the Russian frontier close to Maimena and Audkoi?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is not in my power to enter into any discussion or a description of the frontier negotiations with Russia, and surely the hon. Gentleman must sec that inconvenience arises from the mere putting of these Questions. Suggestions are conveyed to the public mind—suggestions often inaccurate; but, at the same time, we cannot enter into details, and say that such and such parts are inaccurate without entering into the whole matter. This convoys a false impression, and that, I am sure, is far from the intention of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: With regard to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to ask him whether, if the despatch of the Russian Government of the 13th of October had been made known to this House and the country, it is not likely, in his opinion—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has asked a Question, and I understood the Prime Minister to say that he did not think it consistent with his public duty to give an answer. The hon. Gentleman is now arguing the question why an answer should be given.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: No, Sir. I do not think you quite understand my object in putting it. The right hon. Gentleman stated that this Question was likely to have a deleterious effect. I wished to ask him whether it was not the fact that if the Russian despatch—e.g., of October 13—which stated that a certain frontier was demanded by Russia, had been made public at the time, the unfortunate events of March 13 and the Russian occupation of Penjdeh would never have occurred?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument, which does not arise out of the answer.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the terms of reference as to the proposed arbitration on the Penjdeh incident have been yet settled; and, whether, in view of the fact that, as appears from the Blue Book just issued, P. 166, No. 224, General Komaroff telegraphed to St. Petersburg, on the 13th of March, that it was "absolutely necessary that he should seize Penjdeh," and, on the 30th of that month, attacked the Afghans in that district, notwithstanding the agreement arrived at between Russia and England with the object of preventing such attack, Her Majesty's Government still proposes that the question to be submitted for the decision of the arbitrator should be the interpretation by the Russian Government of the agreement above referred to, and not the conduct of General Komaroff, who has now been presented with a sword of honour by the Czar as a reward for his conduct?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The terms of reference have not yet been definitely settled for the arbitrator. But if the hon. Gentleman refers to No. 228, I
  1036
  think it is, in the Blue Book, he will see that it shows that M. de Giers has denied the truth of the statement that General Komaroff had telegraphed for leave to attack Penjdeh, a statement which had only been reported by Sir Edward Thornton as a rumour that had reached him, and not as a matter of positive information. The information on the subject was before Her Majesty's Government before the question of reference to the Head of a Friendly State was mooted; and it cannot, therefore, affect the question of the terms of the reference. With regard, Sir, to the interpretation by the Russian Government of the agreement, and not the conduct of General Komaroff, the interpretation by the Russian Government and by the British Government of that agreement does not mean a discussion of its verbal meaning—a mere grammatical debate—but it means an interpretation of it as implied in the conduct for which the respective Governments are responsible.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: The right hon. Gentleman said that the agreement had been referred to an arbitrator. May I ask who that arbitrator is?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That matter is not absolutely settled as yet.

  EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION)—OCCUPATION OF SUAKIN.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether an arrangement has yet been made with the Government of a civilized power to occupy Suakin on the withdrawal of Her Majesty's troops?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There have been communications with the Ottoman Government upon this subject, which have been already presented to Parliament. Further communications will be found in the Papers now about to be laid on the Table—that is to say, communications with the Ottoman Government. There have been no communications on the subject of Suakin with any other Power.

  REGISTRATION (OCCUPATION VOTERS) ACT.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS,referring to the Registration Act which had just received the Royal Assent, asked, Whether the Attorney General could

  1037
  state what steps Clerks of the Peace and Town Clerks ought to take in the newly-created and merged boroughs, having regard to the fact that the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill would probably not become law till the 20th of June?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The right hon. Gentleman has given me private Notice of this Question, and I am obliged to him for taking an interest in the subject, for I am sure these local officers are entitled to every assistance we can afford them. It appears to me clear that Clerks of the Peace and Town Clerks must issue their precepts entirely in relation to the present state of the law, and regardless of the provisions of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. It is impossible for them to anticipate the coming into operation of that Bill at a future date. But clauses will have to be inserted in it to provide for the various modifications which will be necessary, after that Bill passes, to meet the case of new boroughs, enlarged boundaries of old boroughs, merged boroughs, and divisions of counties. But with the assimilation of the franchise there will not be much difference in the lists; and if the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill passes, as it may be hoped it will, by the third week in June, I trust the great inconvenience that no doubt has been created will be overcome. I wish to add that, departing from the usual custom as to the date of printing and distributing Acts of Parliament, the Homo Office is now distributing to all Clerks of the Peace and Town Clerks copies of the Registration Act, so that they may have no difficulty in obtaining information as to their duties.
  MR. SEXTON: Will similar steps be taken in regard to Ireland?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Yes; copies have been already sent round.
  MR. GIBSON: In reference to this question, as it is an important one, may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he will take steps to communicate this fact to the officers in Ireland answerable for the posting of these notices, stating whether the existing provisions are workable? I may say that I was told that the new Bill will require some extra provisions, because, as
  1038
  it stands, the Registration Bill is imperfect.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I do not understand the Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Is it his contention that the Registration Bill is an imperfect Bill? [Mr. GIBSON: Yes.] Well, really that is a question which I cannot go into.

  MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been directed to a statement in The Medical Press of the 20th instant, stating that the Government intend to introduce the Medical Act Amendment Bill of last Session; and, whether, if that is the case, any clause or clauses, as Amendments, can be placed upon the Paper?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have not seen The Medical, Press; and I have not had any intimation that it is the intention of the Government to introduce the Medical Act Amendment Bill this Session.

  AFFAIRS OF BURMAH—ALLEGED TREATY WITH GERMANY AND FRANCE.
  MR. SLAGGasked, Whether the Government could give any information as to the Treaty alleged to have been concluded between Burmah and the countries of Germany and Prance, under which those countries were placed in a more favourable position than this country?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I am afraid I cannot answer this Question; for it does not necessarily come within the purview of the India Office. By the courtesy of the Foreign Office, however, a copy of the Treaty between Burmah and France was forwarded to the India Office; and, as far as my recollection serves me, the terms were said to be identical with those of the Treaty existing between England and Burmah.

  EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION)—THE GUARDS AT ALEXANDRIA.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can give the House any reasons for the change of orders that have been given to the Guards?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not think it is desirable to give any details of the reasons which have induced the Government to direct the ships containing the Guards to be detained for a short time at Alexandria. The House is perfectly well aware of the reasons which existed some little time ago for the decision of the Government to concentrate, as far as possible, for service in any part of the world, the troops then serving in the Soudan; and the reasons which made it necessary for the Government to ask Parliament for a Vote of considerable amount for special preparations. Those preparations have not been suspended; and I do not think it would be desirable to state how soon, in the opinion of the Government, those preparations should be suspended. At the same time, it was thought desirable that the Brigade of Guards should remain in positions in the Mediterranean; but it is not possible for me to state precisely at this moment how long and what are the exact reasons why it may be desirable to retain them.

  PUBLIC HEALTH-REPORTED OUTBREAK OF CHOLERA.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he had observed statements in the Continental Press that there had been a severe outbreak of cholera in the city of Durham; and whether he had any knowledge of such outbreak?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The first knowledge that I had of any rumour of an outbreak of cholera in this country was from the calling, at the Local Government Board yesterday, of some of the Consular Agents of Foreign Powers to make inquiries on the subject. But there is no foundation whatever, so far as I know, for any rumour of the kind. As Durham has been publicly mentioned in the newspapers from abroad, I have made inquiry, and find that there is no foundation whatever for that statement.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES AND ORDERS-PUBLIC BILLS—NOTICES OF OBJECTION.
  MR. WARTONdesired to ask a Question with regard to the duration of
  1040
  Notices of objections to Bills which, according to an Order of the House, expired the week after that in which, they were given?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question could be put when the point arose. There was no Question now before the House.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he desired to put the Question on account of the Holidays.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he would ask whether the matter was not settled by the late Speaker ruling that a Notice of objection given after the Motion for Adjournment had been agreed to was kept alive for the usual period after the Holidays?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Notice would operate for the usual period after the meeting of the House.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—THE EGYPTIAN COUPON—THE FIVE PER CENT DEDUCTION.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTasked, Whether any official confirmation had been received of the intelligence published in the morning papers to the effect that the Representatives of the Powers had protested against the taxing of Egyptian coupons?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; that information has been received.

  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL AND MR. GLADSTONE—STATEMENT OF MARCH 13.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: It will be in the recollection of the House that the Prime Minister, in the debate of Monday night, said, in reference to a statement which I made about the announcement to the House of the 13th of March, that he would wish to have time to examine into that matter; that he would reserve the point, and that he would take a further opportunity of explaining it to the House. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is now in a position to make that statement in regard to a matter of great moment and seriousness?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry the noble Lord puts in these things—"a matter of great moment and seriousness." I should have looked into the matter had I been able; but I have

  1041
  been totally unable to do it, my time having been incessantly occupied.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he does not agree that a point which is so important that he is unable to give an answer to it at the time is a matter "of great moment and seriousness?"
  [No reply.]

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—EUROPEAN PRISONERS WITH THE MAHDI.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government had any information relative to the present position of Lupton Bey, Governor of the Egyptian Province of Bahr-el-Gazelle, who is supposed by some to be still holding out, and by others to be a prisoner in the hands of the Mahdi; and, whether Her Majesty's Government were disposed to offer a ransom for this English subject, or to take any steps to discover his whereabouts before our troops were withdrawn from Egypt?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In a despatch, dated November 15 (Egypt, No. 1 of 1885, p. 96), Sir Evelyn Baring-encloses a letter from General Gordon to Lord Wolseley, stating that the Mahdi asserted that Lupton Bey had surrendered. We have no further information. A telegram will be sent to General Buller to ask whether anything authentic is known as to Lupton Bey's fate. I am not aware whether any special instructions have been given on the subject of ransom; but, as I stated some time ago, very large discretion is left in the hands of Lord Wolseley to take whatever means he thinks best for the ransom of any persons such as Lupton Bey.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the Government would telegraph to General Buller, at Dongola, authorizing him to send a Native messenger at once to the Mahdi to offer a ransom for Lupton Bey and M. Cuzzi, formerly General Gordon's Agent at Berber.
  MR. O'KELLYasked whether Lord Wolseley had made an attempt to communicate with the Mahdi about the prisoners; whether he had sent letters or messengers offering a ransom?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am not aware that any information
  1042
  on the subject has been received from Lord Wolseley.
  MR. O'KELLYasked whether the noble Lord would inquire whether Lord Wolseley had taken any steps in the matter; and, if not, why not?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Lord Wolseley communicates with the War Office, and not with the Foreign Office. There can be no doubt that he has taken some steps; but there will be no objection to making inquiry.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it might be convenient for the House to know that it was proposed to take on Friday, first, the second reading of the Telegraph Acts Amendment Bill; next, the second reading of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, which had come down from the House of Lords; and, thirdly, the Ulster Canal and Tyrone Navigation Bill.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EAST INDIA LOAN (£10,000,000) BILL.
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Kynaston Cross.)

  [BILL 109.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. J. K. CROSS,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: This Bill is brought in principally in consequence of the recommendations of the Select Committee on East India Railway Communication, which sat last year, and reported in July last. That Committee reviewed the railway policy of the Indian Government, and decided that the proposals of that Government were moderate, and that—
  "Looking to the experience of past years and to present prospects, there is a very fair ground for expecting that an extension of the railway system of India on the scale proposed will have the most beneficial effects."
  The Secretary of State for India in Council, on whom the Report of the Committee placed the responsibility of deciding what amounts should be borrowed, for the purpose of carrying out the works proposed by the Government of India, and sanctioned by him, considers that he cannot adequately fulfil the duties which devolve upon him, un-

  1043
  less he has power to borrow in the London market, if necessary, the sum of £10,000,000 within the next three years, charging the interest of this sum upon the Revenues of India. Of course, hon. Members will ask why the Secretary of State requires so large a permission. I will try to tell the reason; because we want the sanction of the House before we commit ourselves to a final and irrevocable decision as to the amount which we shall have the power to spend. The rule which has been followed of late years is that laid down by the Secretary of State in 1878 and supported by the Select Committee of 1879—namely, that we should restrict our expenditure from borrowed money to £2,500,000, or, rather, two and a-half crores of rupees a-year; but that, in addition to this expenditure, we may spend our surplus balances, and may also borrow what is wanted to extend the operations of the East Indian Railway, now owned by the State, and a source of considerable profit. The borrowings for Public Works and the East Indian Railway were, as a matter of fact, £11,130,000 in the four years from 1880 to 1883,or about £2,800,000 per annum; and we now propose to borrow directly, should we think fit, £3,500,000 per annum, giving an increase of £700,000 per annum. But there is one essential difference between the method in which we ask permission of the House to borrow now and the method which we have pursued in the last few years. We now ask for permission to borrow in sterling in England, when we consider it desirable, in place of borrowing in rupees in India, and as this is a distinct change in policy I must shortly explain to the House our reasons for advising this course. The reason is that we cannot borrow at moderate interest in India the sum which we consider it safe to spend. The current rate of interest in India on good mortgage security is 8 per cent per annum; and it is not reasonable to suppose that an ordinary Indian investor will be content with the 4 per cent he might get if he invested in an Indian Government railway, when he can get 8 per cent on a good mortgage. Mr. Westland, in his evidence before the Select Committee, made a careful estimate of what amount could be borrowed in India from Indian sources at moderate interest; and he did not think that
  1044
  the amount could be estimated at more than one and a-quarter crores of rupees a-year. Undoubtedly, if we were to issue Rupee Loans in India, for more than that one and a-quarter crores, they might be taken up in India, as they have been before; but in this case, subscriptions would come from people outside India—that is, people outside India would subscribe to these loans, and then the interest would have to be sent from India—the bills for this interest coming into the exchange market, just as will be the case if we ourselves borrow in sterling, providing the money for the discharge of the interest by drawing bills upon India. If we borrow in India we borrow rupees, and we pay interest in rupees, and we know for all time the number of rupees we shall have to provide annually to discharge the interest on any given amount of debt. As we receive our revenue in India in rupees, this system of borrowing is perfectly simple and involves no exchange complications. But there is one drawback to it; we have to pay a much higher rate of interest than we have to pay upon loans contracted in England. A 4 per cent loan contracted in Calcutta will now float at, perhaps, 94; a 3 per cent loan contracted in England may be expected to realize 88 to 90. The interest on the Calcutta loan would be 4·3 per cent; the interest on the London loan would be 3·37 per cent. The difference of interest, therefore, on each £1,000,000 sterling that we borrow on those terms is about £9,300 per annum. Let me illustrate this more fully. £1,000,000 borrowed in India, or rather the equivalent of £1,000,000—namely, Rs.l,25,00,000—will cost£43,000 a-year, or Rs.53,75,000. £1,000,000 sterling borrowed in England will cost India £33,700, or at present Rs.42,15,000. The difference between these sums, Rs.ll,60,000 in all, or £9,300 on every £1,000,000, is a heavy charge upon India, and if it were used as a sinking fund accumulating at 3½ per cent it would repay the corpus of the loan in 45 years. If, therefore, there were no drawbacks to borrowing in sterling here as compared with borrowing in rupees in India, we should have no hesitation in always borrowing here. But I am bound to allow that there are drawbacks to this course. If we borrow in sterling here, we must provide the interest here;

  1045
  and we are not certain what number of rupees we shall have to provide in India to cover any given amount of sterling interest here. Borrowing here, therefore, in sterling for use in India involves the consideration of a speculative element—namely, the value of the rupee as compared with the pound sterling. This factor must always be present in the minds of those who are answerable for the control of Indian finance; and it is only when the difference in the rate of interest between the two methods of borrowing is very great that we must resort to borrowing here, and we think that the present difference justifies us in pursuing this plan. I may say that one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on East India Railway Communication was as follows:—
  "Your Committee think also that for political as well as for financial reasons it is desirable that loans should, as far as possible, be raised in India; but they do not believe that rupee loans which are not really absorbed in India differ materially in their effect upon exchange from sterling loans, as if held in Europe the interest upon them will probably be remitted from India and will come into the exchange market. They would, therefore, recommend, quoting the words of the Report of the Select Committee of 1879, that when 'the difference between the rates of interest in India and in England is so considerable as to afford full compensation for the great comparative disadvantages which inevitably attend borrowing in this country,' the Secretary of State in Council should not hesitate to borrow such moderate sums in this country as will enable the Government of India to complete such public works as shall have obtained his sanction."
  I may be asked, why we should resort to borrowing at all; why should we not leave to private enterprise the construction of lines of railway in India, in the same way that they are constructed in other countries? And the only answer I can give is, that the investing public have not yet made up their minds to trust their money in private railway enterprizes in India, and that the Government of India and the Select Committee which sat on this question last year consider it imperative, for the purpose of mitigating possible famine in certain districts and for the development of the country, that railway construction should proceed at a somewhat more rapid rate than of late years has been the custom. At the present time there are in India 10,832 miles of railway open, the nominal invested capital of which stands at £141,500,000. The gross earnings of
  1046
  these lines amount to £16,097,200 a-year, and the expenses to £8,026,000, or about 50 per cent; the net earnings being £8,071,000; the dividend on the broad gauge lines being 5·69 per cent, and on the narrow gauge lines 4·99 per cent. But I ought to call the attention of the House to the fact that a very large amount of money included in the £144,000,000 is not yet productive. The real amount of interest-earning money which is invested in Indian railways is £133,000,000 or £134,000,000. To show the large amount of business which the railways transact, I may point out that the number of passengers carried in 1883–4 was 65,000,000, and the amount of merchandize was 27,900,000 tons. The people employed upon railways number 185,261, of whom only 3,995 are Europeans, 3,979 East Indians, and the remainder are Natives. These figures show that a large number of Natives (177,287) find employment on the Indian railways. As the Productive Works form a large amount of the assets of the Indian Government, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words with regard to them. The expenditure from borrowed money on Productive Works amounts to £60,034,000, and from Revenue, £12,957,000. Then follows £32,354,000 on the East Indian Railway, and £69,019,000 as guaranteed railway capital outlay. These sums make altogether an investment in Productive Public Works of £174,383,000. Besides this we have loans to municipalities, Native States, &c, amounting to £7,581,000, and the cash balances on the 31st of March last amounted to £14,133,000. Our assets, therefore, were altogether £196,097,000. Then we have liabilities amounting to £249,860,000, leaving the uncovered liabilities at £53,763,000. The net annual charge on India for interest on debt and expenses connected with railways and irrigation works has diminished of late years. In 1872–3, including exchange, the cost was £7,915,000, and in 1883–4 it was £4,358,000, giving an advantage to the year 1872–3 of more than £3,500,000, notwithstanding that the amount of loss on exchange had run up to a very much larger item than it was before. I may point out that the figures representing the earnings of the railroads—namely, 5·69 on the broad

  1047
  gauge, and 4·99 on the narrow gauge, are exclusive of loss by exchange on remittance of dividends to England, which loss is an uncertain amount, and which reduces the amount of net earnings on that portion of the capital which was provided in this country, when the current rate of exchange was higher than the present rate. The House should recollect that these earnings and this financial result are achieved, notwithstanding that most of the heavy lines have been made at an enormous cost; whereas in the case of any railways now being, or proposed to be, constructed in the future, with the exception of the strategic line to Quetta, the Government hope to be able to construct them for about half the cost of the Great Indian Peninsula, the Bombay and Baroda, and the East Indian Lines, and they have no reason to doubt that the dividends will be satisfactory. After the Select Committee had made its Report, we received from the Government of India a scheme of Frontier communications for strengthening the Indus Valley line of defence, which will cost in all at least £5,000,000. On Thursday, March 12th, I laid upon the Table the Papers explaining this proposal, and they have been seen by hon. Members. The scheme of these proposals is to make the Indus Valley line of defence impregnable, and also to perfect our communication with Quetta and Pishin. First, let me say a word about the Indus Valley line of defence. Railway communication on the broad gauge system will be established between Peshawur and Kurrachee, when the bridge over the Indus at Sukkur is finished. With the exception of this bridge, the work for which is very heavy, and which is now well in hand, this line of communication is now complete. But in order to be able to mass any number of troops which might be required at any given point along the defensible line of the Indus between Peshawur and Kurrachee, about 360 miles of railroad and about 200 miles of good road are required—the railroad to the East, the road to the "West of the Indus. This railroad will strike off from the present Lahore and Peshawur line at Lala Musa, where there is now a narrow gauge railway to the salt mines. This short line will be changed to broad gauge, and continued to the neighbour-
  1048
  hood of the Indus at Darya Khan, from which place the line will run down the Valley of the Indus to a point opposite to and parallel with Mooltan. The cost of this is estimated at £2,150,000. There will be steam ferries in conjunction with the railway; and this line will, together with the present Indus Valley Railroad, cover the length of the East bank of the Indus for some 600 miles. In order to strengthen the line of defence along the West bank of the Indus, it is proposed to make a good metalled road from Kushalgarh through Kohat and Banu to Dera Ismail Khan, which, as hon. Members know, commands the mouth of the Ghumal Pass. The length of this road is about 200 miles, and, including the Kuram and Gambela bridges, will cost about £300,000. But this is by no means all that is thought requisite. I have so far spoken of the line of the Indus; but we have also to consider our position at Quetta and on the Pishin plateau. We are now in peaceable possession of Quetta and the Pishin plateau, and since the punitive expedition to the Zhob Valley last year, there seems to be no danger of interruption to work by the wild tribes in that region. The Military Authorities in India are anxious to have ample means of communication between the defensive points on the Indus Valley and Pishin, and they propose, in addition to the railway to Quetta and Shibo, to make a military road from the Pishin plateau by Thai Chotiali, through the Han Pass and by Fort Munro to Dera Ghazee Khan on the Indus, opposite to Mooltan, and it is proposed to establish a steam ferry there, and also on the Chenab, in order to make this line of communication complete to Mooltan.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLinquired whether this road would run through British or Afghan territory?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: It was formerly considered part of Afghanistan; but since the Treaty of Gandamak it has been regarded as British territory. This road will be 250 miles long, and will cost about £200,000. This is only an estimate of cost which may be exceeded. Besides this, there is the railway to Quetta and Shibo, about which I gather from the Amendment of my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope) we shall hear a good deal more in the course of this debate. The cost of this railway is very

  1049
  uncertain; but it will, from the extreme nature of the difficulties met with in the route chosen, be much more than was at one time anticipated—namely, £2,000,000, and I do not think it can be made for less than £2,750.000. The only other item in this expenditure is the Ferozepore bridge, which will cost some £400,000. I will now say a very few words on the very considerable difficulties which stand in the way of the completion of the Quetta line, and for that purpose I will read a few extracts from the Report of General Browne. He says—
  "The railway crosses a country where almost every obstacle to the construction of a line has to be overcome—extreme climate, unhealthiness of the country, and want of inhabitants, food, carriage, roads, timber, and every kind of building material, besides the natural difficulties of a mountain line rising 6,800 feet above the level of the sea. As regards natural difficulties they speak for themselves, from the general section of the line, but should be seen to be realized. Except the Quetta section, which is comparatively level, but shares all the indirect difficulties alluded to above, the railway is an Alpine line throughout, on which the earthwork, the bridging, the grading, the tunnelling, are of so exceptional a nature that comparisons of cost with an ordinary Indian that line are entirely deceptive. At Chuppur, Gurkhaie, and Spintangi, there are many miles of cutting in hard quartz and limestone rock. For 40 miles the geological formation consists of shale, requiring blasting when dry, but which has to be cut back to an easy slope, as it melts like sugar under rain. For 40 miles more the line crosses a species of boiled mud pudding, filled with enormous boulders. This formation cannot be tunnelled, in the total absence of timber for shoring. This entails cuttings of enormous depth, which, in many cases, may need to be secured by fully lined masonry tunnels and to be covered in again to prevent landslips. At the mud gorge an embankment 500 feet long and 105 feet high runs into a cutting 1,500 feet long and 75 feet deep, entailing an expenditure on earthwork of over three lakhs of rupees. Should it, as is quite possible, be necessary to secure the cutting by a covered tunnel, the cost of 2,000 running feet of line will be fully seven lakhs. Such and similar cases fully account for high mileage rates. The Nari river draining 10,000 square miles, is crossed six times, aggregating 30 spans of 150 feet. The Chuppur rift bridge will be about 300 feet above the river bed, and is only one of many similar, though not such formidable, bridges from 80 feet to 100 feet high. It need scarcely be said that in a country of ravines the mileage rate for minor bridges, drains, and culverts must be exceedingly high."
  Then he goes on to speak of the cost of the line, with which I need not trouble the House. I have only referred to this for the purpose of pointing out that
  1050
  this railway is an exceedingly difficult work, and, that being so, the Government have come to the conclusion that, in order to expedite the formation of communications between the Indus and Shibo and Quetta, it will be better to try to have a line laid down through the Bolan Pass, which has already been so levelled as to make it suitable for a good military road. It is possible to lay down a line there with gradients of about one in 20 without loss of time; so that, by the end of the year, we hope to have complete railway communication with Quetta.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked whether this railway was to be in substitution for or in addition to the other line?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: It is to be in addition, as the other line will be carried on at the same time. I will now recapitulate to the House the heads of the proposals that we make. First, the railway "West of the Indus from Nari to Shibo and Quetta, 175 miles in length, at a supposed cost of £2,000,000, or very probably £2,750,000; the second is the railway East of the Indus from Lala Musa, viâ Darya Khan and Muzaffargarh to Sher Shah, with a branch from Muzaffargarh to a point upon the Indus opposite Dera Ghazi Khan, and including a bridge at Pind-Dadan Khan, and ferries over the Indus and the Chenab, 361 miles in all, at an estimated cost of £2,150,000. The third is the bridge at Ferozepore, five miles in length, at a cost of £400,000. Fourthly, a road West of the Indus from Dera Ghazi Khan to the Pishin plateau, 250 miles in length, estimated to cost £200,000, but which will probably cost more than this sum. And fifthly, the other road West of the Indus, from Dera Ismail Khan to Khushalgarh viâ Kohat and Banu, including the Gambela and Kuram bridges, 195 miles in length, at a cost of £300,000. The nominal cost of the entire works is £5,050,000, or about five crores of rupees, a part of which will have to be paid from the Revenues of India and a part by the loan which I now ask the House to grant the Secretary of State the power to issue.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked if the cost of the railway through the Bolan Pass was included in the Estimate?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: That is now being carried out and paid for out of Revenue, the cost, so far as it has gone at present, amounting to five lakhs of rupees. I have tried to explain as shortly as possible the proposals concerned in this Loan Bill. No doubt, the proposals I have made will be subjected to a searching criticism. I shall listen with the greatest interest and attention to what hon. Members may have to say, and hope to have an opportunity of replying to such criticisms as may be urged. I beg leave to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. J. K. Cross.)
  MR. B. STANHOPE,who had given Notice to move, as an Amendment—
  "That this House, while desirous of affording every assistance to the Government of India in completing the Quetta Railway, deeply regrets the unfortunate loss of time and of money which has been caused by the precipitate abandonment of the works in 1881,"
  said, in the exceedingly clear speech the House had just heard, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. K. Cross) had stated that the main reason for asking for this Loan Bill was that the loan was required for Public Works in accordance with the Report of the Select Committee of last year. He also said that the loan was to be raised for carrying on the work during the next three or four years. He (Mr. E. Stanhope) was not going to offer any objection to the proposal. Circumstances might, no doubt, greatly change during the next three or four years; but he recognized the importance of continuity of policy; and therefore it seemed, on the whole, desirable that the Government should present to the House of Commons their policy for the construction of Public Works for some years to come. But that rendered it all the more necessary that they should ask the Government for full explanations; and he regretted that the present opportunity had not been taken advantage of by the Government as a favourable opening for bringing before the House the usual discussion on the financial and general affairs of India. He always deprecated putting off, until the very closing days of the Session, the discussion of the Indian Budget; but on this occasion it was all the more ne-
  1052
  cessary to have taken an early opportunity for that discussion, because the proposals of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down really depended on the financial position of India. In accordance with the desire to maintain some continuity of policy, the Government had now presented an Estimate based on the requirements of three or four years, and asked for power to borrow £10,000,000. He was not going to oppose that proposal; but he desired to point out that since the Budget Statement was made in India, two important events had occurred. First of all, the Government of India had been called upon to undertake military operations of a very extensive character, which had cost, or would cost, about £3,500,000, according to an Estimate given about three months ago; but they had not been told how the expense which had been incurred was to be met. At the present moment, however, he was most concerned to impress on the Government the duty of carrying the work out thoroughly when they were about it. India could not afford these constant scares. It was said that there was to be, and he should have been glad to notice, a considerable reduction in the ordinary Indian Expenditure; but that seemed out of the question, for, so far as he could see, there was hardly an item that did not show some little increase, except, perhaps, the Army, and they knew what was likely to happen to that item. But, in the second place, there had been an urgent desire for the establishment of a large and permanent system of Frontier communication and defence, that was to cost £5,000,000, an expenditure he very much approved of. It was obvious, however, that for a long time to come the Government of India would have no money to spare on Frontier railways out of Revenue. Not only would they have to make all preparations necessary for war, but they would have to give security to such portions of their Frontier as might be rendered necessary. Under those circumstances, it was obvious that the Government of India would have to take recourse to the loan market. Well, hon. Members opposite would agree with the Government in affording every facility for the adoption of that course; for they attached the greatest possible importance to the extension of these Frontier

  1053
  communications. It was a mistake, in his opinion, to dwell entirely on railways; many of the proposed roads were as important for strengthening the Frontier as any of these railways; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would give the House the additional information it desired in detail, by laying on the Table a copy of the map now in the Library of the House. There was one point as to these Frontier communications to which he desired to draw the particular attention of the House. It was the portion which used to be called the Quetta, but which was now known as the Sibi and Pishin Railway. Everyone admitted now that this line should be made as quickly as possible. He attached enormous importance to the extension to Candahar; but that would lead to some difference of opinion in the House, and, therefore, he would put it on one side for the present. What were the facts, however, as to the Quetta Railway? In 1880, when the Conservatives left Office, it was completed beyond Sibi, and, owing to the energy of Sir Richard Temple, to whom the country were under great obligation in the matter, the line was laid with unexampled rapidity. It was the policy of the Conservative Government to occupy a strong strategical position upon the Frontier connected with it by railway, and they desired to' push on its construction as rapidly as possible. It had the support, amongst others, of Lord Napier of Magdala, Sir Donald Stewart, Sir Frederick Roberts, Sir Edward Hamley, and Sir Frederick Haines. Political opinion was no less in favor of it. On that point, he could not help reading to the House a snort passage from a Minute recorded in 1880 by Sir Henry Rawlinson. He said—
  "Of all possible political shortcomings connected with Afghanistan, the most fatal, as it seems to me, would be the abandonment of this most promising undertaking. The railway was the most efficient arm of defence hitherto devised against Russian aggression, far more efficient than the conquest of Cabul or the establishment in power of a friendly Ameer, for its effect when completed would have been to transfer our military base from the Indus to within 350 miles of the threatened point of attack—namely, Herat. If we now abandon the work as a sequel to the withdrawal of our troops from the upper country, it must be remembered that we virtually deprive ourselves of the power of protecting the Afghan frontier from Russian aggression, and that the promises accordingly of assistance against external attack which we recently volunteered to Abdur-
  1054
  rahman at Cabul are rendered impossible of performance, for we could not and should not, whatever the emergency, march troops again from the Indus to the Oxus."
  So matters remained until the present Government came into power. But in May, 1880, the present Government announced their intention of withdrawing the troops from all positions beyond the Frontier, and the railway, which was the essence of the whole scheme, was abandoned a few months later.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Does the hon. Gentleman say 1880 or 1881?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he spoke of 1880, as the date when the Government first decided on the withdrawal of the troops from all positions beyond the Frontier; and he would show the noble Marquess the passage. But this abandonment was not decided upon without protest by some of the leading Members of the Viceroy's Council. Sir Rivers Thompson declared as to this as follows:—
  "But perhaps the most grievous and humiliating part of the orders in this connection is that which affects not only the stoppage of the railway works now under construction by the Nari Gorge, but the dismantling of the rails and the destruction of the earthworks already completed to a considerable distance towards Quetta. We certainly are not acting herein exactly without precedent; for we can all remember the case in which the Chinese Government recently, having got possession of a railway, proceeded at once to demolish it, and to break up its rolling stock. There is, however, this difference between the two cases, and it scarcely tells in our favour. The Chinese Government had never seen a railway before, and may have had just that kind of excuse for its folly which ignorance and superstition would excite. We, on our side, cannot plead such excuses, and, least of all, in places where we come in contact with barbarism. This wilful and deliberate surrender of advantages, gained after a vast expenditure of time, and thought, and money, and which would subserve peaceful administration much more than they would supply the military requirements of our position at Quetta, may be intelligible by a stretch of the imagination to some people who fancy that there is a high moral motive concealed in our proceedings; but, as far as they affect India, they are absolutely beyond the comprehension of any Native in the country."
  The facts concerning the state of the railway at the time of its abandonment were as follows:—According to the official Report of 1880–1, the line to Quetta had been surveyed throughout, and partially staked out. At the time of the battle of Maiwand, engines were running from Sibi to Nari Gorge, and from

  1055
  Nari Gorge onward 12½ miles of bank had been made, and platelaying had been commenced. Buildings were more or less completed at 11 stations, at all of which defensible store yards had been constructed. A service road had been constructed from Sibi nearly to Kach, and on to Quetta and Gulistan-i-Kharez. As regarded the rails, a quantity of permanent way material had been carried forward, some six miles of line were laid North of Nari, and in the hill country beyond several miles of rail had also been laid. The amount expended on the construction of the line beyond Sibi appeared, according to the Budget Statement of 1882, to have been £560,000. So much for the progress made. But it appeared from the official Report also that the original intentions of Lord Lytton's Government was to have completed the whole line to Candahar by 1882. Owing, however, to the difficulty of constructing the line having proved greater than had been foreseen, this could not have been accomplished. But had it been proceeded with with the same energy as was displayed in 1880, it might easily have been completed by the present time; while as regarded the line now under discussion—that to the head of the Pishin Valley, which the Government were now proposing to construct—that portion of the line, if it had been persevered in, would have been finished long ago. At the beginning of 1881, the officer in charge of the railway received orders to abandon the line beyond Sibi. He had heard from more than one eye-witness what had then taken place. One described the plant and stores as being practically left just as they wore, and said that no attempt had ever been made to bring back rails and sleepers from the front. Some of the rails nearer Sibi were, however, brought back and utilized elsewhere. Everything else, including the accumulated stores, was abandoned to the plunder of the tribes. Another eye-witness stated that orders were sent for destroying the earthworks that had been constructed, which were accordingly shovelled down to the level of the ground. The result was that in this part of the country no trace whatever remained of a railway ever having been constructed. The present Government had placed the whole cost of the formation of this line to the charge of the
  1056
  Military Department, with the view, apparently, of swelling the offence of the late Government in having undertaken military operations. In 1883–4, however, orders were given by the present Government for the recommencement of the work which they had put a stop to. When the hon. Gentleman opposite (the Under Secretary of State for India) asked him what ought to be done in this matter, he should answer him in one single sentence—that the railway ought to be completed as soon as possible. When the hon. Gentleman suggested that it was desirable to lay an alternative railway line through the Bolan Pass, all he could say was the sooner it was laid the better. But what did this abandonment in 1881 involve? In the first place it involved the loss of some money, the amount of which it was difficult to estimate. But it involved also what was infinitely more serious—the loss of three precious years. God grant that we might never know how serious that loss was! It was, however, possible that we might even yet be made aware, by the commencement of hostilities with Russia on the Frontier, that our Forces might be paralyzed for the want of communication. If both sides of the House were so unanimous now about the construction of this railway, why was it that the Government thought fit to abandon it four years ago? Did the Government adopt that course from ignorance, from motives of economy, from military necessity, or because they regarded the idea of the advance of Russia as an old woman's fear? He did not think that either of those were the grounds that had induced them to abandon the construction of this railway. He believed in his conscience that the real reason for that abandonment was that this railway had been projected by Lord Beaconsfield. The Prime Minister, during the campaign in Mid Lothian, had pledged himself to reverse Lord Beaconsfield's policy in India, and he (Mr. E. Stanhope) believed that that was the only reason why it had been determined to abandon the construction of this railway. The step that the Government had taken in the matter was entirely without excuse, and it was a blunder almost without parallel. That step had been taken' in defiance of Indian military and political opinion, and its folly had now

  1057
  been clearly brought home to this country, and it was now about to be retraced, for he was sure the House tonight would be unanimous in giving the Government the necessary funds for proceeding with the reconstruction of the line. He had placed a Motion upon the Paper with reference to the subject; but he felt that it was no use crying over spilt milk; and, therefore, as they were unanimous on the subject, he did not propose to press that Motion to a division. On the whole, he regarded the absolute unanimity that now existed as being the best condemnation of the action of the Government in this matter, as being one of the most foolish and short-sighted steps which they had taken in the history of even the last four years.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India had, no doubt, made out a good case; but there still seemed to be a great deal more to tell. They could not hope that if it went on the extraordinary military expenditure of India would be less than £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 in the course of the present year, and they ought to have been told by the hon. Gentleman where the money was to come from. He (Sir George Campbell) understood that what they were asked to do was to give a general power to the Government of India to raise a loan of £10,000,000 for any purpose whatever; but, before that was done, he thought Her Majesty's Government were bound to state to the House for what purpose they intended this loan—whether it was to be devoted exclusively to railways, or whether they also contemplated that it should be used for the purposes of extraordinary military works and charges. He had always been rather a pessimist with regard to Indian finance. Indian indebtedness had been largely increasing, and there was no Sinking Fund as in England. Therefore, if the expenditure was to be met by taxation, he should like to know how this taxation was to be raised. He had always thought that if the day should come when our Indian Frontier should be coterminous with Russia, there would be great danger from a financial point of view, because great expenditure would have to be incurred. He deprecated a premature advance beyond our own Frontier. With regard to the advance of Russia in Central
  1058
  Asia, for 50 years we had cried out "Wolf" without reason; and at last the wolf had come upon us in the shape of great detriment, and almost ruin, to our finances. In whatever way our present strained relations with Russia might terminate, he was afraid they must leave behind doubts and difficulties, both with regard to the good faith of Russia and with regard to complications in Afghanistan, which would have a very detrimental and ruinous effect upon our finances. The advance of Russia had been so considerable—and it had been more rapid than he expected—that he feared the strain upon our finances must be very great indeed. He would not contemplate an unfavourable issue to the present strained relations with Russia; but he wished to point out that, under the most favourable circumstances, there were several great additions to our Indian charges for which there was no provision at all. It seemed to him clear that they were going to throw upon the finances of India, which in time of prosperity were only in a condition of equilibrium, very large charges of various kinds amounting to many millions; and he submitted that they were bound to make some provision by which, if part of these charges would be met by loans, at least part of them should be met from income. At the same time, while expending large sums on railways, many of which were merely fancy lines, the necessity of increasing the pay of our Native soldiers ought not to be forgotten. He was not very sanguine that they would be able to set things right by a reduction of expenditure. If they were to face this rapidly-increasing expenditure they must considerably raise their income, which he did not think was sufficient at present. No doubt, there were great physical difficulties in regard to the Quetta line; but, in his belief, the real cause of its abandonment was a pecuniary one. The reason why it was necessary to abandon that line from financial considerations was that the Government desired to obtain the goodwill of Lancashire by abolishing the Indian Customs Duties. He thought that was not a good or proper reason for the abandonment of the railway. He was afraid that in the matter of this Quetta Railway the interests of India had been sacrificed to those of Lanca-

  1059
  shire. The people of Lancashire were doubtless Free Traders so long as it was to their advantage to be so. He hoped the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India would be able to tell the House that the finances of India would be managed on the same straightforward, honest principle upon which the finances of this country were managed, and that the Government, having this great expenditure before them, were prepared to raise additional Revenue, either by the re-imposition of those Customs Duties, or by some other means which would not affect the already heavily-taxed people of India. As a great portion of the money was to be devoted to railways, he hoped that the Government would not confine themselves to the unproductive lines, but would do all they could to acquire the profitable lines as well. Their policy hitherto had been to leave the paying lines exclusively in the hands of speculators. That course would, he trusted, now be abandoned, and the example of Belgium followed, where the State railways were cheap and effective; for he was strongly of opinion that a system of State railways managed in an economical manner, with cheap rates of transit, was very much better than the State getting rid of its liabilities by turning over the railways to speculators. It was a scandal that, in a cheap country like India, the fares on the railway should be dearer than in an expensive country like the United States.
  MR. ONSLOW,who had a Notice on the Paper to the effect that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that the present measure was for the exigencies of the Public Service in India generally, whereas the Committee last year was on the question of railways to be made for productive purposes. The Bill was to authorize India to borrow money for non-productive services—namely, the making of military railways. He congratulated the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross) upon having been able to state that the Government intended to strengthen the Indian Frontier. For his own part, he would not grudge a sixpence for that purpose; and his impression was that the proper construction of Frontier railways and roads would cost a good deal more than the £5,000,000 which was stated to be
  1060
  the amount intended to be spent upon them. He should be glad to know whether the money to be borrowed under the Bill would be spent entirely upon public works, because he earnestly hoped that no portion of that sum would be thrown into the general Revenues of India, or would appear in the Indian Budget. India was incurring £3,500,000 of extra expense for military purposes; and that expenditure only extended over three months. If the war preparations for which that expenditure was incurred were to go on for another six months or longer, there would be a great financial, social, and political danger, which ought, if possible, to be obviated. Where was it to end, and how long was India to go on preparing for war? The finances of India could not be at the present time in a satisfactory position, and the expenditure could not go on increasing without bringing matters to a crisis. India was already very heavily burdened, and a prolonged strain in consequence of military preparations might very conceivably lead to a total breakdown. If we were to desert the Ameer and to throw him into the hands of Russia, we should be involved in very great expenditure for the protection of the Frontier. It was to be remembered that not only were railways and military roads to be made, but that it would be necessary also to erect extensive fortifications on the Frontier which would cost a large sum of money, and thus swell the demands upon the resources of India. The expenses would be enormous, and the revising of the Estimates for 1885–6 would, be a serious question indeed. Still, it was high time that the Frontier of India should be protected, and he was ready to support the Government in any proposals having that object. It was difficult to determine how that enormous expenditure was to be met; but met it must be, and it must be recollected that the effect of what had recently happened would entail on the finances of India a large additional permanent charge. There was no use in blinking the serious position of Indian finance at the present time. Unless matters were amicably settled, it was doubtful whether the amount of this loan could be obtained in the London market. It was already a significant sign that Trustees did not like to invest in Indian Securi-

  1061
  ties. The Bill was a simple one, but it involved an enormous principle. As the matter stood, however, both sides of the House would admit it was high time our Frontier should be protected, and their unanimity would show the people of India that we were determined to do all we could to protect them.
  MR. SLAGGsaid, that his hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) appeared to consider that there was some connection between the abandonment of the Quetta Railway and the abolition of import duties on Lancashire goods. He (Mr. Slagg) entirely failed to see this connection, nor could, he imagine how anyone who had grasped the first principles of Free Trade could offer the slightest opposition to the emancipation of the Indian ryot from the tax imposed upon him for the benefit of the Indian manufacturers. It was popularly supposed that, when Lancashire was successful in obtaining the abolition of the tax, something was put into the pockets of her manufacturers. Nothing of the sort took place; for the whole of the duty was actually given in a reduction in the price of clothing to the Natives. With regard to the Quetta Railway, the hon. Member who had given Notice of an Amendment (Mr. E. Stanhope) made, he thought, a very good case, when he showed that many of those things which Her Majesty's Government were now doing were matters which they strongly condemned the previous Administration for undertaking; and were he (Mr. Slagg) to say one single word in defence or approval of the Quetta Railway project, he thought a most ample apology would be due from him because in 1880, he did his best to turn the late Government out of Office for having, amongst other things, undertaken that line. He saw a good deal more in this matter than simply the construction of a line as far as Quetta. It meant that Her Majesty's Government had fallen into the hands of the same clique of military advisers who prompted hon. Members opposite before 1880 to construct a line into Afghanistan. The line meant the obtaining of a point of advantage which would enable the Indian Government, at anytime it chose, to continue the line to Candahar; to march troops, and plant them in Candahar; and, if necessary, to pursue military operations on a large scale in the regions of Afghanistan, and so repeat
  1062
  the miseries and horrors for which they so strongly condemned the late Government in 1880. It was said that military authorities were almost unanimous in favour of this project, and several names were quoted which were, no doubt, of great influence. But there were other military authorities of equal eminence on Indian questions who had denounced, in the strongest possible manner, any interference in the affairs of Afghanistan or its Frontier arrangements, and who were absolutely in favour of the defence of India on her own proper Frontier, within her own territories. Among such authorities he might name Lord Lawrence and Lord Dalhousie as civilians, and Sir James Outram, Lord Napier, Sir Neville Chamberlain, and Sir Henry Norman as soldiers. Although he should express himself with extreme diffidence on military questions, yet, looking to past history and the result of our interference in the affairs of Afghanistan, lie was driven to the conclusion that we should act most wisely if we held our own territory, made that as strong as we possibly could, and avoided complications in the territories of Khans and other Potentates. In regard to the other portion of the Bill, the House could have really little criticism to make. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross) had stated that the works to be undertaken would probably prove of a remunerative character, and on the Government would rest the responsibility of only undertaking works of that nature. He shared the apprehension expressed by almost every speaker as to where the money was to come from to provide the necessary funds. In surveying the financial condition of India, he stood appalled at the idea of putting further burdens on the shoulders of that much-taxed people; and although the House would be told they were a lightly-taxed people in relation to the actual sum paid per head, yet they could not conceal from their minds that they were miserably poor. It was therefore difficult to consider what might be a light taxation with reference to persons whose incomes were less than 40 s. a-year. Perhaps the House would be told how the money was to be raised; but he was perfectly assured of this—and Sir Evelyn Baring, no mean authority, confirmed the statement—that no more money could be

  1063
  raised by fresh taxation. As regarded the Famine Lines—erroneously called Famine Prevention Lines—it had been clearly demonstrated that no lines had ever prevented famines. Certainly, when famines had occurred, the railway communications had greatly relieved the distress by bringing food supplies more rapidly to the places of scarcity; but the cure of famines lay far deeper than any point raised by these lines. Famine was undoubtedly produced in India, not only by the desperate poverty of the people, but by a system of government which he would not say was bad, but which had certainly not in all respects been successful; and when they talked of famine and famine prevention, surely their attention ought to be turned to those financial means of relief and those possible methods of ameliorating the condition of the people which could only be affected by wise and economical government. One view which he strongly entertained with regard to this vast expenditure on the Frontier was that, when another Government came into Office, they were certain to be presented with a totally different scheme, and the scheme which had been adopted at the instance of the previous Administration would be denounced as so utterly bad that it must be changed at once. Thus the balance oscillated between one extreme and the other, and the outcome of it all would be an immense victimization of the people of India and an increase of their burdens. He did not intend to oppose the Motion; because, as to the commercial portion of it, having been a Member of the Select Committee on whose Report that portion was based, he was bound to agree. But as to the undertaking at Quetta, which no doubt had been forced on the Government by its Military Advisers, he felt bound to enter his emphatic protest against it.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, in reply to his hon. Friend who had just sat down, that by constructing the railway to Quetta, they were not pursuing the policy of advancing beyond their Frontier; but they were simply making secure their communications within their Frontier. His hon. Friend had also stated that railways did not prevent famine. That was literally true. But they obviated the worst results of famine, and
  1064
  largely diminished the mortality. He could not help noticing that the Bill had undergone several changes since it was introduced. In its original form, it was a Bill to supply means for carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat last Session, and the funds were to be devoted principally to the construction of commercial railways, whether reproductive or not. But since the Bill was introduced, they had had laid before them some Correspondence with the Government of India; and from that Correspondence it appeared that a very large portion of the money which was to be raised under it was not to be spent upon the construction of the description of railways recommended by the Select Committee, but upon the construction of Frontier railways, which, he contended, were really military works, and in no sense commercial undertakings. He gathered from the speech of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India that the estimate made of the cost of the Frontier railways was very considerably below the mark. Several important statements had also been made with regard to an additional railway through the Bolan Pass, and the cost which it would entail upon the country; and also with reference to the enormous cost laid upon India in consequence of the military preparations which were now going on. He joined with the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) in regretting the course taken with respect to this Bill. They had not now before them Sir Auckland Colvin's Financial Statement, which was made two months ago, and was ordered to be printed more than a month ago; but considering the information which had reached them in newspaper abstracts as to that Statement, he must say that he did not think that the prospect of the finances of next year was very satisfactory. Sir Auckland Colvin anticipated a surplus of £508,100. He believed that surplus would not be secured. Last year, Sir Auckland Colvin anticipated a surplus of £319,000, and the result was not a surplus, but a deficit of £716,000. They could not, therefore, anticipate that he was likely to realize his estimated surplus this year. This was not merely his (Mr. Buchanan's) surmise. The Finance Minister himself used these words in concluding his statement—

  1065
  "There is no reason why our resources should not fully suffice to meet all the normal expenditure of 1885–6. But if abnormal expenditure, whether of a temporary or permanent kind, is forced upon us, our Estimates may very probably prove unequal to meet it."
  Yet everyone must allow that a very abnormal strain had been for the last three months, and was now being, put upon the finances. The Under Secretary of State for India had informed him that evening, in reply to a Question, that the military expenditure incurred until the end of July was not less than £3,000,000, plus £385,000 for ordnance. Then they had heard from his hon. Friend that there was to be a new railway through the Bolan Pass. Neither the exact estimate of the cost of that railway, nor the period that would be occupied in its construction, had been given; but they had been informed that it would cost 10 lakhs during the next two months. Besides that, they had had most distinct warnings that the estimate put forward by the Government of India as to the cost of the Frontier railways could not be relied upon. They were, there fore, in this position—that the Frontier railways which the Government desired to construct would cost, according to the estimates of the Government, £5,000,000, and according to the Statement of his hon. Friend £5,800,000, or nearly £0,000,000, and in that amount the expenses of the new railway through the Bolan Pass were not included. Added to that, the Government already had liabilities amounting to £3,000,000 for four months, so that already the Government of India for Frontier railways and military expenditure would be indebted to the extent of £10,000,000, equal to the total sum now asked for. There were increased obligations in the immediate future, and it was right that the House should consider the Bill in view of the financial prospects of India as affected by recent political events. One other point ho wished to bring before the House. He objected to the Government mixing up Frontier railways and commercial railways, for the recommendations of the Select Committee applied only to the latter. Frontier railways were as much military works as fortifications and barracks. The Government of India proposed that those Frontier railways and military works
  1066
  should be made entirely out of money raised by loan; but Sir Auckland Colvin was so opposed to the course that he entered a strong dissent against it, in the Minute printed in the Correspondence which had been circulated., He pointed out that such a proposal was contrary to the declared opinions of Lord Lawrence, Sir Richard Temple, Sir John Strachey, and other eminent authorities, and that the result would be that the charge for military railways would be a charge prior to the charge for the construction of commercial railways. The Secretary of State for India had also expressed his concurrence with the opinions of Sir Auckland Colvin rather than with those of the majority of the Governor General's Council. Yet now these works were to be proceeded with out of borrowed money. That was an entirely new departure, and a departure in a wrong direction; and Sir Auckland Colvin anticipated that if the intention were carried out, it would indefinitely postpone the carrying out of railways for commercial purposes. They were undoubtedly in a position of considerable embarrassment in regard to voting this Bill. No one wished to hinder the carrying out of military works which might be deemed to be necessary for the defence of India. Still less did they wish to retard the speedy construction of commercial railways for developing its resources. Whenever the Indian Government made up its mind what the Frontier was to be, the House would not scruple to vote funds for the purpose; but they ought to be careful to ascertain clearly for what objects the money asked for was to be devoted. They ought not to confuse the two issues, and they ought, in sanctioning a large loan, to consider it in its bearing on the general financial position of India.
  MR. HARRISsaid, he was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross) say that the new lines would not cost more than 50 per cent of the outlay on the old lines; and he was thereby induced to hope that the existing high freightage charges which had so much hampered the export trade of our Indian Empire, especially in the wheat-growing districts, would, in consequence, be reduced. That was essential to the in-

  1067
  terests of trade. As the conquering country, we were bound to develop the resources of India as much as possible, and should pay especial attention to those lines that ran into the wheat districts. In his opinion, these railways ought not to be left to private enterprise. He thought it was much better that Government should undertake the construction of these lines than that they should be left to speculators, because they would have them, to a great extent, in their own hands. The wheat trade of India was capable of enormous development; but the Government did everything in their power to discourage the higher cultivation of the soil by adopting the principles of Mr. Henry George, and increasing the taxes on land as its value was improved. The free import of Manchester goods had been mentioned in the course of the discussion. Much had been said against the imposition of a duty on imports; and while he did not wish to raise any Free Trade or Fair Trade discussion, yet he considered that taxes which were far more antagonistic to the received principles of political economy were the export tax on rice, and the large land tax which handicapped the productive power of the Natives of India. There was no doubt that the more the Natives were encouraged to grow wheat by the construction of railways, the cheaper they could send it to the seaboard; and the more wheat came to this country, the more Manchester goods would go out to India. He maintained that any existence of duties on exports was a much more pernicious principle than duties on imports. Those were his reasons for supporting in every way he could the Motion made by the Under Secretary of State for India. He was strongly of opinion that the construction of military railways was a necessity, if they wished to inspire confidence in India; and if this country did not inspire confidence in the Natives of India as to its grasp in that country a great mistake would be made. Whether the Russians intended to attack India or not, that confidence needed to be promoted all over the country, in order to encourage the investment of English capital, and to develop the country in every possible way.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he merely wished to point out to hon.
  1068
  Gentlemen opposite, who had not been very numerous in their attendance that evening, and did not show that interest in an important measure of this kind which he thought it demanded, that nearly the whole of this expenditure, or rather the whole of the £3,500,000 expended on warlike expenditure during the past few months, was entirely due to the Government's policy of the abandonment of Candahar. The Vote the House gave four years ago, by a majority of 120, in favour of the abandonment of Candahar, and of the destruction of the Quetta Railway, thereby reversing the policy of Lord Beaconsfield, was directly responsible for the expenditure which India and this country were now undergoing. This question of military expenditure was not to be settled by the result of the Motion of that night. The country was now paying the bitter penalty, in money and in blood, for the incredible blindness of Her Majesty's present Ministers, and the Leaders of the Liberal Party. If this country were now in occupation of Candahar, and if the railway had been completed, the Russian Forces would not have dared to approach Afghan territory, or even to enter into possession of Merv. He hoped that the railway would be completed, not merely to Quetta, but to Candahar; for, until the railway communication was complete to that great position, we could not be sure against a Russian absorption of Afghanistan. That railway must be completed to Candahar by an arrangement with the Ameer, so that British troops could be thrown into that place whenever occasion arose; and if the Ameer were willing to consent to such an arrangement, by all means let it be effected at once. It was assumed by some that this railway would not be remunerative; but that, he believed, was a mistaken idea, and that the accession of trade to be acquired by it was considerable, for we should gain the whole trade of Afghanistan, of Northern Persia, and of all those tribes not subject to Russia. He deplored the policy of surrender which had characterized the action of Her Majesty's Government, and he contended that unless a more vigorous policy were pursued, nothing but danger was to be apprehended from the constant encroachments of Russia in the direction of our Indian Frontier.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he greatly regretted to see, by the very small number of Members present, how little interest "was taken in these matters relating to India. At one time there were not 15, seldom not 20 Members present, and even now there were only between 20 and 30.
  MR. CALLAN: In consequence of the observation of the hon. and gallant Member, I beg to call the Speaker's attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
  House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR,in resuming, said, it was to be regretted that some more information was not given with regard to the finances of India, seeing that £9,000,000 of new outlay would be made within the next few years; and he trusted his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India, in his reply on the debate, would give further information, as the last Budget for 1885–6 was not of a very hopeful character, so far as meeting this increased civil and military expenditure was concerned. He (Sir George Balfour) had no belief in the promises of the Russian Government, and was convinced a forward movement of a strong Force into the healthy table laud of Pishin was necessary on our part for the defence of the North-Western Frontier of India. Ho therefore hoped the preparations against the advance of Russia would be such as would deter that great Power from moving on. He joined most heartily with those who felt that the engagements made by Russia were unworthy of credit; and, therefore, most cordially approved of a policy of preparation for India. In connection with that point, he would urge upon his hon. Friend the necessity which existed, in the first place, for extending our trade in all directions, especially with Afghanistan, and thereby lessen the inducements for Russian merchants to try and open a trade; and next in improving and strengthening the Native Army, so as to make it more efficient than it was at present. It was exceedingly small, and the money inducements for able-bodied men to enter the Service were small. Indeed, the Sepoys pay was at present less than it was 100 years ago. Whatever Force we maintained there of
  1070
  that character ought to be as efficient as possible by the men being trained in these military exercises to the highest state of perfection. Another object which ought also to be carried out without delay was the extension of commercial railways along with a large reduction in transport rates. At the present moment, he believed, it cost 50 or 60 per cent more to convey wheat from Delhi to Calcutta or Bombay than from Chicago to New York, the distances being nearly alike—1,000 miles. If Indian wheat was to compete with American they must reduce the transport rates. One great inducement to Russia to advance on India was to get possession of her trade, and that of Afghanistan; but we ought to do everything in our power to prevent that country being filled with the goods of Russia, and cheap transport in India would do more to save that trade than any other measure.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he wished to say a few words in support of the Bill before the House, as having had the honour of being a Member of the Select Committee on Indian Railways. In the Committee there was a difference of opinion among the Members on such points as whether the money should be borrowed in India or in London, and the amount of interest to be paid; but, so far as he had been able to judge, there had been no difference as to the absolute necessity and great advantage of railway extension in India. The Bill before the House appeared to point to this fact—that unless the Government were entrusted with powers to raise money, in this form or some other like it, the extension of what were called "commercial lines" would be seriously interfered with by the absolute necessity of making the lines to which the hon. Gentleman opposite the Under Secretary of State for India had referred that evening. He desired to put on the Government the responsibility of their own proposals in this matter. They had come down to the House and said the making of these lines and the expenditure of this large sum of money was absolutely necessary for the defences of India. Now, he held the opinion that England was so committed to India that it was absolutely necessary it should be clear that, so far as the question of the safe retention and preservation of that country was concerned, this country was bound

  1071
  to do everything that was necessary for the purpose. Some desire had been expressed for more information as to how it was proposed to deal with the money which was asked for; and he thought the House was also entitled to know whether this money would involve any additional burden upon the Revenue of India, or any additional taxation upon the people of that country. The Indian Railway Extension Committee, he would point out, was very positive on one point—namely, that the people of India ought not to be called upon to bear the cost of making railways in India. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had entered what he called a strong protest against the Government making all the lines, he being in favour of the Government only making such lines as were absolutely necessary in districts where they would pay, and leaving to commercial enter-prize the construction of them in districts where they would not pay. He (Mr. Jackson) had no doubt that no one would be better pleased than the Under Secretary of State for India if he could have lines which were necessary for military or famine purposes made by private enterprize; but he (Mr. Jackson) himself considered it would be unreasonable to expect the commercial companies to undertake lines the primary necessity for which was the protection of the country. It was only by Government—who, in that case, would have no option in the matter—adopting that course that the two classes of railways could be proceeded with at the same time. He was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) cast a doubt on the security offered by the Indian Government. The last thing he (Mr. Jackson) should expect any friend of India ought to desire to do was to make any remarks which would cast any doubt upon the security, and thus increase the difficulty of raising money for the necessary purpose of India. He believed that the British Government owed a great duty to India; and he would even go the length of saying that his idea was that, if necessary, the British Government should guarantee the money for the construction of the railways. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) seemed to doubt the advantage of making railways in India, because of the danger there was of fur-
  1072
  ther taxing the people, who already were so wretchedly poor; but in the Report which was issued by the Committee, of which the hon. Member for Manchester himself was one of the Members, it was stated by General Strachey, who, he (Mr. Jackson) believed, was recognized as a very high authority, that he estimated the annual benefit arising to the people of India from the construction of railways had been £30,000,000 to £40,000,000. If that was accepted, as he thought it would be, as an authoritative statement of the probable benefit which had accrued to India by the making of railways, they might, he thought, set their minds at rest on the point that the making of additional railways in India would add to or impose any additional taxes on the people of India. There was another point which he might mention in connection with this subject, as showing the enormous progress made, and which, he thought, they were entitled to claim as having partly been the result of the railroad extension in India. He referred to the enormous progress which had taken place in the exports from India. In the same Table, to show the average annual value of exports, it was stated that from 1869 to 1873 the value amounted to £54,990,000; while the exports in 1883–4 amounted to £88,076,000. These figures were, he thought, conclusive as to the advantage which had accrued from railroad extension; and he had no doubt or hesitation in his own mind that a very considerable extension of the railroad facilities in India would continue in the same way to benefit the people of India. If the making of the necessary Frontier lines and of the fortifications were, in any sense, crippling or retarding the progress of a great many of what were called "commercial lines," which were necessary to develop the resources of India, he thought that, in itself, would be a sufficient reason for the Bill, the justification for which, if any were wanted, would be found in this—that the direct result of it would be to defend and to develop the resources of India. He believed, further that the present proposal was one which was necessary for the defence of India; it was a measure of protection against famine, and in relief of famine; because, although exception had been taken to

  1073
  that statement, he thought it had been conclusively shown that, while it could not be said that railways were a protection against the occurrence of famine, they certainly saved the people from results which would otherwise accrue from famine. He thought it was also necessary for the development of Indian resources, and would tend to open up new markets, and was thus one of the best means at their command of benefiting the people of India. On these grounds ho cordially supported the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that, looking at this question from a Home Rule point of view, he thought that the people of India would be quite justified in opposing this proposal with all their force, seeing that guaranteeing funds for the construction of railways in India, when those lines were not likely to prove remunerative or profitable, was a most unfair mode of proceeding towards the unfortunate Native taxpayer for the benefit of the British capitalist. Then, again, they had no information whatever from the Government as to the probable financial condition of India during the coming year, when it was well known that the Revenues of India were not able to bear any further over-taxation; and he also thought it was not right that a financial Bill should be passed through the House, without an opportunity being afforded of ample consideration and full discussion. Statements heretofore made with respect to Indian finance had not been justified by results; for, in some instances, where a Department showed an increase, that increase had been largely counterbalanced by the augmented cost of administration. Enormous sums were already taken away from India every year for the purpose of paying interest on loans which had been expended in the construction of railways which were unprofitable. A larger revenue was derived from the Salt Tax now than it yielded some years ago, although they had been told recently that the Government had lessened the burden of this cruel and oppressive tax upon India. The Customs Duties had been lowered for the benefit of Manchester; while the Excise Duties, which pressed so heavily upon India, had been raised. In fact, the people of India were ground down by a system of taxation more searching and distressing than probably
  1074
  any other financial system in vogue. Yet they were now asked to vote £10,000,000 for these railways, which would never benefit the people of India at all. There was one clause in the Bill which seemed to challenge the opposition of anyone who held the political opinions that he did, and who thought that a people ought to be left to manage its own affairs without the intervention of any other people. That clause provided that all the bonds and debentures issued should be charged upon and payable out of the Revenues of India. What had the people of India done that they should be saddled with this further expense? If the Russians and the British were at rivalry in Central Asia, that was not the fault of the Indians. In his judgment the people of India would be specially benefited by the proximity of Russia, for British administrators in India would then endeavour to do something like justice to the unfortunate Natives of that country. If the hon. Gentleman who threatened the Amendment (Mr. E. Stanhope) had proceeded to a division he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would have been obliged to vote against it, as ho was not inclined to regret the abandonment of the Quetta Railway, which, from the very moment of its inception, he had regarded as an impolitic and unjust undertaking.
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, that, by the indulgence of the House, he might, perhaps, be allowed to say a few words in reply to some remarks which had been made. Attention had been called to the despatch of the 21st of May, 1880, and his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope) intimated that it showed the policy of the Government, which resulted in the abandonment of the Quetta Railway. Ho (Mr. J. K. Cross) would refer, however, to another despatch, written by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) on the 29th of July, 1880, when he had been informed what the condition of the railway was supposed to be at that time. His noble Friend said—
  "As to the Candahar Railway, it is represented that the line is open as far as the foot of the Murree Hills, and 'that on the Nan lower section 100 miles of road to the Quetta plateau will probably be ready for opening in 1881, while a further section as far as the Amran range is being surveyed, and that between that point and Candahar nothing has been done.

  1075
  I need offer no remarks in regard to the first two sections of the railway which are either open or ready for opening. In regard to the two latter sections, I am of opinion that the surveys as far as the Amran range may be, with advantage, completed, and that the country beyond as far as Candahar may also be surveyed; but nothing further should be done on either of these two sections with regard to the construction of the railway without previous reference to me."
  It was quite clear from this despatch of the 29th of July, 1880, that the noble Marquess accepted the first two sections of the Candahar line—namely, that from the Indus to the foot of the Murree Hills, and also that from the foot of the Murree Hills to Quetta, and that he said in this despatch that he
  "need offer no remarks as to the first two sections, which are either open or nearly ready for opening."
  This clearly indicates that the line to Quetta, at any rate, was accepted by the noble Marquess, and that he also authorized the completion of the surveys to the Amran range beyond Quetta, and as far as Candahar.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURinquired whether that despatch had been laid before the House?
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, that it had not; but he proposed to present it. Statements had been made to the effect that the railroad had been to some extent destroyed by order of the present Government a short time after they came into power, simply because of the fact that the line was proposed by Lord Beaconsfield; but he could assure the House that the question was one of policy, and not of pique. It had been also indicated from the opposite side of the House that the line had. been destroyed, if not by the Home Government, at least by the orders of the Government of India. He (Mr. J. K. Cross) denied that that was the case. The reason the line was stopped eventually was that it was not considered to be by any means certain that the occupation of Quetta and Pishin would be continued. His noble Friend Lord Ripon was not personally in favour of abandoning the line, when that abandonment occurred; and there was no truth in the assertion that it had been destroyed, for he found on page 38 of the Administration Report of 1880–1 the following statement:—
  "The existing buildings were not dismantled, and such parts of the lines as had already been laid were not lifted."
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he spoke on the evidence of eye-witnesses.
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, he could also give the evidence of eye-witnesses. Major General Trevor, who was Director General of the Railways under the late Government, wrote a letter to The Times in the spring of 1884, in which he stated that there had been a misapprehension on the subject, and that very little loss of money had been incurred when the line was abandoned. Major General Trevor had also since informed him (Mr. J. K. Cross), in writing, that no rails were pulled up when the Quetta section of the Candahar line was abandoned. With regard to what had been done on the line and the progress of the works, he would quote a Report from Mr. Moles worth, the principal engineer in India, who reported, on November 14, 1884, that in his original note of April 20, 1880, he had included a list describing the character of the different sections of the line under the heads of "easy," "moderately difficult," "heavy," and "very heavy." Mr. Moles worth stated that no great progress had been made in the surveys, and that in many places they had not passed beyond the stage of simple reconnois-sances. His hon. Friend quoted a Minute written by Mr. Rivers Thompson (now Sir Augustus Rivers Thompson), in February, 1881, in which the latter proceeded on the assumption that the lines were to be dismantled, and instanced a case of such dismantlement in China as the only one which had ever occurred. Mr. Rivers Thompson's Minute was written on the receipt of a despatch of the noble Lord who was then Secretary for India, dated December 3, 1880, and was founded on a misconception of the meaning of that despatch. Thus the only evidence which his hon. Friend opposite had brought forward—namely, the Minute to which he (Mr. J. K. Cross) had just referred—proved absolutely nothing. With regard to the general question of the Quetta Railway, he was quite willing to allow that it had been stopped in 1880, when it was undecided whether Pishin should be retained, and not begun again till 1883–4. The line was then re-surveyed, and it was found that a better alignment could be made than the one originally intended; and it would be seen, when the engineers' Reports

  1077
  were presented to the House, that, so far from the discontinuance of the work for two years having been a loss, there would be a very considerable financial saving on account of the difference in the cost of materials, and from the saving effected by means of the improved plans which would be carried out. If they had to go back into the past to throw stones at each other about railway communications, he would like to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope) to remember how long the late Government occupied the Pishin plateau, without any reasonable communication between that place and the Indus.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he was trespassing rather too far on the indulgence of the House, as he had no right to reply.
  MR. J. K, CROSSsaid, he would not pursue the subject further. He would only add that he was much obliged to the House for their indulgence in listening to those few remarks, and he would conclude by explaining that it was not possible now to lay before the House the annual Financial Statement, as it had been suggested by several hon. Members he might, and which he should have been only too glad to have done, because some millions of additional military expenditure had been incurred; and until they ascertained how long that expenditure would last, it was impossible that the Budget could be presented. He hoped the House would now allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 8th June.

PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE HOLIDAYS.)

  RESOLUTION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question proposed [20th May], "That this House at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Thursday the 4th of June."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that they had never, in the recollection of any hon. Member of the House, or under any circumstances, adjourned for
  1078
  the Whitsuntide holidays, when matters were more depressing or adverse, as regarded the interests of the country, than they were now. Never before had there been a Government who had so managed the affairs of this country, that, if he mentioned one solitary instance, and he was not quite sure at that moment how we absolutely stood in regard to that Power—he meant Italy—we had not one single friend among European nations on whom we could rely, even in the meanest and smallest sense of the word. Notwithstanding the assiduous efforts of the Government to conciliate them, the insults which had been heaped upon this country by Powers which ought to have been our friends were now more than we had hitherto been called on to bear. Everything had been sacrificed to Russia and France, and what was the position we now occupied in regard to those two Powers. By every means in their power they were thwarting the best interests of this country. Though he would give the Prime Minister credit for having done all in his power to maintain peace, yet, unhappily, that peace had not been secured; and he would venture to say he never remembered a time when the House and the country had been kept in such absolute ignorance of the intentions, the views, and the opinions of the Government as they were at the present moment. If the right hon. Gentleman would look back to what had passed, he would be the first to recognize that that which had been his expressed grand and primary principle—that the House of Commons should be taken into the confidence of the Government, and should know what they were aiming at in regard to the policy which they wore pursuing in foreign affairs—had been violated. Even in the Papers which had been presented to the House respecting Russia and Afghanistan, the most critical part of the correspondence and negotiations had been omitted. Consequently the House was not in a position to say whether the Government had dealt honestly, uprightly, and straightforwardly with this country, or whether they had been pandering to Russia; whether we had come to the lowest degradation, or whether we had yet a further step to take in that unhappy direction. He would defy anyone—he would even venture to defy the Prime Minister—to get up in his place,

  1079
  and say that we were in the same position as a nation as we were when he came into Office five years ago. He defied the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) to say in regard to his foreign and Colonial policy that he had done that which would best maintain the honour, the dignity, and the integrity of this country. When they saw that Russia never intended to comply with that which the Prime Minister not only desired, but demanded; when they saw that this country had been led, step by step, into that mire, into that quagmire, from which the Government would not be able to extricate themselves or the country, he was justified in saying there was a point beyond which this country would not go—a point at which they would rise against that Government and turn them out of power and place, relegating them to that position which they were so eminently fitted to occupy. No language was too strong, if it would only induce the Prime Minister to put aside all views in regard to Party,—to put aside playing and trifling with the country merely to secure votes. In that case, he would receive a far more general support than he now had. This country had, by the Government's policy, been placed in an inferior position, both in regard to Russia and France. What had taken place in regard to that "Financial Convention" of which we had heard so much? The Prime Minister said that, unless the House agreed to that Convention at once, Egypt would be bankrupt. Was Egypt bankrupt? No. And yet none of the other Powers had jet agreed to that Convention. The other Powers were keeping that Convention to play on the Prime Minister, and to force him to internationalize the Suez Canal, the prevention of which was one of the main causes of our going to Egypt at first. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade came down to the House, and told them that, although they had sacrificed everything they last year held to be most dear, and that they believed no financial arrangement could be made with success, except that which they propounded, yet because France would not agree with them they gave way upon every point, and only succeeded in gaining one miserable concession, which was that 5 per cent should be taxed on the
  1080
  coupons. And now they had it that even those coupons were not to be taxed. Not a single shred had been left of the proposal made by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told the House that other nations had their feelings, and that they had a right to have them considered. And the result of all that was, that the Government had shown they were prepared to sacrifice our feelings and all our best interests in order to maintain peace at any price, no matter what humiliation might be placed on England. These were strong points of indictment, and he might go into others. He might mention The Bosphore Egyptien incident. Never, in the history of this country, had a greater insult been offered to this country than by the manner in which France had dealt with us in this matter. True, in some slight particular, the law as it was in Egypt might have been broken; but his belief was that if the affair had been properly managed, if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had held his head as high as a Prime Minister of this country should, when he associated this country with Egypt in the suppression of that newspaper, we should not have heard so in much about this most scurrilous publication; denouncing in violent language both the Egyptian Government and our own, writing in every way against the British occupation, and in promotion of a French occupation. He did not suppose even hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would approve of that. That, however, was the aim of The Bosphore Egyptien,and now it seemed that paper was again going to run its scurrilous course. In fact, it had been republished, and he presumed there was no reason to believe that it would not repeat those abominable acts which led to its suppression. He did not like to trouble the House with extracts; but he had a letter in reference to the closing of the office of the paper from one on the spot, and on whom he could thoroughly depend, a letter he was quite willing to show to the right hon. Gentleman. His correspondent's account, he might also say, agreed with one published in a London paper that morning. Everything, said the writer, was done in the most regular way: and when the French Consul appeared, and said he would

  1081
  only yield to force, Mr. Fenwick placed his hand on the Consul's shoulders, and said—"Will that be sufficient for you?" That was all the force used to show authority in closing the office. The French Consul smiled, and said, "Yes." The two gentlemen then shook hands, and separated. That was the whole business which France magnified into a great breach of the law, and for which she did all she could to place us in a ridiculous, invidious position he fore the other nations of the world. Knowing our position in regard to Russia she pressed all her claims upon us, because she believed she was dealing with a Government she could squeeze. The outlook in Egypt was very serious indeed, and before the close of the debate he looked for some authoritative declaration of the Government's intention from the Prime Minister. Lightly, some time ago, the right hon. Gentleman told the House the Soudan was to be abandoned; the order went forth, and all the unfortunate garrisons were left to their fate. A prudent Minister, who had considered the question and knew his own intentions, would never have made such a statement, and at such a time; but the Prime Minister, he was sorry to say, was one of those who, in regard to Egyptian affairs, never looked beyond the action he was taking at the moment; he never looked to the consequences, or what necessarily ought to follow, only how he would be able to evade those consequences, or to the means of discontinuing or finishing the work commenced. It was now stated that Suakin was to be abandoned, and this after the formal statement made some time ago by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) that no other Power would be allowed to hold Suakin. To-day, however, they heard of the possibility of the poor bag-and-baggage Turk occupying Suakin. The Prime Minister had done everything to debase, degrade, and estrange that country; and now, in his troubles and his difficulties, he was obliged to go to the unspeakable Turk to help him in the Soudan. It was to be hoped the country would never agree to Suakin being held by any other Power but ourselves. Our great object, it was always understood in Egypt, was to protect our highway to India and our great Australian Colonies; but if any other
  1082
  Power held Suakin, especially a European Power, and if that Power succeeded in occupying Khartoum and other points in the Soudan, that Power would have entire command over the Valley of the Nile, which would give it absolute power over Egypt. The most unwise step the Government had yet taken was the absolute and unconditional evacuation of the Soudan after the enormous sacrifice of human life we had incurred there. The power of the Mahdi was broken, Osman Digna had no following, and would not have, unless we withdrew; and with the Suakin-Berber Railway and very little effort the country might be civilized. When the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War made his statement in reference to the Soudan, he ignored entirely one fact of which the country was proud—that the Army, under the most dispiriting and adverse circumstances, performed duties as arduous as an Army could be called on to perform. They toiled up the Nile, they laboured, they fought, they endured; they showed what a British Army could do. Except by one slight allusion the noble Marquess said nothing of this gallant work. Last year at Tamai and El Teb, and again this year at Abu Klea, Metammeh, Gubat, Baker's Ze-reba, and elsewhere. No body of men in our military history deserved better of their country. Of the Staff he would say nothing. There were good and able men upon it, under the distinguished Leader whose ability was acknowledged. Though some things less pleasant might be said, he would forbear; but the regimental officers of the Army, the Marines, and the officers of the Navy—they, with the men under their command, had shown we still had a regimental system—tho backbone and foundation of our Army. But for the way in which the men rallied round the officers, and formed a square in emergencies, there would have been a very different tale to tell. But nothing of this came from the noble Marquess, and he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) took the opportunity of publicly saying that these men deserved well of their country. To the Staff rewards and promotion were always given; they were always taken care of; but the officers who toiled and went all over the world had but few friends; they were never rewarded as they should be—men who had done such arduous work, with disease and death

  1083
  around them. He had many relations with the Army, but never a complaint had he heard from any officer or man—they were too well disciplined—but it was because he was in favour of doing justice to such men, who not only did honour to, but maintained the honour of their country, that he ventured to call the attention of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War to the manner in which they had done their duty undermost difficult, trying, and dangerous circumstances. Into the question of our position in Afghanistan he would not now enter, except for the purpose of asking a few questions which ho thought might be answered without touching upon those diplomatic proprieties so dear to the right hon. Gentleman. Were we going to assist the Afghans in the defence of Herat? What was to be the boundary of Afghanistan that we were going to maintain; and how were we going to defend the country for the Ameer? They could not forget that the Prime Minister some time ago said, with the full consent of the House, that there could be but one opinion with regard to our policy in Afghanistan, and that was that we should maintain the Dominions of the Ameer intact. That was the view which was taken by the House and ratified by the country; and he should like to know what view the Prime Minister took of the matter at the present moment? The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, in summing up the debate on the evacuation of Candahar in 1881, said—
  "Russia knows perfectly well that any interference, militarily or diplomatically, in Afghanistan means the rupture of friendly relations with this country, and she knows that we hold ourselves justified in resisting such interference by any means in our power, by any means that may he most convenient and most suitable at the time. It is not necessary to say beforehand whether those means would be war in Europe or Asia—war by our own troops, or war by the assistance of Afghan levies."—(3 Mansard,[259] 2022.)
  What was the position now? Were the Government going to make further concessions, and had we any agreement with the Ameer? We were giving the Ameer large quantities of arms and ammunition, and a large sum of money every month; and the House ought to be informed whether he was under the control of the British Government, and what security we had that he
  1084
  would remain faithful to us, and not go over to Russia? Had we any assurance that those arms and money would not be used against ourselves? Few would deny the difficulties that must perplex the Government; but the Government had the interests of the country in their keeping, and he believed that, up to this moment, the Government had sacrificed those interests. Before the House separated for the Whitsuntide holidays he should like to know what was the exact position of the country with regard to Russia? It was not asking too much to ask for an explanation. The Government were trustees for the honour, dignity, and interests of the country; and unless the House knew the Government's intention, it was helpless to check or advise the Government.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that, on these occasions, it was very easy to speak de omnibus rebus et quibusdam aliis,and the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had certainly done so. He should really like to know how long they were to be told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the whole of this country was disgraced and degraded'? He could tell them that they were going on the wrong tack. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not know, and would not endeavour to understand, what was the feeling of the country as regarded the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government. The Conservatives might rage and the Colonels imagine a vain thing; but he contended that, on the whole, the foreign policy of the Government of late had been a very sound one. It was said of the Predecessor of the present Prime Minister that he brought home "peace with honour." Well, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government had now given them peace with honour. [Mr. WARTON: Dishonour.] He had secured to them, he might say, peace with honour; for, had it not been for his exertions in this most difficult question connected with Afghanistan and Russia, he (Mr. Labouchere) was perfectly sure that the howls of the Jingoes in this country and in Russia would have precipitated us into a war which would have cost us a vast number of millions of money, and would have simply secured a miserable strip of steppe which, he gathered, they should learn, when the Blue Books were

  1085
  presented, the Ameer himself did not want. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last had told them that Ministers were wrong for not staying in the Soudan, and that it was their duty to civilize that country. He (Mr. Labouchere) contended that they had no such duty, either with regard to the Soudan or with regard to any other country on the whole habitable globe. Many hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House were somewhat at variance with the Government so long as the Soudan War continued, and they were glad when it was announced that the occupation of the country was to be speedily brought to a close. They hoped nothing would interfere with that intention of the Government, and that, if Suakin could not be handed over to some other Power, at least we should not remain there ourselves, but leave it to the Soudanese, because it happened to belong to them, and not to this country. Then, it had been stated that there had been a disgraceful surrender on the part of this country in the case of The Bosphore Egyptien. He admitted that Lord Granville was wrong at the commencement of that matter; but the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had recognized that he had made a mistake, and he (Mr. Labouchere) did not know what else could be expected of a Minister when he made a mistake but that he should recognize and acknowledge it. It seemed to him that Earl Granville was an exceedingly able diplomatist, and it was remarkable how clever he was in getting out of difficulties, and also how he occasionally got into them. It was pretty clear from the Blue Books that The Bosphore Egyptien was a very objectionable journal. Sir Evelyn Baring had written to Her Majesty's Government to complain of The Bosphore Egyptien, stating that it ought to be suppressed, and Her Majesty's Government had entered into a discussion on the matter with the Government of France, who appeared to have taken up a very reasonable attitude. But, on April 1st, Lord Granville had written to Sir Evelyn Baring stating that, as there would be an opportunity of trying the question by law, he should inform Nubar Pasha that Her Majesty's Government saw no reason for interfering. On the same day a telegram was sent to Sir Evelyn Baring, saying that instructions would
  1086
  be sent to Lord Lyons on the matter, and on the 2nd a despatch to that effect had been sent to Lord Lyons at Paris, who had spoken to M. de Freycinet. But, in the meanwhile, before he got a reply from Lord Lyons as to the consent of Prance, Sir Evelyn Baring had caused this newspaper to be suppressed, and M. de Freycinet had naturally inquired why we had asked him to agree to its suppression, when we had actually suppressed it. Lord Granville should have telegraphed to Sir Evelyn Baring to tell him to wait before taking action, until he had received a reply from the French Government on the subject. That was an. error of procedure, and one which had arisen merely from Lord Granville not understanding precisely the rights of Frenchmen under the Capitulations. The difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals was this—the Conservatives were habitually seizing every chance they possibly could to get us into trouble, and to promote war with Foreign Powers; whereas the Liberals, when they considered that a mistake had been made, frankly said so, and endeavoured to avoid giving cause for a quarrel. There was one point upon which he would appeal to the Prime Minister, and that was that he would fairly and seriously consider the state of the affairs of Ireland during the Recess, and, if he possibly could, act in the most generous spirit to that country, and not do that which was contrary to the feelings and desire of a very large number of his supporters in the House. Since 1856 exceptional legislation had been passed for Ireland, and, three years ago, the Government had brought into the House the most stringent of all the Coercive Acts, which was passed for a period of three years—a longer time than any Crimes Bill before. The three years were over. The plea in favour of that Crimes Bill was that there were numerous agrarian outrages in Ireland—there were no agrarian outrages at present. Ireland was the most tranquil of Her Majesty's Dominions. Let hon. Gentlemen look at the Returns, and they would find that, with the exception of threatening letters, there were, to all intents and purposes, no agrarian crimes in Ireland. It was perfectly monstrous that the Irish people were to be told that if there were agrarian outrages, that was a reason

  1087
  for a Crimes Act; and that if there were no crimes, that was the effect of the Crimes Act. Whether there were crimes or not, they were wrong to apply this legislation to Ireland. Ministers had done much of a remedial character for Ireland; but they had destroyed the effect of their remedial measures by their perpetual attempts to pass Crimes Bills, and to govern Ireland in this exceptional manner from year to year. So far as he could gather from the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), which he had read that morning, and which was delivered at some Conservative Club in the neighbourhood, the noble Lord, who occupied a considerable position in the Conservative Party, and who probably would be followed by a considerable number of Conservatives, intended to oppose the Crimes Act tooth and nail. They had heard that there was a strong feeling in the Cabinet against the renewal of the Act; and, taking that feeling with the feeling amongst the Conservatives, it did seem a little ridiculous that they should perpetuate ill-feeling between Ireland and England by endeavouring to pass a few of the clauses of the Act. They were told that owing to the Crimes Act there was no time for other legislation. The Prime Minister replied to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) that he could not give him a day for an Affirmation Bill. He (Mr. Labouchere) thought it would be much better that the Crimes Bill should be set aside, and that they should have an Affirmation Bill, so that, at least, in the next Parliament all religious tests should be set aside, and that anyone duly elected by the country should be allowed to take his seat in that House. There was the strongest feeling against the Crimes Bill, certainly in Ireland, and a very strong feeling in England, that there should be an Affirmation Bill, and that the House had acted with considerable injustice towards his Colleague (Mr. Bradlaugh). He would again express the hope that the Prime Minister would, during the Recess, fairly consider the case of Ireland, and that he would, if he possibly could, act in the most generous spirit towards that country, and not do what was contrary to the desire of a very large number of his supporters in this House by renew-
  1088
  ing any single one of the clauses of the Crimes Act.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Labouchere) had, while accusing his (Mr. Chaplin's) hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) of discursiveness in his remarks, been somewhat guilty of the same thing himself. The hon. Gentleman had eulogized the peaceful tendencies of a Liberal Government, and condemned the warlike proclivities of a Tory one, accusing them with being guilty of seeking every opportunity to create war. If the hon. Member had studied the history of the wars in which this country had. been engaged during the last 50 years, he would find that out of 29 or 30, 23 or 24 had been made by the Liberal Party, and only about six by the Conservatives. If, when the hon. Member again taunted the Conservatives with rushing into wars, he would bear this fact in mind, it might have some influence upon the accuracy of his statements. With regard to Ireland, it was a rather curious commentary on the policy of the Prime Minister that at the end of 15 years legislation for Ireland he was compelled again to ask Parliament to renew Coercion Acts. They had been told, over and over again, that if Parliament would accede to all the remedial measures which had been proposed for Ireland, all the ills of that country would vanish, and that they would see a totally different state of affairs; but instead of the country becoming more tranquil and more pacified, each Coercion Act seemed to surpass all others in severity; and the truth was that the Prime Minister's Irish policy, like his policy elsewhere, had turned out to be one ghastly and disastrous failure. Many Members of the Tory Party regretted the necessity for these Coercion Acts as much as the hon. Member for Northampton himself, and with him desired most earnestly to see that necessity pass away; but before they could join with the hon. Member in declaring that they intended, under all circumstances, to oppose the Coercion Act tooth and nail, as the hon. Member had said the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) intended to do, they required to hear from Her Majesty's Government, who were responsible for the state of affairs there, what was the precise condition of that

  1089
  country at the present time, and what alarming state of affairs existed that compelled them to renew those Coercion Acts, the necessity for which they all viewed with so much regret. The present state of affairs in Ireland was brought about entirely by the action of the Government, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman before the close of the debate would inform the House of the precise condition of the country now, and what were the grave and even terrible reasons, for some such there must have been, which induced them to come again, and at the last moment, to Parliament, with the intimation that it was absolutely necessary in the best interests of the country that exceptional legislation should again take place. What was to be the character of the measure, and when would be the precise time of its introduction? The hon. Member for Northampton said that Ireland was perfectly tranquil at this moment; but, he (Mr. Chaplin) asked, how much of the tranquillity now apparent on the surface was owing to any real or permanent amelioration of the state of that country, and how much of it was owing to the exercise of those very measures the renewal of which the hon. Member denounced? The hon. Member also told them, in regard to the frontier affairs of India, that the Government had definitely secured for the country "peace with honour." He (Mr. Chaplin) said nothing of the honour which was likely to devolve upon the country from these transactions; but he was not aware, nor was the country, or the House, yet aware, that even peace had been secured, whether with honour or dishonour. On the 12th of this month, upon the eve of the division on the last Vote of Censure, the Prime Minister informed the House, in reference to the proceedings between Lord Granville and Lord Kimberley on the one side and the Russian Ambassador on the other, that the effect of those proceedings had been that they had arrived at an agreement which was satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government, and satisfactory also to Lord Dufferin and the Council of India. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, with intense satisfaction, that there had been no time to receive the final ratification of those proceedings on the part of the Prussian Government, but that it was expected certainly from day to day.
  1090
  The House heard that announcement with the greatest gratification, and no doubt it had a very marked effect on the debate which took place on the same night; indeed, he was not at all sure that it did not secure the majority which the Prime Minister had upon that occasion. At all events, it was exactly the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman would have the most satisfaction in making on the eve of a critical division. But what happened? The division over, the majority secured, the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House the next day and said that he had made a mistake—that he had received a communication from the Russian Ambassador in this country, to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman was not at all warranted in having made that statement. Time went on, no answer was received from Russia, and that agreement, which they were told was so satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government, to Lord Dufferin, and to Russia, had never yet been ratified. He (Mr. Chaplin) himself, on the 14th inst., asked the right hon. Gentleman whether any answer had been received from the Russian Government as to the proposed agreement; and whether the agreement met with the approval of that Government? The Prime Minister replied that he had no authentic information to give, that communications were proceeding; but he was not aware that they had reached such a result as could be communicated to the House of Commons. The right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition also put some Questions, the answers to which were so unsatisfactory that, on the 16th, he himself asked the right hon. Gentleman when the House would receive the Papers relating to the Penjdeh incident, and reminded him that the House had been previously told that the final ratification of the agreement was expected from day to day. The right hon. Gentleman then replied that he had never stated that he could name a day, within two or three days, when the negotiations would be concluded; but that what he certainly had said was that it would be desirable that the House should have the whole case before them. They would all agree in that. But the right hon. Gentleman had really told the House that the ratification was expected from day to day; and that had undoubtedly

  1091
  warranted the hon. Member for Northampton in his belief that peace had been secured. It was only another mistake of the right hon. Gentleman. But the agreement had not even now—a fortnight later—been ratified; and they had a right, before the adjournment, to know whether the Prime Minister since he made the statement had received so much as a reply from the Russian Government. If the Government had received a reply, what was the nature of it? He asked the Prime Minister to take the House, for once, into his confidence, and to state exactly how the position stood as to this agreement. Was that agreement accepted by the Russian Government or was it not? Had the right hon. Gentleman any hope that it would be accepted; or was it only another of those arrangements which were unconfirmed, and which were not likely to be confirmed, though they waited until the day of doom? He entreated the Prime Minister to tell them what were the prosspects of that arrangement, which about a fortnight ago he spoke of with such confidence, being ratified by the Russian Government, and peace being finally secured. They now learned that the Guards had been stopped by the orders of Her Majesty's Government at Alexandria; and the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, when questioned in the House on the subject, said that it was not desirable to give any information as to the reasons for that step. When the Conservative Government were in power, they were taunted day by day with the concealment of their policy, and withholding information on every occasion. It was therefore rather a strong thing for one of the authors of those taunts now to get up in his place and, when asked the Question in such critical circumstances, to say—"It is true the Guards have been stopped at Alexandria, and that for a very important reason; but we decline altogether to tell you anything further about it." The fact was, the authors of those taunts were themselves adopting the course they accused their opponents of following. Turning to the subject of the suppression of The Bosphore Egyptien, Her Majesty's Government, after due deliberation, either suppressed or agreed to the suppression of that newspaper. Within the last few hours, however, they had
  1092
  learnt that, either with or without their consent, that newspaper had been reissued, and re-issued under circumstances not very different from those under which it was published before. When asked a Question on that point not long ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that although the proceedings had to some extent been illegal, and although he was willing to make some apology and some reparation to the French Government, yet that, as far as the re-issuing of the paper was concerned, nothing of the kind would occur. The hon. Member for Northampton said that Lord Granville had probably made a mistake, and it was right to acknowledge it. Lord Granville appeared always to be doing nothing but making mistakes. If Her Majesty's Government was right in suppressing The Bosphore Egyptien they were plainly wrong in allowing it to be re-issued. That was only another of those instances, unhappily so numerous of late, in which the Government had placed the country in a position in which it had to undergo nothing but unnecessary humiliation, and it was also one upon which the House and the country desired further information. Although they might be able to keep their mechanical majority in that House probably till the end of that Session, they might be sure that the blunders and humiliations which were following each other so rapidly day by day would entail upon them, he hoped at no distant day, the severe and bitter condemnation of the country.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Various appeals have been made to me, in successive speeches, ranging over a very wide field, and I ought to take some note of those appeals, although they are, in some cases, of a character to which it is impossible to render a full reply. I observe the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down taunts the "mechanical majority" on this side of the House. He has borrowed that epithet, and uses it in the way of tu quoque, having obtained it, not from the wealth of his own resources, but from the history of a former Parliament. In that—the former—Parliament the epithet was applied to a majority which never saw fit to abandon the Government, or place it in a minority. Is that the case with the majority in the present Parliament? ["Yes!"] It is nothing of the kind,

  1093
  Why, Sir. the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Mr. T. C. Bruce), who contradicts me, was himself the triumphant Mover of a Motion of great importance, leading to a controversy of the most serious character, in which the Government had been placed, by the defection of a large number of their independent Friends, in a minority. They have been habitually placed in such minorities; and yet the hon. Member is surprised that I should say the application of the epithet "mechanical majority" to a majority the Members of which exercise their independent judgment, to the great inconvenience, unquestionably, of the Government which in general they so generously support, is not a proper application. That is not a mechanical majority; that is a majority which considers the grounds on which it stands, a majority which endeavours to weigh questions according to their merits. I must hero observe upon the great disadvantage of the inequality upon which discussions of this kind are carried on. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) made a speech of the wildest declamation. Every opinion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was received with silence and respect on this side of the House; but the moment an hon. Gentleman on this side of the House rises and begins to utter, in much more guarded language, opposite opinions, he is met with jeers, laughter, and cries and interruptions of one description and another. Mark me, that this state of things is too likely to grow habitual. I shall probably never refer to it again. I think I have noticed it sufficiently already, and you may rely upon it that the references which I have made to it will be themselves referred to in future years. Both the hon. Gentlemen who last spoke have made appeals to me in reference to Ireland. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says that the policy of the Government for the last 15 years has been a perfect failure. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman at all. I will not now refer to a matter which he says ought to be produced in the debate to-night, but which, I think, ought not to be produced in the debate—I mean the matter of proposing legislation with respect to the present state of Ireland with regard to crimes and outrage, and with regard
  1094
  to the confidence felt by society at large in the maintenance of order and the prosecution of the common pursuits of life.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg pardon; what I said ought to be produced were the reasons of the Government for the necessity of re-introducing coercion measures.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No doubt; but this is not the time, in my opinion, for producing the reasons which the Government may have even for proposing any legislation at all with respect to Ireland, or for proposing that legislation in the form in which they will bring it forward. We do not admit the failure of the legislation which has been attempted. It is not for me to say how long it may be before the woes and evils of Ireland, due to so many generations and to so many? centuries of misgovernment and oppression, may be removed; but it is for me to say that progress has been made, and progress of a most important kind. The poison of religious ascendancy, the bitterest and the most virulent of all poisons, has been expelled from Irish life. In my opinion, that is a great achievement and a great advantage gained, and never, I hope, to be lost and surrendered. But I have another opinion, which may seem strange to the hon. Gentleman. In my opinion, the happiness of the masses of the people, the faculty they possess of insuring by their industry some decent return, sufficient to keep body and soul together, sufficient to lift them above the lowest level of human misery, is a consideration of the greatest and most vital importance. I firmly say that, so far as depends on law, never in any country within the same time has greater progress been made than has been made by legislation of this House with respect to Ireland during the last four years. I am not in the slightest degree afraid of the taunts of the hon. Gentleman; I am far from denying that there is much to desire, and much to cure; but I meet his taunts with courage and with confidence. The hon. Gentleman says that it is a dreadful thing that we should renew the Coercion Act. I am not sure what the hon. Member means by the Coercion Act. He is speaking of a Bill of which he knows nothing; and I have not described this Bill as a Coercion Act.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg pardon. The right hon. Gentleman has announced his intention of renewing whatever may be valuable and equitable in the Prevention of Crime Act; and he would not say that there is anything in it that is not valuable or that is inequitable.
  MR. GLADSTONE: If the hon. Member refers to my words, let him quote them with accuracy. My words were that there were various provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act which, in our opinion, were valuable and were equitable; that we had embodied them in a Bill, and that we intended to propose them to Parliament. I did not say they were coercive provisions; nor shall I now say anything on the subject whether they are coercive provisions or not. The time for us to explain them, and the time for the House to appreciate them, will appear very soon—I hope shortly after the Whitsuntide Recess. The hon. Gentleman asked at what time such a measure will be introduced, and that is the best satisfaction I can give him. He will then be able to form his own judgment, like all other Members of this House. The hon. Gentleman makes an appeal to history, and says that in the last 50 years only six or seven wars have been made by the Conservative Party. The hon. Gentleman appears entirely to forget that until within the last 20 or 25 years, or something like that period, the Conservative Party were the Peace Party in this country. Has he seen no change in the tone of the Conservative Party of late years, as compared with what it was? Does he think that the tone of his own Party at this moment, or at any time during the last 10 or 15 years, is the same tone as that of Sir Robert Peel, the tone of the Earl of Aberdeen, or the tone of the Duke of Wellington? The tone of his Party has undergone a complete and fundamental revolution; and it appears to be the object of too many Gentlemen on that side of the House to make the principal part of their political pursuits to stir up passions between nations, and not to allay them. The hon. Gentleman, perhaps, recollects the attitude of the present Conservative Party—but I decline to identify the present Conservative Party—on the subject of Denmark. Were the speeches then made speeches of a character to promote peace between the two countries? The hon.
  1096
  Gentleman, perhaps, recollects the attitude of the Party during the time of the American Civil War. Was that an attitude which tended to peace? He cannot form any just estimate of the question how far it is possible to distribute praise and blame in respect of the war between the one Party and the other; and especially he cannot appropriate to himself the character and the proceeds of the policy for the last 50 years without taking into view the enormous change that has taken place in the policy, conduct, and attitude of his Party. The hon. Gentleman refers to the last 10 years. In my opinion that is a matter too large for discussion at this moment; but I am ready to maintain the same argument. There is not a difficulty in which we have been involved during the last five years—I agree there have been many; I will not claim that we have always been right in judgment in dealing with them; I think the strong probability is that we have made various and serious errors—but not one of those difficulties was of our own creation. In our policy we have never made claim to an ambitious foreign policy; we have endeavoured to cope, as we could, with the circumstances which we found. I rejoice to say in many cases we have succeeded; but I admit there are other cases in which success is either far distant or incomplete. [A laugh.] I see no matter for laughing; and yet no person can be blamed, no creature of the Almighty can be blamed, either for utterance or action which is most congenial to him, and I cannot blame the application of laughter—which may appear to me most unsuitable—in those who find it most congenial to their own character. Reference has been made by the hon. Gentleman, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to The Bosphore Egyptien, and it appears to me that my hon. Friend is not quite accurate in his reference to that newspaper. Our desire has been, while we are in Egypt, to afford to the Egyptian Government to the best of our power all the advice which was sought by them, but in no case to interfere with their action, unless we found that it was an imperative necessity of their requirements. Under that imperative necessity it was that we made a very strong interference indeed with Egyptian action in regard to the Soudan,

  1097
  and which led to the resignation of Cherif Pasha and a change of Government. Our rule has been to avoid such interference, and especially to avoid anything like pressure or compulsory interference; because we desired to leave Egypt as far as possible, and even now, to govern itself. With respect to The Bosphore Egyptien, the case is this. The Egyptian Government believed that a certain publication in The Bosphore Egyptien was incompatible with peace and order in Egypt. They asked Sir Evelyn Baring's advice; lie could not object to that opinion of theirs; he referred them to us, and we could not refuse to approve of it. We could not undertake the responsibility of saying to the Egyptian Government—"You ought to tolerate this offence and do nothing." That is the extent of Earl Granville's responsibility, and the extent of the responsibility of the present Government; but, still, the legality of the proceedings was not a question brought before us at that time, and it was not a question as to whether it was our duty, or in our power, to institute a minute investigation. It is said—"But you associated yourselves with the regret which you invited the Egyptian Government to express when it was found that the proceedings had been illegal." The hon. Gentleman calls it "a slight illegality." "A slight illegality," indeed! Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that in matters when the law happens to be international it is not so easy to define what is "slight illegality" and what is not "slight illegality." The proceedings were illegal; and, under the circumstances, we advised the expression of regret, and we associated ourselves with that expression, for we were unwilling to bring upon the Egyptian Government too great pressure, and to place it in a position of such disadvantage as it would have been in if it had had to make that expression alone. Our object was not to measure minutely, not to argue jealously, to show the limited nature of our own interference. Our object was to reduce to a minimum the evil which we felt must result from the error that had been committed. That is the state of the case.
  MR. CHAPLIN: What about the reissue of the paper?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am coming to that, if you will allow me. We can only
  1098
  entertain one thing at a time. With respect to the re-issue, I must postpone any definite declaration beyond that which I made to-day to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote)—I am not quite certain whether the words ascribed to me with regard to the reissue were exactly those I used; but, undoubtedly, I think that as they paid attention to the declaration of the Government the House would have been justified in expecting that the re-issue of the paper should not have been arrived at at so early a period as appears to have been the case. Upon that question there may arise a case for further explanation at a future time. I stated across the Table to-day that it was now itself a subject of inquiry; but it was quite a proper subject to press, and it is one which may be of importance. I will not attempt to define it now. I certainly will not say anything now which can in any way aggravate the difficulties that exist. I quite admit that at the proper time—and that proper time will be when we meet again after the Recess—an account must be rendered by us as to the position in which we stand with regard to the re-issue of The Bosphore Egyptian. This I must, however, say in justice to the French Government—that at the commencement of the correspondence the French Government entirely declined to associate themselves with any resistance to the legal action of the Egyptian Government in putting down The Bosphore Egyptien, and disclaimed all fellowship with the tone which it was supposed to have adopted. The hon. Gentleman who commenced this debate defied me to state a great many things. If the time of the House allowed I should be perfectly ready to state every one of those things which he defied me, to state. He said he had never known a time when so little information was given, and so slowly, as recently. I have never known a time when so much information was given, and so rapidly. Looking back at the last few weeks, and at the pressure which has been brought to bear upon us to produce some part of the Russian Correspondence, my impression is that perhaps the public interest might have been better served if we had maintained greater reserve. [Laughter, and "Hear, hear!"] That is my deliberate opinion. There is one appeal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the

  1099
  Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) on which I think he is entitled to an answer, and I give myself the pleasure of speaking with cordial sympathy and approval of one portion of his speech.—I wish there were more—as I know my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War would if he were now addressing the House. I allude to his references to the British. Army; and I am also very glad that in comparing one class of British officers with another, he should have made it his special duty to bring to notice the great and honourable claims on the score of services which belong to the regimental officers and those less in the way than Staff officers of the notice of persons in Office. I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that; and I can assure him that the Government are not sluggish in recognizing the merits of the Army, which have never been more conspicuous than at present. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said we spent three months in choosing between the Nile route and the Suakin-Berber route. That is true; but he did not mention that the months which we thus spent were months when we could not send an Expedition, when we had not the evidence on which to decide, and when the season would not have justified any Expedition being then sent. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman is chiefly anxious to know how matters stand between ourselves and Russia. The hon. Gentleman who last sat down refers to expressions of mine in which I stated in certain terms, which I cannot precisely repeat—but, no doubt, he gave the substance of thorn—that an agreement had boon substantially arrived at—that, I believe, was the phrase used—between the Representatives of Russia on one side, and Earl Granville and the Earl of Kimberley upon the other; and the hon. Gentleman charitably says—in the spirit of that charity which believeth all things, only, unhappily, it happens to believe them on the wrong side in cases of this kind—the hon. Gentleman charitably says that that was stated in order to obtain votes in a division. But, Sir, it was exactly the wrong way to obtain votes. Setting out the activity of our exertions to secure peace may have been a way to obtain votes of which we could have believed ourselves to be already sure; because I believe that the Party on this side of the
  1100
  House knew that we had done our best. But certainly it did not appear to be the right way to obtain votes on the other side of the House; for, unless I am very much mistaken, it was on that night that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) rose and delivered a most deplorable jeremiad upon the degradation to which the Government had submitted in consequence of the concessions it had made to Russia. I must leave the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire to settle that matter between them. Butthen, says the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire—"You had to come down next day and say that all you had said was wrong, and to give the Russian version of the proceedings, which was entirely different from yours."
  MR. CHAPLIN: I did not say that. What I attributed to you was that you had said that there had been no time to receive a final ratification of this agreement on the part of the Russian Government, but that it was certainly expected from day to day, and then I complained that we had heard nothing further of that ratification from that day to this.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman said more than that. He said I had to read or state an account of the matter given by the Russian Ambassador, which was at variance with the account I had given. There was no variance whatever. It did not contain everything that was in my account; but it stated still more strongly than either Earl Granville or I had done that the agreement had been arrived at. I quite agree that there was a confident expectation that what I had carelessly called a ratification, and what I next day called the approval of the Russian Government, would be received almost from day to day. I think that I was justified in using those words at that time. That they have been borne out completely by what has happened I will not say. The proceedings have not been so rapid as we could have desired; but I suppose that there are in Russia—as we sometimes suppose there are in this country—powerful, influential persons and classes who do not make it their object to promote the harmony of nations. I fear that a great struggle has been going on in Russia between those

  1101
  parties and the more prudent and, as I think, the more patriotic members of society and Representatives of Office in Russia, who, I suppose, are liable to exactly the same battery of accusations as certain persons are exposed to here. We are constantly being told that we are sacrificing the interests of the country, and are truckling to Foreign States. That is what I believe is also going on in Russia; and I do hope the hon. Member and those among whom he sits will consider a little in the speeches they make and in the Questions they put, and will be put upon their guard against the danger of strengthening the hands of that party in Russia, whom I may regard, and which possibly the world at large may regard, as least likely of all the subjects of Russia, either to promote its honour or to maintain its interests. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when that agreement will be accepted. I expect it from day to day. But I can say that we are pursuing, I think with steadiness, a policy which I have described as a national policy, agreed upon by a long tradition of statesmen, and, as I think, sanctioned by the general concurrence of all parties. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) asks whether we can trust the Ameer? I presume the hon. and gallant Member does not attribute to those whom he thinks incompetent to manage the affairs of the country the gift of omniscience, or that by some Apostolic prerogative we can read the interior of the heart of the Ameer, or anybody else. We must trust to external sources and to such rational means as are at our command. Using such rational means to the best of our power, we must not strain them beyond what they will reasonably bear; and, acting on that view, in our judgment the action of the Ameer has been such as is not likely to add to the difficulties now before the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, no doubt, well knows that there are other things to be considered in Afghanistan besides the Ameer. The Throne of the Ameer is not always very firmly founded. I do not want to refer to the past; but under happier circumstances, in recent times, it might have been more firmly founded than it is. I believe that the sentiments of the people of that country are a most important element in the
  1102
  case; and we shall do all that we can to produce harmony and friendship in their sentiments towards us, and all that belongs to us. That is all that it is in our power to do; but I do not think justice will permit us to cast the smallest taint of suspicion on the words or acts of the Ameer at this important and difficult juncture. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asks about the boundary that is to be, and when the negotiations will conclude. I am not able to tell him. I cannot predict what the exact course of Russia may be with respect to one point or another. But if it will give some satisfaction to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I. will refer to the passage he read, and which my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War laid down as a sound doctrine of policy for the management of this question. I am not aware that my noble Friend or any Member of the Government has exhibited any disposition to recede from those doctrines. Beyond that I cannot undertake to say at what precise date these negotiations will come to a close. But I do not wish to spread alarm in the country. We are so accustomed to telegraphic machinery and to the astounding and incredible rapidity with which transactions are made known that we suppose the brains of men have quickened their movements in the same proportion. That is not the ease. Unfortunately, the brains of men are not stronger—I sometimes fear they are rather weaker—in proportion to the hurry and confusion that now attend the transaction of business, and the incessant multiplication of reports and rumours which distract the mind of the public. But it must be considered that, after all, the time occupied in the transmission of information is small, though the time occupied in deliberation may have been great, and I trust that hon. Gentlemen will have some patience I will not in the least degree blame the Russian Government for the time they are now taking. I believe that that country really labours at times under the same disadvantage, from want of adequate information and good maps, that we have done; but I will say that when the House comes to compare the dates of the different transactions and the different communications, they will see reason to believe that we have not been deficient in

  1103
  promptitude in the answers which we sent, because our views and the bases of our action have been clear. The objects we hold up before us are simple, honourable, and well known; and as our principles of action are principles easily defended and difficult indeed to renounce, so the application of these principles does not involve a great many questions of difficulty. One word more. The hon. and gallant Member says that this Government is so liable to be squeezed, and that this is well known abroad. Well, the hon. and gallant Member had only to go one step further in order to come up fully to the level of the argument that I saw a few days ago in a daily paper of great influence and ability, which I will not name, because I think that it is very seldom that it writes such folly and nonsense. But that article, deliberately founded on this principle, illustrated and dilated and expanded this proposition—that the Government of this country was so weak that the Russian Government had only to persevere—[Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Hear, hear!"]—aye, there goes the hon. Member for Eye—that they had only to persevere, they had only to hold out, and they will get everything they want. That sentiment is cheered by the hon. Member for Eye. I am not sure that the influence of the hon. Member on the action of the Russian Government will be very great; but if I did think so, then I would endeavour to answer his cheer, and say—"What in the world can be less agreeable to the dictates of wise patriotism than to tell a foreign country, with which your own Government is wrestling in a great conflict, that that Foreign Government has only to be strong, only to persevere, only to hold fast to its purpose, to gain everything it wants?" Such language, we are told, forsooth! is a form of patriotism. I know very well it is a great temptation to stir up lively and emphatic cheers. We may all have fallen into it on occasions; but let us remember that there is something else. You may be tempted to arouse those cheers. You may be tempted to say things because they wound your adversary and give pain. I do not think your adversary has any reason to complain; but do take care in these speeches that you do not wound your country and weaken its
  1104
  position in the assertion of its honour and the maintenance of its interests.
  MR. GIBSON: The Prime Minister has stated that the policy of the Government and the principles upon which that policy is conducted are simple, and honourable, and well known. That is one of the most remarkable descriptions ever yet given of the Government policy. It is not the description given by any one of the supporters of the Government, by any Ministerial organ, or by the Continental Press. The Prime Minister reproved those who say that other countries have only to "be strong, persevere, and hold fast," in order to obtain all that they want. What right has the right hon. Gentleman to be ironical in using those phrases? I will ask when have the Government of this country proved that they are "strong," that they have "perseverance," and that they know how to "hold fast?" What right or title has the right hon. Gentleman to irony in this connection? Why, from hour to hour and week to week the Government change their policy? We heard yesterday that the Guards had been stopped at Alexandria. To-day we expected to be told that they have been allowed to go on, and tomorrow we may expect to be told that they have been allowed to go back again. Only this morning, Papers were published which shed a lurid light on the infinite power of change and the instability of purpose of the Government. Those Papers contain a despatch from Lord Wolseley commenting on the good deeds of the men who came to render us service from Canada, and expressing the hope that they would prove themselves useful, before the year should come to an end, in an Expedition down the Nile. Well, the contents of these Papers, only distributed this morning, have now become ancient history in consequence of the change of policy of the Government. Consider what the Prime Minister now says with regard to Russia. A moment ago the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) pointed out how a few days ago the Prime Minister intimated that we had a right to expect the completion of the agreement with Russia from day to day, it was so imminent. To-day, however, the right hon. Gentleman did not venture to tell us how soon we may expect the ratification

  1105
  or conclusion of the agreement. Will any occupant of the Treasury Bench repeat to-day, after an interval of 10 days, the words which the Prime Minister used so readily when he last spoke upon this subject? Have we yet got any clear indication from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman just now of what is to be submitted to the arbitrator who has not yet been found? What is the agreement between this country and Russia? I do not know. The Prime Minister embarked to-day upon a now question at Question time. Formerly, he stated that it was the interpretation of the sacred contract that was to be submitted to the arbitrator. To-day, he states that it is not a question of the grammatical construction of the terms of the agreement, but something outside, and I am waiting with great curiosity to read what it is in to-morrow's papers. I should like to have it put into something like definite, plain English what is the point that is to be, in the present opinion of the Government, submitted as the duty of a capable and independent arbitrator. In a sentence endeavouring to convey a heavy charge against some parties in this House, the Prime Minister said—"There is a struggle in Russia, to which there is an analogy in this country, between those who are favourable to peace and those who are not favourable to it, and there are people in Russia who charge their Government with trucking to Foreign States." I do not believe anyone in Russia makes a charge so patently absurd. What sane man would at this time of clay, make the statement that the Russian Government have for one solitary second, in any despatch with which we are at the present moment conversant, done anything or said anything which could be tortured by anyone into a readiness to truckle—to England, at all events? The right hon. Gentleman objects to our saying that his Government has been "squeezed." Well, I do not believe in harsh language, but I believe in fair language. How on earth are we otherwise to describe the action of the Government? Was there ever a Government that dismissed a House of Commons for the Whitsuntide Recess in circumstances of greater doubt, greater anxiety, and uncertainty? The only thing we know absolutely is that ill almost every episode of their policy
  1106
  in which they could be squeezed they have exhibited an almost infinite capacity of squeezability. The Prime Minister in his speech dwelt on other topics, though I will not go into them in detail. He referred to the first origin of the phrase "mechanical majority." I will not go into that, but will merely pass on with this general statement, which no independent Liberal in this House will deny, that but for the "mechanical action" of the Government majority voting in silence, and often with heads be wed, the Government would have been out half-a-dozen times during the last two years. I shall not follow the Prime Minister, even in his guarded statement with respect to Ireland. I have ever taken, on that subject, as far as possible, a non-Party view, or what I conceive to be such. I have considered, for myself, what the best interests of the country required, and I have acted on my own conscientious views of what those interests were. The Prime Minister says that the conclusions of the Government have been embodied in a Bill. Those are his words, not mine. I have only to say that when the conclusions of the Government have advanced to that final stage that they are embodied in a Bill it is to be regretted that they are not submitted to the House in a way which would put an end to the cavil which has surrounded the Notice of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley), which is suggested to have been put forward to strengthen one side of the Cabinet against the other in the controversy that is taking place. The Prime Minister went back on a point unworthy of him—I mean unworthy of a man of his ability. He went back on the stupid, foolish, old point, now worn threadbare, that not one of these difficulties were of their own creation. Surely, at this time of day it is silly childishness to talk to us in that way. What is the policy in the Soudan—reckless, wild, criminal as it has been—been guided by? What is answerable for what was done in the Soudan but your own miserable infirmity of purpose? You sent your Forces to the Soudan to slaughter madly, recklessly, criminally, unless you had a policy worthy of being accomplished by such unworthy ends; and then you withdrew without having accomplished anything except the loss

  1107
  of thousands of human lives and the expenditure of millions of money. Why, every week that you remained undecided you were answerable for the bloodshed and appalling sufferings of the unfortunate Soudanese. The last attack made by General Graham, about which the Secretary of State for War sent a telegram of congratulation, was an appalling episode if it was not a part of a campaign, and would have been prevented if you had made up your minds the day before instead of the day after. The Prime Minister said, with reference to the Soudan, that the Government were not too late, because they were making up their minds for three months. I dealt with that subject on a former occasion, and I will not go into it again; but I leave it now with this open statement—which is notorious—that Lord Wolseley pressed you again and again to act, months and weeks before you took his advice, and the consequence of your culpable incapacity and inability to make up your minds was the death of General Gordon, and all the deplorable events which followed. I make that statement in the presence of the Secretary of State for War, because it is notorious that the Government were not supported by the authority of any of their capable military advisers. Against advice and warning they deliberately held back; and thus they are answerable for the weeks and months of delay which cannot possibly be thrown on the shoulders of other persons, and but for which Sir Charles Wilson might not have arrived a few hours too late at Khartoum. I will not go into the suggestion as to the non-responsibility of the Government for their action as to Afghanistan. What is the use of putting the right hon. Gentleman and his able Colleagues into Office and giving them full power for five years if they go now through the country crying, like children—"We are not answerable for our own actions; we are unable, after five years of Office, to assume the responsibility of reasonable men?" The Prime Minister made the remarkable statement that at no time in the history of the country was information given so much and so quickly. No one has a greater respect for the Prime Minister than I have. We know him; but one may venture to say, with great respect, that when he speaks in that way he pre-
  1108
  sumes a little on his own position and on our credulity. We have been endeavouring, helplessly, anxiously, after sleepless nights, to wrest some information from the Government, and we have always been baffled by the Prime Minister giving us information not quickly, and certainly not much. The Prime Minister passed on to The Bosphore Egyptien,and he dealt with the subject in a curious way. I have read the Papers, and read them with much attention. They are extremely easy to understand—it is almost impossible to misrepresent the facts or misconceive them. Sir Evelyn Baring, our own officer, an able man, the real Governor of Egypt—for there is no good at this time of day in dealing with shams, and saying that we are only to make suggestions and give advice—Sir Evelyn Baring said, in clear and unmistakable language, that this was a paper which could not be tolerated, as it habitually published false news about the Soudan. On March 29th, after asking whether Nubar Pasha could count on the diplomatic support of Her Majesty's Government, he wrote—
  "I am of opinion that Nubar Pasha should be supported, for I do not think that in the present state of public feeling the misrepresentations of the French Press can be tolerated any longer without danger to the public tranquillity."
  These are the words used by our own Agent. On April 11, Lord Lyons, writing to Earl Granville, used even stronger words. He stated that the cause of the suppression of The Bosphore Egyptien was the appearance in it of an incendiary Proclamation from the Mahdi, and that the publication of such matter as the paper contained could not be tolerated. Nothing could be stronger or plainer than that; in fact, the advice of both Sir Evelyn Baring and Lord Lyons was that the newspaper should be suppressed. That suppression received the deliberate sanction of the Government. [Interruption.]That interruption conveys with greater clearness what I want to bring out in naked simplicity, that the Government and the country is distinctly responsible for what was done in Cairo, and that it is a perfect sham to try and throw the responsibility upon Nubar Pasha and the Egyptian Government. On the 5th of May it was distinctly stated by our Ambassador at Paris that

  1109
  the newspaper was suppressed by lawful decree of the Egyptian Government, and that the British Government gave its distinct sanction to the act on the grounds laid before it. There can be no doubt about that. The Prime Minister has argued that the British Government were bound to give their advice when it was asked for, and were bound to answer the question submitted to them at the time, and in that manner he has endeavoured to evade the responsibility. That is not the true position of the case. Our Agent in Egypt, Sir Evelyn Baring, gave the grounds on which we acted, and our Ambassador at Paris stated that no civilized Government could sanction the continuance of the newspaper, and that the Egyptian Government was proceeding in the matter with the distinct sanction of Her Majesty's Government. There is no going back from that. It is absolutely clear and distinct. Under the circumstances, I have a right to ask Her Majesty's Government this—Why did they not take advice before giving their distinct sanction to the suppression of this newspaper? Surely they must have known perfectly well that the state of the law in Egypt was very involved in such a state of facts, and that it required an examination of Egyptian and, possibly, of Ottoman law and of the Capitulations, to decide whether or not the suppression was legal. We know that the Government afterwards took legal advice; but it was then too late. Why did they not take legal advice in time, so that there might be no illegality about what the Egyptian Government was doing? I think that is an observation I have a right to make. The consequence of what they have done has been to involve the Egyptian Government in a position not calculated to give it strength. It is also calculated to put our Government in a degrading position in Egypt. By sanctioning what the Egyptian Government did we have associated ourselves in the submission of the Egyptian Government to the demand of a Foreign Power which did its best, under the circumstances, to humiliate the Egyptian Government and the English Government that sanctioned its proceedings. In answer to a Question of the Leader of the Opposition on the 5th of May, the Prime Minister stated that the paper was not to be re-issued. He said—
  1110
  "A question may arise as to the method of suppressing the newspaper, but the re-issue of the paper is not included in the arrangement."
  Nothing can be more absolutely clear than that statement. Well, what is the present position? We know that that statement has not been carried out. The "agreement," if the Prime Minister chooses to use the word, the arrangement, the assurance, or the sacred covenant of the French Government, or whatever it was, has not been carried out. It has been distinctly broken, and the paper was reissued last night. The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has said that the paper was to be watched and looked after on the part of the Government, and, if necessary, again suppressed. It was stated that, notwithstanding its suppression, it might, if necessary, be re-issued. Surely that is not a necessary state of things. The paper has not erred once, or twice, or three times, but many times; and now, contrary to the statement of the Prime Minister, it has been re-issued without one solitary guarantee as to its future good conduct. Suppose this paper is again suppressed on some question of political criticism, and the French Government differ with Her Majesty's Government on the question, there is then an issue between two Great Powers. We have an issue now between England and Russia, and this paper may, at any time, cause one to arise between France and England. Would that be another subject to be submitted to another independent arbitrator? There is another point, as to which we have no information. We know from the newspapers that the Representatives of Germany, France, Austria, and Russia have waited upon Nubar Pasha, and have informed him that they have received orders from their Governments to protest against the illegality of the Decree of the 14th of April, imposing a reduction of 5 per cent on the coupons. What steps are going to be taken in that matter? We are now on the eve of adjourning for the Whitsuntide Recess, and we do not know what steps are to be taken on that subject. The English Government sanctioned the Decree of the Khedive of the 11th of April, putting the tax on the coupons. England again will be put in the humiliatting position of recalling the Decree, and

  1111
  reversing that state of facts. Have Her Majesty's Government yet considered and decided what they will do in consequence of the difficulties which have arisen? Before the Easter Recess we were coerced into giving a Vote on finance with reference to Egypt by being told that bankruptcy was a question of hours and days. On the strength of that the British House of Commons was coerced into doing what no European Power has yet been called upon to consider; and under the pressure of the English Government and the debates in this Parliament the Khedive, poor man was called upon to issue the Decree of the 14th of April, and to put into operation the Government view of the financial agreement. Now, the poor Khedive—this independent man—who has only a right to ask for advice and take it or not as he pleases, will be bound tomorrow, or the day after, to reverse the Decree, and upset the entire arrangement, so far as we know. I want to know have Her Majesty's Government decided how they will cope with this difficulty? Do they intend to retire altogether from the financial proposal? I daresay they might do so without any loss to Egypt or to England. There is one point of good argury in this frightful mass of confusion in which the present Government have involved the country. The Government will be compelled to make up their mind very soon as to whether they will assume the responsibility that lies upon them in Egypt, or whether they will submit and surrender all their rights in Egypt to be dealt with by all the European nations. That is a very serious question, and a question they might very rapidly decide; and I do hope that to-night, before this debate closes, we shall hear from some Minister something like a statement as to the conditions on which The Bosphore Egyptien is to be allowed to appear in future; whether those conditions are to be found in any document; what that document is; why it has not been included in the Papers laid on the Table; and whether it can now be stated and submitted to the judgment of Parliament; and, with reference to this Decree to which I have referred, and the protest of the four Great European Powers whose names I have given, what steps the Government have taken, or intend to take; or whether, indeed, they
  1112
  have yet considered what decision they are likely to arrive at?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I really do not wish to detain the House; but I think it is somewhat remarkable, after the direct and fair appeal of my right hon. and learned Friend, that there is no word of reply from the Treasury Bench. My right hon. and learned Friend has raised in the course of the latter part of his speech two questions of very great and pressing importance. He has alluded to circumstances which are fresh in all our minds. He has alluded to the position of affairs in Egypt, and he has asked questions of Her Majesty's Government as to the position of those affairs, and as to the way, so far as they are able to announce it to the House, in which they intend to deal with them. Let me take the last point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend. Sir, on the question of the International Guarantee of the Egyptian Loan, no one can deny the accuracy of the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend that we were practically coerced by Her Majesty's Government in April last into voting our share of the International Guarantee on their statement of imminent bankruptcy in Egypt and the terrible circumstances that would arise unless we acceded to that request. We know, for it is a matter of notoriety, that in not one single Parliament of Europe except our own has this question yet been considered, and that, so far as we can tell, no European Government has taken any active steps to carry out that arrangement. Indeed, so far from taking any active steps to carry out the arrangement, they have actually appealed to the Khedive of Egypt to revoke that part of it which was all that we received in return for that International Guarantee. What, then, do Her Majesty's Government intend to do in that state of affairs? Have they any hope that this arrangement will be carried into effect'? What advice have they given the Khedive on the subject, or have they given him any advice at all? Is this Decree to be revoked with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government, or without it; and what is the position of affairs in this important matter? Sir, I trust that before this Motion is finally agreed to, we may have such an answer as

  1113
  I think this House is entitled to have from the Government to the questions of my right hon. and learned Friend. We are adjourning for a fortnight, and surely it is reasonable that we should ask Her Majesty's Government, without wishing them to tell us anything which may be injurious to the Public Service, to assure us, if they can, that their policy in this matter will be carried into effect, and that this undertaking will not be thrown aside as mere waste-paper.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I should have risen before to reply to the questions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) if I had not conceived that they had been practically answered, in anticipation, by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) stated that the Opposition was coerced into supporting the arrangement made with regard to the International Guarantee.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No; I said the House was coerced.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The House was coerced! That is a very different thing. Eight hon. Gentlemen opposite have no right to say they were coerced. They voted against the arrangement; and, therefore, I think they can hardly now complain of being coerced into supporting it when they did all they could to resist it, and endeavoured to overthrow it and the Government at the same time. Now, as to the questions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I think he a little misapprehended the position of the Government with reference to The Bosphore Egyptien.He stated that the English Government had been a party to the determination of the Egyptian Government to suppress The Bosphore Egyptien.Well, that is perfectly true; and he says that the suppression was illegal, and asks why the Government did not take advice before they became parties to the transaction, which would have shown that it was illegal?
  MR. GIBSON: I said the method in which the suppression was carried out was illegal.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We could not take advice beforehand as to the manner in which the suppression would be carried out, because we did pot know what method would be adopted.
  1114
  We were never asked about the closing of the Press. That was the illegal part of the transaction, and we could not take advice on it, because we had no knowledge whatever that that particular method would be adopted. That illegal method of carrying out a proceeding legal in itself was the unfortunate circumstance which has led to all the present embarrassments. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman will also see that, if an illegal act has been done, it is impossible to make conditions with reference to an act illegal in itself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says—"Have you reason to believe that The Bosphore Egyptien will not re-appear in its former shape?" Well, my right hon. Friend has already stated that on the subject of its re-appearance we are in communication with the French Government. That was what I referred to when I said the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had been answered by anticipation. Is it reasonable upon a transaction of this character, which is not 24 hours old, to demand an answer from the Government whilst they are still in communication with a Foreign Power with regard to it? Unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman desires—which I am sure he does not—to force on a hostile attitude between the Government of England and the Government of France, it is surely unreasonable to insist upon a categorical public statement upon this subject. That is my answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first question. The Prime Minister has indicated to him how it is impossible to give an answer to that point. My answer on the second point is precisely the same. What is this event with reference to the revocation of the Khediveal Decree? Why, it is not 24 hours old yet! It is a question which involves the Government of Egypt and the Government of England and the Great Powers of Europe, and yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes down and says—"We demand that you shall give us an answer before the face of the House as to the course you intend to take in reference to all these Great Powers, and we shall consider you have done us a great wrong if you do not give an answer to that question, although the matter is only 24 hours old." It would be unstatesmanlike to give an answer. A course of that kind could

  1115
  only lead to great International embarrassment, and possibly to grave International consequences. I say that it is not fair on the part of men occupying the responsible position which the Gentlemen sitting upon the opposite Bench do to seize upon every difficulty which arises for this country instantly, and to say, "Give us an answer," when they know that an answer cannot be given without leading to grave International complications. I say that is not fair conduct on the part of any Opposition, and it is not conduct in which any responsible Government can consent to acquiesce.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: We are accustomed to lectures from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt); but there are one or two considerations which the House ought to bear in mind. With regard to the first of the two points to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and which were touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr Gibson), as to the course of the Government in supporting and advising, and prompting, I may almost say, the Egyptian Government in this matter, and inducing—which they distinctly did—the Government of Egypt to put itself in a false position, from which it had to withdraw with an apology, with which Her Majesty's Government very necessarily, I think, but very painful to the country, had to associate themselves, what we say is this—"You may be right in finding at the end that it was necessary that an apology should be offered for the manner in which The Bosphore Egyptien was suppressed, but you ought to have known that before; and it is no excuse to give the sort of answer which the Home Secretary gave, 'that we did not advise with regard to the mode in which this thing was to be done.'" We knew beforehand that the Government of Egypt thought it necessary to take steps against this newspaper on account of its language. The Government of this country assented, and encouraged the Egyptian Government to go on and suppress the newspaper. They must have known that in a matter of that kind everything turned—the main question upon which most things turn—on
  1116
  the manner in which this was to be executed; and it is absurd, and it is more than absurd, for them to withdraw themselves, and to think they get out of the responsibility by saying—"Oh, we never went into the question of how this particular thing was to be done." Well, that is what we say has characterized your conduct with regard to Egypt all through. You have always been getting Egypt into a difficulty, and then withdrawing yourself from responsibility by saying—"Oh, that was a question of the manner in which the thing was to have been done, and we were not responsible for that." Take that serious question we have so often referred to—the abandonment of the Soudan. There was a question as to which, it being one of the highest importance, Her Majesty's Government said—"This is to be done; but we need not say how it has to be done." And then they would keep themselves out of the responsibility, and would not give any advice as to the manner in which it was to be done, and their failing to do so led to the great misfortunes which have happened since. The same has been the case, on a different scale, with this newspaper. You were responsible for the act of the Egyptian Government. You failed to point out to them what you might have pointed out—the difficulties and dangers to be avoided in the manner of executing the Decree—and then, when the thing comes to the last, you have to humiliate yourselves in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of the Egyptian Government themselves by having to confess—" We did not give sufficiently good advice; we had not considered the matter sufficiently; when we came to look into the matter and take the opinion of our Law Officers, we found that the way this was done was illegal, and therefore we have to associate ourselves with an expression of regret." Sir, that is not the position which we think Her Majesty's Government should take up, and I do not think that the country will be satisfied with the explanation which has been tendered by the Home Secretary. But, Sir, we have the other point, which is the re-appearance of The Bosphore Egyptien.When we had that not particularly agreeable statement made to us of the terms to which Her Majesty's Government had agreed, and the apology with which they were to asso-

  1117
  ciate themselves, they were distinctly asked—I myself asked the Prime Minister—whether, as a part of the arrangement, the paper was to be suppressed, or whether it was again to appear? The Prime Minister gave me, in a most distinct manner, the assurance that it was not to appear. I see now—and I put a Question on the subject at the beginning of the evening—that in the very last of Earl Granville's despatches on this subject he tells Nubar Pasha, or desires Sir Evelyn Baring to tell Nubar Pasha, in the most distinct terms, that although the opening of the printing office should be unconditional, Her Majesty's Government have reason to be convinced that The Bosphore Egyptien will not appear for a certain time, and that, meanwhile, the French Government will be ready to exchange views on the question of the application of the Press Laws to newspapers published by French citizens in Egypt. Well, I asked whether any communication had taken place, whether any exchange of views had taken place, in conformity with that which we were told Her Majesty's Government expected as far back as the 28th of April? The answer we get is—"Oh, this matter of The Bosphore Egyptien is only 24 hours old, and how can you expect that we should answer in 24 hours upon this matter? Communications are going on, and views are being exchanged upon this subject." But we want to know what has been going on between the 28th of April and the 20th of May? We were told, as part of this arrangement, that there were to be negotiations and an exchange of views, and we want to know has there been such exchange of views—has the matter been touched since the 28th of April, or has it been left until now, when we have had it forced upon us? I think the House has every reason to complain of the manner in which they have been dealt with with regard to this incident. It may, in itself, be considered as a comparatively small incident—but it is not so when we consider all the points raised by it—the responsibility of the Government both with respect to the Government of Egypt, which they have misled, and the credit of this country, which they have, I think, so deeply involved. We ought, therefore, to have explanations on this matter. As to the other important question of
  1118
  the proceedings as to the Guaranteed Loan, I do most distinctly say that the House was coerced by the majority, who in their turn were coerced—the minority was coerced by the majority, who were in their turn coerced by the Prime Minister and his Colleagues by the statement which we believed, and by which we were strongly impressed with all the authority of the Government, but which we now look upon in a somewhat different light. We were led by the statement of the Prime Minister as to the urgent necessity for our passing at once this Resolution forming the financial arrangement, without which we were told that foreign nations would not proceed with the business, and we were given to understand that if we did so proceed and did give the guarantee further difficulties were not to be expected, and the Foreign Governments would proceed with the matter. Well, they have not proceeded with it, and we see the difficulties which have now come upon us. We want some advice and information from the Government on these matters. We are told it is unreasonable to ask it. I think we are closing the Session for the present adjournment in a very unsatisfactory manner. I think the House and the country have every reason to complain of the position in which, as it now appears, we are placed with regard to this particular question of the newspaper and the fair settlement of the financial arrangement; and we are placed, let me add also, in an unsatisfactory position with regard to a very important question which I do not think has been mentioned to-night—I mean the arrangement with regard to the Suez Canal. Upon that question we ought to have more assurances than we have yet received; and I am bound to say that I do not think that the Government have a right to use to us the language of rebuke in which both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have so freely indulged.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, the Government asserted that they had no means of informing themselves as to the mode which would be adopted of suppressing The Bosphore Egyptien;but, as a matter of fact, the suppression of the paper, as it had taken place, was merely a second edition of a former suppression that was attempted in February, 1884. On that occasion the Egyptian Government sup-

  1119
  pressed the paper by Decree; but that Government was informed by its Legal Adviser that the action they had taken was illegal. When they went to the office of the paper they were told that if they attempted to put their Decree into force they would be met by armed resistance. The French Consular authorities had not been notified. Information was sent to them, and they despatched an agent to the newspaper office, upon whose representation the Egyptian Government withdrew. That was the history of the first effort to suppress the newspaper, and that, so far as he was aware, was the only authority for the later suppression. Those facts were notorious in Egypt—in fact, all over Cairo—and they must have been pretty well known to Sir Evelyn Baring and those who acted on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, the Government had no right whatever to come to the House and say that they were not aware of the illegality of the course they were pursuing in connection with this paper. Now, with regard to the character of The Bosphore Egyptien,he must say that he had felt very much astonished at the statements made both in that House and by the Press of this country on the subject. He had been a very constant reader—almost a daily reader—of the journal, and he thought that if there was any real ground of objection to it, or any sufficient ground for its suppression, it would be the invariable support it had given to Her Majesty's Government in their conduct of the affairs of Egypt. With regard to the statement that what was done was done by the action of the Egyptian Government, and that Her Majesty's Government were not responsible, that was a mere play upon words. It was perfectly well known that there was no real Egyptian Government—that the Egyptian Government was a mere marionette; we pulled the strings and it jumped. As to Nubar Pasha, he was not an Egyptian but a Christian Armenian officer, who was kept at the head of affairs in Egypt by our bayonets, and who would not be allowed to remain 24 hours in Egypt after those bayonets disappeared from it. And that was the man whose action Her Majesty's Government called the action of the Egyptian Government. If there was anything that was absolutely plain to any-
  1120
  one who was not a thick-and-thin supporter of the English clique in Cairo, it was that The Bosphore Egyptien represented the opinion not only of the Egyptian Government and the French Colonists, but of all other Colonists with regard to the British Government and their acts towards the officials in Egypt. Therefore, the action which had been taken in the case of this newspaper was not the action of any real Egyptian Government, but was an action for which Her Majesty's Government were primarily responsible. It was an act done by an Agent of theirs who called himself a Minister of the Khedive, and it was upon that ground that France had demanded from them, and had compelled them to join in, the expression of regret which had been made for this act of invading the domicile of a Frenchman in Cairo. With regard to the question as to the legality or illegality of this act, it did not require any very extensive knowledge of the laws under which Englishmen lived in Egypt to know that any violation of the domicile of a foreigner in that country would be a breach of International Law. That must have been patent to the British authorities and to those who advised this action in Egypt, and he supposed that it was something that was not unknown to the gentlemen who ruled over the destinies of the foreigner. He supposed they knew enough about foreign affairs to know that the laws under which foreigners lived in Egypt were different from those under which they lived in any European country. And now he meant to pass from that point. He just wished to say one word with regard to a phrase the Prime Minister used as he (Mr. O'Kelly) came into the House with respect to the Soudan Expedition. There were plenty of books concerning Egypt which would supply the right hon. Gentleman with all the information about that country which he could possibly desire to have. If the British Government had it in contemplation to send an Expedition up the Nile, it was evident that the only time at which such an Expedition could have been properly sent was the time when the Nile was at the flood. That time the Government deliberately let pass. They said they had no notice of it. Perhaps it might appear a little egotistical; but he, in some letters he

  1121
  had the honour to write, called attention as early as May to the necessity of sending the Expedition up the Nile not later than the 1st of July. His letters, no doubt, escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Ministers; but still Her Majesty's Ministers must have had agents who were able and clever all throughout Egypt. They had the officers of their Intelligence Department scattered throughout Egypt at that time; and, therefore, how could the Government have been ignorant as to what was the proper time to send an Expedition up the Nile? If they were ignorant it was because they did not take the trouble to inform themselves on a matter of vital importance to the safety of the garrison of Khartoum. The excuses they attempted to make to the House were lame and ineffective, and if the country were satisfied with them they were very easily satisfied.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the matter of The Bosphore Egyptien was not important in itself, but it was important as showing the want of benevolence on the part of the French. It really seemed that there was a combination of European Powers against us, in spite of the continual assertion of Her Majesty's Government that they did not seek any special privileges in Egypt, but that they wished to get out of Egypt as soon as they could, and that they wished to make the Suez Canal a channel of commerce open to all nations. This country spoke before Egypt with two voices—one the voice of Her Majesty's Government, and the other the voice of an irresponsible Press, a voice which was mistaken for that of the public opinion of the country. The Press was continually hounding on the Government to take in Egypt a position superior to that which other Powers had. He did not think the Government had any grounds for doing so. It was argued by the Press of this country that they had, in the exercise of their discretion, gone to Egypt; that they had several times spilt their blood and treasure there; and that, therefore, they were entitled to remain there. The Government must decide either that they would remain in Egypt, or tell the European Governments that they need not be jealous. Personally, he thought the Canal ought to be subjected to International control.
  MR. WARTONsaid, the time spent upon this Vote had not been wasted, because the discussion had elicited from the First Lord of the Treasury his approbation of the language which the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquees of Hartington) used in 1881 in the Candahar debate, and which had been quoted that night by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Sussex (Sir 'Walter B. Barttelot). It was not, however, his (Mr. Warton's) province to interfere in matters of high policy. He had tried to do what he could to improve in a small degree the procedure of the House. In the matter of the introduction of Bills brought down from the other House he had already succeeded. In consequence of his humble efforts, it was now the practice of the Speaker to announce from the Chair when the first reading of a Bill brought from the other House was to be taken: formerly such Bills used to be introduced in the House of Commons without anyone being aware of the fact. There was another little matter which still awaited settlement—? namely the appointment of casual Chairmen. At present, when the Chairman (Sir Arthur Otway) was not in the House, and the Committee on a Bill was reached, some hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, or it might possibly be someone on the Front Opposition Bench, quietly slipped into the Chair. The consent of the House was in no way asked with regard to the hon. Gentleman who should fill the Chair. He maintained that that was a state of things which ought not to be. That was not his view only, but of the First Lord of the Treasury, because, in 1882, that right hon. Gentleman said he intended to bring forward some Rules with regard to that important question. At a later period the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) asked the Prime Minister when he would be able to put on the Paper the proposed Regulation regulating the appointment of casual Chairmen. The answer the right hon. Gentleman returned was that the Government had no intention at present to make any proposal on the subject. A hint was thrown out from the Government Bench that it would be a good thing if there was a panel of Gentlemen capable of sitting in the Chair. If that suggestion were acted

  1123
  upon, they would not see what positively happened on some occasions—a kind of scramble for the Chairman's seat. He had not a word to say against any of the hon. Gentlemen who occasionally occupied the Chair; but, nevertheless, he thought there should be some Rules to regulate the appointment of Chairmen.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the indulgence of the House for a few minutes. He should not have done so if it had not been for a remark which fell from the Prime Minister in the course of his speech that evening. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) ventured to cheer, not immoderately, but in the ordinary way, a quotation from a newspaper, with regard to the squeezability of Her Majesty's Government, which the Prime Minister was then reading to the House. The right hon. Gentleman at once founded the enormous charge against him of want of patriotism; be said there was a great want of patriotism in cheering the statement that the Government was squeezable by foreign nations. Well, were they not squeezable? Could any intelligent man on the Ministerial side of the House say they were not squeezable? When he and his hon. Friends drew attention to the squeezability of the Government, their object was not to encourage foreign nations to squeeze the Government, but to encourage the Government to resist the squeezing. They wished, if they could, to arouse what latent sense of shame was in the Government. The squeezability of Her Majesty's Government was nothing new. The whole Continent of Europe was well acquainted with it. Every foreign organ of intelligence was at that moment writing about it. The only way which the House had of checking that fatal squeezability of the Government and averting war—for it was certainly bringing about war—was to put such pressure upon Ministers as would prevent their being squeezed. It was remarkable to listen to the Prime Minister indulging in a eulogy of peace. Did the Prime Minister or hon. Gentlemen opposite really think that the policy of Her Majesty's Government had been peaceful? Did they not know that these constant surrenders to a Power which only respected force were the certain means of leading to war? As a matter of fact, the only war in which this coun-
  1124
  try had been engaged with Russia was caused by a Liberal Government, of which the present Prime Minister was a Member, and was caused by the same course of feebleness and inability to speak their own mind which the present Government were now following. The more they gave up to Russia the more she would demand. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the course which he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) was following was detrimental to the public interest. He confessed he had, with very little support, tried to induce Her Majesty's Ministers to declare what their policy with regard to the Afghan Frontier was. Ho deeply grieved to be at variance with the Prime Minister on that point. He believed, however, that what he wanted was not at variance with the public interest; because, in his opinion, the only means of preventing war was to make the Government lay their hand on the Table and state how much they were prepared to defend, and see whether public opinion would support them in what they called a national and Imperial policy, but which, so far, had been nothing of the kind. He asked the Prime Minister whether he could deny that if the Russian despatch of the 16th of January had been made known to this country at the time such strength would have been given by public support to Her Majesty's Government as to make the invasion of Afghanistan and the attack on and slaughter of their allies absolutely impossible? On the 16th of January last the Russians demanded Zulfikar, Penjdeh, and other places; and, furthermore, that the Ameer should not have the right to fortify his own country. Was there a Minister on the Treasury Bench who could deny that if the despatch containing those demands bad been made known to the country at the time there would have been such a display of public feeling as would have made the Government's subsequent surrender impossible? In conclusion, he asked the Government to state what was the Frontier agreed upon last Monday or Tuesday between Earl Granville and M. de Staal, so that the country might know how much further pressure was being put upon Ministers, and where this insidious encroachment of Russia was to make its next move? The Opposition were told that they were a War Party. That they were told

  1125
  by a Government who had just spent £13,500,000 on war preparations; who had a Budget of £100,000,000 and a deficit of £15,000,000; a Government who had involved them in wars in the Transvaal and the Soudan, who had rendered war with Russia all but inevitable—yes, in spite of the sneers of the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt), he maintained that the yielding policy of the Government was making war with Russia absolutely certain. There were no possible means of preventing war with Russia but by telling her she was not to overstep a certain line. Let Russia know clearly that if she continued to encroach she would be confronted by the whole Forces of the Empire—in India, the Baltic, and the Black Sea; and by every ally we could get—in Turkey, in China, and wherever we could obtain support, would be used against her. That was the only way in which war was to be prevented. There was no Peace Party in the Russian Government; there were two Parties—one which believed that more could be gained in the future by temporary delay now, and another which thought that Herat ought to be seized at once. As to M. de Giers, of whoso peaceful intentions the House had heard so much, he asked hon. Members to read the Blue Book and see whether M. de Giers was not the most convenient stalking horse that any War Party in any country ever possessed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Thursday the 4th of June.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.
Postponed Resolution [7th May] considered.
(2.) "That a sum, not exceeding £38,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Administration of Military Law, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886."
MR. SEXTONwished to know what steps the Government had taken, or meant to take, respecting a series of outrages committed in Downpatrick on the night of the 30th of April by a number of men of the Down Militia? As far as he could ascertain, the outrages had been followed by complete immunity. When he last brought the subject under the notice of the House he pointed
1126
out that the Government had deliberately abstained from using the best ground in the vicinity of Downpatrick for the Militia-; that they had not made use of any of the unoccupied houses in the town for the billeting of the men; but that they had billeted thorn promiscuously through the town, which meant the complete destruction of military discipline and opening the door to a breach of the peace in a part of Ireland where Party feeling ran notoriously high. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington), in replying to his complaint, said that the private houses were not suitable to the purpose. He (Mr. Sexton) had since ascertained that the unoccupied houses in the town of Downpatrick had been actually inspected by a sergeant of the Staff, who found that one of them was capable of accommodating 80 men—that, in fact, there was abundant accommodation in such houses for the whole of the men, 190 in number. However, the War Office refused to accept the suggestion which he (Mr. Sexton) made, and, as he had said, the men were billeted promiscuously through the town. The conduct of 15 of them who were billeted in one house was so bad on one occasion that the sergeant was obliged to remove 13 of them to other quarters. The War Office refused to take warning from that circumstance. The moment the regiment came into the town early last month disorder and breaches of the peace were feared. That might have been because the character of the regiment was known to the townspeople—it might be due also to the political character of the Commanding Officer. Colonel Waring was an extreme Orangeman; he was one of the magistrates who signalized themselves in the matter of Lord Rossmore's removal from the Commission of the Peace; ho was the man who led an armed and violent mob at Saintfield some two or three years ago; and he was only prevented by Mr. Clifford Lloyd from making an armed and murderous attack upon an orderly organized public meeting. Major Stewart, the Adjutant of the regiment was also a partizan, and after the Militiamen had been allowed to march through the town drunk and shouting "to Hell with the Pope," he was the officer who had not the courtesy or the common sense of duty to reply to the complaints made by

1127
the Catholic clergy. He (Mr. Sexton) made a complaint of these proceedings in that House; hut he was met with a "categorical denial," and the Government took no steps to inquire into the condition of affairs or what was taking place. On the evening of the 30th of April, about 40 men from the regiment formed themselves into military order, and, headed by two civilians, they marched through the town attacking every Catholic in the streets and the houses of the Catholics along the line of route. During the evening they made an incursion upon the premises of a man named Gilmore, and violently attacked and beat some people who were in the shop, and then made their way back to barracks after breaking the glass in Mr. Gilmore's windows. The noble Marquess seemed to think that that was a proper kind of conduct. It was well known in the town of Down-patrick that the police had orders not to arrest Militiamen, and the result of that was very naturally to try the tempers of the population of the town and to bring about ill-feeling. He did not know which side got the upper hand in the disturbances which took place; but this they did know—that the civilian invariably got punished and the Militiaman went free. Why did the noble Marquess mention this "categorical denial" at all unless he had meant it to go in palliation of what had taken place? He met his (Mr. Sexton's) statement by saying that a "categorical denial" had been made; but he did not say who had made that "categorical denial." Was it Colonel Waring or Major Stewart, for he held that a denial from such men was entitled to no credence? It was one of the grievances in the town that such a man as Major Stewart should have been allowed to occupy his position for eight years. He wished to inform the House that he had declarations proving the accuracy of his statements, and therefore he was anxious to know who had made the denials. He had a declaration made by Mr. Gilmore himself, saying that every one of the statements he (Mr. Sexton) had made was correct, and going particularly into the question of how the people in his shop were knocked down by these drunken Militiamen. It was a very serious thing when people got up in that House and denied statements which were so undeniable
1128
as that he had made there that evening without being able to give some substantial authority for their denial. He did not rely altogether on the statement of Mr. Gilmore; but he had in his possession a great many other declarations which fully corroborated Gilmore's testimony in regard to the breaking of his windows, &c. One of the persons in the house at the time of the occurrence, Patrick John M'Intosh, gave corroborative testimony, and so did another man, Patrick Cunningham; but it was useless for him to go into any more of those statements. Would the noble Marquess repeat his denial, or would he get up and admit that it was no longer tenable? Colonel Galbraith, an official of the Government, had been sent down to make an inquiry into those statements; but he should like to know what was the result of the inquiry? Would the noble Marquess get up and state what the result of that inquiry was? Everybody knew what was coming. All those Militiamen were connected with the Orange Society, and the people were Catholics, and when the former were given liberty to go about as they liked the result was inevitable. Ever since they had been in the town of Downpatrick they had gone out of their way to insult the people. One of their favourite amusements had been to stand outside the places of worship of the people as the people came out and insult them and their religion. Now, he wanted to know whether the denial was maintained, and whether if the case he had made out was admitted—and it was vouched for by all the priests in Ulster—would the Government free the town from all this riotous element? If they refused, and this conduct was allowed to be continued, he could not believe but that those outrages would be renewed and the peace would be broken. The magistrates had refused to go into the provocation which the people had received, and nothing had been done to bring the Militiamen to justice. When would those men be taken away? Would the Government be good enough to take those men away from Downpatrick, where the fear of those riots occurring was constant? They might take them away to Limerick or any other place where there would be no fear of their breaking the public peace or raising riots. What steps had ever been taken to

1129
find out the Militiamen who had committed outrages? Civilians had been punished; but, as he had said before, Militiamen went free, and he contended that it was the immunity from punishment that gave an impetus to those men to commit outrage, because they knew perfectly well that they would not be charged with their crimes. He thought that the Military Authorities ought to co-operate with the Civil Authorities in this matter, and endeavour to punish the real culprits. He should be very much surprised if any of the claims he had put forward that evening were shown to be unreasonable. It was almost hopeless for them to expect to obtain justice from the Military Authorities in those matters; but he should use every effort on that and every other occasion to obtain justice for the people. The effect of allowing people in the Service of the Crown to do as they liked must produce bitterness in the minds of the people, and induce them to retaliate. If the War Office took steps to put a stop to this kind of thing they would probably have no more trouble; but if not they might depend upon it there would be much rioting, and many heads broken. As long as this state of things existed the prospect of anything like peace was anything but certain.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member appeared to attach an exaggerated importance to this matter. He was not aware of what was the direct bearing of the hon. Member's speech, and he could not remember what wore the statements to which he had given a categorical denial. The War Office had referred the matter to Colonel Galbraith, and had directed him to inquire into the disturbances. Although they had not yet received his full Report, they had received a telegram from Colonel Galbraith on the subject, in which he said that the disturbances were not commenced by the Militia, and that they had been greatly exaggerated. The telegram was not a very long one however, and he would not altogether rely upon it, for Colonel Galbraith might, of course, be led to modify his opinion by subsequent information. He regretted that the hon. Member had thought it necessary to impute bad conduct to the Militia on this particular occasion, and in this partiular
1130
way. The fact of Militia regiments being billeted on the towns was not generally deprecated by the people, but, as a rule, was regarded as a matter to be desired, as it brought money into the town, and was a source of profit to some of the poorer classes of the townspeople. Those men had been previously quartered in Downpatrick, and Major Stuart desired to obtain the same barrack accommodation which they had had before in order to have the men the better under his control. That, however, was found to be impossible. The billeting, therefore, was not a matter which was altogether under the control of the Military Authorities. Nevertheless, the recruits assembled in the town on the 6th of April; and, as far as he could ascertain, no disturbance occurred until the 29th of April. The hon. Member had said that a disturbance occurred the day before the races; but he understood that that disturbance was caused by an assault on a Militiaman, and was caused by a well-known disturber of the public peace, who was now undergoing punishment for offences of that kind. On the following day, as he understood the hon. Member, the disturbance in regard to Mr. Gilmore's shop took place. Neither he nor anyone else had been able to identify any of the civilians who took part in the disturbance. It was true that the windows of several houses were broken; but he (the Marquess of Hartington) was informed that some of the houses were inhabited by Protestants. Since the occurrence, however, the regiment had been in camp outside the town, it was now under strict military control, and the Commanding Officer did not apprehend a renewal of the disturbance. The hon. Gentleman asked what measures had been taken by the Military Authorities to prevent any further breaches of the peace. He (the Marquess of Hartington) was informed that the town had been patrolled at night by a strong picket under the command of an officer, and that, in addition, other precautionary measures had been taken. He had not obtained full information on the subject; but there seemed to be no reason whatever to doubt that what took place on the 30th of April had been very greatly exaggerated. It was perfectly clear to him that the disturbance was provoked not by the Militiamen, but by certain civilians of

1131
the town. Every facility had been given by the officers for the identification of those who took part in the breach of the peace, but up to the present without success. As to the Commanders of the regiment being Members of the Orange Society be knew nothing; but he did not think that Colonel Waring or any one of the officers would allow their political opinions to interfere with the discharge of their military duties. If anything in the nature of Party spirit or feeling entered into the discharge of the duties of Militia officers a Report to that effect would be immediately made by the superior officer, and proper steps taken in the matter.
MR. SEXTONasked if compensation had been granted to the people whose property had been destroyed?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was not aware that any claim for compensation had been made.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the statement of the noble Marquess was not altogether satisfactory. The noble Marquess, who had been Chief Secretary for Ireland, and therefore must know very well what the Party feeling in that country, especially in the North, was, was scarcely justified in instituting an analogy between the riots which took place in English and Scotch towns, and the riots which took place between the Irish Parties. If there were merely drunken rows between Militiamen and low-class civilians no one would say anything about them. But the complaint of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) was, in the first place, that this Militia regiment was commanded by an officer notorious for his Orange proclivities, and his participation in Orange manifestoes and Orange proceedings of all kinds. Under the influence of an officer of that kind, the regiment had been led to insult and provoke the Catholic inhabitants of the town of Downpatrick. He put it to the noble Marquess whether it was good for the Militia, for the Army generally, or good on any ground of public policy that such a state of things should be allowed to continue in the town? The noble Marquess had said he knew nothing of the Orange proclivities of Colonel Waring. It was strange he did not, for there was not a man in Ireland who did not know Colonel Waring. Colonel Waring, as the Deputy Grand Master of the Orange Society of County Down,
1132
had lately affixed his name to the most inflammatory placards; he was undoubtedly a most active member of the Orange Society, and therefore it was the duty of the War Office to remove him from the command of this Militia regiment. The noble Marquess complained that the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had led the House to suppose that there was some Party or religious feeling mixed up with this matter. There was no one who regretted Party conflicts more than the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton); but the facts remained. There was no doubt that Party feeling was mixed up in this matter. One woman of the town had deposed that she was terrified on account of her young children. Was it not an intolerable state of things that a woman, whose respectability was attested by a clergyman, should be afraid of her own life, and of the lives of her children, because a Militia regiment was allowed to go about insulting and attacking the Catholic inhabitants of the town? As a rule, the Orange body, bad as they were, drew the line at insulting the ministers of the Catholic faith; but Father O'Hara, of Downpatrick, had been publicly insulted by some of those men, one of whom cursed the Pope twice. Those might appear very small things; but they were things which ought not to be allowed to occur with impunity. Though those matters were small in themselves, they became greatly exaggerated in a town like Downpatrick, where religious and political feeling ran extremely high on all occasions. Now, as to what should be done in the future. The only thing that the noble Marquess could do to save the people of the town from those annoyances was to show them that the law was supreme in Ireland, and that the Authorities were determined to protect all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, and that could only be done by removing the regiment from Downpatrick or its vicinity. The noble Marquess said that the regiment was in camp outside the town. That was true; but a large portion of the regiment came into the town every evening, and anyone who was at all acquainted with the state of feeling there must be convinced that those nightly incursions or excursions of the Militia were attended with the most serious dangers to the peace of the towns, and especially

1133
to the safety of the property and persons of the Catholic inhabitants. What the noble Marquess had said was sufficient to show that there was great danger of the peace being broken; he had said a strong picket, under the command of an officer, patrolled the town every night. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not know enough about military matters to know whether that was unusual. ["It is not unusual."] He had been in garrison towns, and he had always understood that a sergeant was the highest officer sent out with a picket. That a picket was sent out in command of an officer showed that in the case of Downpatrick it was necessary to take exceptional measures—he interpreted the allusion of the noble Marquess to the picket to mean that exceptional precautions for the safety of the town had been taken. Why should the noble Marquess put the regiment or himself to the trouble of taking those special precautions for the preservation of the peace of the town, when there was the much more ready and satisfactory means of doing so—namely, the removal of the regiment from the town? Whatever feeling there was in the town itself, he could assure the noble Marquess that on his (Mr. T. P. O'Connor's) part, and that of his hon. Friends, there was no Party feeling whatever in the matter. They deplored the existence of Party spirit, a great deal of which was irrational and barbarous; but they must take things as they were, in Ireland. He thought that nothing tended to produce that spirit more than the feeling that the lives and liberties of Catholics were at the mercy of a number of Militiamen and Orangemen, and that the law would not step in to protect them.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he thought the inhabitants of Downpatrick would feel, after the speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington), that they had no chance of getting justice done between them and those Militiamen. The Irish Members were entitled to press the noble Marquess to remove the regiment to some place where its presence would not be so objectionable. Nothing could be more unfortunate than that an officer, so well known in Downpatrick for his Orange
1134
propensities as Colonel Waring, should be in command of a regiment in that place. He would like to know what the noble Marquess would say if he found a gentleman, equally outspoken in Nationalist opinions, in command of a regiment? He did not hesitate to say that such a man would be immediately removed from his position. The War Office ought to administer even justice between the two Parties. For some time to come Party conflicts in Ulster were almost certain; and if this regiment was not to be removed, every measure should be taken to keep the men out of Downpatrick. If they were allowed to enter the town, it should be under such conditions as would prevent them insulting and provoking the people.
Resolution agreed to.

HONORARY FREEDOM OF BOROUGHS BILL [Lords.]— [BILL 153.]
(Mr. Norwood.)
HONORARY FREEDOM OF BOROUGHS BILL [Lords.]— [BILL 153.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. WARTONproposed, in page 1, line 7, to leave out the words "a majority of the," and insert the words "not less than two-thirds of their." The object of the Amendment was to bring the Bill to its original form in this respect. He felt that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) accepted the words "a majority of the" without due consideration. The hon. Gentleman must see that if a mark of distinction was to be conferred by a borough upon an eminent person, that mark of distinction would come with much better grace if there were two-thirds of the people in favour of bestowing it than if there were only a bare majority. If he (Mr. Warten) were an eminent person, and a borough wished to confer a mark of distinction upon him, ho should feel very annoyed if he thought it was only carried by a mere majority of one vote. He had great confidence in submitting this Amendment to the consideration of the House.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words "a majority of the," and insert the words "not less than two-thirds of their,"—(Mr. Warton,}
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that the Amendment was made in Committee upon the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who, in a speech of some force, pointed out that the body who had the power to elect a Sheriff and Mayor by a majority of one ought to be competent to decide by a mere majority whether a mark of distinction should be bestowed upon anyone. He (Mr. Norwood) did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) need have much fear on that score, because honours and distinctions would never be conferred when there was only a majority of one in favour of conferring them. It would be a distinction worth nothing, and would be scarcely acceptable.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, there was a difference between conferring appointments such as that of Mayor and Sheriff and the bestowal of the honorary distinctions dealt with in the Bill. It was the duty of the Corporation to appoint those officers, and, therefore, it was right that a majority should suffice; but, in regard to conferring the honorary freedom of towns, that was a mere complimentary business, and the circumstances were very different. He would say that not only in the interest of the distinction conferred, but in the interest of the towns themselves. A compliment of this kind ought to carry with it the general sense of the town, and that could not be expressed by a bare majority of the Corporation. It could only be shown by the fact of a considerable proportion of the Corporation being in favour of it. He thought that must have been the idea of the other House of Parliament in drawing the Bill in this form.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that it was a little absurd to question the authority of the Corporation of the City of London to confer its freedom upon a distinguished person when a majority of one could confer upon Mr. Speaker the dignity of First Commoner of England.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. NORWOOD: I would now ask the House to permit the Bill to be read a third time.
  Bill read the third time, and passed,with an Amendment.

WATERWORKS CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 152.]
(Mr. Daniel Grant, Mr. Torrens, Mr. Sclater Booth, Mr. Arthur Cohen, Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Laurence, Baron Henry De Worms.)
WATERWORKS CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 152.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Daniel Grant.)
  MR. WARTONsaid, that with regard to this Bill, he only wished to make this final complaint—namely, that it had passed through a curious change in its passage through the House. ["Divide!"] He would merely say that he had hoped the Bill would have been kept in its original form, and, as it had not been, he trusted that it would be put back into that form in the House of Lords.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

MOTIONS.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, WALES, BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    MR. MUNDELLA: At this late hour I will confine myself to explaining only two or three points of the measure which I am about to introduce. I should have been glad, if the opportunity had been afforded me, to have made a statement in detail; but as that is not possible at this hour, perhaps the House will permit me, just very briefly, to state two or three of the leading features of the Bill, and to defer to another stage the opportunity of explaining more fully its provisions. It is not necessary to remind the House, and I shall assume for the purposes of the Bill that the House is fully aware, of the great deficiency in intermediate education in Wales, which is of an exceptional character, and far beyond anything we are acquainted with in any other part of the United Kingdom. Briefly, there are two points I would lay before the House—first, that it was shown clearly by the Report of the Departmental Committee presided over by Lord Aberdare that only 16 children in

    1137
    1,000 attend intermediate schools in Wales, and only one in 1,000 attend public intermediate schools. The total number was so small that there was no parallel for it in any other part of the United Kingdom. The other point is the small amount of the endowments in Wales and the niter inadequacy of them to meet the requirements of intermediate education in that country. The whole endowment in North and South Wales for educational purposes is only £10,000 a-year. The endowments of Wales and Monmouthshire are covered by £14,000 a-year, a sum less in itself than that possessed by the town of Coventry, and only half the amount that a scheme now before the House—the Elliot scheme in Edinburgh—will cost. It is not to be wondered at that the condition of intermediate education in Wales is as deplorable as I have stated to the House. The Departmental Committee have made a recommendation that the whole of the endowments of Wales, including educational endowments, should be made available for intermediate education, and that there should be a small fixed rate also, limited to something like a halfpenny in the pound, and a draft on the Treasury for the establishment of intermediate education, and to meet the defects of the present system. Now, in order to meet the existing deficiencies we are bringing in this Bill. The 4th clause practically states the whole scheme of the Bill—which will be in the hands of hon. Members on Saturday morning, I hope, when hon. Members will be able to see the whole scope of the measure. The clause runs to this effect—
    "An Education Committee shall be established in every county in Wales, and in the county of Monmouth; and it shall be the duty of such Committee to submit to the Education Commissioners for Wales, appointed as in this Act mentioned, a plan or plans for the intermediate education of the inhabitants of their county."
    What we were met with on the threshold of this measure was the difficulty of calling into existence some Local Authority to deal with the question of education. We have now, we hope, surmounted that difficulty, and the 4th clause of this Bill creates an Education Committee in every county in Wales and in the county of Monmouth.
    1138
    This special Committee will consist of the Members of Parliament for the time being in every county; the Members for the time being of every Parliamentary borough in the county; two Members for every municipal borough of over 50,000 inhabitants; one Member for every municipal borough under 50,000 inhabitants; the representatives of the School Boards, &c. Well, then, Sir, to this county Committee is remitted the duty of recommending plans for the providing of schools, for the establishment of now schools and alterations or additions to old ones; also the providing for scholarships, the recommendation of the rates, and the providing of all things necessary for the establishment and successful working of schools in Wales. They will also have the power of dealing with such endowments as are necessary for the working of this Act. Another feature, and a most important feature, of this Bill, is that the Educational Committee will have power to give the consent which was formerly vested in the Trustees of the endowments. That is the recommendation of the Departmental Committee of the Schools Inquiry Commission. In ordinary circumstances, the powers of this Bill would have been worked through the Charity Commissioners; but we have had some experience which goes to prove that we shall do more to meet the exigencies of Wales in appointing a Special Commission. Therefore, we propose to provide such a Special Commission for Wales as exists in Scotland, where we appointed a Special Commission, which has rapidly reorganized the whole of the educational endowments of Scotland. This Committee will have the advantage of the assistance of six gentlemen who have rendered valuable assistance in the inquiry, and who know all the wants of Wales in respect of education, and who know all its resources. We think we may be fortunate enough to obtain some of these gentlemen in this connection, and we shall bring to bear on the Committee that knowledge of schools which will be so useful. Well, Sir, these two bodies—the local Committee to initiate, and the Royal Commission to frame the plans and deal with the schemes—are the two bodies, both Welsh, both conferring together in the locality,

    1139
    who are to have the power of reorganizing the schools and making provision for the locality. The power of rating will originate with the Local Authorities, and the rate is strictly confined to the sum of a halfpenny in the pound. To meet that there is a clause in the Bill in which the Treasury is empowered or required to pay annually, out of the moneys provided by Parliament in aid of the county schools, a sum that shall be equivalent to the amount of the rate levied in the county. There is also a borrowing power for building purposes, on the same terms as those granted to the School Board, by which the Loan Commissioners lent for a term of 50 years. I should like to explain the operation of this. Let me take the case of the county of Glamorgan. The population of that county is 550,000. We will say that the educational endowment of the county amounts to £1,500 a-year; a halfpenny rate under the Bill will supply an additional £4,600, and the Government grant will give an equal sum. That would give a sum of £10,700 a-year for intermediate education in Glamorganshire. The result for the whole of Wales will be that there would be an annual sum of £536,000 obtained for this purpose; and, in addition to this, there will be the increase of fees and the increase of scholarships and local aid due to the increased confidence of the people in the schools. There is one other point, and that is this—it is provided that the meetings of the Governing Body should partake much more of a public character than hitherto. I regret that I have been compelled to make so brief and hasty a statement; but I should like to say, in conclusion—
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to move that the Bill be brought in.
    Bill for the promotion of Intermediate Education in Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, and Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR.
    Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 195.]

    PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made under "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," relating to the Burgh and Parish of North Berwick, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
    Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 194.]

    DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under "The Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863," relating to the Ballyteigne and Kilmore Drainage District, in the county Wexford, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN.
    Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 192.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.