Commons Sitting of 7 March 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Town Holdings, Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Thomas Ellis, Mr. Heath, Mr. Knowles, and Mr. James Rowlands added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1886–7); CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART, Votes 2 and 13; CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES, Votes 1, 3, and 5; CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES, Votes 1 and 4; CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS; REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, Votes III. and V.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—County Courts [Expenses.]
ordered—First Reading—Parliamentary Elections (Seamen's Vote) ٭ [190].
Second Reading—Licensed Premises (Earlier Closing) (Scotland)٭[153], debate adjourned.
Select Committees—Foynes Harhour٭ [159]; Admiral Mayne, Mr. Smith - Barry, Mr. Schwann, and Mr. Matthew Kenny added; Hyde Park Corner (New Streets)٭ [135]; Mr. Henry H. Fowler and Mr. David Plunket added.
Committee—Report—First Offenders٭ [132–189].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL [Lords]. CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
  COLONEL MALCOLM: I beg to move that the Bill be considered on this day six months.
  SIR CHARLES FORSTER: As the Bill is opposed, it will be necessary to adopt the usual course in reference to opposed Private Bills, and to appoint a day for the Consideration. I would suggest that it may be convenient to take it to-morrow.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW ELECTIONS (IRELAND)— RETURNING OFFICERS, COOKHILL UNION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter addressed to the Local Government Board, signed by Mr. Patrick Connolly, P.L.G., on behalf of himself and other Guardians of Cookhill Union, asking the Local Government Board to prohibit Robert Graham, late clerk of Union, from acting as Returning Officer at coming Poor Law elections, but expressing their willingness to accept John Graham, present clerk, as Returning Officer if the voting papers were kept out of the custody of both Grahams from the time of their collection till the scrutiny commences; and, whether the Local Government Board is prepared to act on foregoing suggestions?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said: Mr. Robert Graham, the person objected to, will not be appointed Returning Officer. The present clerk, Mr. John Graham, is the Returning Officer, and will act as such. The General Orders provide that the Voting Papers must remainin his custody until the return of the election is made, and this rule cannot be deviated from.
  1382
  He will be held responsible for the conduct of the several proceedings connected with the election, and the Guardians have been so informed, in reply to their letter mentioned in the Question.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE LAND COURT—FAIR RENTS.
  DR. TANNERasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. John J. Hickey, of Lisnabog, Cullin, Millstreet, County Cork, who in the month of December last had an originating notice served on his land lord, Mr. Trench, to have a fair rent fixed by the Land Court; whether, not withstanding that the application was made two months before the necessary time, his name has not been placed on the list for hearing by the Court; whether any pressure of business in the Court has prevented his name being entered for hearing; and, whether a number of other cases in the Kanturk and Macroom Unions have been similarly shelved; and, if so, whether he will call the attention of the Land Commission to the matter?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University): The Land Commissioners report that the facts are substantially as stated, and the reason of the delay is that suggested by the third paragraph of the Question—namely, pressure of business. The Commissioners were unable to list for hearing on this Circuit any application received after the 22nd of November. There are 200 cases from County Cork thus unlisted.
  DR. TANNERasked, whether it was a fact that, practically speaking, there was no such pressure of business? He inserted a clause in the Question, which had been struck out at the Table, asking whether all the cases had not been finished nearly a month ago?
  MR. HOLMES: It is impossible, at the next sitting, for the Sub-Commissioners to dispose of more cases than are already listed.
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us the assurance that the cases will be taken as soon as possible?
  MR. HOLMES: I cannot be responsible for the Land Commissioners; but I am sure they will do their duty in this matter.

  EDUCATION—LOCAL COLLEGES IN ENGLAND AND WALES.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the letter of the Master of Balliol, which appears in The Times of the 3rd instant, urging the need of State assistance to Local Colleges in England and Wales; and, whether, having regard to the importance of, and urgent need for, higher technical and commercial education, as set forth in the Reports of the Royal Commission on Technical Education and Depression of Trade; Her Majesty's Government will intro duce, or facilitate the passing of, a measure authorizing Local Authorities to contribute towards the establishment and maintenance of Schools and Colleges adapted to the wants of their several localities, and will recommend to Parliament annual grants in aid of the same?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square),in reply, said, his attention had been called to the letter addressed to The Times by the distinguished gentleman to whom his right hon. Friend alluded, and who urged immediate State assistance to Local Colleges in England and Wales. He entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend as to the importance of the subject, and he might say that no one took a deeper interest in it than he did him self; but he must frankly state that, at the present moment, he was not in a position to introduce, or facilitate, the passing of a measure empowering Local Authorities to contribute towards the establishment and maintenance of Schools and Colleges adapted to the wants of their several localities. Nor was he in a position to recommend to Parliament annual grants in aid of the same. The question involved two points—one of local contributions, and the other of State grants. It was quite an open question whether Local Authorities should not be empowered to assist Colleges of this nature; but the question of State grants was a very large one. The attention of the Government was directed to it; but it was full of difficulty, looking to the immense expenditure which might be involved.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND) ACT—ENNIS UNION.
  MR. COXasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire land, Whether he was correctly informed when he stated that the Ennis Board of Guardians had not lodged the necessary documents with the Local Government Board to authorize that Body to send down their Inspector to Ennis Union to hold an inquiry under the Labourers' Cottages Act; whether, on inquiry, it has since transpired that the documents had been lodged since November last, but were "pigeon-holed" in the Local Government Board Offices; and, if the labourers in this Union will suffer for the negligence or dereliction of duty of the Local Government Board officials by being deprived of the cottages and plots this spring?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said: There has been no such negligence or dereliction of duty as is suggested. The last of the necessary documents was not received by the Local Government Board until the 2nd of this month. The documents which were in the Office in November related to schemes previously inquired into, and though they could be utilized in connection with the present scheme they were not sufficient; and, as already stated, the necessary documents were not received until long afterwards.

  PRISONS BOARD (IRELAND)—RICHMOND BRIDEWELL, DUBLIN.
  MR. CONWAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to an article in The Free man's Journal of the 24th February, 1887, with reference to the contemplated sup pression by the Government of Richmond Bridewell, Dublin; whether the Prisons Board recommended the abolition of this prison; and, if so, on what grounds; would the result of the change be an increase to the rates of the City of Dublin; and, if so, to what extent; whether the present Board should consist, according to law, of four persons; is the present constitution of the Board limited to two persons—namely, the Hon. Charles Burke and a Mr. O'Brien; are the present members of the Board

  1385
  paid officials; whether the Hon. Charles Burke was recommended by a Commission for compulsory retirement; on what grounds was the recommendation based; whether the Governor, the two medical officers, the two chaplains, and a number of minor officials of Richmond Prison must be pensioned under the contemplated change though still able to perform their duties; whether the pensions of these officials, whose present salaries are paid out of the Consolidated Fund, must be paid out of the rates of the City of Dublin; and, has the Hon. Charles Burke consulted the Corporation of the City of Dublin or the City Members, or any of them, in reference to these changes?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said: The attention of the Government has been called to the newspaper article mentioned, the writer of which is evidently under a good deal of misapprehension as to the pension charges upon local rates which would be involved by the closing of Richmond Prison, and as to several other points. As already stated, the closing of the prison has been recommended as a step in the consolidation of Dublin prisons advised by the Royal Commission. The matter is not yet decided upon. As in all such cases, it would be necessary to pension those officers whose services could not be utilized under the new arrangement. Care would be taken to keep these charges within the narrowest possible limits; and instead of amounting to £1,000 a-year, in the article in question, being charged on local rates, such charge would not exceed £400, and probably be only £200. It is not the case that the entire charge would fall on local rates. It has not been usual to consult Local Authorities on these subjects. The present constitution of the Board is two paid members, with a medical adviser. This is not contrary to the statute, which fixes a maximum not a minimum strength. I am not aware that the Royal Commission recommended the compulsory retirement of the Chairman; but the Report is before the House.
  MR. H. J. GILL: In case of a disagreement between the two Commissioners, who would act as umpire?
  MR. HOLMES: The matter would be decided by the Irish Government.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether, before this prison was done away with, they would have an opportunity of discussing the matter in the House?
  MR. HOLMES: I cannot answer that Question. I will undertake that nothing shall be done till the Chief Secretary takes his place. Then, of course, the Question can be addressed to him, and he will be able to reply.
  MR. CONWAY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered Questions eight and nine.
  MR. HOLMES: I do not think the two medical officers must be pensioned under the contemplated change; and so far as regards the pensions of the others, they would not fall entirely upon the local rates. As I have already said, the Act of Parliament provides that only a comparatively small portion should fall upon the local rates.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—BOAT-SLIP AT FANAD POINT, DONEGAL.
  MR. O'DOHERTYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord. Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Board of Works in Ireland forwarded, on 8th November last, to the Irish Government, for report by the Inspectors of Fisheries, a Memorial from certain fishermen on the north coast of Donegal to have a boat-slip made near Fanad Point; and, whether the Report thereon has been received; and, if not, will he use his influence to hasten it?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said: No Report has been made, because the application was not received until all the money available had been allocated for other purposes. It was, therefore, thought that an inquiry and Report would be use less.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—THE RIOTS AT BELFAST—ACTION OF THE POLICE.
  MR. BLANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If District Inspector Bigley, at Lurgan, on the 1st instant, ordered the police to fire down Shankhill Street, on a Catholic crowd, without any necessity at the time, without the Riot Act having been read, and without magis-

  1387
  terlal authority, though a magistrate's residence was within 100 yards of the place; whether a young married woman, standing at her own door, was shot; and, if so, by what authority; whether Sub-Inspector Bigley is the same officer who refused to allow the police last June to fire when Orangemen were wrecking the houses of Catholics, when a large amount of property was destroyed; and, if the Government will order an inquiry into the conduct of the Constabulary since 1st of June 1886?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said: The police in Lurgan on the occasion in question were ordered to fire on a riotous mob, and they fired four shots. This order was not given until the police had been themselves both stoned and fired on by the mob, and their action had the effect of immediately restoring order. No serious injury, as far as it can be ascertained, was caused by the fire of the police; but 27 of the latter were struck and wounded with stones, some badly. It is not the intention of the Government to order such an inquiry as is suggested.
  MR. BLANE: What authority had the police to fire? Was the Riot Act read?
  MR. HOLMES: No, Sir; the Riot Act was not read, because there was no magistrate present; but it was a matter of urgent necessity, and the Constabulary were quite within their rights in firing.
  DR. TANNERasked the tight hon. and learned Gentleman to answer the third paragraph in the Question.
  MR. HOLMES: Sub-Inspector Bigley was Sub-Inspector in June last as well as at the present time; and as far as any inquiry has been made with reference to last June, Sub-Inspector Bigley was found to have discharged his duty. I need hardly remind the hon. Gentleman that the present Government was not in Office until two months after wards.

  THE ROYAL CONSTABULARY (IRELAND)—COUNTY INSPECTOR BROWN RIGG.
  DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu tenant of Ireland, Whether his atten-
  1388
  tion has been drawn to a letter written by Dr. Charles Ronayne, one of the presiding magistrates who convicted County Inspector Brownrigg of assault, to The Cork Examiner of the 19th instant, denying the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the Bench were of opinion the case of County In-Inspector Brownrigg should never have been brought into Court, and stating that Mr. Kennedy, the complainant, "adopted the right course of seeking redress in the Constitutional way;" whether County Inspector Brownrigg admitted drinking whiskey previous to the assault; and, whether he will, under these circumstances, cause an inquiry to be made into the case?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said: What the Chief Secretary said was, that the magistrates, in imposing a fine of a farthing without costs, stated that the case ought never to have been brought into Court. This is so. The announcement was made by the Chairman of the Bench, and Dr. Ronayne, who was one of the Justices present, expressed no dissent. As to Dr. Ronayne's letter referred to, it does not refer to the Chief Secretary's statement at all. It was written a fort night before that statement was made. Mr. Brownrigg, being the defendant, was not examined, and could not, there fore, have made the admission alleged in the Question. Mr. Brownrigg is an excellent officer; and the Government consider that he behaved most properly on the occasion which gave rise to this charge.
  DR. TANNERsaid, the statement of the Chief Secretary was made on the 17th, and the letter of Dr. Ronayne appeared on the 19th.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE IN IRELAND—EVIOTIONS.
  MR O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will consider the advisability of withholding the assistance of the forces of the Crown from pending evictions until Parliament has passed a law carrying into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Agriculture in Ireland?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said: The Go-

  1389
  vernment are bound to afford the assistance of the Forces of the Crown to enable the Sheriff to execute writs and decrees of a Court of Law, whether of ejectment or otherwise; and it is the intention of the Government to continue to give that protection.
  MR. O'KELLY: In view of that intention, will the Government state when they will bring in a Bill to deal with this question in accordance with the re commendations of the Commission?
  MR. HOLMES: The hon. Gentleman must put that Question to the Chief Secretary when he takes his place.
  MR. CONYBEABEasked whether it was the duty of the police to protect the agent in demolishing the houses of tenants?
  [No reply.]

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—LORD KINGSTON'S ESTATES, CO. ROSCOMMON.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state the amount of money expended in carrying out evictions last year on the property of Lord Kingston, in the Kil-ronan district of the County Roscommon; and, also the amount of rent due by the tenants evicted?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said: On four different occasions throughout the year—namely, February, April, July, and December—evictions took place on this estate. On each occasion it was necessary to afford the protection of a large force to the Sheriff. The cost of the police is estimated at about £1,000. I cannot make any statement as to the rent due.

  NATIONAL, SCHOOLS (IRELAND)—REMOVAL OF INSPECTORS.
  MR. MACNEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether in the months of August and September a number of the Inspectors of National Schools, Ireland, were moved from one district to another, the transfer in some cases being from one end of Ireland to the other; whether the expenses of such transfers are usually defrayed by the National Board; and, whether it is a fact that these expenses have not yet been paid?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied): The Commissioners of National Education report that the facts stated are substantially correct; and that the authorized payments will be made upon the passing of the Supplementary Estimate now before the House.

  INDIA—COLLECTION OF REVENUE MAGISTERIAL POWERS.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State will cause inquiry to be made into the expediency of continuing magisterial powers to Collectors of Revenue in India; whether complaints have been made in the Madras Presidency of recent years of the abuse of these powers; and, whether Revenue defaulters and unwilling witnesses are summoned to distant Courts and camps and kept in waiting from day to day by the adjournment of their cases?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Secretary of State sees no necessity for causing inquiry to be made into the expediency of continuing magisterial powers to Collectors of Revenue in India; nor is he aware that complaints have been made in recent years in the Madras Presidency of the abuse of these powers, which have always existed. When collectors and magistrates are moving through their districts in the performance of their duties, witnesses and others who have business to transact may occasion ally be put to inconvenience. That, however, is unavoidable, and every effort is made to lessen it as much as possible.

  INDIA (MADRAS)—MR. H. E. SULLIVAN, COVENANTED CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether before his resignation on 7th December, Mr. H. E. Sullivan, the senior Member of the Madras Covenanted Civil Service, and senior Councillor of the Madras Government, was offered an opportunity of publicly meeting the very serious charges, supported by sworn affidavits, formally preferred against him by the Chief Magistrate of the Madura district; and, whether his case was mentioned in this House on

  1391
  September 2, as then being under the consideration of the Secretary of State?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): On the 2nd of September I stated, as the fact was, that Mr. Sullivan's case was then under consideration. Mr. Sullivan had ample opportunities of meeting the charges brought against him, and he availed himself of those opportunities prior to his resignation.

  ADMIRALTY—DEVONPORT DOCKYARD—THE FIRE-BRIGADE STAFF.
  MR. OONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, on the 3rd October last, the authorities at Devonport ordered the fire-brigade staff of the Key-ham and Devonport Yards to be continuously on duty; whether they have been thus on extra duty for five months past; whether they have as yet failed to get any remuneration for such extra duty; whether their arrears of time, as returned by the Chief of Departments to the Cashier's Office, amounted to 55 days; whether their pay is still running in arrear; whether the Admiral declines to sign the pay-sheet without special Admiralty sanction; and, whether he will inquire into the whole of the circumstances?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): It was considered desirable by the Admiral Superintendent to keep certain men in the Dockyard after working hours to meet fire emergencies, and the men so retained have been on extra duty for the last five months. There has been a delay in the payment of this extra duty pay, pending a settlement of fire arrangements which would be common to all the Dockyards, greater delay than was anticipated having occurred in completing the system; but the payment of the money due will soon be made.

  NAVY (MANUFACTURING DEPARTMENT)—NORDENFELT GUNS.
  MR. HANBURYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will state on whose application, recommendation, and responsibility Nordenfelt machine-guns have been manufactured for the Naval Department in considerable numbers during the last five years, in the face of the Report of the Committee
  1392
  of May 1881, which recommended Gardner guns in preference?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Nordenfelt rifle-calibre machine-gun has been introduced into the Navy during the last two years on the application, recommendation, and responsibility of the professional officers of the Admiralty, as being, after careful trials, a superior weapon to the Gardner guns of the same nature recommended in the Report of the Committee of May, 1881.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—TRANSFER OF BRITISH SHIPS TO FOREIGN OWNERS.
  MR. T. SUTHERLANDasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is possible, under the general powers of the Board of Trade, to amend the practice understood to exist at present of allowing the transfer of British ships to foreign owners to take place simply by cancelling the Register, without the production of a bill of sale, as required in the case of transfers to British owners; if so, whether the Board of Trade will consider the advisability of amending their instructions to the Registrar of Shipping in this respect?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The question referred to by the hon. Gentleman was carefully considered in 1854 and 1879, and the Board of Trade and the Commissioners of Customs came to the conclusion that notwithstanding any difficulties which might occasionally arise through not examining and making clear previous title before transferring a ship from one nationality to another, yet the inconvenience to trade which would result from an alteration of practice would be such as not to render it desirable to make any alteration.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—BATTERSEA PARK.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has received any offer for the purchase of the ground-rent of any land adjacent to Battersea Park, leased or agreed to be leased for building purposes; whether such offer has been accepted or rejected; and, whether, having regard to Section 11 of the Act14 &

  1393
  15 Vict. c. 77, he considers himself at liberty to reject an offer made by a lease holder to purchase at a fair valuation the ground-rent reserved by his lease of land let to him for building purposes?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): The practice of the Office of Works has hitherto been, to inform lessees of land adjoining Battersea Park, who have desired to purchase their ground-rents, that we have power to sell, but that we do not propose to do so as yet, probably not until building operations in connection with the estate generally have been completed. I am advised that we have this discretion as to the time of selling these ground-rents, subject to Treasury control; and that our practice is not contrary to the section of the Act of Parliament quoted by the hon. Member.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE O'DONNELLAN BLAKE FORSTER, J.P.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to a statement contained in The Clare and Limerick Advertiser, of 12th February 1887, to the effect that, The O'Donnellan Blake Forster, J.P., presided at a meeting of the Irish National League, held at Kilfenora on Sunday, the 6th February, 1887, at which a "Boycotting" Resolution was unanimously passed; and, whether, should the account prove accurate, Her Majesty's Government will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said: I cannot tell my hon. and gallant Friend whether the particular statement that is referred to in this Question, has been brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor; but I am aware that either that or other statements to a similar effect have been brought under his notice and inquired into, and the result had been that the gentleman mentioned has been removed from the Commission of the Peace.

  VACCINATION ACTS—MR. R. KING, EVINGTON.
  MR. PICTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
  1394
  ment, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Robert King, of Mere Road, Evington, who in February this year was ordered, under a threat of distraint, to pay a fine inflicted in February 1886, on account of the non-vaccination of an infant which died in May; and, whether, under the exceptional circumstances, he will take means to relieve the bereaved father of the penalty inflicted for a dead child?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have received no application for the remission, of the fine in question; but if I do, the circumstances will be most carefully considered.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE JURY SYSTEM—CHALLENGES IN CRIMINAL CASES—"QUEEN v. GARTLAND AND M'KENNA."
  MR. BLANEasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he can state what arrangements, if any, have been made by the officers of police and Mr. Kilkelly, Crown Solicitor for County Armagh, for directing Catholics to "stand by" in the case of the "Queen v. Gartland and M'Kenna," at the forthcoming Assizes at Armagh; and, if such arrangements have been made, whether they have been sanctioned, by the Judge and Privy Council; and, if so, under what statutory authority?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): No arrangements of any kind have been made as to directing Catholic jurors to "stand by" at the forthcoming Assizes in Armagh, or any other place.

  POST OFFICE—HEAD POSTMASTER SHIPS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Postmaster General, Whether there are about 900 Head Post Offices, and whether the appointments to about half of these are still made through political patronage; whether a Departmental Committee, composed of officers of long experience and high standing in the Service, called attention in their Report, a few months ago, to the evils arising from the present system of filling Postmasterships through political patronage, and strongly urged that this method of appointment should be entirely abolished; and, whether he will

  1395
  ask the Treasury to adopt this recommendation, and thus throw upon the Treasury the responsibility of refusal?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr RAIKES): There are 915 Head Post Offices, and of these the Treasury at present nominate to 355. The Departmental Committee to which the hon. Member refers made recommendations in the direction indicated by the Question. I am, however, advised not at present to propose such an alteration to the Treasury. I do not differ from the Committee as to the desirability, if practicable, of eliminating the political element from these appointments; but there are very great difficulties in the way of organizing a system of appointments of the smaller description without consideration of local circumstances. I hope, however, as soon as I have been able to arrive at any positive conclusions on the subject, to discuss them with the Treasury.

  TRADE AND MANUFACTURE—FRENCH PROHIBITION OF ENGLISH LEATHER.
  MR. LAFONEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that the French Government have, within the last few days, determined that no more English leather shall be used in the manufacture of their Army accoutrements as heretofore, and have also deter mined to compensate their contractors by an extra payment to cover the advanced price they will have to pay from being obliged to use only French tanned leather; and, whether the French Government also propose to introduce fur ther taxation on all British leather with the object of preventing its importation; and, if so—as such action has entailed and will bring a further heavy loss upon the tanning trade of this country—the Government will be prepared to consider the advisability of placing such taxes upon the large importations to this country of French tanned leather as may, by preventing its import and so closing a large trade to France, induce the French Government to re-consider their action, and agree to a mutual free trade in leather between the two countries?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The tendency of the War Department in France, no doubt,
  1396
  is to insist in all contracts on the use of French as against all foreign leathers; but Her Majesty's Government has no information as to the alleged compensation to French contractors to cover the advanced price they would have to pay if hereafter obliged to use only French tanned leather. No proposal has been made with regard to an increase of duties on British or any other foreign leather. The duties on leather imported into France are fixed by Treaty stipulations, of which Great Britain enjoys the advantages as long as the law of February 27, 1882, remains in force, and no change is believed to be in contemplation. There is, doubtless, a desire on the part of the French Government and Legislature to employ and encourage native industries; but for Her Majesty's Government to propose to retaliate by placing protective duties on French, manufactured goods would be opposed to the fiscal policy which for many years has been adopted in this country.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOEasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman would ascertain if it was not a fact that a firm which had supplied Her Majesty's Government with leather, some of which was now in the Saddlery Department at Woolwich, had had its leather rejected by the French Government on account of its bad quality?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: That is a Question which ought to be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— NATIONAL SCIENCE COLLECTIONS—THE INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What steps the Government intend to take to carry out the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the National Science Collections; and, whether the Government will lay upon the Table the Correspondence between the Treasury, Office of Works, and Science and Art Department, with reference to new buildings for the Science Collections and the Science and Art Department, generally since, but including, the Treasury Minute appointing the Inter-Departmental Committee?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The Government has

  1397
  no present intention of incurring the expense which would be involved in carrying out the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee. I am in formed that the expense would amount to about £220,000. The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that the Committee were not unanimous, three Members having signed the Report, and one having dissented from its recommendations. The Government is not prepared to lay-on the Table the Correspondence between the different Departments; because it is considered most undesirable that Departments should not be able to criticize each other in the freest possible way without the fear of Parliament checking their criticisms. It would be most undesirable that officers in the Public Service should be thinking how their Reports will be treated by Parliament, or by Members of Parliament, instead of how they can best promote the efficiency of their Departments.

  THE HOUSE OF COMMONS—FOGS.
  SIR ALGEENON BOBTHWICKasked the First Commisssioner of Works, Whether the intrusion of fog into the atmosphere of the House of Commons cannot be completely prevented in future, and at a small expense; whether experiments formerly tried during the fogs of November, when the House was not sitting, were perfectly successful; and, whether he will direct that the air sup plied shall be filtered through fine sheets of cotton wool?
  SIR HENRY TYLEEasked the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will cause filters, of appropriate material, to be applied to the entrance passages of the ventilating arrangements, so as to keep dark and yellow fog from entering the House?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): I am informed by Dr. Percy that during a November fog many years ago he made an experiment of filtering through cotton wool the air which is supplied to the House of Commons from the Commons Court, and that it was so far successful as to impress him with the hope that by this kind of filtration the interior of the House of Commons might be rendered fog-proof at but a trifling expense. Dr. Percy wishes me to state that this applied solely to the interior of this
  1398
  Chamber; and that, in order to extend it to the lobbies, corridors. &c., outside the House, a large expenditure would be needed, and difficulties so great would have to be encountered that he doubts whether, with the existing structure, such extension would be practicable. He adds that before applying this process of fog filtration to the interior of the House of Commons it would be necessary to make preliminary experiments; and I have asked him to make such experiments on the earliest convenient opportunity. When the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) raised this question on the Estimates the other day, I was not aware that such experiments had ever been made.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—DONEGAL AND TYRONE MILITIA.
  MR. AETHUE O'CONNOEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to take the Donegal Militia to the Curragh this year; what will be the extra expense involved in travelling and other charges; whether the Tyrone Militia were en camped lately at Omagh; and, why the same plan is not adopted in Donegal?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: A sum of £2,000 is provided in each year's Estimate for the cost of taking battalions of Irish Militia to train at the Curragh. This is considered to be a desirable arrangement, as many of the battalions have no opportunity in their own counties of associating with Regular troops, and some, from difficulties as to ranges, cannot go through their musketry course. The battalions go from their own counties to the Curragh, roughly, in rotation, the selection being made with great care by the Military Authorities in Ireland. The turn of the Donegal Militia to go to the Curragh came last year; but was deferred till this year, at the request of the officer commanding. The Tyrone Militia trained last year at Omagh, and will do so again this year; but in 1885 they went to the Curragh. The cost of sending the Donegal Militia to the Curragh is estimated at £900.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked that due notice should in future be given of the intentions with reference to this matter, so as to prevent unnecessary ex-

  1399
  penditure on the part of poor people who made a large portion of their living by these Militia.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—INSPECTOR OF SADDLERY AT WOOLWICH.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether the Inspector of Saddlery at Woolwich, resigned last October; whether the appointment has since remained vacant; and whether it is intended to fill it up?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE): The vacancy caused by the resignation in October last of the Inspector of Saddlery has not yet been filled up. A temporary arrangement is under consideration; but until the inquiries into the organization of the Department which are now pending are completed, I do not propose to ask the Secretary of State to make any permanent appointment.

  THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL—DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES FOR THE EGYPTIAN ARMY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What Her Majesty's Government propose to do about £210,553 paid towards expenses of the Egyptian Army, and other sums, making in all £232,926, paid to the Egyptian Government in 1885–6, which the Auditor General has disallowed as paid without the sanction of Parliament; whether any sums have been paid to the Egyptian Government in 1886–7, either directly or by remitting payments due by that Government, beyond the £58,000 already sanctioned for Suakin; and whether Her Majesty's Government have yet deter mined if there is to be a Supplementary Vote for expenses connected with Egypt?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The Accountant General has not disallowed the sum mentioned by my hon. Friend; but he reported to Parliament that he had been unable to pass the accounts, in consequence of insufficient authority or in sufficient vouchers. The Appropriation Account of 1885–6 is not yet, I believe, before the Committee of Public Accounts, who will deal with the matter.
  1400
  As explained in the Supplementary Army Estimates, which will be in Members' hands to-morrow, Her Majesty's I Government propose to forego the payment in the current year of the Capitation Grant for 1886–7. It is proposed to apply this contribution in settlement of claims for certain extraordinary services of the Egyptian Army, undertaken in 1885 and 1886, under the authority of the British Commander-in-Chief in Egypt. The Army and Navy Supplementary Estimates before Parliament cover all military expenses incurred in Egypt which it is proposed to impose on Imperial Funds.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLgave Notice that he should oppose the Vote.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—PAYMENT BY RESULT—EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. W. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, in consideration of the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Education, against the present mode of administering the Education Grant, and of the system of "payment by results," he will consider the advisability of issuing with the present Code an instruction to the School Inspectors to relax the stringency of their present mode of examination, and to assess the Grant in accordance with the general excellence of the work done, rather than on the individual pass?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): There would be an obvious inconvenience in anticipating the conclusions at which the Royal Commission may arrive upon the evidence laid before them; but if my hon. Friend will read the Code and Instructions to which he refers carefully, he will perceive that the assessment of the Grant now depends not only upon the individual pass, but, to a great ex tent, upon the general excellence of the work done.

  POST OFFICE—THE SECRETARY TO THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, Is there any foundation for the statement in The Daily News of 3rd March to the effect that the Secretary to the Post Office was presented with and received

  1401
  an address of sympathy from certain officials in the General Post Office in connection with a difference of opinion between him and the Postmaster General; whether this constituted a serious breach of discipline; and, if so, what steps does he propose to take to restore discipline in his Department?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (MR. RAIKES): The Secretary has, at my request, communicated to me the address to which the Question refers; and though I can not regard the proceeding as regular, I am inclined to attach to it rather an officious than an official character. I should be sorry to consider the matter as one of sufficient importance to war rant disciplinary notice. If I have to take official cognizance of it, I should consult the Head of the Government before determining upon my course of action.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE JURY SYSTEM—MONAGHAN ASSIZES.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the Jury Panel of the County Monaghan, for the trial of prisoners at the coming Assizes, has been increased 50 per cent over that of last year; whether, whilst the Catholics in that county are nearly three-quarters of the population, the Catholics on the present Jury Panel are not one-third; whether a number of those on the Panel are there contrary to the provisions of Lord O'Hagan's Act, having served within the last three years, and some even at the last Assizes—namely, George Moore, Samuel Wade, Alexander E. Lammie, Charles Ownens, William Parkes, numbered respectively 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 on the present Panel, and Nos. 6, 74, 65, 88, and 49 on the Panel of last Assizes; whether these persons were actually sworn as jurors on a trial for murder at such Assizes; and, whether he has any information to show that there are plenty of names on the Jurors' List of persons who have not served for three years or upwards, from whom a Panel might be made out without the above-named persons? I would like to ask a supplementary Question, of which I have given the right, hon. and learned Gentleman private Notice. It is, whether—
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(interrupting) said: I will not give any information with regard to the supplementary Question of which I have had Notice. It refers to a case which is going on to-day, and it would be obviously inconvenient that I should answer it. With regard to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that I do not know, and have no means of knowing, the proportion of Catholics upon the present Panel of the County Monaghan; and I can only say, in reference to this, that the proportion of Catholics to the population can afford no test whatever as to the proportion of Catholics upon the Jurors' Lists. [Ironical cheers from the Irish and Radical Benches.] This is obvious to any person who reads the statutes. As regards the latter portion of the Question, I cannot go into a discussion in answer to a Question in this House with regard to individual names; but I have brought the matter before the proper officials in the County Monaghan, and I can find no room for believing in any way that the Jury Panel has not been constructed regularly.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it advisable that 12 Protestants should have been empanelled this morning to try an Orangeman for the murder of a Catholic?
  MR. HOLMES: I have told the hon. Member that I will not answer that Question.
  DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid): The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the Question, which asks whether the Panel has been increased 50 per cent.?
  [No reply.]

  SOUTH 'AMERICA—BRITISH GUIANA AND VENEZUELA—THE BOUNDARY LINE.
  MR. WATTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the present boundary line, claimed by the British Government as between British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, is based upon the Map, Surveys, and Report of Sir Robert Schomberg; if the Government is aware that, antecedent to the Treaty of Munster, the recognized boundary line between Dutch (now British) Guiana and the Spanish (now

  1403
  Venezuelan) territory was the watersheds of the Yuruary, Yuruam, and Cuyuni Rivers; if the Government is aware that the population of these districts contain 90 per cent of British subjects, and an enormous amount of British property; and, if the Government will postpone a final decision on the subject pending further inquiries and information being obtained?
  MR. STAVELEY HILLasked Whether, considering the increasing importance of this matter and the breach of diplomatic relations at Venezuela, the Government would consider the advisability of issuing a Commission to settle the boundaries between British Guiana and Eastern Venezuela?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The boundary line claimed by the British Government is based on the Map, Survey, and Report of Sir Robert Schomberg. It would be impossible, within the limits of my answer, to describe the boundary line of Dutch Guiana and the adjacent Spanish territory previous to the Treaty of Minister, in 1648, as far as it is known to us. Information as to the British population in the Yuruary districts in 1884 is contained in a Report by Vice Consul Reddan, presented to Parliament—Commercial No. 38 of that year. Her Majesty's Government will be careful to collect all the information possible before arriving at any final arrangement. I am unable to answer the Question of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Staveley Hill) without Notice.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK—DEPUTATION OF CLERKS.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Postmaster General, Whether he recently received a Memorial signed by 431 clerks in the Post Office Savings Bank, respectfully asking him to receive a deputation of four of their number, in order that they might lay before him certain facts which they hold have injuriously affected their position and prospects in the Service; and, whether he refused to see the deputation?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I cannot, I think, do better than read the answer which I gave to the Memorialists. The
  1404
  answer is somewhat lengthy, and I am sorry to trouble the House by reading it; but I think it is necessary, in order to place hon. Members in possession of the facts of the case:—
  "The Postmaster General has carefully read the statement, dated the 11th ultimo, of the subjects on which certain officers of the Savings Bank desired to seek an interview with him. He observes that those subjects may be divided into two heads—(1) the nature of the accommodation provided for the staff; (2) the question of the organization of the Office. He thinks that the first subject is one which the clerks may properly and legitimately bring before him, if they suffer any serious inconvenience or injury on that score; but he would remark that the Department and Parliament have already given anxious attention to the matter; that Parliament has decided on the course which should be adopted; and that steps have been taken to purchase at a very considerable outlay an additional site, adjacent to the present building, and that a new structure will be erected as soon as possible. Meanwhile, he sees no other course but to hire, pending the completion of the new building, such premises as the needs of the Department may, from time to time, require. Premises accordingly have been hired, and it is possible that in a short time he will have to hire more premises. However, if the officers who signed this Memorial wish to make any further representation to him in writing upon this subject, or to offer any new suggestion, he will willingly receive it."
  The question of the organization of an Office stands in a different category; and I was obliged to decline to discuss it with the subordinate members of the Service, though I informed them that I had a full sense of its importance.

  CENTRAL ASIA—TRADE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THIBET AND INDIA.
  MR. G. W. BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that a wall and fort have been built across the Jalep Pass, thereby preventing trade communication between Thibet and India; and, whether pressure has been brought to bear upon the Chinese Government by Her Majesty's Government to carry out Article 4 of the Convention made the 24th of July last, between Great Britain and China, relating to Burmah and Thibet, by which it is to be the duty of the Chinese Government to adopt measures to exhort and encourage the people of Thibet with a view to the promotion and extension of trade between India and Thibet; and, if so, what has resulted from such pressure?
  THE UNDER SECRETAEY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Some Thibetans are reported to have built a fort or gatehouse near the Jalep Pass with the view of blocking the road. Her Majesty's Government entertain no doubt that the Chinese Government will fulfil their engagements in regard to the encouragement of Indian trade with Thibet.

  SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—LEGISLATION.
  MR. MARK STEWARTasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Salmon Fishery Bill for Scotland this Session?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): It was stated on the 17th of February, in answer to the hon. Member for Peebles and Selkirk (Mr. Thorburn), that the Amendment of the Tweed Acts was under consideration, with the view of making the law as nearly as possible the same for the whole country. I hope that a Bill to amend and consolidate the law will be brought in soon.
  DR. CLARKasked, Whether the Government, pending legislation, would suspend the granting of any further charter or lease of Crown fisheries?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: The hon. Member must give me Notice of that Question.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—REGENT'S PARK.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the revenue derived from Regent's Park exceeds the cost of its maintenance; and, if so, what is the amount of such excess?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): The annual cost of maintaining Regent's Park, including Primrose Hill, is about £9,600. The only receipts derived from the Park have been obtained principally from grazing rents, and they amount to about £300. It is understood that there is a considerable estate in and about the Regent's Park belonging to the land revenues of the Crown and under the charge of the Department of Woods and Forests.

  BURMAH—ALLEGED BARBARITIES.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received any information as to the alleged decapitation of dead dacoits by a party of Anglo-Indian Police, near Bassein, or regarding the "practice" alleged by The Times correspondent to exist among our Police Force in Lower Burmah of "decapitating dead shan dacoits and carrying their heads about the country?"
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): In reply to a telegram which was sent, as I stated last week, by the Secretary of State, the following information has been received from the Viceroy:—
  "Following from Chief Commissioner:—It is true that heads of three notorious dacoits killed in a skirmish were brought into Bassein for purposes of identification. The heads were taken to wounded men in hospital who had been wounded by the dacoits, and were identified by those sufferers. The heads were then buried. It is true that heads of dacoits who are killed are sometimes brought into head-quarters for the purpose of identification, by reason of difficulty or impossibility of bringing in dead bodies from inaccessible places. Heads are not exposed or carried about the country for show."
  The Secretary of State has taken such steps as will prevent this mode of identifying dacoits being continued, and the Viceroy telegraphs that he has issued the necessary orders.

  POST OFFICE—STAMPED TELEGRAPH CARDS.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Postmaster General whether he will consider the desirability and convenience of having stamped telegraph cards similar in size to the ordinary post card?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I beg to state that telegram cards were first issued to the public in January, 1872. There was, however, no demand for the cards, and the Department could not but come to the conclusion that they were not required by the public. They became, indeed, so much dead stock, Postmasters at last using them in place of the 1s. stamp in payment for ordinary telegrams. Under these circumstances, they were with drawn after four years' trial, and since the sale was discontinued there has been

  1407
  scarcely any demand for their restoration. Had they been found generally useful, the Department would scarcely have failed to have had numerous representations on the subject.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS—MEMBERS' SMOKING ROOM.
  MR. PULESTONasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience arising from the frequently crowded state of the Members' Smoking Room; and, whether he can take steps to increase the accommodation?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): I am well aware of the inconvenience caused by the insufficient Smoking Room accommodation provided for Members of this House, and I have been doing, and I shall do, what I can to meet the difficulty.

  ADMIRALTY-NAVAL GUNS AND AMMUNITION—PAPERS AND CORRESPONDENCE.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the Surveyor General's opposition to the production of Papers and Correspondence regarding alleged deficiencies in naval guns and ammunition, amounting to up wards of £1,250,000, Whether any Correspondence has taken place between the War Office and Admiralty as to the amounts necessary to be provided for the supply of guns, ammunition, and warlike stores for naval purposes in the immediate future; if so, is there any objection to lay this Correspondence upon the Table; or, failing this, to give Members access to it on application at the Admiralty?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): No thing is known at the Admiralty as to the allegations that deficiencies amounting to upwards of £1,250,000 have occurred, nor is there any correspondence on the subject. The Surveyor General of Ordnance has, in an answer given the other day, denied the truth of any such assertion. Delays in the delivery of guns have occurred which it is understood from the War Office have been unavoidable. As regards the latter part of the Question, it is undesirable to produce these Papers, forming as they do part of
  1408
  an Inter-Departmental Correspondence between the Admiralty and War Office and Treasury: but I have no doubt that the statements relating to Army and Navy Expenditure to be made by the Secretary of State for War and myself will give the hon. Baronet some of the information he asks for.

  ADMIRALTY—SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE IMPERIAL INSTITUTE.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether Admiral Willes has recently issued to the officers commanding Her Majesty's ships on the Portsmouth station a "General Memorandum" requiring them to collect subscriptions from the men under their command for the Imperial Institute; whether the following passage occurs in such General Memorandum:—
  "All persons who wish to subscribe to the funds required to establish this Institute should do so in the manner required by the Regulations contained in Article 1365, Addenda 1884. In addition to the lists required by that Article, another in the accompanying form, giving the names of all the subscribers, and the amount subscribed by each, is to be sent to my office by the 10th March for transmission to His Royal Highness;"
  whether the said Article 1365 provides as follows:—
  "When the sums subscribed (for charitable or other purposes) are partly in cash and partly charges against wages …the captain is to cause a list of subscribers to be made out, and signed by each individual against the sum he contributes.…"
  but,
  "when the subscriptions are wholly in cash, a detailed subscription list is not required in office;"
  whether the said addenda can be superseded or altered by any persons other than the Lords of the Admiralty; whether they are to be obeyed by all officers of Her Majesty's Service; by whose authority, and for what reasons, is the latter provision of Article 1365 superseded in the above "General Memorandum"; and, whether, in view of the statements which have been made in the public Press, that the men fear the consequences of not subscribing, he will take any steps to reassure them on the subject?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The quotations from the General Order issued

  1409
  by Sir George Willes, and also from the Addenda to the Admiralty Instructions, are correct. The Addenda cannot be altered by any person other than Lords of the Admiralty, and the Regulations contained therein have not been in any way superseded at Portsmouth. Officers and men have been invited to subscribe. The usual and recognized mode of collecting the money has been followed; and the only pressure put upon them has been by a suggestion that subscriptions should be limited to the amount of half-a-day's pay. A special list of subscribers was called for solely to enable the promoters of the Institute to carry out their expressed wish to record each individual subscription. The men of Her Majesty's Navy are too independent and much too well informed to be misled by the statements referred to in the Question.
  MR. ARTHUE O'CONNOR: May I ask the noble Lord whether the money is to be obtained by stopping the pay of the men, or whether they are themselves to pay it?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I think the hon. Gentleman anticipates what my answer is. The men will bring the money themselves.

  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
  MR. CEAIG SELLARasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the Bill, promised in the Queen's Speech, for improving and cheapening the process of Private Bill Legislation in England, Scotland, and Ireland will be submitted; and, whether, having regard to the pressure of Business in this House, he will consider the expediency of having the Bill introduced in the other House of Parliament?
  THE FIEST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have to say that Her Majesty's Government had hoped to introduce the measure to which the hon. Member refers in this House; but if the state of Public Business prevents us from doing so, the suggestion of the hon. Member will receive careful consideration.

  THE EXECUTIVE (IRELAND)—THE NEW CHIEF SECRETARY.
  MR. SEXTONasked, When the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be in his place?
  THE FIEST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have every reason to hope that he will be in his place on Friday next; but I am not able to go further.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE QUEEN V. DILLON—SAFETY OF THE DISSENTING JURORS.
  COLONEL SAUNDEESONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the attention of the Government had been directed to a list published in United Ireland of Saturday last, purporting to give the names of those jurors who voted for the acquittal of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and his colleagues; and, whether the Government would take steps to secure the personal safety of those jurors whose names were not included in the list?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR, IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): My attention was not drawn to this matter until the hon. and gallant Member gave me private Notice of his Question since I entered the House; and I must, therefore, ask him to put his Question upon the Paper.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether ample notice would be given to the House before the Supplementary Estimates for Egypt were submitted; and, whether the Government could, give any indication as to when they would be likely to introduce the Supplementary Army Estimates?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It is intended to set down the Army and Navy Supplementary Estimates, including the Estimates for Egypt, for consideration on Thursday next. The Estimates them selves will be distributed to-night, or to-morrow morning.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOEasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman adhered to the statement he made on Friday, about the necessity of finishing the Supplementary Estimates before the close of the sitting; whether that was rendered necessary by the state of the law, or merely to meet the arrangements of the Government?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is the fact that the state of the law requires that the Supplementary Estimates should be passed by the 21st of March, and all the Estimates for which provision has to be made in the Appropriation Act must be passed by that date. The hon. Gentleman is aware that, in addition to the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, there are the Army and Navy Supplementary Estimates; Vote3 to be taken on account of the Army and Navy Services; and also a Vote on Account for the Civil Services, by the 21st of March, at latest. The hon. Gentleman is also aware that, as regards the Army and Navy Estimates, it is permitted to Members to move Amendments on going into Committee. Under these circumstances, Sir, I feel it necessary to ask the House to dispose of the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates which are on the Paper to-day. The hon. Gentleman remarks that they might be taken on some other day. Sir, the House is aware that the Government have only control over the Business on Mondays and Thursdays; but on other days Motions may be taken on going into Committee of Supply—Motions raised by any Member in any part of the House. Under these circumstances, the Government do not feel that it would be fitting to permit, so far as we are able to prevent it, further delay in the consideration of these Estimates. In regard to several of them, they are simply automatic—that is to say, they simply carry out the law where insufficient provision has been made in the Estimates for the year. As regards others of the Estimates, there are, no doubt, questions which invite and demand the consideration of the House. And I should wish to appeal to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that they should approach the consideration of the Estimates, which do not demand the consideration to which I have referred, with as much self-restraint as may permit them to arrive at other Estimates which, undoubtedly, demand consideration in sufficient time and under conditions which will permit of their discussion in a seemly manner, and in a manner which will conduce to the dignity of this House. I make that appeal, Sir, because the arrangement which has been made is one which I believe is necessary to enable the House
  1412
  to give due consideration to the Estimates which are before it.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It is not, of course, possible to give an absolute engagement with respect to a great number of the Votes in the same clear and positive manner as where a single subject is being dealt with; still, so far as one can give a judgment, I do not think the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman is an unfair one. I hope, Sir, it will be found possible to dispose of the remainder of the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates to-night.
  MR. ARTHURO'CONNORasked why it was necessary to have the Vote on Account before the 21st of March? Would not the 31st of March do?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Votes on Account must be included in the Appropriation Bill, which must be passed so as to render the money avail able for the Public Service by the 30th of March.

ORBERS OF THE BAY.
  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1886–7).
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
    (1.) £10,560, Supplementary, Science and Art Department for the United Kingdom.
    MR. JAMES STUAET: I do not intend to trespass on the good temper of the Committee for any lengthened period in discussing this Vote, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House for having afforded us an opportunity of entering into the consideration of it at an early period of the evening. I called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the necessity for doing so a few evenings ago, and I reminded him that the Education Vote, in regard to which this Supplementary Estimate is about to be taken, was passed at 3 o'clock in the morning in some day in August or September last, and that unless some opportunity was given for the consideration of

    1413
    the Vote on this occasion, it would be impossible for any debate to have occurred at all this year upon the Education Estimates. I am sure it is not out of place to say that this Vote in the Education Estimates must be regarded not so much as a Party question, as a question of great and increasing national importance. I am well aware that the subjects connected with education generally, which are dealt with in this Supplementary Vote, are very restricted, and I shall not endeavour to go beyond the limits of the Vote that is before us at this moment. Any reference that I may make beyond the immediate subject of the Vote will be to points that have a bearing upon it, and are directly connected with them. The first item in this Vote represents an additional sum for the pa3'ment of results in connection with the Science Schools, and I wish particularly to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Department to the fact that, while the most laudable efforts are being made by the Government of the country to extend the system of Science Schools—for I gather that in the Estimates that are coming, there will be a still larger grant for this purpose—a great deal of the utility which must be derived from Science Schools and from the Government money which is devoted to them, must depend upon the manner in which the students have been sufficiently ground in elementary education in order to enable them, when they come afterwards to the Science Schools, to take full and adequate advantage of the provision made for them. I will, therefore, make this suggestion, that, with a view of utilizing this Vote, the Government should take into consideration whether they will not be pre pared to give greater facilities for the teaching of science in the day schools and in the preparatory evening schools. At present it is well known that under the system of elementary education the instruction which is given is in connection with what are called the Standards, and that although certain Science Schools have been established here and there by the school boards, they have been established under a series of evasions of the Act of Parliament which I think is scarcely proper or suitable in this country at the present moment. On the contrary, I am of opinion that the Government would do
    1414
    well if they would endeavour to legalize the power that, in some instances, the school boards have taken upon them selves to exercise; and perhaps I may be allowed to express a hope that the school boards may receive, by the passing of some Act or other, power to provide and maintain schools and classes for the purpose of giving instruction in the elements of such branches of science as are likely to do good to artizans and others engaged in industrial occupations. I cannot doubt that by the establishment of such schools throughout the country generally, for which I believe the country is fairly ripe, the Science Schools referred to in the Vote would become considerably more utilized. I would also urge on the Government the propriety of adding preparatory evening schools to the Science Schools, in which the school boards may, at any rate, have power to establish classes, not necessarily bound by the limitation that those who attend them shall have passed in particular Standards. When I make this suggestion to the Government, I am perfectly well aware that I may be met by a similar rejoinder to that which was given to an hon. Gentleman at Question time—namely, that regard must be had to the expense that would be entailed. In treating with this matter of Science Schools, I hope I may be allowed very briefly to call attention to the fact that we are very far behind our own Colonies in this matter. I do not propose to range over the whole surface of the globe, because I wish to be very brief in my observations; but we have now to contend against our own Colonies in the competition of the race for life. I might refer to many of our Colonies, but I will not do more than refer to the Colony of New Zealand. In that Colony there are 97,000 children of school age, and I have here in my hand a list of the number of those children attending classes strictly preparatory to admission to such Science Schools as are now under discussion. The Committee must bear in mind that the number—97,000—is the total number of children of school age—that is to say, under 15. Of that number, there are 59,000 children attending drawing classes, and no fewer than 74,000 receive object lessons. I do not think it is necessary to go into more minute details than that as to the condition of elementary educa-

    1415
    tion in that Colony; and I believe it is not widely different from that in the other Australian Colonies. The whole of the children in those Colonies are gradually raised up with the extended knowledge of elementary science. I have indicated my object in bringing these facts before the Committee: it is to press upon the Government the desirability of introducing the same rule into our primary schools here with a view of making the money voted more usefully spent by the Science and Art Department of the United Kingdom. I would also urge upon the Government the necessity of extending Science Schools in the evening, so as to cover other branches of learning. The money asked for under this particular Vote includes the teaching of Art; but I do not see why the evening classes of this country, to which this Vote applies, should not include, among the other subjects with which they deal, what are commonly called literary subjects. There, again, I would refer the Committee to the action of the Colony of New Zealand. In that Colony history is taught in the elementary schools to nearly 40,000 of the pupils, and taking the neighbouring Colony of New South Wales there are 8,000 children out of a population of less than 1,000,000 attending classes on the history of Australia, showing the minuteness with which these subjects are taught in that Colony. I may perhaps be told that it would be difficult for the Government to organize and carry out examinations, and the general organization of the literary development of the schools to which this Vote applies; but let me re mind the Committee that there is to be, no further off than the day after tomorrow, an important conference in the Senate of the University of Cambridge; one of the objects of which is to consider this very point—namely, what the Universities may do in the direction of introducing a literary element in the evening schools, such as the study of French, German, history, and geography. I would therefore suggest to the Government that they would find the old Universities not unwilling to co-operate with them in a movement of this kind for extending the general advantages of both literary and scientific education very widely to the people by means of evening schools, or by means, as they
    1416
    may fairly be called, of continuing schools. I do not desire to weary the Committee by going over all that might be done in the evening schools; but I will allude to a matter more closely connected with the Vote immediately under discussion—namely, the question of evening technical schools. I have often wondered why more endeavour has not been made by the Science and Art Department to start something of that kind. Efforts of a private nature have been made in various parts of the country, and as long as any effort is made to provide purely technical education—I speak of technical education for workmen.—I think it should be made as cheap as possible for those who belong to any particular trade; but, at the same time, a higher fee should be charged to those who belong to the trade, so that we may avoid the great mistake we might other wise make of converting our workmen into Jacks-of-all-trades, and preventing them from concentrating their attention upon any one particular trade. But there ought to be no difficulty in enabling a man to study all the branches of a particular trade in the workshops. I believe that the Government, or the Local Authorities, in co-operation with, the working classes, would be able to gain experience of what is wanted for the development of the Science Schools referred to in this Vote in the direction of technical instruction. I forbear from referring to the question of local Colleges, because that is the subject which was referred to to-day at Question time, and I will not therefore trespass upon the indulgence of the Committee upon it. But I have one practical suggestion to make with respect to the carrying on of the Science Schools, and it is this—the head of the Department is aware that means are now being employed in the right direction to provide examinations in chemistry in the Science Schools. If those examinations were made of a practical kind, instead of being in book-work and on paper, I think that more satisfactory results would be achieved. Now, the whole of physical science is a contest of man upon the powers of nature, and it altogether depends, not on book learning, but on actual manipulation; and every branch of science we conquer in education in the matter of bringing it within the limits of manipulation is a great conquest for the well-

    1417
    being of education. Therefore, I will urge on the Government that the time is now come in connection with, what are usually called physics and mechanics upon which a sufficient number of experiments have been taken—the time is now come when we ought to lay down, more or less, in connection with physics and mechanics, the same requisition for manipulation and experiment in elementary work as we have laid down with such advantage in chemistry. With regard to the scholarships, local exhibitions, and prizes, I only wish to make this remark, that in the Colony of New Zealand there are no less than 111 scholarships held by boys, and 52 held by girls, or 163 in all; the scholarships being of the annual value of £4,995. This is made the means of carrying on the education of these children from the elementary schools to the advanced schools, or the literary schools, such as we do not possess here. If we were to multiply these scholarships so as to give the number which would be required in England, on the same scale, we should find that it would be necessary to allocate no less than £250,000 in England to that purpose. And in a new country like New Zealand there are no endowments, such as there are in such multitude in this country. The only remark I would make upon that point is that the grants I have indicated in New Zealand go directly and almost wholly to the poorer classes; whereas the endowments of this country are a constant source of trouble, and I do not know by what exact process, but, somehow or other, they have failed to meet the requirements of the country. I am sorry that I should have detained the Committee so long; and I thank it for the patience with which it has listened to me. As this is the only opportunity we have had during the year of dealing with this matter at all, I have endeavoured to deal with some points connected with it, and, at the same time, to keep as far within the bounds of a discussion upon the absolute Votes submitted to us as was possible.
    SIR, HENRY ROSCOE: Sir, I desire to offer a few remarks upon this Vote. I do not think there is likely to be any opposition in the Committee to the sum now asked for. I have had some experience in regard to the working of the Science and Art Depart-
    1418
    ment, and it seems to me that the money which has been voted this year for the purpose of the Science and Art instruction of the country is money well spent. I entirely agree with the remarks that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart), The importance of scientific and technical education in this country cannot be over-rated; and I wish to point out that the Science and Art Department is in a position to assist and carry out in every way the requirements of the country on this subject. My hon. Friend has referred to the question of the introduction of practical examinations in Science, and in that respect I am entirely at one with him. There is, however, one important matter to which the Science and Art Department has not yet devoted its attention. It is one which, I think, deserves the attention of the Committee—namely, the question of manual instruction—instruction in the use of tools.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member, and also to other hon. Members, that it is not competent to discuss generally the work of the Science and Art Department upon this Vote, but only the special sums asked for in connection with that Department in regard to results, and scholarships, and exhibitions.
    SIR HENRY ROSCOE: With regard to the special sums asked for in the Vote, there is an item of £8,600 for the results of the Science Schools; and it is stated that that sum is required on account of the increased number of students who have come up to the classes in the past year. I think the Committee is to be congratulated upon the amount of in creased work which has been done. If I am in Order, I should like to supplement the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch by reminding I the Committee that not only in our Colonies, but on the Continent especially, the evidence obtained by the Royal Commission, of which I had the honour to be a Member, and which was presided over; by my hon. Friend the Member for Northern Oxfordshire (Sir Bernhard Samuelson), shows us very plainly what may be done by consolidation. I trust that the Committee will pass the Vote as the beginning of a what-we-may hope to get in full in some future time.
    MR. W. H. JAMES: Sir, I wish to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council upon a subject on which I asked a Question a few days ago. I presume I shall be in Order, as the Question has reference to the scholarships. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Report issued by the Science and Art Department last year gave the number of scholarships provided by the Department of the value of £50 at 16—of which £25 was given by the Department and £25 contributed by the locality. The elementary scholarships amounted to the smaller sum of £10 each, of which £5 was given by the Department and £5 contributed by the locality. These amounted to 116. Now, I think that such, a number of scholar ships are inadequate for the general demands of the country, and that it is impossible for them to do much for the Science and Art education of the people. This is a point which interests a good many persons in my own locality, and there is a general impression that if the amount towards these scholarships contributed by the Department be some what reduced in amount, and a smaller amount contributed by the locality, making the maximum limit of each scholarship, say, £10, a much larger number of scholarships might be given. I should therefore like the Vice President of the Committee of Council to give the Committee some information as to whether the amount of these scholarships might not be reduced to £9 for the Department, with a similar amount from the locality. There is one condition attached to the higher grade schools in which excellent education is given above that of elementary science, and that is the payment of a small sum—I believe 1s. a-week. Now, I think that if children passing out of elementary schools could obtain a scholarship—say, of the value of £5—to enable them to study in the higher grade schools, they would have the advantage of much higher training. What I ask is that £10 should be the maximum amount of each scholarship; and I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President whether it is not possible to reduce the amount now given, so as to give facilities for a general increase in the number of scholarships?
    MR. BARTLEY: There are one or two points in connection with this Vote upon which I should like to dwell, and I hope the Vice President of the Committee of Council will be able to give some information in regard to them. I want to know what have been the causes which have made the results so much better as to involve such a large additional Vote, because we have no particulars placed before us to show us why this large in crease in the amount of the Vote should have been incurred. I think it is only reasonable and proper that, when a large additional Vote is wanted, we should have full information as to the improved results of the last examination on which these extra payments are made, and which took place in May last. There are several points in connection with this Vote upon which I should like to ask for definite information. I do not wish in any way to oppose the Vote; but, on the contrary, I trust the Vote may be extended if it can be made of use to the artizan classes. In the first item—which is for increased payments on results in connection with the Science Schools—the increased estimate is for £6,800 in addition to £72,000 voted last year. That is purely for the results of Science teaching, and it shows an increase of about 10 per cent. Then I find that the Vote for Art teaching is increased by £1,840, upon a sum of £35,000 already voted, showing an increase of 5 per cent; while the additional Vote for scholarships, local exhibitions, and prizes amount to nearly £2,000, and show an increase of nearly 20 per cent upon the sum already voted. Therefore, although the results have in Science-been only 10 per cent better, and in Art but 5 per cent better, yet the actual result of the competitions has been so very much better as to require a 20 per cent increase to the prizes, &c. I think I am entitled to ask the Vice President of the Council, what have been the actual results, and why this large additional amount is asked for Art prizes and exhibitions, when the results in connection with the Art schools have been so comparatively small? The real question at issue is, however, whether the country is getting full value for the money voted; and it turns really on the question raised by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill)—namely, whether, with this

    1421
    ever-increasing Vote, we are really doing any considerable amount of good, and; are educating our artizans in technical and scientific knowledge? The Science and Art Vote has increased since 1867, when it stood at £64,000, to nearly £500,000—that is to say, nearly seven fold in the present year. What I want to know is, whether the money voted really goes to improve scientific and technical education throughout the country. I believe that a great deal has been done during the last 30 years, and I speak with some knowledge of the subject, I have had a great deal of connection with it, but I am afraid we are not getting the work done so much among the artizan classes as we ought, and as we want. There is one subject which I should much like to bring before the Committee—namely, the circulation of Art objects. I know that that is not strictly connected with this Vote; but I think it would be regular to allude to it in connection with the subject of Art education, seeing that it is almost part and parcel of the Vote. The subject, however, we shall have to debate later on, when the Estimates for the year are laid before the Committee, and, therefore, I will not further refer to it now. Now, what has been the effect of the payments by results in the Science and Art Department during last year? The last Report of the Department for 1886 contained some remark able statistics, from which I find that only 4,500 of the elementary day schools in the country out of a total of 19,000—or not quite one-fourth—are receiving instruction in the simplest rudiments of Art, namely, first grade drawing. That is to say, only one-fourth of our elementary day schools receive even the smallest homoeopathic dose of Art education. The number of children receiving this instruction is only 71,000 out of 3,500,000. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with me that, with the keen competition now going on with foreign countries, it is of the highest importance that our artizan classes should get real instruction in what we believe will be of so much benefit to them hereafter. The only way in which they can be protected against foreign competition is by having the same education that foreigners have. Are we to be satisfied, then, to find that only one in seven of the children in our elementary schools is receiving even this
    1422
    small homoeopathic dose of Art instruction? In regard to the Art and Science classes, I find there are only 150,000 young men and women who are receiving any education whatever in the more advanced branches of Science and Art, or only one in 10 of those who ought to be in those schools. When I refer to past history what do I find? I find that, in 1874, in the Schools of Art, there were 24,000 pupils; and in 1884 the number had increased to 37,000, or, roundly speaking, an increase of about 50 percent. In the Art classes in 1874 there were 22,000 students, and in 1884, 10 years afterwards, there were only 24,000, showing merely an increase of 2,000; and yet the Vote this year has been increased by a very large sum. On referring to the third item, I find the case even worse, for, at the present time, the total number of persons taught drawing, painting, and modelling through the agency of the Science and Art Department is absolutely fewer than it was in the year 1882. The figures are these: In 1882 there were 909,216 pupils under a course of instruction, and at the present time—or, rather, at the time of the last Report—the number was 879,000—that is to say, that in spite of the large increase that has taken place in the amount of the Vote—namely, between £70,000 and £80,000 in four years—there are absolutely fewer pupils under instruction than there were at the be ginning of this period. I ask whether that is a satisfactory state of things in these days of keen competition, and with ever-increasing Votes? If I enter into details, I find that the results are even more unsatisfactory. One of the subjects upon which we are asked to supplement this Vote for technical education, is the teaching of agriculture. Now, I take it that, at the present time, there are millions of persons employed at agriculture in this country; but how many does the Committee suppose, a the present moment, are under instruction in practical agriculture? I venture to say that there are very few indeed. Under theoretical agriculture—that is to say, chemical science, and so on, in the whole of the United Kingdom there are only 5,404 persons under such instruction. In Ireland alone, I am sure there ought to be a great many more than that under agricultural instruction, in order to learn the

    1423
    elements of the art of better working the land. In machine drawing, there are only 14,000 students under instruction; in building construction, 7,500; in me chanics—in this great mechanical country—the Science and Art Department have only got 4,200 under instruction; in mining, 885; in metallurgy, 523; in practical metallurgy, only 218. These are the number of people who are under instruction, not in the higher grades of these subjects, but only under instruction in elementary knowledge; and I say emphatically that this is not a satisfactory state of affairs, considering that we are at the present moment spending something like £500,000 upon these matters. No doubt, we have done something in the past; but I venture to think that with all our trouble we are as yet only entering on the threshold of our battle. We are not competing in any way with other countries. If we refer to the institutions for technical education established elsewhere, we shall see distinctly that we are far behind in the race; and I wish to draw the attention of the Vice President of the Council to the fact that, if we are to hold our own in this great contest, our object must be to make the artizan and operative entirely a better workman and artificer, and that unless we do this, the enormous sums of money we are voting will not do that amount of good in the country which they are intended to do. I am quite prepared to vote for any reasonable increase in the Estimates for the Science and Art Department; because I am sure the only way in which we shall ever be able to get our artizans trained up, so as to be able to compete with other nations, is by providing them with scientific and technical instruction; but, at the same time, we must be satisfied that every shilling we spend is used in the best possible way so as to bring home, in the dense districts of our population in England, Ireland, and Scot land, that Science and Art, a technical education, which will tend to make them better workmen, and not merely spend it upon one or two huge Institutions which are too much crowded already, and which can be alone of but little advantage to the country generally.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I should also like to say a few words in support of the remarks which have fallen from the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley). I think the
    1424
    Art and Science Department ought to extend its operations downward, as well as upward. The time has come, in my opinion, when the Science and Art Department should give some assistance to the numerous evening schools which have been started all over the country by voluntary support, for the purpose of giving a simple technical education to the children of the poor. In the City of London, at the present time, there are 84 evening schools, entirely supported by voluntary effort, costing £1,500 a year. I happen to know that considerable difficulty has been experienced in raising adequate funds for the support of these schools, and that some of them are likely, in consequence, to be given up. Surely the schools in question are doing the work which the Science and Art Department ought to do themselves, for the benefit of the large class of persons who are not covered by the higher Science and Art Schools. The object of these schools is to get hold of the children of the poor as they leave the day school after school age is passed, and to maintain a hold upon them during the next two or three years of their lives, during which time their character is undergoing the process of formation. The education given in these night schools is largely technical—that is to say, it is simple, manual training, so as to fit children for useful employments in after life. When we look at the immense number of persons in the large towns who are destitute of instruction and totally unfitted for the ordinary pursuits of life—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is disregarding the ruling which I have already laid down. It is impossible to discuss the general working of the Science and Art Department under this Vote; but the discussion must be confined to the special sums asked for.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I was afraid that I was extending my remarks a little too far, in my desire to call attention to these matters. I will not detain the Committee further than to express a hope that the Science and Art Department will see its way to enlarge its scope, so as to become more practical and useful to the masses.
    SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSON: The demand now made upon the Committee is for increased grants in connection with fees

    1425
    for results, and for scholarships, exhibitions, and prizes. I should certainly like to have some information as to the actual results which have been obtained. I agree with the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley), that the vote of this money would be most valuable, if we could be convinced that the country is getting results in accordance with the money spent. I have always, however, entertained doubts in regard to that point. My hon. Friend has referred to the payments which, have been made for instruction in agriculture. May I point out that the instruction given in agriculture, instead of being given in agricultural towns, has not unfrequently been given in large centres like London; and in that way, I think, there has been a considerable misapplication, in many instances, of funds which might be used with very considerable advantage. Reference has also been made to the very small number of young persons educated in the mechanical subjects. If a comparison is made between the number of students in these branches and in animal physiology, a still greater discrepancy will be found to exist. These payments by the Science and Art Department are, in a great measure, made merely by way of a subsidy to the salaries of the elementary school masters. So long as that is the case, whatever else the result may be, I maintain that the country is not receiving from the funds the advantage which it believes it is receiving. Hitherto, in these discussions, the question has been whether the Science and Art Department should be altogether condemned, or whether it should receive unqualified praise. In my opinion, neither of those courses is the proper course. What we want to see is that we are getting money's worth for our money, and I fear that, as far as Science and Art are concerned, we are not getting the value of our money. I should be glad, indeed, if we were; and I think the ad ministration of the Department requires investigation, so that we may ascertain whether the system of payment by results is altogether satisfactory, and whether it really secures the purpose for which the Department was originally founded—namely, the promotion of the industry of the country. I believe that that is not the case at the present moment, and I maintain that it is a sub-
    1426
    ject which ought to be more fully considered.
    MR. PICTON: The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart) has stated that the money we are about to vote has shown no signs of producing the full value that was expected from it. The hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) said, that out of so vast a population in the Science Classes we vote the public money to support and provide for so very few. Both of these observations point to the same defect—namely, that these Science Classes, like a great many other branches of our educational system, are detached. They are not part of an organic whole. There is no sufficient preparation made for them in the earlier education of the children, nor have the children, in their earlier instruction in the schools, been taught to look forward to such instruction. The right hon. Baronet the Vice-President of the Council has only recently accepted his responsible Office, and I trust that I shall not be deemed out of Order if I suggest to him that he would very greatly benefit not only the Science Classes, but also other parts of our educational system, if he would direct his attention to some effort to mould them into one organic whole. The hon. Member for Shoreditch has spoken of the number of children receiving object lessons in New Zealand. I daresay that all the children in our own elementary schools receive object lessons of some sort or other; but what I should like to see is that the object lessons are so directed and so framed that they should gradually lead the children to the details of scientific study. That is the case in Germany, as anyone who will read Mr. Matthew Arnold's Report will see. The child begins with the ordinary details of life, and he is gradually brought into a knowledge of technical science. That is what we want to see in this country, and if the Vice President of the Council will look into the matter he will do a very great service to the country.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE: I think that the cause for which I make this increased demand upon the Committee in connection with this Vote is of the simplest possible nature, and is uniform throughout the three branches of the increase. The increase

    1427
    extends to Votes 1, 3, and 6. In regard to the first sab-head, the demand for the increase is owing to the fact that a larger number of students have applied for ex amination than had been estimated by the Department when the Votes were originally framed. With regard to the nest head—namely, the Art Schools, the same cause has operated to increase the expenditure—a far larger number of candidates having applied for examination than was counted on when the Estimates were first framed. As in the Science Schools, so also in regard to the Schools of Art; and the Estimates have swollen, and swollen considerably, not only on account of the number of students who have been examined, but also on account of the excellence of their work. I may also say, in passing, that, in regard to the estimate of the number of students likely to come up for examination, it is not always an easy one to arrive at. An estimate can only be made by taking the existing number of schools, and then striking an average, and by that means endeavouring to ascertain how many are likely to come up for examination. As to the third head, the same cause also operates in the preparation of the estimate. A larger number of students have succeeded in winning scholarships, exhibitions, and prizes than was estimated. Although it is never a very pleasant duty to rise in this House to defend a Supplementary Estimate, yet I think hon. Members will admit that there is a bright side to the picture, in the knowledge that the increase in our demands is occasioned by the success of the students who have been examined. I must say that I take a most sanguine view of the results of the working of the Science and Art Department. While I was prepared for some discussion in regard to these three items which appear in the Vote, I hope I may be excused from going closely into these questions, because they are matters involving technical details and considerable responsibility to myself and the Department with which I have so very recently become connected. With regard to the chief points of the discussion, I may say generally that no one is more aware than I am of the growing feeling that exists in favour of technical education. In fact, it is no Party question. I do not think at this moment it is possible to hit on a question on which there is greater
    1428
    unanimity than in regard to this matter of technical education. The question, however, is one of great difficulty. How difficult it is I may point out by an incident which happened this evening in reference to a Question which was put by the hon. Member for South Manchester (Sir Henry Roscoe) as to the accommodation at South Kensington. That is a very important question, and a very old question. I think it is something like SO years since a promise was made that there should be an addition to the buildings at South Kensington. The answer of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night was that there is not a superfluity of money in Her Majesty's Treasury at this moment to enable him to take a sanguine view of the matter. The question is not only a very large one as regards finance, but it is somewhat fallacious to argue it, as was done by the late Mr. Forster in introducing the Education Bill—namely, that it would only cost so much to carry into effect any particular scheme concerning the question of technical education. It is very easy to urge that a scheme may be launched on this great subject; but what Her Majesty's Treasury have to consider, and what I am bound also to consider is, not what such a scheme might cost this year, but what the ultimate result of such a scheme may be if it becomes popular in the country and is carried to a successful issue. I will only point out now what an enormous sum we are paying for national education in comparison with the amount we started with origin ally in 1857. The hon. Member has alluded specifically to the contracted position of affairs in South Kensington. I have entered on the task which lies before me with no prejudice in favour of any Department. I am one of those who have always believed in adapting a department to the wants and circumstances of the age. An hon. Member opposite has mentioned the desirability of inquiring now as to whether we should not adapt South Kensigton so as to render it more able to cope with the new questions of technical education which are rising among us. So far as I am concerned, I not only look at the question without prejudice, but with an honest and sincere desire, if possible, by inquiry or otherwise to adapt not only the building but the Department at South

    1429
    Kensington more and more to the circumstances of the age, and specifically in regard to the great advantages of technical education. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) has suggested, in reference to the scholar ships, that it would be advisable to reduce the sums now given by the Department in connection with scholar ships. The hon. Member is aware that the sums now given are allocated by the Department for three years—namely, £4 in the first year, £7 in the second, and £10 in the third. Therefore, with the local contribution, a scholarship is worth £9 in the first year, £12 in the second, and £15 in the third. My answer to the hon. Member, when he asks if it is not desirable to reduce the sum given to these scholarships, is that if you reduce it to a small amount you would entirely destroy the present scope of the grants. At present they are made to apply not only to education, but to maintenance. No one would be more glad to see them increase than. I should, if I had the means; but if you reduce them to very small sums they will not answer the purpose for which they are intended; and, therefore, I cannot give any promise to reduce the sums, because I think that if that were done the effect would be to destroy their scope and object. I am aware that I have not dealt with all the questions which have been raised in the course of this discussion, especially by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart), who urged the great importance of elementary education qua Science instruction in the schools. The point of the hon. Member is, that at present there are children in the elementary schools who are not in a fit condition to understand or appreciate scientific instruction. The hon. Member further urges that the children should be admitted into night schools, and that there should be adequate instruction on special subjects in addition to the Standards. [Mr. JAMES STUART: That was part of the suggestion I made.] I do not think that it would be possible to relinquish the Standards altogether. In conclusion I hope hon. Members will understand why it is that I have not dealt more specifically with some of the questions which have been raised. I would again urge this Vote upon the attention of the Committee on the ground
    1430
    that the increase has been caused by an unlooked-for success.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I should not have thought it necessary to say anything to supplement the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council if it had not been for the remarks which fell from the hon. Gentleman who spoke before him (Mr. Picton) in reference to this Vote. The sum asked for is £10,500 in excess of the amount asked for last year, and it is the result of the automatic increase in which every Member who has spoken ought to rejoice. One hon. Member, however, seems to think that the increase has only been in the Vote and not in the absolute results obtained.
    MR. BARTLEY: What I stated was, that the same relative increase in results had not been obtained as compared with the increase of the cost, and I showed that the number of students taught drawing, painting, and modelling through the agency of the Science and Art Department since 1882 has fallen off.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I presume that the recent transfer of some of the elementary teaching to the Education Department accounts for the difference; but I still maintain that the increase has been large and very rapid. Anyone who knows anything of the work going on now in the country in connection with, the Science and Art Department must admit that there never was so much work—and never as good work—as is being done at this moment. In 1875 the total number of pupils, including the Science and Art Elementary Schools in every branch of art instruction, was 444,000, while in 1885 the number had increased to 883,000, or nearly double. There may have been a slight diminution in the Art classes; but the hon. Gentleman knows the ad vantage of transferring the Art classes to Art Schools, and there has been a large increase of Art Schools, and the work is very much better done in the Art Schools than in the Art Classes. I am quite sure that it is the desire of the Committee that this work should extend to children in our elementary schools. Everyone above the infant schools should be taught drawing, which is an essential part of an industrial education. No

    1431
    greater mistake can be made than not to make the teaching of drawing obligatory. I hope the time is not far distant when we shall make drawing—the use of the pencil for industrial purposes, not for art purposes—necessary in all our schools. It is a deplorable thing to go from school to school in Germany and see the wonderful facility every German child possesses in the use of the pencil, and then to come to English schools, some of the best in the country, and to find that because the teacher is not paid sufficiently well, or because he has not been sufficiently well instructed himself to be able to teach the children, nearly one-fourth, certainly much less than one-sixth, of the children in the elementary schools at present receive no instruction whatever in drawing. What, after all, such a change means is increased expenditure—a swelling of the Vote for the Science and Art Department. Large as the Estimates are as compared with 25 or 30 years ago, and as compared with the small grant Sir Henry Cole obtained from this House for the good work of art instruction, as contrasted with the grants in other countries similarly situated to ourselves, our Estimates are a disgrace to us. What is the whole expenditure on education in England? It is less than 5 per cent of the whole expenditure of the country; whereas there are some countries whose expenses for education form one-third of their whole expenditure. [An hon. MEMBER: Where?] In Switzerland it is more than one-third, I believe, while in this country in 1887, the Science and Art Expenditure only reaches £129,000—a sum hardly more than two or three institutions on the Continent expend annually. I believe that the expenditure at Charlottenburg, Aix-la-Chapelle, and Zurich is quite as much on Science and Art as we spend altogether in this country. If any hon. Member thinks that this money is wasted I should like him to visit a few of our own schools, such as that at Bradford, the school in the little town of Keighley, and the Central School in Manchester. In Manchester, one out of 65 of the population is receiving a grant from the Science and Art Department; whereas in the Metropolis only one in 1,000 is receiving it. London is along way behind many of the towns in the North of England, and compares very unfavourably in the cause of education.
    1432
    The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart) called attention to the case of New Zealand. Yes; but we cannot hope to compare with our Colonies, if we are to confine our expenditure to such modest sums as we have here. The money voted in New Zealand goes to the whole of the children, and all classes go to the same schools. There are graded schools, and from top to bottom all of them are free schools, the expenses being paid by the State. My hon. Friend the Member for North Oxfordshire (Sir Bernhard Samuelson) said he thought that some of our Science teaching is given in a wrong manner, and in wrong places. I must remind him, that when he speaks of agriculture being taught in large towns, he is labouring under a considerable error. I remember when I was at the Committee of Council, that we made a rule distinctly against such teaching in the large towns; and that the grants have been cut off wherever there has been agricultural teaching in large centres. There have been complaints upon this matter at various times. I remember that at Cambridge it was stated—"We have people coming in from the locality who are entitled to be taught agriculture, because Cambridge, after all, is an agricultural centre." I do not think, alter all, that anything could be more judiciously applied than money given in this way. I have spoken upon the subject with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies (Sir Henry Holland), who administered the Department with so much ability during the time it was under his control, and he knows that there is no Department of the State at this moment where every farthing is so closely and carefully looked after as in the Science and Art Department at South Kensington. No doubt, the Treasury thinks that it can govern the world, and that it knows everything in connection with these matters a great deal better than the Minister of Education or anybody else; but all its business is to keep down the expenditure. I believe there will be no real good done in this matter, and no really good government of the country, until the expenditure upon education is largely increased. I am afraid I am now going into general questions; but when the next opportunity arrives I shall have to speak much more strongly

    1433
    on this question of education. All I can say now is that I rejoice in the increase of this Vote. I hope the Committee will grant it without demur; and I also hope that the Vote will go on annually increasing.
    MR. F. S. POWELL: I hope the Committee will allow me to say a few words on this subject before we pass away from it. I trust that no one will think that Members on the Ministerial side of the House regard a Vote of this character with any grudging spirit. If any hon. Member does, he greatly misjudges the sentiments of those who sit near me. On the contrary, we are of opinion that the Vote is one of the highest importance, and that the increased attention of the country ought to be directed both to scientific and technical education. In reference to what has been stated by the right hon. Member for the Bright-side Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) with regard to drawing, I sincerely hope that drawing will be taught to every child in the country, whatever may be the class to which he belongs or the nature of the instruction given. I might probably be departing from the rule which has been laid down in regard to this discussion if I were to enlarge upon this subject; but I think I am en titled to say that every quality which a citizen ought to have may be produced by teaching the child drawing. It teaches him accuracy, skill, application, and knowledge of form, all of which must be of service to him in his future career. In regard to evening schools, there is no subject more important. If we could secure the establishment of well-arranged evening schools, I am satisfied that great advantage would arise; but if such schools are conducted in a loose manner, and the instruction is not complete, then our efforts would probably be wasted, and disappointment would result. With regard to the large sums spent in technical education in foreign countries, as compared with that which is spent in our own, it must be remembered that foreign countries, for the most part, have their education based on public grants; whereas, in this country, we have not only public grants, but school fees, which amount to a large sum, paid by the parents; local endowments, benefactions bequeathed by our forefathers; and also magnificent insti-
    1434
    tutions which are supported by voluntary subscriptions. Taking these additional sources of income into consideration, I believe that if we draw a comparison between the public grants of foreign countries and the four items of income I have mentioned, we should find that our expenditure for education is equal to that of foreign countries, and not so inferior to them as some persons may infer. I rose to make these few remarks, because hon. Members on this side have taken very little part in the discussion, and I thought it would not be right that there should be any misapprehension as to their views. I only wish to add my complete concurrence with those who welcome this grant without grudging it, and who rejoice at the increase it displays year after year.
    MR. CONWAY: I wish to make an observation in connection with the items showing an increase in the payments for results. I think the Science and Art Department is about the best advertised Department in the State. We have the contractors of that Department advertising various things in connection with it, and also bringing their own personality before the public. Colonel Donnelly, the director, has recently issued a circular containing certain paragraphs which are not only vague but contradictory in terms. The object of the circular appears to be to lower the salaries of the teachers to prevent the same satisfactory results from being obtained as hitherto, and to bring upon the teachers a loss of reputation. In the first paragraph of the circular we are told that the work, in order to be satisfactory, should be well executed from examples of a good work in the section of study through which the student is passing.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That circular refers to the Estimate of next year, and does not refer to the expenditure of the current year in respect of which this Supplementary Estimate is presented.
    MR. CONWAY: Is not the principle of the circular open to observation? The circular itself states that the pupils are to send in the results of their studies before May.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It would be quite irregular to discuss the expenditure of next year in connection with a Supplementary Estimate for this year.
    MR. CONWAY: Has not this money to be voted?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It has already been spent.
    DR. TANNER: In rising to say a few words about the Vote, I do not wish it for an instant to be understood that I desire in any sense to object to any item which may be brought forward in any of the Supplementary Estimates about to be placed before the Committee, and especially in regard to this Estimate. On the contrary, I think that this important Department of Science and Art ought to receive the fullest attention, and that it should be thoroughly looked into by the Committee; but I think it has been clearly shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) that there are many points in connection with this Estimate for the Science and Art Department which might be rectified for the great benefit of the country; and notably in connection with the question of free hand drawing, which does not appear to have received that amount of deliberate attention which its importance deserves. The right hon. Gentleman showed that in other countries, where it has received adequate attention, very good results have been produced. Now, I happen to know something about the German schools, having been brought up in some of them, and I know personally the great importance which is attached to this subject by the Government of Germany—a Government which is obsequiously followed by Her Majesty's Government in many other departments—notably, that of war. It is very well known that Her Majesty's Government have largely attempted to carry out the German methods of education in connection with the war department; and if they desire to carry it out successfully in connection with that all-important Department of Science and Art, it will be necessary for us to take steps for securing adequate instruction in our schools in free-hand drawing. The original Estimate for the Department, which has already been passed, was £104,000, and a sum of £10,500 is now required in addition. In the South of Ireland—in the city to which I am proud to belong—namely, the City of Cork—a native of which built the House in which we are now assembled, and adorned the cor-
    1436
    ridors through which we pass—the subject of Science and Art has been studiously neglected by the Department. It was not until a native of the City of Cork—Mr. Crawford—put his hand into his own pocket—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentle man must confine his observations to the sums specifically asked for in this Supplementary Estimate.
    DR. TANNER: I apprehend that a portion of the sum has been used in connection with the buildings which have been erected for the purpose of giving instruction in Science and Art questions.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is obvious that no portion of this Vote has been used in that way, seeing that it is simply for payment for results.
    DR. TANNER: Then, I will pass from that point and come to another one. I always have paid the greatest possible deference to any opinion you may express, and I desire to confine myself, as much as possible, to the Vote which is now brought under our consideration. As an Irish Protestant, and as an Irish Protestant Member of a Party which is mainly Catholic in Ireland, I desire to call attention to two institutions which are doing admirable work in the promotion of Science and Art—namely, the Artane School, in Dublin, and the Christian Brothers' School at Cork. Notwithstanding the attention paid to Science and Art in those schools, they get no payment for results; and they are doing, practically speaking, the work that ought to be done by this Department. If the Government desire to act in a right manner, and in a generous spirit, I think they ought to take these institutions into account; and grant some portion of this money to institutions such as these, which are trying to do a good, useful, and noble work, so as to aid them in promoting the welfare of Ireland, and, in so doing, to promote the welfare of Great Britain and the country generally.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I have had some connection with local schools, in which an attempt has been made, as far as possible, to develop, for the sake of the people in the district, some practical knowledge of agriculture—that being, of course, the great industry of Ireland. Agriculture represents in Ireland exactly that which, in your technical schools, you are seeking to develop here; and if some teaching

    1437
    were given in Ireland in reference to agriculture, it would represent in that country the manual instruction you desire to extend to the artizans of this country. I have endeavoured to ascertain how much of the public money is devoted to agriculture, and the teaching in the board schools of Ireland; and I find that it does not reach the sum of £5,000—the gross vote being somewhere about £10,000, and the return in the shape of money received from the pupils and from the schools amounting to some thing over £5,000; so that the great industry of an entire country, on the prosperity of which it has to depend, is actually starving. In any further dealing with the extension of technical schools, I would ask the President of the Council to endeavour to make up for this great deficiency in Ireland. I believe that probably a great amount of the deficiency hitherto found to exist in the successful management of farms in Ireland arises from the continual neglect of the technical education of the people who have to depend upon them. I would therefore, ask the Vice President of the Council, if it is not possible to extend in some way, in the same manner where a desire has been expressed to extend technical education in this country, assistance to Ireland in the shape of practical instruction in agriculture.
    MR. BARTLEY: I will only detain the Committee for one moment. The right hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield seems to question the statement I made concerning the reduction of the number of students taught Art during the last few years. I have here the Returns of the Department; and I find that the grand total of persons taught drawing, painting, and modelling through the agency of the Department was, in 1882, 909,216; in 1883, 843,135; in 1884, 851,805; and in 1885, 879,000. Therefore, I was strictly accurate when I stated that since the year 1882 there has been a decrease of the number of pupils under instruction. The point I complain of is, that, although the grants are larger, the number of pupils taught has been absolutely less.
    MR. SCLATER - BOOTH: I fail to see why it is that the Committee is asked to go into these questions of education at this moment. I think it would have been better if the discussion had been post-
    1438
    poned until the Education Estimates for the year are brought forward soon after Easter. It does not appear that the Vote now before the Committee, although not unimportant in amount, is anything more than the excess incurred over the original Estimate; and the House of Commons possesses machinery by means of which the excesses on the Votes can be commented on and discussed. It will be the duty of the Controller and Auditor General, and of the Committee on Public Accounts, to present a Report upon them; and the proper opportunity will then arise for discussing them. It would be improper, by taking the discussion upon a Supplementary Estimate, to withdraw the excesses from the Controller and Auditor General, and the Committee on Public Accounts; and such a practice would, in my opinion, be most unfortunate. It would cause the House to discuss the same subject twice over; whereas once is quite sufficient in the same Session of Parliament; and it would interfere with the proper method by which excesses of expenditure on the part of a Department are brought home to the Treasury and the House. I have often made this observation before, and successive Secretaries of the Treasury have agreed with me in principle, but have conveniently forgot it when it was considered desirable to revert to the old practice in order to shield themselves by the action of a Supplementary Estimate from the ordinary consequence of an excess.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I think it would be an unfortunate and a retrograde step if the Department were to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Whenever the Departments find that the Estimates are likely to be exceeded, it is their duty to come to Parliament for a Supplementary Vote. These Supplementary Estimates are for expenditure which is being actually incurred in the current year; excesses over the amounts over and above the Votes. Now, if Supplementary Estimates are not presented, the result would be to withdraw that expenditure from the cognizance of Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee, to which the right hon. Gentle man has referred, has always been anxious to keep down excesses—that is to say, expenditure above both the Es-

    1439
    timate and the Supplementary Estimate—as much as possible; and last year, I am happy to say, that object was attained, and there were no excesses. The discussion, though interesting, has travelled, perhaps, rather beyond the Vote, into a general discussion; and I will not contribute further to it than to make one remark on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council—namely, that I hope he will not look merely to the expenditure which any given change may involve, but rather to the result which it is likely to attain, and the advantage which the country will derive from the expenditure.
    MR. O'HEA: So far as this matter of Science and Art in struction is concerned, I dare say the Committee has made up its mind; but there is one point on which I think we ought to have a little more information than is contained in the Paper on which the Estimate is printed. I have taken a good deal of interest in Science and Art so far as the institution in the City of Cork, of which city I am an inhabitant, is concerned; and I am not aware that any portion of this money has, either directly or indirectly, been used in subsidizing that institution. It is kept up by a private tax, which amounts to 1d. in the pound, by private donations, and by private bequests. The institution itself is very flourishing and thriving; and I must say that the details given in this Vote are so vague and ambiguous as to lead me to believe that not a single penny of the money voted by this House goes to the support of that institution, which is found to be of such value and use in the City of Cork. I dare say the same remark may apply to similar institutions in other towns and cities in Ire land. I have no objection to a reason able expenditure of public money in this direction; but I should like to have a little more information upon matters of detail. I should certainly like to receive some information from the Secretary of the Treasury or the Vice President of the Council that my native city is not altogether overlooked or ignored as far as the application of this money is concerned.
    MR. P. MCDONALD: My hon. Friend the Member for West Donegal (Mr. O'Hea) has spoken of the action of the Department of Science and Art in
    1440
    connection with the institution for Science and Art in Cork. I wish, in following him, to speak of its action in relation to the City of Dublin. In Dublin there is a so-called College of Science, which, in my opinion, has done its work in the direction we all desire, inasmuch as it has begun not at the beginning, but rather at the end. In technical education the object we ought to have in view is to begin in the elementary schools, and train the young mind in the direction of technical knowledge, so as to prepare them for the superior work in which they may afterwards be engaged. I have found that a great necessity exists in Dublin for technical education, and knowing the inefficiency of the so-called College of Science and Art, the people of Dublin put their heads together and established a technical school. The Corporation has contributed pretty largely to the maintenance of that school, and I hold that it is the duty of the Government of the day to give a helping hand in a work of such deep importance. I also believe that technical education might be very properly and usefully introduced into the workhouse schools, so as to train up the young people in those schools with the object of rendering themselves useful when they go out into the world, and to prevent them from becoming an incumbrance and a pest to society. If the poor youths and girls also in the workhouse schools could be made useful members of society, in stead of being chronic inmates of these unfortunate institutions, or preying upon society when let loose, the whole of the community would reap a substantial advantage. Therefore, I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to look at this question in a practical and generous spirit, especially in regard to Ireland. I also think it right to ask, under the head of payment for results in the Science Schools and payment for results in the Art Schools and classes, how much of this money goes to Ireland? I believe it is admitted on all hands that the young people of Ireland evince a superior taste, not merely in Science, but in Art. I have seen wonderful results in regard to Art in some of the schools. I have seen bare-legged boys and girls sitting at the work-table and reproducing Art pictures on pottery, such as would command the approbation of the people of this country if they could be brought

    1441
    under their notice. Therefore, I am of opinion that more consideration should be given to us in the direction I indicate, and that, if possible, a grant should be given for Art education in Ireland.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I hold in my hand the last Report of the Department of Science and Art, and in that book will be found the exact sums which the schools in Ireland have received. The hon. Member for West Donegal (Mr. O'Hea) will find that the school in Cork to which he has referred received £151 13 s. 1d.
    MR. O'HEA: I am glad to find that some consideration, however trifling, has been given to the important institution in Cork.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £23,900, Supplementary, Public Education, Ireland.
    MR. TUITE: Upon this Vote I desire to call the attention of the Committee to the unfair treatment which the Irish National School teachers are receiving. The grievances of the teachers have been before successive Governments, and when the Conservatives were last in Office a deputation which waited on the Chief Secretary for Ireland and other Members of the Government was told that if the Government remained in power the whole question of education in Ireland would be dealt with comprehensively and immediately. I think it is a lamentable state of things that nothing has since been done. It is admitted on all hands that the result of the system of education carried out by the National teachers in Ireland has been very good; in fact, as compared with England and Scotland, it is in the highest degree favourable. The standard is higher than in England and only a trifle lower than in Scotland. Yet it is a remarkable fact that the majority of the National teachers in Ireland receive less pay than an ordinary, well-skilled artizan. In some cases the salary is as low as £35 a-year. The average is only £63, and comparing that with the average salary received in England—£120—the difference is very great indeed. You have as good results in Ireland as in England, and yet only one-half the salary is paid. That is not a state of things that ought to exist, and I hope the present Tory Government that formerly promised so much for the Na-
    1442
    tional teachers will do something for them before the close of the Session. I regret the retirement of the late Chief Secretary, because I believe that nobody understood the question of Irish education better than the right hon. Gentle man. I intended to ask him this Session to carry out the promise he had made to the National teachers; but as he has now resigned the Office, I trust that his Successor will do something in that direction. In Ireland, as I have pointed out, the average salary of a male teacher is £63, and of a female teacher £40; whereas the average salaries in England are £120 for a male and £73 for a female teacher. In Ireland the standard of education is higher than in England, and yet you will not give the teachers the same salary. In Ireland the passes in reading are 93·4 per cent; in England 91·9 and in Scotland 93·6. In writing in Ireland the percentage of passes is 95·8; in England 83·8; and in Scotland 91·5; while in arithmetic the percentage in Ireland is 80·7; England 79·7; and Scotland 87·5. I think that these statistics show that the Irish teacher is not behind his English brother in the power of imparting knowledge to his pupils, and I think he ought to receive the same remuneration. In Ireland you restrict the political freedom of the teacher and make him the slave of the State; in England the same restriction does not exist. Surely in Ireland, where he is so much under control, you ought not to make him depend upon the whim of the Guardians. The result of your present system is that you cannot induce young men of ability to enter a service for which you only offer such a miserable remuneration; and nevertheless, not withstanding that fact, the standard of education in Ireland is higher than in England, and the results are much better. I have a Bill on this subject, which stands upon the Order Book for the 16th of March; but I do not believe it can be reached, because there are other matters which are likely to occupy the whole of the attention of the House. My Bill seeks to remedy the existing state of things, and I would ask the Government if they are prepared to afford any facilities for bringing on a discussion upon its provisions. An other point is that you do not allow assistants the same salary—you do not extend to them the same treatment as

    1443
    you extend to persons in the same position in England. In all cases the salary in England and Scotland is much higher, and it seems marvellous that this should be the case, seeing that the results in Ireland are so very good. I will not detain the Committee much longer; but I make a final appeal to the Government to do something in this matter. The residences of the teachers in Ireland are miserable, in point of fact they are, if I may use the term, uninhabitable. The teachers are unable to study there, and yet they are expected to give good results from the miserable salary and accommodation afforded them. I hope the Government will give us some information on this subject, and hold out to the Committee some hope that before long something will be done for those very badly paid servants, who, for the salary they receive, yield such excellent results.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The Committee will perceive that there is an increase on several items in this Vote which is due to the laudable efforts of the teachers to improve their qualifications and become entitled to increased salary, as well as to the necessity of making a further provision on account of the salaries of monitors. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor) has referred to the condition of the Irish National School teachers, and the position which my right hon. Friend the late Chief Secretary (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) took up with regard to it. I can assure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend has been working assiduously for some time on several matters, in fulfilment of his promise to attend to this subject. He has left the result of his work for his Successor, and I am certain that there will be no default in this matter on the part of my right hon. Friend the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour).
    MR. MOLLOY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has explained the reasons for the demand for a Supplementary sum under this Estimate, but he has scarcely addressed himself to the point to which my hon. Friend referred. He calls the increase which has taken place an automatic in crease, but that is not the case, inasmuch as it is due to an effort on the
    1444
    part of the teachers to attain a higher class of results. The sums, therefore, which the right hon. and learned Gentle man has referred to as evidence of the fulfilment of the pledges of the Government, given on so many occasions, is no evidence of fulfilment at all.
    MR. HOLMES: I did not say that they had been fulfilled, I said that my right hon. Friend, in fulfilment of his promise to carefully consider the subject, had been engaged diligently in trying to settle certain branches of it.
    MR. MOLLOY: Exactly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted that pledges were given, and that they have not yet been fulfilled. No complaint has been made with reference to the increase of the Estimate; the complaint is that the increase which has occurred has not been occasioned by any benefit that has been done to the teachers beyond that which has been due to their own action. The reason of the increase was not the improved status of the National School teachers in Ire land; my desire is to impress upon the Committee that the improved status of the teachers is not due to any action of the Government, but to the exertions of the teachers themselves. The pledges have been made for so many years that I am becoming, I confess, a little sceptical on the subject of their fulfilment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman regrets that the Chief Secretary (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has resigned his position, and I can assure him that no one regrets that resignation more than we do. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has stated that the late Chief Secretary had prepared a Bill and made provision for an increase of the salaries of teachers in Ireland. The whole story has been gone into so often by my hon. Friends that I will not deal with it at length now; but I wish to point out that not only are the National School teachers in Ireland receiving little more than half the salaries received by the National School teachers in England, but that the latter have not done their work half so well. In many cases the Irish School teachers walk six or seven miles—Irish miles, which are considerably longer than English miles—to and from school; they cannot afford to take out of their small salaries a sum sufficient to provide them with comfortable lodgings, and the consequence is that, as a rule, they have to get lodg-

    1445
    ings in the houses of the small farmers, very often at a considerable distance from the schools which they attend, and they have to take these long journeys in good weather and bad—in snow and rain. But yet in spite of all that, the results they have achieved have been better than the results produced by the school teachers in this country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to a scheme which has been prepared by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. I do not say it is a Bill which he has pre pared.
    MR. HOLMES: I said nothing about a Bill. I said that my right hon. Friend had been engaged on several matters connected with this subject.
    MR. MOLLOY: I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the late Chief Secretary, who took a great interest in the subject of education in Ireland, and who was undoubtedly well qualified in this respect, had made preparations for introducing a measure to deal with the case of the Irish National School teachers. If that is not the case, I am sorry for it. He said that the new Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would take up the work where it had been left off by the late Chief Secretary. I point out to the Committee that the Government have again this year given us a pledge that the matter is in hand, and that preparations have been made to do what it would be a national grievance to leave undone. Well, Mr. Courtney, I hope these additional pledges will culminate in something more than they have during the last six years.
    MR. H. J. GILL: I wish to ask the Government for some information with regard to model schools.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss the question of model schools on this Vote.
    Mr. H. J. GILL: Am I not to under stand that in this Vote provision is made for salaries connected with the teachers in model schools?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Even if that were the case, it would not be in Order to discuss the organization of model schools in connection with this Vote.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: In conjunction with my Colleagues, I desire to express my very great regret that the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) is not in a
    1446
    sufficient state of health to be in his place, and state what he has done with regard to carrying out the good intentions which he had with reference to the National School teachers in Ireland. I believe that the late Chief Secretary possessed good intentions in that respect, but I certainly have a fear that the work which he left was not in a very advanced state; and I think, therefore, that it is very natural that we should seek for some information as to the items of this Vote. We have every reason to be satisfied with the explanation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holmes) has given of the items. I cannot see, however, how the removal expenses in respect of new districts affect the general position of the National School teachers of Ireland. That the increased expenditure is the result of classification is a revelation to me, because I have always been under the impression that no matter what the classification might be, no augmentation of salaries would take place; and that a man who was a first-class teacher would only have the pay of a second-class teacher, according to the scale. The explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although candid and fair, does not appear to me to go to the root of the question. I do not wish to go at length into this matter, but I may point out that last year I happened to be in charge of the Bill which it was thought fit to bring forward to rectify the many grievances which this long-suffering class have to bear. At that time I entered pretty extensively into the question, and I have no desire whatever to repeat the speech I made on the occasion; but I propose to-night, by way of impressing upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity of carrying out the intentions which I believe were possessed by the late Chief Secretary for Ire land, to emphasize a few of the facts which have been already stated by my hon. Friend who has raised this question to-night. It is clear, from the figures which he has stated, that the National School teachers of Ireland are worse paid, although they produce better results, than their brethren in England and Scotland. The average pay of the National School teacher in Ireland is £57 9s. a-year, as compared with the much larger sum which has been shown by my hon. Friend to be the pay of the

    1447
    teachers in England and Scotland. Without dwelling at length upon his figures I may say that they amount to a statement of facts which ought to weigh with Her Majesty's Government when they come to consider this question; and when they put into shape the proposals which they tell us the right hon. Gentle man the late Chief Secretary left in a crude state in the pigeon-holes at Dublin Castle or at the Irish Office. I also wish to point out as a matter of business that, when they bring forward their Bill, there should be in it a clause to compel landlords to give sites for buildings. I believe that in many cases no great amount of compulsion would be necessary; but there are others which render it desirable that some such clause as I have suggested should find a place in the proposal which they may bring forward. Now, the position of the National School teachers in Ireland has been for a long time considered a sort of last resort, and no one who can do anything else will take up the position of teacher. I can safely say that the position of the policeman is vastly superior to that of those persons to whose hands the education of the children of the country is entrusted. I have not the least wish to disparage the Irish policeman on the present occasion, but still I point out to the Committee that in point of remuneration, prospects, and pension the policeman is far beyond the National School teacher in Ireland; and that being so, I think the position and prospects of that deserving class merit all the attention which we are told so often that the Government are going to bestow upon it. As the Committee may have forgotten some of the facts bearing on this question, I shall briefly refer to a few of them, for the purpose of making the position of the National School teachers in Ireland as clear as possible to hon. Members. In 1878 a Resolution was brought forward in this House on the subject; that He-solution, which was unanimously passed, was to the effect that the National School Teachers of Ireland Act of 1875, and the other means adopted by the Government, having failed to satisfy the just demands of the Irish School teachers, the House was of opinion that the position of the Irish National School teachers called for the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government with a
    1448
    view to the satisfactory adjustment of their claims. As I have said, that Eesolution was unanimously passed by the House, and it is almost unnecessary to point out to the Committee how little has been done to carry it into effect since then, that is to say, to enhance the position of the National School teachers of Ireland. There was, I believe, set aside the sum of £46,000 to improve their position, but it was made conditional that they should pay away £12,000 of that money in the shape of premiums to the pension fund. Again, the result fees having fallen from £20,000 to £15,000, there has been a loss in this way of £5,000, which, added to the £12,000 for premiums to the pension fund, represents a loss to the teachers of £17,000: so that out of the £46,000 I have mentioned as having been set aside for the purpose of improving their condition, they only get the benefit of £27,000. Beyond that I say that nothing has been done to carry out the Resolution which was agreed to by this House in 1878. Then, in 1883, the then Chief Secretary for Ireland stated in this House that he was strongly impressed with the statement made by a deputation which waited upon him in connection with this subject, that he thought immediate action ought to be taken by the Government, if possible, to increase the teachers' salaries, and he added that he recognized the pledges which had been given on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman who is now Member for the Stir ling Boroughs (Mr. Campbell-Banner-man) was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he said that he recognized the pledge given in Parliament in 1875; that he admitted likewise that the measures taken by the Government in redemption of the pledge had been only of a temporary nature; and that he should be extremely glad to introduce a measure at once to deal with the subject. Such was the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in 1883, and we have to-night another statement from the right hon. and learned Attorney General. Why, Sir, this House passes a Resolution. Chief Secretary after Chief Secretary prepares or promises to prepare a Bill to deal with the matter in this House; but year after year passes away notwithstanding, and nothing is done whatever to improve the position of the Irish National School teachers in the slightest

    1449
    degree. Although I am not one to fail in using every opportunity to bring forward the claims of this deserving class of men; yet I should prefer, if the Government will give us a positive assurance which we may convey to the National School teachers that something will be done to place them in the same position as their brothers in England and Scotland, to allow the matter to rest there for the present, and allow the Government to take the amount of this Supply Estimate. I should be anxious to postpone this discussion until the Main Estimates come forward, when I shall be again prepared to press upon the Government the consideration of these claims. I have reason to believe that the discussion which we had last year was fruitless, and I have reason to know that very few inquiries have been made as to the operation of the Act. I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General every credit for his statement, and the late Chief Secretary every credit for his good intentions, but I am still unable to believe—taking into account the promises made to the National School teachers, and the entire absence of the results from those pro mises—that the measure intended by Government will go to anything like the extent to which the just necessities of the case demand. I have no desire, as I stated at first, to prolong the discussion of this question. I accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, but I ask how far the measure he has indicated is in a state of preparation? I should like to know what is contained in the measure the Government intend to propose;—whether they intend to increase the salaries of the National School teachers in Ireland; whether they intend to do anything to encourage the building of residences; whether it is their intention to provide for pensions—in short, whether they are going to bring forward a measure that will make the Irish National School teachers comfortable in their position? Will the Government make the position of this long-suffering class such that any man in the country may desire it; and will they relieve this Committee from the reproach of discus sing this Vote year after year, and indeed twice a year, in order to force upon their attention the just demands of the National School teachers of Ireland?
    MR. ADDISON: May I be allowed to say in reply to what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite, to whom I listened last year with very great pleasure, that there is a very strong impression now among hon. Members on this side of the House, that the condition of the National School teachers of Ireland is not satisfactory. Having heard the discussion which took place upon this question last year, I was very much struck with the reality of the grievances which the hon. Gentleman and his Friends put forward. It does seem to some of us on these Benches quite shocking that so useful a body of men, and doing their duty so efficiently, should, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, be in a position worse, both, as regards salary and pension, than an ordinary policeman in Ireland. I remember the promise made to hon. Gentle men opposite in this House, that some thing would be done in this matter; and I desire to say that if the Government will undertake the introduction of a Bill to deal in a liberal spirit with the National School teachers in Ireland, they will gratify a large number of Members who sympathize with the teachers, and especially those Members who are connected with the county in which is situated the borough I have the honour to represent.
    MR. P. MODONALD (Sligo, N.): I am glad to hear the hon. Gentle man opposite saying these words with reference to this hardly-used and yet deserving class of public servants in Ireland; and I desire, also, to state my entire concurrence with the views put forward on this question by my Colleagues in the course of this discussion. This question has been often referred to in Committee, and I have been pleased when I found, during each of the last two Sessions that assurances were given by the Representatives of the Government that something would be done in the very near future to ameliorate the condition of this most deserving class. I wish, together with my hon. Friend, to express regret that the right hon. Baronet who lately held the Office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has not been permitted, by the state of his health, to be present here this evening to state to the Committee the views which we had hoped he would have been able by this time to have put into

    1451
    a practicable shape. I hope, nevertheless, that those right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench will take cognizance of what we on this side of the House say on the question of the Irish National School teachers. There are, on the part of these teachers, three great causes of complaint—first, as to salary; secondly, as to the want of residence; and, thirdly, with regard to the inadequacy of pension. The pensions, according to the present scale, are utterly insufficient for the purpose; and with regard to the salaries, it has been admitted over and over again, not only to-night but in former Committees, that in this respect the Irish National School teacher is far below the teacher in England, Wales, and Scotland. It is clearly admitted that the literary status of these men is, if anything, higher than that of their brethren in this country. Why, therefore, do you pay for a higher class of work in Ireland less than you pay for the work in this country? I do not know that the necessaries of life are a bit cheaper in Ireland than anywhere else. I do not know that clothing is less expensive in Ireland than it is elsewhere. These men and women—the National School teachers of Ireland—have, in fact, just the same expenses as the teachers of England and Scotland. Why, there fore, should they not be paid at the same rate for the same work? But that, Sir, is not the entire grievance. I have already stated that one of the chief grievances of the Irish National School teachers is that they have very insufficient residential accommodation. In fact, in the greatest number of cases there are no residences at all. It has been stated already that some of the Irish teachers, especially the females, have to walk five miles to their schools—they have to do this in the morning and then to walk five miles back at night—that is, in the course of the day, 10 Irish miles, which, I suppose, are equivalent to 12 or 13 English miles. That is a labour in itself, and a labour quite sufficient for a man, but still worse for a woman. How can you expect proper respect to be paid to the teachers of the country, whether male or female, if their social and domestic status is of such a character? The last of the grievances of which they complain is that of insufficient pensions, or retirement allowances. Now, at present, retirement
    1452
    allowances are given only at the ages of 60 years for females, and 65 for males.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Such an expenditure can only be discussed on the Vote for the Teachers' Pension Fund.
    MR. P. McDONALD: I will pass from that to another question—namely, the question of the monitors. I believe there are not sufficient so-called monitors; they are commonly assistant teachers, they do very good and useful work, and they go through a course of training which befits them for employment later on as teachers. I am aware that complaints have been made—and they are strong complaints—as to the illiberal manner in which the National Board of Education treat some of their managers in respect to monitors. I have had, within the last month or two, several letters from the very rev. gentleman the manager of one of the National Schools in Sligo, complaining of the action of the National Board in this respect. Although the rev. gentleman has communicated with the Board on the subject very often, he has not, as yet, received a satisfactory reply. He has shown—to his satisfaction at least, and I may add to mine—that his cause was a very good one. He has shown, by comparison with schools in the town and in the district, that he has equal claims, yet the National Board have not met him in the generous spirit in which they ought to have done. I certainly think that a little more liberality might have been expected from the National Board under circumstances of this nature. In conclusion, I appeal to the Government, as I have done on two previous occasions, to favourably consider the position of these hard-working but ill-paid public officials—for public officials they are. They are doing public duty in educating the people; and I believe, Sir, it will be conceded they are educating them in a right and proper direction, in the direction of making the rising youth of Ireland good members of society and a useful portion of the population of the British Empire.
    CAPTAIN COLOMB&c.): Mr. Courtney, I have great pleasure in supporting the cause of the National School teachers of Ireland. I consider that the question of educational teachers is one of very vital importance to the future of Ireland. The pay of the teachers is inadequate, the pensions

    1453
    are inadequate, and there is not sufficient provision for residences. I trust that when the Government approach the question of residences they will not make it a question of house accommodation alone, but that they will go a little wider and give a garden or a small farm. I think there is one point that has not been alluded to in this House up to the present, but which has a most detrimental effect upon the interest of education, and that is that, though these National School teachers are paid servants of the State, they are really at the mercy of private individuals. Their pension and their salaries are not certain, because they can lose both at the arbitrary will of the manager, who is a private individual. I, therefore, trust that the Government will approach this question in a broad spirit, and I can only say that I shall give such action my most cordial support.
    MR. O'HANLONs: I desire, Mr. Courtney, to support what has been said in regard to the National School teachers of Ireland. Meetings of the teachers have been held from time to time, and deputations after deputations have waited upon the Government and State officials in Ireland, and I am happy to say that to-night I find more sympathy with the cause of the Irish teachers from Gentlemen representing English constituencies than I do from Irish Representatives sitting on the Conservative side. It is a fact that many teachers in Ireland have to travel six miles to school and six miles back again in the evening, and this in itself is justly considered a great grievance. I consider it a great loss to the children, because no person who has to travel six miles before commencing upon his duties can be considered in a fit state of health to do the work which a teacher is called upon to perform. On this account I consider that provision ought to have been made in this Supplementary Estimate for the erection of additional residences for teachers. I am afraid I should be trespassing upon the Rules of the Committee if I said anything about the condition of the schools themselves in Ireland. I do not wish to so trespass, and I am very sorry that I have not an opportunity of saying something about the schools, and the insufficient accommodation for the children which
    1454
    they afford. We, of course, all regret the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach); but we naturally expected that, if the right hon. Gentleman found his health would not permit him to be present, the regulations he has framed would have been put into the possession of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), so that he could have communicated them to the House. If the Government want us to believe that good intentions are to do everything for Ireland—we have heard from time to time, and we are tired of hearing, of the good intentions towards Ireland—we should like to learn from a responsible Member of the Government that something is likely to be done, and done in the near future, in behalf of the poor children of Ireland. The children of Ireland have no chance whatever in the world unless they got a proper education, and it is impossible under the existing condition of things for an ordinary Irish child to be properly trained or educated. They are thrown on the world and come to England, and you blame them because they are ignorant. Who keeps them ignorant? Certainly not the Irish people, for many of them would almost starve themselves in order to give their children a good education. Unfortunately, this is not within their reach. The English Government hold the resources so closely in their own hands that they do not give the teachers and children of Ireland a fair chance. Now, with regard to the travelling expenses under this Vote, I think the sums set down for such expenses are rather high. I would much rather the Government had consulted some Irish Members with regard to the travelling expenses, and they might thus have been able to have seen a way of setting apart a portion of the sum taken for travelling expenses for the fund of the teachers. Now, with respect to the salaries of schoolmistresses in workhouses, I hap pen to be a member of a Poor Law Board, and I know a good deal about the position of workhouse schoolmistresses. Of all teachers in Ireland there is no worse-paid class than the teachers in the workhouses.
    THE CHAIRMAN: There is nothing about such teachers in this Vote.
    MR. O'HANLON: I must apologize to you, Mr. Courtney; I certainly thought that the workhouse schoolmistresses were provided for in this Vote. I suppose, at all events, they come under the head of teachers, and I must say that of all teachers in Ireland there is no class more miserably paid than the workhouse schoolmistresses. Something, too, I think, may be added to the Vote in respect of the monitors, for the purpose of giving the monitors a better chance of being trained, and of some day becoming schoolmasters. The whole future prospect of the Irish people depends upon education. You cannot expect anything from the industries or from any source in the country whatever, unless the education of the people is improved. There is nothing before many people now but emigration, unless it be to obtain a post in the Constabulary. The Constabulary is the only paying business in Ireland, and I am afraid that we have already got a sufficient number of that class of men in the country. I trust that some Gentleman on this side of the House will propose that this Vote be increased, because at present it is quite insufficient for the purposes of giving to the children of Ireland a good education, and for providing the teachers with proper remuneration.
    MR. NOLAN: I do not intend to occupy the attention of the Committee for many minutes. Firstly, because I do not wish to trespass upon your kind indulgence, Mr. Courtney, in having already allowed the discussion to travel rather wide of the limits of the Vote; and, in the second place, because I believe that there is a disposition to redress the grievances of which the Irish National School teachers complain. There have been a great many discussions in this House, both before the whole House and before the Committee, and representations have frequently been made to Her Majesty's Government on the occasions when they have been waited upon by deputations of Irish Members, and also deputations of the teachers them selves, so that if the matter has not been thoroughly understood up to now it has not been for the want of discussion. I should like to say a few words upon the subject of the difficulty the Government will find itself placed in in settling this question. It strikes me the difficulty arises from the fact that they will per-
    1456
    haps meet with opposition in this House from English Members, who may think, looking at the proportion of money granted from the Imperial Treasury for educational purposes in Ireland, and the sum of money granted for like purposes in England, that Ireland has got an ad vantage already. Now, there is no parallel whatever between the position of National education in England and of National education in Ireland, and for this reason, that in England National education is under the control of local bodies who represent the people. Mr. Courtney, I will not follow that line of argument. Now, Sir, I have listened with interest to the statement which was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) upon this extra Vote. With regard to the travelling expenses of Inspectors he pointed out that the additional sum of £400 arises from the fact that some changes have been made in the geographical boundaries of the districts. I should have been glad if he had been able to point out to the Committee that the changes which have been made will result in economy in this item of travelling expenses; be cause it certainly does strike anyone who knows anything at all about Ireland as remarkable that a sum of very nearly £12,000 should be required by the Inspectors of the Irish National Schools. It certainly would occur to one that if the Schools of Ireland are not over-taught they are at least over-examined. Now, upon the question of monitors, I must say that, although I have got a pretty fair acquaintance with the matter, I cannot agree with a remark that fell from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland—namely, that the extension of the monitorial system in Ireland is any very great advantage to the cause of education. Hon. Members of the Committee will be able to understand this better when they take into account the fact that monitors are appointed at a very tender age—at an age when they should be improving their own minds, and when they can give very little time with ad vantage either to themselves or to their fellow-pupils in the matter of education. It sometimes happens that in schools in Ireland where monitors are employed, that by the time the monitors reach the age at which they may be expected to

    1457
    become teachers they are quite wearied out with the work they have been obliged to perform. I know, from many conversations I have had on the subject with schoolmasters in Ireland, that they would very much prefer to have the aid of properly qualified assistants. But this difficulty steps in, that the Board lays it down as a rule that there must be a high average attendance at a school in order that the services of an assistant may be secured. The condition of the country militates very greatly against a high average attendance, and for this reason, that in the agricultural districts, where these National Schools are mostly to be found, the number of children sent to school at one season of the year is not more than 30 or 40; while at another season of the year, when the work in the fields is at an end, the number of pupils sent daily to school runs up perhaps to 100 or more. Therefore, the staff which is fully adequate to meet the requirements of a school at one time of the year is much too small to meet the requirements at another. I think that in any scheme for improving National education in Ireland which Her Majesty's Government may frame this system of averaging the attendance ought to be looked into, so as to allow of an assist ant being appointed for the higher attendances at least. Now, Sir, with regard to the position of the teachers throughout the country, I have only to unite with my hon. Friends upon these Benches in saying that the position of the teachers is anything but satisfactory; and that I am sure that the teachers in Ireland, as well as the bulk of the people in that country, will be very much pleased when they learn that hon. Members opposite fully recognize the situation, and unite with the Representatives of Irish constituencies in urging upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity for improving the present state of things.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
    (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,785, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day
    1458
    of March 1887, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions abroad."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: We have already voted a sum, as you will see, of £12,000 for telegrams for the Diplomatic Services, and we are now called upon to Vote an additional sum of £7,800. I do not quite under stand how these Supplementary Estimates are arranged, because these charges are only, as hon. Gentlemen will see, no doubt, for the telegrams coming in from Foreign Legations and Missions abroad to this country, but for every telegram which comes in we may fairly suppose that another goes out. We did vote £12,000 last year, and, if I remember right, we voted some Supplementary sum. How is it that in the Supplementary Estimates in this House we are asked to vote £7,800, in addition to what we have already voted for the telegrams coming in, and nothing for the telegrams going out? If anyone looks through the recent Blue Books, especially that in regard to Bulgarian affairs, they will see that there has been a very vast number of telegrams from the different Ministers abroad. I presume, therefore, that, in point of fact, we shall have to pay at some time or other an additional sum of some £7,000 or £8,000 for telegrams from the Foreign Office to Missions abroad. Now, last year, when this question of telegrams was raised on the Estimates, there was an animated discussion, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), who was then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, admitted that reductions ought to be made in these Estimates. That was the feeling entirely in the House; but, instead of any reduction taking place in consequence of such a general expression of opinion, we find that there has been no reduction; and, indeed, we very often find that even when the House does express its opinion strongly upon excessive expenditure the amounts are the same, if not more. I am inclined to think that this Vote is rather more than the Vote submitted last year. Now, I do think that £12,000 is quite sufficient for telegrams to the Foreign Office with out the addition of £ 12,000 for telegrams from the Foreign Office. The system, at present, seems to be that every Minister of Foreign Affairs, and every man in the Foreign Office, and every Foreign

    1459
    Minister thinks that when he has got some very foolish information to transmit that he might very well send through the Post Office, he must send it in a cypher telegram, and telegrams in cypher cost more than ordinary telegrams. I think there ought to be a protest made against the cost of these telegrams. I do not think that the country gains any advantage by the spending of something like £30,000 per annum for telegrams from our Foreign Legations to the Foreign Office, and I wish to accentuate the view many hon. Members of the House entertain upon this point by moving the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £3,000, which I hope will bring home, not only to the Foreign Office, but also to Foreign Ministers, that they must do their best to send their communications through the post or by Queen's Messenger, except where it is absolutely necessary that they should be sent by telegraph. At present, Representatives abroad send many telegrams which they might very well send through the post or by Queen's Messenger. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £3,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Item of £7,800 (Telegrams), be reduced by the sum of £3,000."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Mr. Chairman, I must, of course, give the Committee some explanation of the reason of this additional expenditure. The sum expended upon telegrams for the Diplomatic Services is about £19,800, and the main items are for telegrams in regard to Egypt, China, Japan, and Persia. For instance, the charge in respect of China and Japan is £7,765; the cost of telegrams from Cairo £4,200, and other places £7,835, making a total of upwards of £19,000. This is a very large sum, and all I can say is that great efforts have been made to induce Her Majesty's Representatives abroad to curtail their telegrams as much as possible. Within my knowledge exception has been taken to telegrams unnecessarily long, and a Circular has been addressed to Her Majesty's Representatives abroad calling upon them to use the greatest economy practicable in the
    1460
    writing of telegrams. But, Sir, it must be remembered, when important matters have to be brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government, the Representatives naturally wish to be perfectly distinct, because a little undue shortening of a telegram may lead to serious misconception. The Government are well aware of the importance of not exceeding the Original Estimate in the matter of telegrams, as in everything else; but this Supplementary Estimate has been absolutely necessary. The only effect of the hon. Member's (Mr. Labouchere) Amendment would be to cause a certain amount of embarrassment, because if expenditure is incurred, it has to be paid. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will not consent to the proposed reduction.
    DR. TANNER: It appears to me, Mr. Courtney, that this is simply a matter of common sense. Practically speaking, when Her Majesty's Government get into a mess, as they appear to have got into a mess on the question which has necessitated this item being brought forward for our consideration, they at once take the most expensive mode, at the cost of the unfortunate taxpayer, of solving the question. Now, Sir, it is not for me at the present time to raise the point as to how this item was incurred. We all know very well how it was incurred—namely, in connection with Prince Alexander of Bulgaria—in trying to keep his Highness upon his Throne. We have got a sort of answer from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Fergusson), who adorns the post he now fills. But I think the right hon. Gentleman, taking into account that his words go before the country, and taking into account that the country carefully examine all these items of expenditure, will admit that at least an item of this character ought to be satisfactorily explained. Up to the present it has not been explained; and, therefore, as a Member occupying a seat in the quarter of the House I do, and regretting deeply that there is not more independence of spirit shown among Members on the Ministerial Benches—and there are many hon. Members in that quarter of the House who ought to know something, at any rate, about Eastern affairs—I desire to enter my protest against this expenditure, and to express the pleasure I shall

    1461
    have in going into the Lobby with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere).
    MR. MOLLOY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much of this item is due to Egyptian telegrams?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: In the year, the telegrams from the British Agency at Cairo will reach a sum of £4,200.
    DR. TANNER: How much money was spent upon telegrams in connection with the Bulgarian business, directly or indirectly?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Member. I really do not know how much was expended in this way.
    DR. TANNER: How much was spent on telegrams to Constantinople? How much was spent on telegrams to Sofia?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman has only referred to telegrams in, and said nothing about telegrams out.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I under stand there is no excess over the money taken for telegrams out; such telegrams are very much shorter than those which come in.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 140: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 43.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I believe that an Amendment is likely to be moved upon this Vote, and certainly it does seem to me to require some sort of supervision in order to justify this very large payment. I see my hon. Friend (Mr. Bradlaugh), who is going to move the Amendment, has just entered the House, so that I will resume my seat.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: In opposing this Vote for a Supplementary Grant to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Special Mission to Constantinople and Egypt, I would remind the Committee that when I opposed a similar Vote last year, I pointed out that then the first Mission to Constantinople had been utterly worthless, and that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff had failed in every respect upon which he had received instructions, and had only succeeded on the points on which his instructions dif-
    1462
    fered. I was then told that his success at Cairo would make up for what lie had not succeeded in at Constantinople. I, therefore, want, before the Committee pass this Vote, to have some information as to why this Supplementary Estimate is submitted to us at all. There have, no doubt, been special expenses in connection with the festive scenes which Sir Henry Drummond Wolff has held at Cairo, but which ought hardly to become a charge against the country; and I should like the Member of the Government answerable for this Vote to distinguish between the various branches of expenditure which make the excess now asked for as a Supplementary Vote. We have been told that telegrams from Cairo cost something like £4,200, and the absolute want of any kind of necessity for this Mission is shown when we come to explain what has happened at Cairo during the past year. This country has been well represented, both at Constantinople and at Cairo, by eminent gentlemen. One of these, occupying a high position in the Diplomatic Service, has been kept ignorant, as I will show from Blue Books, of negotiations which have made this country responsible for the payment of an exceedingly large sum of money. In the debate on the Address I put several Questions to the Government with reference to the charges put upon this country by the occupation of Suakin. Suakin being quitted by British troops, the Representative of England there made this country liable to pay a sum—I am not certain—but a sum, apparently, of £73,000 a-year; I do not know for how many years. I do not know for what term; but so long as it lasts a sum of about £73,000 a-year is to be paid to the Egyptian Government, for the government of a city with which we had no concern whatever, and for which the British taxpayer is to remain liable; and I shall be able to show that this was done without the knowledge of Sir Evelyn Baring, and that it was done on the suggestion of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. This is shown by Papers No. 24 in the Book Egypt, No. 5, of last year. It is in these Papers that we find one of the earliest despatches from Lieutenant General Stephenson relating to the evacuation of Suakin, and there is a phrase in them which, by itself, would not be complete, where he speaks of what he is putting to

    1463
    the Government there as "suggested by Wolff." When I come to look at a later despatch, we find Sir Evelyn Baring sending home for instructions in solution of this matter, as one of which he is entirely ignorant, when it is communicated to him by Lieutenant General Stephenson. Now, at first, the government of Suakin is to cost England £40,940. The item keeps growing. Then there is to be £5,000 for some kind of equipment for the Egyptian troops. Why the British taxpayer should pay for the equipment of Egyptian troops is by no means clear to me, and I should like some information to be given to the Committee on that subject. But if we turn to a later Paper in the same Book—No. 6—we find Sir Evelyn Baring saying this—"General Stephenson informs me that the expenses of this Force "—that is, the Force which is to occupy Suakin after the British troops have quitted, the Egyptian Force—"to the extent of £56,440, are to be met by Her Majesty's Government." Why is the British, taxpayer to pay any of that charge, in addition to £5,000, for the first payment? Then Sir Evelyn Baring uses this remarkable language—
    "I have received no instructions on this subject from your Lordship, and have ventured to telegraph to your Lordship for authority,"
    That was a despatch to Lord Rosebery; but the previous despatch to which I have referred was a despatch to the right hon. Gentleman who is the present Leader of the House, but was at that time the Secretary of State for War. It is clear upon whom the responsibility for this transaction lies, and who is to blame, because Lieutenant General Stephenson's term, "suggested by Wolff," becomes quite clear by the light of the declaration of Sir Evelyn Baring, that he knew nothing of it, and that he was not acquainted with it by his colleagues. You have one official Representative of Great Britain negotiating one state of things, and you have another in another place negotiating another state of things, and you have the accord between the two so complete that they know nothing of what each other is doing. And we get a little worse as we go on. The money claimed by Egypt is constantly increasing. We find in that same Blue Book that the Egyptian demands keep increasing step by step, until at last we get the figures "£56,440,
    1464
    plus such portion of £16,640, now demanded by the Egyptian Government," of which, up to that moment, £11,000 was admitted by us. But that is not enough. The Egyptians not only want us to pay for their men, but they want us to furnish them with stores, and we absolutely give them two sets of stores, one £9,325, and another £6,078, and another untotaled lot with no price put to them, which may be larger or smaller; and we have a modest demand for new stores to be supplied by us to the Egyptian Government at a price of £14,660. I should like the Representative of the Government to say why £15,000 worth of property of the British taxpayer was handed over to the Egyptian Government without the Government being asked to pay for it. I want to know how much of this £14,660 has been granted. It is true that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff achieved some success. At first, he seems to have been the chief negotiator of that blockade which injured a lot of unfortunate people and did no good to anyone—a blockade which had ultimately to be abandoned under pressure from the German Government when it was found to interfere with German trade. Sir Henry Drummond Wolff paid no attention to the starving inhabitants of the Soudan; but the moment two German traders remonstrated against the unfairness of this blockade, then Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, who had insisted on the blockade in the first place, when it was suggested that it should be raised, thought that no great difficulties would result from its abandonment. I do not know that I have any right, in dealing with the salary of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, to refer to the efficient manner in which that blockade was carried out under his direction. We sent a steam cutter carrying a Gatling gun without the Gatling. We sent another whose guns were utterly untrustworthy, because they brought down the bow so much that they could not be used. That is part of the general efficiency of the whole of our dealings in this unfortunate country. What does Sir Henry Drummond Wolff do either in Cairo or in Constantinople for us? I can under stand what was done by the Government which sent him out, for him. I can understand that an efficient provision

    1465
    was made for every member of that gallant Army—not for the rank and tile, for there was no rank and file—but for the whole of the commanding officers who put the late Chancellor of the Exchequer into Office. But I ask this Committee not to be a party to voting away the money of the British taxpayer on any ground of that kind; and I want to know from the Government, if we are to accept a certain burden of £56,440 a-year for Suakin, are there any other places we are going to accept the same certain burden for? If not, Sir, why is an exception made in the case of Suakin? If there are other places, where are they? I ask whether it is not a monstrous thing to commit the country by way of a number of engagements with reference to the Government of Egypt carried on at a cost to the British taxpayer at home? If you are not going to do that, then the language of these despatches has no meaning at all. If it be taken from that language that, though the British Government say they are to undertake these expenses, you do not mean it, it is a pity you said it.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): For that particular year. There is no particular obligation on us this year in that respect.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: There is no limitation on you as to any year. The expression is "£56,440 per annum;" and there is another statement, either in this Book or in the Book which succeeded it, showing your obligations to pay. It is an extraordinary thing that, if it is a payment for that one year, there is nothing in the Book to show it. Where is the explanation of it? Why should the obligation be taken for that year at all?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Will the hon. Member give me that page to which he refers?
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I thought I had given the right hon. Gentleman the numbers of the despatches, but I shall have great pleasure in referring to them again. The case is sufficiently clear—unfortunately too clear—and there is, therefore, no reason why I should conceal any part of it. My first suggestion is that Paper No. 24 shows not an expenditure for one year, but an annual
    1466
    expenditure of £40,940. Now, "annual" does not mean a payment for one year, or a whole payment that is to terminate at the end of the year. The annual payment of £40,940 means a payment which is intended to go on for a much longer period; and I say, fur ther, that this Paper No. 24 shows that this was "suggested by Wolff." The curtness of that phrase is not mine. It is in the telegraphic enclosure. Then I say that the demand increased to a sum of £56,440, and that there is nothing in No. 60 which mentions the increase, limiting it to one year, and that Sir Evelyn Baring is certainly startled by the proposition to take on this country any such liability. He knew nothing of it, and he says, as I already read—
    "I have received no instructions on this subject from your Lordship, and have ventured to telegraph to your Lordship for authority."
    There is nothing there which shows that the sum is limited to one year. Well, we go on still further, and we find that "the yearly liabilities incurred by Her Majesty's Government amount, there fore, to £56,440," plus such portion of the £16,640 now demanded. "Yearly liabilities" do not mean one year's liability, and nothing more. Yearly liabilities mean—that is, if diplomatic language has any meaning—yearly liabilities. I have learned from an hon. Gentleman occupying a diplomatic position, now on the same Bench with the right hon. Gentleman, that a march may be conducted without opposition when you kill the people who stand in your way. I am quite prepared, there fore, to learn that annual liabilities do not mean annual liabilities, but only mean one specific payment, made in full, of all liabilities. But if your contract with the Egyptian Government is to pay an annual sum of £56,440, and you have no document specially limiting it to one year, I am afraid we shall have the same demand on the British taxpayer for this money another year. I think the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has given the Committee the strongest reason for rejecting the Vote. He says our special Representative, whom we sent on a special mission, is absolutely ignorant of the English language. This gentleman is well versed in other languages. He can talk French and Italian to the

    1467
    representatives of those Nationalities with the greatest fluency; but when he comes to use his own language, and wishes to make a payment of £06,440 in full of everything, he agrees to pay it yearly. Now, I am not a house holder; I am only a lodger; but I dare say there are some Gentlemen on the Front Bench who take house property by the year, and I put it to them, if they agree to pay a yearly rent—unless the place be taken for one year alone—they will find themselves burdened with more than one year's liability. If the thing went on from year to year, it would be quite clear that they would have to pay yearly; and it is evident, from the language I have quoted, that this payment is to go on in that way. It says, "the yearly liabilities incurred by Her Majesty's Government;" and, adding the two sums referred to together—that is to say, the £56,440 and the £16,640—it amounts to£73,080. I admit part of this expenditure was not assented to by Her Majesty's Government. The English Government, at that time, only conceded the £56,000 and £11,000—that was £07,000; and I would ask now, where is the despatch limiting that payment to one year? Does it only exist in the hopes of the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs? Is it what he thinks Sir Henry Drummond Wolff ought to have done? Is it what he thinks a wise man would have done? If the Representative of Her Majesty's Government has made this country responsible for a large sum of money per year, we ought to have further information in regard to it. I want to know why we take this obligation in regard to Suakin at all? What distinguishes Suakin that the English taxpayer should pay for its government? What has the English Government to do with it? Why should we relieve the Egyptian Government of this cost? Why, I repeat, should we find the Egyptian troops with ammunition and arms, and transfer stores to them? These things have been done by a courteous diplomatist to please the people with whom he is in contact, without the slightest regard to the taxpayer at home, whom he ought to have represented. I, therefore, hope we shall mark our sense of this outrageous Mission from beginning to end. It
    1468
    would be an impertinence to go over the ground that I went over last year; but anyone who refers to Hansard will see that I took, step by step, and item by item, the instructions given to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff; and I showed that he had succeeded in nothing except in inducing this country to recognize the Sultan of Turkey as the spiritual chief of the Mahommedans. I am sure I congratulate the Government on the proud successes achieved. What is our position in relation to this Mission now? How long is it to last, and what is Sir Henry Drummond Wolff there for? Is Sir Evelyn Baring incapable; or has Sir William White no ability? Does the Government trust them? Or is it necessary that a third person should go to these places for the purpose of making a job or providing a place for a devoted adherent of a Chief who, I am bound to say, took the highest pains to reward everyone who was faithful to him? I do not know that there has been anything much more monstrous, as far as modern politics are concerned, than this Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. What has he done with Moukhtar Pasha? What has he done with anybody else that gives him any sort of claim on this country? What advantage has he gained for us? What difficulty has he relieved? What Treaty has he made—what bargain—that advantages this country at all? It is easy to give away money and to give away stores. Any idiot could do that; and it would not be necessary for us to employ a skilled representative for that purpose. I trust that, without reference to politics, there will be found men on both sides of this House to record their votes against this allowance as a monstrous thing right through. I say Sir Henry Drummond Wolff has not represented the honour of England. I say, if you read the despatches with reference to the trade in the Soudan, you will find that delay took place in the settlement of the question because it did not suit Sir Henry Drummond Wolff to attend to it. He occupied himself with receiving and attending upon distinguished personages, when he ought to have been occupying himself with matters affecting the welfare of the poor and hungry Soudanese. He had no sort of consideration for the Soudanese; they were barbarians, of course;

    1469
    an inferior race to us. It was only when the Germans said "We won't have it "—when two German traders, backed up by the German representatives, remonstrated, and stated that the blockade was destroying their trade, that Sir Henry Drurnmond Wolff found it convenient to think that the opening up of trade would pacify the Soudanese. It would have been much better never to have closed the Soudan at all; never to have fought a battle in it; and never to have gone into it for the purposes for which we did go into it. That, however, is a much wider question than that we have tonight a right to deal with. The questions I want the right hon. Baronet to answer are these—and I want him to answer them from beginning to end, not in vague words, nor in hopes or expectations, but in plain words—What advantage has Sir Henry Drummond Wolff gained, either from the Sultan or the Viceroy of Egypt, in exchange for the money we have paid him? Explain the exact cost of the festivities and balls, and how much of it is to be borne by the British tax payer; say what is the real engagements with reference to Suakin, and where it will be found in black and white. Do not tell me that liabilities do not mean liabilities, and that "annual payments" mean one payment in one 12 months in full of everything. I shall be bound, even if you do tell me these things, to believe that the English language means what it says. I ask the Committee to vote against this Vote. I shall challenge a Division on it, trusting that Members on both sides of the House, remembering the misery that now prevails in the country and the pledges they gave to the working-class voters who returned them, will not permit themselves to be parties to this gross and wanton extra vagance.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Item of £7,000 (Special Missions and Services) be reduced by the sum of £6,190."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)
    MR. S.WILLIAMSON: Mr. Courtney, I object to the continuation of this Mission, and so strong is the objection I have to it that I shall protest against this Vote on every occasion, in the House and out of the House, until the burden of cost on account of it is removed from the Estimates. A fort night ago I put a Question in the House
    1470
    with regard to this Mission, and I asked whether the Government would consider the propriety of bringing it to an end. The answer I received was not satisfactory. The First Lord of the Treasury, at any rate, gave me no reason to believe that the Government had any intention to bring the Mission to a close. The reason he did give was that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff was conducting very difficult and delicate negotiations. I find by the Blue Book, however, that, speaking figuratively, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff is doing very little of what is characterized by the First Lord of the Treasury as delicate and difficult. On the contrary, I find that he has been doing work which ought to have been done by Sir Evelyn Baring in Egypt and our Representative at Constantinople, and who are quite willing and qualified to do the work that is placed in their hands. Among other things, it would seem that he has been endeavouring to upset that which had been previously accomplished, and was recently exerting him self to procure the re-opening of the trade with the Soudan. I find an absurd mixing up in this Blue Book of the details of matters that ought to be dealt with by our Representatives in Egypt. I find that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff deals with military events, and with questions of trade; in short, I find nothing in this Blue Book which bears out the character given to the Mission by the First Lord of the Treasury. There has, on the other hand, been a supersession of our agents in Egypt; and I think it must be felt by them to be some thing like attaching a stigma upon them in the discharge of their duties. Coming to the work on which Sir Henry Drummond Wolff is at present engaged. What have we, to use the words of the First Lord of the Treasury, that is delicate and difficult in the negotiations at Constantinople? Is it not the fact that we have a most able Ambassador in the person of Sir William White? We know that we have in him an able man, and that he can accomplish those duties which you have sent out a second-rate man to discharge. The thing, to my mind, is perfectly monstrous, and I trust that the Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff will be brought to an end without delay. When we find, even by the Conservative news-

    1471
    papers, that there is a suspicion of jobbery attached to the Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, I think it is high time that Liberals and Radicals should lift up their voices to protest against its continuance. Any man who has to face his constituents and confess that he has recorded his vote in support of this monstrous and costly Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff has, I think, an imminent chance of losing his seat. I am told that there are numbers of Tory Democrats among the working classes, and I appeal to every Member of the House to resist this Vote, which it is my intention to protest against until this iniquitous charge is removed from the taxpayers of the country.
    MR. GOURLEY: I think that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) has been rather severe on Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. The policy of the present Government is not their policy alone; it was the policy of the late Government, who could, if they had chosen, supersede the Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. Her Majesty's Government are carving out what is called a continuous foreign policy, and they have continued the Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff to Egypt and Constantinople; and I think, therefore, it is rather unfair to charge upon them all the delinquencies which are alleged to have occurred. It strikes me very forcibly that the charges alluded to by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) as having been incurred at Suakin, and which we are now asked to approve of, are a legacy of the Liberal Party, of which I am myself a Member. My hon. Friend behind me who has just spoken rather threw out a threat with regard to the charge for Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's salary, because he said that Liberal and Radical Members who confessed to their constituents that they had voted for this Estimate would run the chance of losing their seats. But is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was in the habit of sending mission after mission, at any amount of expense, to inquire into the state of affairs in Egypt? And is it not also a fact that, in season and out of season, the hon. Member (Mr. William son) always voted for the demands—right or wrong—of the right hon. Gentle-
    1472
    man the Member for Mid Lothian? He, therefore, should be the last man to taunt those who do not object to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's trivial expenses. On one occasion he sent out Lord Northbrook; at another time he sent out the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer to Constantinople with regard to Egyptian affairs. He also sent Lord Dufferin to inquire into Egyptian affairs, and a Report was made, and, with regard to the necessity there was thought to be of acting on that Report, I may remark that it was allowed to remain for a considerable time in the pigeon-holes of the Foreign Office. Again, the Liberal Government sent out General Gordon. He sent home certain recommendations as to what he thought necessary for the government of the Soudan; but not one of those recommendations did the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian carry out. They neglected to carry out the recommendation which General Gordon gave with regard to Suakin; and instead thereof they sent fire and sword amongst the poor and innocent Arabs, or, as I should rather describe them in the words of the late Prime Minister, as a people struggling to be free. Again, the Government of Mr. Gladstone rejected his advice with regard to sending Zebehr Pasha for the purpose of putting an end to the rebellion in that country; and then, as the House is aware, although urged to send relief to save their own agent, they did so when too late. We find among the Members who supported the policy of the late Government my hon. Friend behind me, who gets up now and cavils at the money spent by the present Government on the mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. The next question asked is whether Sir Henry Drummond Wolff has done anything at all? The hon. Member for Northampton has laid before the Committee evidence which, to his mind, shows that what has been done does not amount to very much. I find in the Blue Book that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff supplies the Government with a large amount of valuable information with regard to the position of Egypt, the financial position of the country, and that not only with regard to the condition of the Soudan provinces, and also the present Egyptian frontier. Having said thus much, I

    1473
    come to the Mission itself. I am bound to say that I do not agree with the policy of which he is the exponent at Constantinople on the part of our Government. The policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government has, to my mind, the appearance of establishing a dual control with Turkey on Egyptian affairs. Now, if that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, it is entirely opposed to the policy folio wed by the Governments of the Great Powers for the last 40 years with regard to Turkey and Egypt, which has been to secure the autonomy of Egypt and lessen the power of Turkey, which, I believe, was also the policy of the late Lord Palmerston. I am of opinion that the adoption of this policy will, sooner or later, lead the country into difficulty. The dual control which existed between this country and France with regard to Egypt was terminated by the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party after the war, and yet we find a dual control being attempted to be set up again with regard to Egyptian affairs. What I would suggest to the Government is that, instead of carrying out a policy of dual control with Turkey in respect of Egypt, we should confer with France, not in order that there might be a dual control, but in order that she might have a voice with regard to her interests in Egypt, which are larger than our own. It was not England, but France, which constructed the Suez Canal; then, again, France has much more capital invested in manufactures in Egypt, and, in other respects, a larger pecuniary stake than we have in the country. France has, moreover, three times the number of her own people in Egypt than we have, and hence I think that the wisest policy for this country will be, in some measure, to confer with France with regard to the future of Egypt. When we had differences with the proprietors of the Suez Canal, and when the entire country rejected the arrangement between the two Governments, the French yielded to the susceptibilities of British opinion, and gave us almost every thing that wedemanded regarding its control. In a like spirit we ought, in place of playing with the Turk, to meet, as far as possible, the just susceptibilities of France with regard to the future of Egypt. When we went to Egypt, the plea on which we went there was that of the Suez Canal. I
    1474
    think it is now agreed that the Suez Canal is not the highway to India. I think it has been concluded that the defence of a line of 6,000 miles between this country and her Indian Possessions would, in case of war, be an act of lunacy. It was once contended that the high road to India was round the Golden Horn; but no one would now be so foolish as to say that. I hold that, in the event of war, the highway to India would not be through Egypt, but the old road round the Cape of Good Hope. Having said thus much, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government a question with regard to the future of the Soudan. In my opinion, the present condition of the Soudan is a disgrace to any civilized Power. Judging from the Reports sent home by Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, whose information is based on the Reports procured by the Special Commissioners sent from Cairo; judging from those Reports, and the statements of General Stephenson, we find that the number of insurgents between Wady Halfa and Dongola amounts to 11,000 men, the majority of them being armed only with spears. General Stephenson states, so far as Wady Halfa is concerned, that the town is sufficiently strong to resist attack; but that the insurgents may pass along the left bank of Wady Halfa, in which event it would be necessary to send up a flying column to prevent them reaching Assouan. If there is any danger of this insurrection passing down from the Soudan to Wady Halfa, I think it would be a wiser and cheaper policy to stop it at Wady Halfa than to have to send a force from Assouan up the Nile.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I point out to the hon. Member that he is travelling somewhat widely from the Vote before the Committee.
    MR. GOURLEY: I shall not pursue the subject, Mr. Courtney, further, but will content myself with expressing the hope that the Government will make clear to this House and the country what is the position of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff at the present moment, and what their policy. I hope they will state whether it is part of their policy or instructions that he should endeavour to bring about a new arrangement with regard to Egypt in the shape of an International neutral policy for the purpose of facilitating the return of the British troops which are in that country.

    1475
    I quite think that the time has come when decisive action ought to be taken by the Government with regard to the occupation of Egypt.
    MR. DILLON: An appeal was made to the First Lord of the Treasury last Session by several Members of this House to state why Sir Henry Drummond Wolff had been sent out to Egypt, what he had done there, and what he was expected to do there. To that Question the usual answer was received—that he was sent out on important and delicate business. Well, Sir, one important Question which was asked then has been asked again to night, in very forcible language, by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). That Question was not answered then, it has not been answered to-night, and I venture to say that it cannot be answered. It is this:—Is Sir Evelyn Baring able to do his business or not? He receives a salary of £5,000 a-year; he is not there as the special Representative of Her Majesty's Government only, but is supposed to be an experienced and able diplomatist. I would, however, point out that General Gordon entertained a different idea of his ability in that respect. But, however that may be, Sir Evelyn Baring has resided in Egypt since the commencement of these negotiations, and if he is able to do the work at all he ought to be able to carry it out by this time. We are now building a palace for him, and notwithstanding the fact that we are called on to pay £5,000 a-year we are also called upon to send out this other diplomatist, and to pay for his maintenance in Egypt and Constantinople. No attempt has been made since Sir Henry Drummond Wolff was sent out to Egypt to reply to the question why both these gentlemen should be kept in Egypt at the same time. It seems to me to be perfectly plain that either Sir Henry Drummond Wolff or Sir Evelyn Baring should come back to this country. Which of them should return is a matter for the Government to decide, although I believe there are many men in this country, and probably a still greater number in Egypt, who think that both should come back. I only allude to Sir Evelyn Baring in connection with this question incidentally, and because I think the time has come when we should require that a distinct
    1476
    pledge should be given that either one or other of the salaries now being paid to these gentlemen should cease, and that one or the other of them should return to this country. We have asked over and over again the question—What is the Government doing in Egypt? It is very hard to find, after all the despatches which have been sent, what it is that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff is doing. It cannot be that he is in Egypt for the purpose of sending home information, because you have your Agents there al ready for that purpose. We are told that he is conducting delicate and difficult negotiations. What are those negotiations? It is stated in The Times to day in a telegram that the Porte has again urged on Sir Henry Drummond Wolff that a definite date should be fixed for the withdrawal of the English troops from Egypt. If that is true I am not surprised at it, in view of what has occurred during the last few years. I do not wonder that the Porte should be getting impatient with the continuance of English troops in Egypt. This question has been raised over and over again; and if the Government are prepared to say that their object in keeping Sir Henry Drummond Wolff in his present position, and in paying him on an exceedingly high scale in that position, is to bring about an arrangement that on a specified day which shall be named the British troops shall be withdrawn, I certainly should not vote against the payment of his salary. But when we look back on the history of this question I may be pardoned for asking that some specific statement should be made with regard to it. So long ago as February, 1883, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) spoke in this House, in reply to a Question as to how long we were going to remain in the occupation of Egypt, to this effect—
    "I would say, without venturing to speak with absolute assurance, that the right hon. Gentleman, in the first period of time he suggested, has stated with probable accuracy the length of time that it may be necessary to keep our troops in Egypt."—(3 Hansard, [276] 123.)
    That period, as stated by the late Lord Iddesleigh, then Sir Stafford Northcote, was six months. That was the 15th of February, 1883. Since then four years have elapsed, and instead of getting nearer to the withdrawal of the British troops we are infinitely further away

    1477
    from that end than we were in the month of February, 1883. So far as anyone who has studied the history of these different transactions can arrive at a conclusion, our progress in the direction of that object, which, has been declared to be the aim of all Ministers, both Conservative and Liberal, when in Office—namely, to get the British troops out of Egypt as soon as possible, has been backward in stead of forward, and as time rolls by the accomplishment of that end appears to become more and more hopeless. On the 10th of August, 1883, a Question was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) to the then First Lord of the Treasury, the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Morley) asked what chance there was that the Government would carry out the pledge given by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) early in that Session, and the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian extends over three pages of Hansard. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that their intention to evacuate Egypt in the autumn of 1883 was interrupted by the advent of cholera, which somewhat delayed the re-organization of the Egyptian Army. Well, the cholera came and went, and still the British Army remained there, and in that year the famous Mission of Lord Dufferin was sent out; and I was greatly surprised to hear an hon. Gentleman just now justifying the present Government in continuing to waste money on the Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, on the ground that previous Governments have sent expensive Missions to report and give advice, and that they never acted on a particle of the advice given. It is a fact, Sir, that every single one of the Missions to Egypt have ended in smoke, and how that can justify this Government in continuing the present Mission I am at a loss to understand. Why, Sir, is not anyone, who has made a study of Egyptian affairs, perfectly aware of this—that Lord Dufferin went to Egypt and produced a most valuable and detailed Report as the result of Ms exertions, and that, no doubt, this Committee was called upon to vote large sums for his support? Not one single part of that Report has been acted upon. Lord
    1478
    Dufferin went and came, and when his Report was thrown into the waste-paper basket Lord Northbrook was sent to Egypt. I have studied his Report; it is a most interesting document; and if it had been acted upon it would have resulted, unquestionably, in great relief to the taxpayers of Egypt. Lord North-brook also had to be paid for; but not one single representation which he made has been acted upon. Are we to be told that, because money was wasted on Lord Dufferin's Mission, and money was wasted on Lord Northbrook's Mission, and money was wasted on the still more sad and fatal Mission of General Gordon, we are to waste money on a fourth Mission? If the Member of the Government who is to defend this Mission is able to stand up and say that the Mission will be of any good to Egypt or to England, there will be some ground for asking the Committee to adopt this Vote. Unless that can be done, it is a scandal and shame that the evils of your administration of Egypt, which are evils crying to Heaven for vengeance, can be hidden behind these Missions. We know what the object of sending Missions to Egypt is. It is that you are able to say that you cannot give Parliament any in formation about Egypt until such and such a Mission has come to a close. What about Lord Dufferin's Report; what about Lord Northbrook's Report; and what about General Gordon's Mission? The result of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Mission will be just the same as that of the foregoing Missions. If he makes a single recommendation which is of benefit to the people, as soon as his Report is received you will send out another Commissioner. I cannot understand how the people of England submit to this kind of thing. So long as they do, the real and only true explanation of these Missions is to be found in the fact that this House undertakes to govern a country like Egypt, and will not take the trouble to study the question. Hon. Members support the Government in carrying on these operations in Egypt; but of all the Members of the House are there 10—well, perhaps, I exaggerate when I ask are there 10—are there 25—who have read the history of this Egyptian Question? How many have read Mr. Cave's Report; how many have studied the particulars of Mr. Goschen's Mission;

    1479
    how many know of the Convention which regulates Egyptian finance; how many know of the London Conference; how many have studied the long history of these transactions which have led up, step by step, to the ruin and bankruptcy of Egypt; and how many, having studied that history, have come to the conclusion that I have done, that special Missions to Egypt are neither more nor less than a convenient cloak for Ministers to protect themselves from criticism in this House? I maintain that if it were possible to get the people of England, or even the Members of this House, to study the Egyptian Question as they would study a question in which their own pockets were interested—and, indeed, their own pockets are affected in this Egyptian matter, if they could only realize it—they would not tolerate the present state of affairs for six months, or would not rest satisfied until the last British soldier had left Alexandria. Believe me, that when the last British soldier has left Alexandria the whole of this Egyptian business will be condemned on all sides, as the Zulu War was condemned. I re member the time when a man who condemned the Zulu Expedition was regarded as a traitor; but opinions have altered now. So it will be with respect to this Egyptian business. The interests of individuals are so great in Egypt that, as long as you continue to pay Ambassadors these enormous salaries, so long will excuse after excuse be found for postponing the evacuation of Egypt. There are some men who are deter mined that the British soldiers shall never evacuate Egypt, in order that these great interests shall be protected and these large salaries paid, and the hateful system maintained of governing a far-off country, whose affairs we cannot understand, and, therefore, must hand them over to men who may be honest or dishonest, but whom this House is utterly unable to control or to hold responsible for their actions.
    COLONEL DUNCAN: I do not wish to intrude for more than one moment upon the attention of the Committee; but having supported this Vote in the last Parliament, and also in the first Session of the present Parliament, I desire to say that though I shall again support the Vote, because I think we must trust our Executive,
    1480
    whoever they are, still I do think the time has come when we might minimize our diplomatic powers in Egypt. I think that the retention of both Sir Evelyn Baring and of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff is a superfluous use of our power. It is immaterial to me which of these gentlemen is retained; but I presume that Sir Henry Drummond Wollf, of the two, has the greater knowledge of the East and is the better diplomatist. Sir Evelyn Baring is an eminent financier; but we have already a great financier in Egypt, whose name appears in connection with the recent arrangement of the financial affairs of Egypt—Mr. Edgar Vincent. Therefore, I think we might well leave Sir Henry Drummond Wolff alone, or Sir Evelyn Baring might receive instructions to devote his attention to the subjects which have hitherto occupied Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as to the result of the various Missions to Egypt, and I know of none more useful than that of Lord Dufferin. But, all the same, I do agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dillon) that the taxpayers of this country have paid quite enough for this sort of double Mission; and I hope Her Majesty's Government, in obtaining this Vote for Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, will give us some assurance as to when we shall reduce our diplomatic force in Egypt.
    MR. ATKINSON: As an independent Member of this House, I should like to point out that hon. Members opposite seem to assume that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff was sent out to Egypt without the knowledge of the House of Commons, or of Parliament generally, or of the country. Those who have watched the matter from the first know perfectly well that every Member of Parliament, both in this and the other House, approved of the sending out of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, and that if they disapproved of the Mission they did not raise their voices against it. Under such circumstances, it is very unseemly and quite out of date for hon. Members opposite to get up now and denounce Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. They should, as true Englishmen or Britons, having approved the Mission—the majority of them, at all events, and l9-20ths of the people of the country approved the Mission—they should

    1481
    pay the bill and be quite satisfied. Sir Henry Drummond Wolff does not require any words from me in vindication of his conduct; but I maintain that his conduct has been satisfactory from the first. It is only a little waste of time, or another mode of Obstruction for hon. Gentlemen—
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I rise to Order. I desire to ask the Chairman whether the hon. Gentleman is right in terming the opposition I have offered to this Vote a mode of Obstruction?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in Order in imputing motives of that kind.
    MR. ATKINSON: I beg to say that I do not impute any motive, and I do not refer to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) in any way whatever. I listened to the hon. Member's speech, and I was pleased with the manner in which it was delivered; but if I was pleased with the manner in which it was delivered, I disagreed entirely with the matter of the speech. As my opinions upon it have been challenged, I say—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentle man will not be in Order in continuing these remarks.
    MR. ATKINSON: Then, how is it possible to debate? I suppose I must throw myself upon the Committee, and say that, at all events, I have a right, as a taxpayer and as a Representative, to express on behalf of myself and my constituents thorough satisfaction with the work Sir Henry Drummond Wolff has done, and dissatisfaction at the criticisms which have been in such an un-English way directed against the Mission of that gentleman. I hope the Committee will vote in such an English way as will satisfy Sir Henry Drummond Wolff that there are plenty of us ready to defend him in his absence. I shall always be ready to do so.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Mr. Chairman, there are some speeches which one always expects to finish with "Rule Britannia!" and to that class belongs the speech which we have just heard. The hon. Gentleman asks how we are to debate in this House. I will tell him. If he has nothing pertinent to say he had better not say anything.
    MR. ATKINSON: I rise to Order, Mr. Chairman; I think that that is very impertinent.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman's argument is that because there is no protest against Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's going out to Egypt, we ought consistently to pay a salary of £12,000 year after year to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. Sir Henry Drummond "Wolff went out, as the hon. Member and all of us know, on a temporary Mission. It was fully understood in all parts of the House that it was a temporary Mission. At the same time, if I remember rightly, when Sir Henry Drummond Wolff did go out there was no Ambassador at Constantinople, but only a Chargéd'Affaires. We cannot extend a temporary Mission year after year at this very great cost to the country. I fully acknowledge that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff is a very able diplomatist, and I have no doubt that he will render good services; but surely, if the Government think that he is worthy of some thing being done for him, they ought not to allow him to go on in this way cadging on the Treasury, but appoint him to some permanent place abroad. I hope we shall have some distinct under standing that this temporary Mission will cease, because it is becoming a permanent one. We have an Ambassador at Constantinople, and a Consul General at Cairo. Both of these officials are very highly paid. Sir William White has the reputation of being a gentleman who thoroughly understands Eastern affairs, and Sir Evelyn Baring we have heard again and again praised in this House. It is clear that if we have Sir Evelyn Baring at Cairo, and we have Sir William White at Constantinople, we really do not want, notwithstanding his great abilities, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff gravitating from one to the other. There is no use crying over spilt milk. We shall divide as a protest. At the same time, we ought to have a clear understanding that this Mission will cease, and that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, if the Government think it right that he should be provided for, shall be provided for by his appointment to some position which will be chargeable to the ordinary Estimates.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Mr. Chairman, the discussion has travelled some way from the Supplementary Vote for Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's

    1483
    Mission At the same time, I certainly must recognize that there is hardly any part of the Egyptian Question which has arisen since this Mission which may not be in some way identified with Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's work. And if I am successful, as I hope I shall be, in satisfying the Committee that the time of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff has not been wasted, but occupied with really most important affairs which are likely to produce very valuable results, I think that neither the Committee nor Sir Henry Drummond Wolff himself will have any reason to complain of the discussion on this Vote having been some what extended. I think it due to the hon. Members who have spoken to notice the different points which they have taken up. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who spoke first, asked why there are Supplementary Votes. In some cases Supplementary Votes are necessary, because unexpected circumstances have occurred; but in this case a Supplementary Vote is necessary, because the Mission has extended over a longer period than was provided for originally. We shall have presently to give some reasons why the Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff has been extended beyond what was at first contemplated. It must be evident to the Committee that since the Mission has been extended, we are obliged to ask for more money in respect of it. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) asked a question of some importance, and one which he is thoroughly justified in asking, having regard to the Papers presented to Parliament upon the affairs of Egypt. The hon. Gentleman referred to some despatches in a Blue Book of last year which appeared to show that a further expenditure had been contemplated in connection with Suakin, and that this expenditure was expressly approved of by Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. It is true, Sir Frederick Stephenson contemplated the existence of a special force in defence of Suakin, and that the expenses connected with a part of that force were to be borne by Her Majesty's Government. It is also true that the then Secretary of State acknowledged the intention of undertaking that liability. That, of course, took place in a former Administration; but, at the same time, the position is quite plain. In the first
    1484
    place, at that time the frontiers of Fgypt required a much larger defensive force than at present; and it was absolutely necessary, inasmuch as Her Majesty's Government had undertaken the charge of the military operations in Egypt, that the expenses of the defence of the frontier should be incurred. There was no binding engagement on this country, for it was never communicated to the Government of Egypt.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: The right hon. Baronet is mistaken; the Representative of Egypt—Watson Pasha—announced the sum in Paper, No. 77.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I am sure that it was never announced to the Government of Egypt that Her Majesty's Government would undertake a permanent charge of £56,000 for the defence of Suakin, and even if there was such an engagement we should not be called upon to fulfil it, because the charge will not amount this year to so large a sum. The efforts of Her Majesty's Government, which I hope are now accomplished, or are in course of early accomplishment, have been directed to the bringing of the military expenditure of Egypt within the means of the Government. I can assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bradlaugh) that, although it was contemplated by the General commanding in Egypt in 1886 that a portion of the expenses of the defence of Suakin should be undertaken by Her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's Government are really under no obligation to undertake it. Then the hon. Member went on to speak of the stores which were supplied to the Government of Egypt by this country. Well, Sir, I must say that we are going into rather ancient history; but the fact is that it was necessary to assist the Government of Egypt in defending their frontier, and the result of our assistance was that we were able to put down the invasion of Egypt Proper, and that the country enjoys such tranquillity now. The alternative course would have been not to have given stores and not to have given troops, and, I suppose, to have allowed the tide of invasion to roll over the civilized part of Egypt. Her Majesty's Government of that day did not think that that would have been a justifiable course, or consistent with our Mission, in Egypt. The hon. Member asks, and several others have asked, why was Sir

    1485
    Henry Drummond Wolff sent to Egypt at all? Sir Henry Drummond Wolff was sent out originally to arrange a Convention with the Government of Turkey, in order that a Turkish Commissioner should be sent with him to Egypt with power to investigate the administration of the finances of that country, and to provide for the future of Egypt, and to take into consideration other matters mentioned in the Convention. Perhaps I may as well at this stage as at any other notice what the duties of the Commissioners were, and this will enable me to show the Committee that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff has been of some real service in Egypt, and has laid down the foundation of reform which I trust will bear abundant fruit. The 2nd Article of the Convention, which was concluded in October, 1885, provided that the High Commissioner of Turkey and the High Commissioner of England should deliberate upon the general settlement of Egyptian affairs. Egyptian affairs, as I could show the Committee, have been constantly the subject of discussion between the Khedive himself, Nubar Pasha, Moukhtar Pasha, and Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. One of the first things done in pursuing the inquiry which this Imperial Commission conducted was to send Shurdi Pasha to Wady Haifa, from which place he has sent most important representations upon the state of the country beyond Wady Halfa—Reports which have enabled the Government to place only that amount of force upon the frontier which was absolutely necessary. By the 3rd Article of the Convention, the two High Commissioners were to organize, in concert with His Highness the Khedive, the Egyptian Army. Well, we have already laid on the Table the Correspondence with Moukhtar Pasha on this subject. The cost of the Forces, Native and British, has been constantly under discussion, and are now about to be brought to a settlement. But the most important head under which the position of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff may be viewed is the 4th Article of the Convention, which provides that the two High Commissioners in concert with the Khedive, were to examine into all the branches of Egyptian Administration, and introduce in them the modifications which might be considered necessary. The time has come when
    1486
    I am able to present to Parliament some Papers with which Sir Henry Drummond Wolff has furnished Her Majesty's Government, and my conviction is that when these Papers have been read by hon. Members, some Gentlemen who have talked slightingly of his Mission, and have attached very little value to it, will be rather ashamed of what they have said. I am prepared to say that the skill, the research, the force manifested in these Papers by Sir Henry Drummond Wolff will impress everyone who reads them. In these Papers Sir Henry Drummond Wolff lays the foundations of reforms in the Government of Egypt, and follows up the labours of those who went before him, which show, in a comprehensive way, the evils which afflict the Government of Egypt, and the manifest remedies that ought to be applied. The Papers deal with various subjects. Sir Henry Drummond Wolff reports upon the working of the Capitulations, and in various respects. He deals with the question of the administration of justice; with the causes of losses on Customs. He deals with the Post Office, and also with the difficulties of administration by reason of the many function aries imposed upon it by foreign Powers. He goes on, in further Papers, to point out the grievous burden which the great number of foreign officials inflict upon the resources of Egypt likewise. He like wise points out the result of the legislative alterations which were instituted by Lord Dufferin, and which, though not carried out to the full, have produced valuable benefits. He calls attention to the enormous abuses of the existing systems of pensions, and shows how they might be commuted. He presents a picture of the terrible incidence of the Egyptian debts, and indicates the manner in which the burden may be lightened. In the very last month, on the eve of his departure for Constantinople, where he intended to report to Her Majesty's Government the result of his labours, he presented most important Papers relating to the condition of the Egyptian railways, which prove the manifest need of a different form of management. Had we not had so much before us to be done I am sure I could have interested the Committee very much by giving them some sketches from those Papers. On every one of

    1487
    these subjects I have named Sir Henry Drummond Wolff has brought to light the enormous evils I have referred to, and shown their ramifications through every department of the administration and government of Egypt.
    MR. DILLON: Will these Papers be presented to the House?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I stated that the Papers would be laid before Parliament. One of the Capitulations has existed during the past 700 years. The oldest of them is 700 years old. The English Capitulation is more than 300 years old, and so forth. There are 17 or 18 of them altogether, and their result is to interfere very much with the power of the Rulers of Egypt in almost every particular, crippling them to the utmost, and depriving them, I may say, of all respect in the eyes of their subjects. I will do no more than mention these subjects; but what I have stated to the Committee, as to the value of these documents, I state with the full consciousness of the responsibility I take upon myself, that I believe that my description of these Papers will be realized when hon. Members get them into their hands.
    Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: When will they be in the hands of Members?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: As I stated to the Committee, they will be presented immediately. Then there are other matters. There is the question, for instance, of International and Consular Tribunals, which forms a subject of considerable difficulty and delicacy, and these and smaller measures require the exercise of great skill in dealing with them. Again, there is the Article relating to the withdrawal of the British troops from Egypt at a convenient period, which has to be arranged. Now, what I have to state is this—that the withdrawal of the British troops and the withdrawal of the British Government from Egypt depends entirely on the extent to which these reforms can be carried out, and by what time the Government of Egypt can be made self-sustaining and self-reliant. So long as Egypt has this grievous burden laid upon it by foreign expenditure, so long as it is unable to preserve order within its own boundaries, and to make foreigners who live in the country pay their full share of the taxes of the country; and so long as the just
    1488
    balance of Revenue and Expenditure are dependent on the resources of the country, and there are no means to develop those resources, so long would our departure be the signal for fresh disorders, and for the return either of ourselves or of some other Power to the country. I do not think Her Majesty's Government would be wise and loyal if they were to give a pledge to the House as to an early period of withdrawal with out having, in the first place, secured the means of carrying out the duties they have undertaken as to the Government of Egypt, and have enabled that Government to maintain itself satisfactorily. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) complained of delays in opening the Soudan trade. If he meant the words he used—if he spoke seriously when he referred to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's neglecting this measure in consequence of being engaged with festivities, and not paying attention to it until urged thereto by the arrival of German traders, I must say that his observations are hardly worth noticing. In the last Blue Book there are, no doubt, contradictory recommendations. At one time Sir Henry Drummond Wolff is sanguine as to be able to open up trade with the Soudan at an early period. Then, at a later period—in August, 1886, I think—he says it will be premature to do so. Circumstances changed, and influenced his opinion. But the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. S. Williamson) referred to Colonel Grove's recommendation. He said that Colonel Grove was sent out to Egypt to inquire as to the prudence of re-opening trade with the Soudan, as if a Special Commissioner at Cairo and a Consul General were not sufficient to prosecute any such investigation. I think it was no wonder, looking at the divergent views expressed, that Her Majesty's Government—the Government of the day—sent out an officer in whom they had confidence to give an opinion on the matter; but I do not find that Colonel Grove recommended that the trade should be re-opened at once. He said—"It would, I think, be premature to raise the existing blockade at the present moment." He did not report in favour of the immediate re-opening of the trade with the Soudan; but this I will say—that since Lord Salisbury took Office in July last, Her Majesty's Government have been extremely desirous

    1489
    of re-opening this trade at the earliest possible moment; but the best advice showed that it would not be prudent to do so until the Nile had fallen, and there was no fear of an advance by the rebels. When we were satisfied that the rebels had lost heart and had fallen back, and when the opening of trade would not be attended with risk, but, on the contrary, with good encouragement to the tribes who were in rapid succession seeking to renew their intercourse with Egypt, then the trade was to be re-opened. Now, I am rather surprised at the line taken by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), because one would have thought, from his statement, that every country that bad to do with Egypt was right but ourselves. The French, he said, had a much greater interest in Egypt than we had; and, there fore, we should not seek to manage that country, but should leave it to France.
    MR. GOURLEY: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I said we ought to consider the susceptibilities of France with regard to the future government of Egypt, rather than the opinions of the Turk, in the same way as France considered the susceptibilities of England during the Anglo-French negotiations for the commercial control of the Suez Canal.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I hope Her Majesty's Government have considered, not only the susceptibilities, but the rights of the various Powers besides their own. There has been no desire on the part of England to gain any exclusive advantage over any other Power. We have recognized the susceptibilities of France; and if we could be at all successful in restoring Egypt to prosperity, and putting her in a position to exercise self-government, we shall hope that all nations will reap advantage as well as ourselves. But Sir Henry Drummond Wolff is not now in Egypt, but in Constantinople, where he is fulfilling part of the task submitted to him—namely, the negotiations with regard to what has been called the ulterior Convention. It was contemplated, under the 6th Article of the Convention of 1885, that as soon as an inquiry had been finished the Convention should be considered. That is the object of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's visit to Constantinople now. He is occupied in making a proposal to the Sublime Porte,
    1490
    with the knowledge of the Representatives of the other European Powers, in regard to measures which it may be hoped will greatly improve the condition of Egypt, and will remove many of the evils which he has done so much to expose, and which will enable Her Majesty's Government to bring to an end their occupation of Egypt in a manner which will not expose the country to renewed risks. But the Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff has been, no doubt, more extended than was at first contemplated; but no one knows better than the hon. Member for Northampton that the affairs of the East are not conducted in a hurry. It is absolutely beyond dispute that if we were to leave Egypt in haste at the present moment we should go away without our work having been accomplished. I believe I may say that great advantage has been gained by the inquiry having been conducted by a person who had established personal relations with the Sultan's Ministers, and who has brought back to the Sultan the result of his negotiations in Egypt. Sir Henry Drummond Wolff possesses, I believe, the very highest qualifications for dealing with Orientals. He has patience, he has tact, and he has determination; and I think that when the House of Commons has seen the Reports he has sent from Egypt, hon. Members will recognize that he possesses talents of a very high order. But hon. Members may ask us, was it necessary to send Sir Henry Drummond Wolff to Egypt, when we were represented there by an able Minister, and when at the Porte we were represented by an able Ambassador? Well, Sir, both these officers have special duties to perform. The duties of Ambassador at the Porte, and the duties of Agent and Consul General in Egypt are very onerous, and are continuous. The Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff was to aid in a special investigation; and though we sometimes send a Commissioner to inquire into the working of a great Department in this country, that does not supersede the necessity of having a Minister at the head of that Department. An investigation of this sort, to be valuable, must be done by someone outside the Executive; and Sir Evelyn Baring has been constantly and heavily weighted with the duty of advising the Government of Egypt.

    1491
    But, as I have said, the main advantage which has been gained by Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Mission has been not only the conduct of that inquiry, but its representation of us at Constantinople. As to the duration of that Mission, I cannot fix a definite limit; but I should like to tell the House this—that the negotiations at Constantinople have now arrived at a stage which gives great promise of success. There have been rivalries and jealousies, as is natural between great Powers under circumstances like the present; but these rivalries and jealousies have never attained a force which threatened an interruption of friendly relations. The Powers have, with great generosity, refrained from pressing Her Majesty's Government on this matter; and now that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's proposals have been presented to the Porte, and have been made known to the Representatives of the other Powers, I can say that no Powers have opposed, while some Powers have supported them, and that even those Powers which might have been expected not to accept the proposals so readily, have not only offered no active opposition, but have attached conditions to their acceptance which are by no means insuperable. I say that the result of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's negotiations gives good promise of success; but that if these negotiations were to be interrupted by the action of this House, or if it were shown that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff is not supported by a decisive majority of this House, so as to leave it in doubt whether or not he was supported by public opinion, it would be a great public misfortune. Let me remind the House of the manner in which this matter was left by the late Government. On the 6th of May, 1886, the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) said that—
    "Matters connected with the missions and communications between Moukhtar Pasha and Sir Henry Wolff continue as before; but they have not yet reached a stage at which it would be possible with convenience to present them to Parliament."—(3 Hansard, [305] 379.)
    Well, May, 1886, is not March, 1887, and I am not going to rely too much on that statement. The right hon. Gentleman recognized that though Sir Henry Drummond Wolff had been sent out by his Predecessors, the operations in which
    1492
    he was engaged were of so difficult a nature that it would be rash to disturb him. These negotiations have been carried on since, and I trust we may be allowed to bring them to a successful issue. I therefore hope I may appeal to the Committee not to grudge the money which is required to pay the expenses of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Mission up to the close of the financial year.
    MR. BRYCE: I think everyone in the House must feel that there was ample reason for bringing forward opposition to this Vote; and I think a great deal has been said in the course of the debate to show that on both sides of the House, though of course more palpably on this side, there exists great dissatisfaction with the present position of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Mission. Something has been said as to the action of the late Government in not recalling Sir Henry Drummond Wolff when they came into Office. I admit that that is a fair remark to make; but the hon. Gentleman who made it must remember that when the late Government came into Office, a little more than a year ago, they were aware from the first that their tenure of Office was very uncertain, and that it was extremely doubtful that it would last for more than two or three months. In point of fact, it continued about six months, and some time was necessary to enable the Government to understand how things stood in regard to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Mission. When the requisite inquiries had been completed, and we were in a position to act, the General Election was so near that it scarcely seemed our duty—knowing that we were going to the country—to take the step of interrupting Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's negotiations. That is now more than eight months ago; and as the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down very properly said, May, 1886, is a very different thing to March, 1887. We did not contemplate, when we allowed Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's negotiations to go on, that his Mission would have lasted nearly so long as it has now lasted; and I gather from the conduct of the Government in not proposing this Vote in the Autumn Session for the whole current year that they did not intend that it should go on even up to now. If I am wrong I hope I shall be corrected; but

    1493
    I think that is a reasonable interpretation to put upon their conduct. The Mission, including Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's salary and all the incidental expenses, comes to more than £15,000 a-year, and the Mission has now lasted for about 19 months, a much longer period than any of those other Missions to which the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) referred. A good deal has been said as to the respective functions of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff and Sir Evelyn Baring. It is true—and it seems to me that that might have been stated more fully—that the distribution of duties between these two gentlemen has effected some economy of time and labour. No doubt it was better that Sir Evelyn Baring should under take the financial business and the direction, so far as it rested with our Representative, of the ordinary affairs of the country, while the diplomatic and military questions were dealt with by Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. To that extent there was, no doubt, a certain saving of time and labour; but, at the same time, it seems to me that the saving and economy has been very far from such as is represented by the sum of £15,000 a-year. The right hon. Gentleman opposite also refers to these Reports by Sir Henry Drummond Wolff that he proposes to lay on the Table. I have no doubt that these Reports will be very interesting, and will contain in a concise and summary form much of that information which the House now finds it so difficult to obtain from the scattered despatches and documents in the Blue Books. I have no doubt that a view of those questions ranging from the period which has elapsed since the time of the Sultan Saladin will be historically interesting; but I must take leave to doubt if the Reports that we are to enjoy the reading of will be fairly worth £15,000 a-year, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman opposite ought not to rest his case on that. It seems to me that it would be very easy to get admirable Reports as good as these from persons not occupying the highest posts in the Civil Service of this country at a very much smaller charge than is proposed in this Vote. I conclude, therefore, for all these reasons, that the right hon. Gentleman has given no sufficient justification for this Vote.
    1494
    I cannot find either that the work Sir Henry Drummond Wolff does or the Reports he writes the Government, giving him the utmost credit for his diplomatic skill, and for the amount of study he has bestowed upon the question, is an excuse for continuing to spend £15,000 a-year on his Mission. Has there been any reason shown by the right hon. Gentleman why this Vote should not be rejected? If the case stood merely as I have put it so far, I should find it quite impossible not to vote for a reduction; but the right hon. Gentleman, in the last few minutes of his speech, told us what I thought was a far more important thing than anything he had said in the earlier portion of it. He told us, with all the responsibility of a Member of the Executive Government, that the negotiations Sir Henry Drummond Wolff was conducting had reached a point at which the Government expected an immediate and important result from them. He said of the attitude of various Powers that even some of those Powers from which opposition might have been expected were not unfavourably disposed to the proposals which Sir Henry Drummond Wolff had been instructed to make, and that the Government had reason to believe that a successful end would soon be reached. I also under stood the right hon. Gentleman to say—and he will correct me if I misunderstood him—that Her Majesty's Government were directing their efforts entirely to wards the speedy evacuation of Egypt. I understood him to put his case thus: if we were to refuse the Vote it would have the effect of weakening the hands of Her Majesty's Government in endeavouring to bring about that object. I am aware that there were certain conditions which have not yet been fulfilled which are necessary in order to enable the evacuation to take place—that certain reforms have to be completed and certain arrangements to be made. But I understood him to repeat the assurance, given in debate three weeks ago, that the whole object of the Government is to effect these reforms, so as to enable this country to withdraw from Egypt as soon as we can possibly do so, with out endangering the prospects of the tranquillity of that country. If that is so, I am bound to say we are put in a very difficult position. When the Executive Government come to this

    1495
    House and, with their full responsibility, tell us that by weakening their hands at this moment we should inflict what the right hon. Gentleman calls a great public misfortune upon the country, I can not undertake the responsibility of weakening their hands in that way. I think it impossible, if the Executive Government tell us they have reasonable grounds for believing that they are within a short time of bringing their negotiations to a satisfactory close, and if they assure us that the objects of these negotiations are exactly what we ourselves desire them to be, I say it will be impossible, or at any rate difficult and inconsistent with established practice in regard to the management of foreign policy, to withdraw our confidence and support from them at the critical moment. But there is one point upon which I think they ought to have given us a more explicit assurance. On looking into the Estimates for next year we find an amount put down for Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Mission. I have no Paper by me at this moment, but I believe it is £10,000—that is to say, £10,000 to commence on the 1st of April next. If that be so, and if my recollection is right, that is rather an important element in the Vote, because it seems to imply that Her Majesty's Government, in framing their Estimates for the coming year, contemplated a continuance of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff for at least a considerable part of the year. I do not think that sufficient reason has been given by the right hon. Gentleman to justify such a continuance. It is true that is not what we are called upon to vote upon on the present occasion; but I think that the right hon. Gentleman or some other Member of the Government should assure us that they intend to make the continuance of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Mission rather an affair of weeks than of months. The Mission has extended already over a period of 19 months, and such a Mission to an Eastern Court is likely to go on indefinitely, unless there is some positive undertaking given as to when it may be expected to terminate. I therefore appeal to the Government to give us some information on that point. Are we to expect, if we do not now insist on the reduction of this Vote, that the Government will be encouraged to continue this Mission,
    1496
    or are we to have a pledge that the Government will bring it to an early close, and that they will relieve the country from this expenditure? However great Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's talents may be, and however important the end in view, I must repeat that the results of his Mission have not been, and have not seemed to us at all likely to be, commensurate with the heavy cost which that Mission throws upon the country.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: There is only one point upon which I wish further to trouble the Committee; but it is one on which I absolutely disagree with the right hon. Baronet who has addressed the Committee, and on which I think there should be some further explanation. The charge I made with reference to Suakin was a specific charge—namely, that the Government had pledged itself to a payment of £56,000, and to a payment besides that of £11,000. I under stand the right hon. Baronet to say that if there was a payment at all that payment was limited to one year.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I said it was true that at the time it was contemplated by the Government that a payment might be necessary for a longer period, if the Egyptian Government could not afford to undertake it them selves. I said that for the defence of Egypt it was necessary that Her Majesty's Government should undertake it; but I said that I was sure that Her Majesty's Government had never come under an engagement to the Egyptian Government to continue it annually when the necessity for the payment being undertaken by us had gone by.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I understand the right hon. Baronet to admit now that there was a specific engagement to pay for one year?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The Secretary of State for War undertook that responsibility to the General commanding in Egypt, who proposed that Her Majesty's Government should undertake the charge, and I believe there was no engagement given to the Egyptian Government to that effect.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: The right hon. Baronet is mistaken. It was not a proposition by General Stephenson to the English Government; but it was a clear direction by the Secretary of State for War for the time being to our Repre-

    1497
    sentative in Egypt. It was not any matter of the former Government—it was a matter in which the present Leader of the House gave specific directions in writing. He being then Secretary of State for War, expressly desired that a certain engagement should be carried out. Acting under this direction, General Stephenson tried to carry out the arrangements, and succeeded in carrying them out; and the details are given in Despatch No. 89, and in the enclosure to that Despatch. It is as follows:—
    "With reference to Major Lennox's letter to you (that is to Sir Evelyn Baring) of the 24th December, 1885, I have to inform you that the Secretary of State for War was desirous that the Egyptian Government should raise two additional battalions to operate with the Egyptian Army, the charge for which would be borne by the British Government. I have to inform you that Her Majesty's Government has now authorized the following Egyptian troops for service at Suakin, the charge for which will also be borne by the British Government."
    The troops are then specified, and the despatch goes on to say that Her Majesty's Government undertakes to meet the annual cost of the above force to the extent of £56,440, in addition to the sum of £5,000 for first equipment. But the right hon. Baronet says that there was no communication to the Egyptian Government. Again the right hon. Baronet must be mistaken. If it were not communicated to the Egyptian Government, the Egyptian Government must have found it out without its being communicated to them. Because, although I admit there is no despatch laid before Parliament which shows that, yet it is true there is a despatch signed by Watson Pasha, acting on behalf of the Egyptian Government, which says that the garrison at Suakin has now to be paid for by the British Government. It is, I think, impossible that this should not have been communicated. On the contrary, the evidence is over whelming that it was communicated, and I will show you why. If the Egyptian Government did not know that we had agreed to pay £56,440 a-year, they could not have increased their demand by £11,000. But having made that demand the Government have increased the Estimate for this Service to the sum which is the subject of this discussion. Writing on the 12th of April General Stephenson said that the last demand of the Egyptian Government had been
    1498
    raised from £11,000 to £16,440. It is, therefore, simply impossible that the Egyptian Government should not have known of the engagement. The right hon. Baronet says that the sum has now been reduced to £35,000 a-year. Does he mean that this year we only pay £35,000? If he does mean that, his explanation lacked frankness; if he did not mean that, what can be the advantage of telling us that the £73,000 which we had agreed to pay is now to be reduced to £35,000? It is true that the right hon. Baronet says agreed does not mean agreed; that undertake does not mean undertake; and that it was only contemplated, not that the Government had said, that the engagement should be carried out. If the right hon. Baronet means only that the Government thought about this and were not going to do it, I submit that the language used by him may be characterized as trifling with this House.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Northampton should be so angry with me. I have endeavoured to explain the position as well as I could, having received no Notice of this matter.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg the right hon. Baronet's pardon—I gave full Notice. I gave Notice on the Address, that I intended to raise this question, which Notice, probably, the Government treated with the contempt they thought it deserved.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: At all events there was no Notice on the Paper, and words dropped in debate are sometimes overlooked; but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing was farther from my mind than to treat his Question with contempt. I have endeavoured to answer him as fully as I can on this point. Circumstances at all events have changed. At the time referred to there were 17,000 or 18,000 men in the Egyptian Army, and the number was far beyond what the Revenues of Egypt could bear. Her Majesty's Government offered to bear a certain proportion of the expense, particularly in connection with Suakin; but happily times have changed very much for the better. Consequently it is now unnecessary to retain that Force, or that Her Majesty's Government should under take to pay any portion of the cost of the Force at Suakin.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have stated in this House that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff is conducting negotiations which the hon. Member for Northampton himself has recognized as being of a difficult, if not of an important character. We have the greatest possible hope that these negotiations will be attended with the result which we desire and anticipate. The hon. Member asks the Government to specify a date within which these negotiations shall be concluded. My right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has indicated sufficiently the character of these negotiations, and the result we hope to obtain by them; and I think the Committee will feel that it would be impossible for me or any Member of the Government to indicate at the present moment any period at which the negotiations will be terminated. Reference has been made to the Estimates of the coming year. With reference to those, I venture to say that we are actuated by the desire not to have a Supplementary Estimate under this head under any circumstances what ever. I am sure the Committee will feel why it is impossible for us to speak more confidently than we have upon this subject. Great progress has been made. We have indicated to the House more than once the conditions under which we felt we had duties to discharge in Egypt, and when those duties are discharged we shall retire with complete satisfaction at having carried out the work we undertook, and which I believe this House and the country have fully at heart.
    DR. CLARK: Mr. Courtney, I feel bound to protest against the policy which Her Majesty's Government intend to carry out in Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State (Sir James Fergusson) has told us that England does not wish to derive any special advantage to herself in Egypt; he tells us that we went to Egypt to restore order in the country. But the feeling which many people have is that, in order to restore order, we have laid down conditions which will keep us in Egypt until the Millennium; the policy of the Government seems to be one which will necessarily compel us to remain in Egypt as long as there is an Egypt. The first condition laid down
    1500
    by Her Majesty's Government is that all the foreign Governments agree to surrender the powers now given to them by the Capitulations. Does the right hon. Gentleman dream that the foreign Governments will ever surrender such powers? Would this country surrender its Capitulations if France or any other foreign Power were in the same position in Egypt that we occupy? Such a condition never can be complied with. Secondly, you want to set up a stable Native Government in Egypt. In the first place, you destroyed the old Chamber, and you have done nothing at all to bring into existence the Legislative Councils which Lord Dufferin advised should be formed. I doubt whether you can have a stable Government in Egypt as long as you keep Arabi Pasha and such men as he out of the country. It is because I think you are laying down conditions which never can be fulfilled, and that, in consequence, we shall always be kept in Egypt, that I shall vote against the allowance of this money.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 234: Majority 88.

    AYES.

    Acland, A. H. D

    Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

    Acland, C. T. D.

    Craig, J.

    Allison, R. A.

    Craven, J.

    Anderson, C. H.

    Crawford, D.

    Asher, A.

    Cremer, W. E.

    Asquith, H. H.

    Dillon, J.

    Austin, J.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Barbour, W. B.

    Dodds, J.

    Barry, J.

    Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Ellis, J. E.

    Blake, T.

    Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.

    Blane, A.

    Esalemont, P.

    Bolton, J. C.

    Fenwick, C.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Finucane, J.

    Bruce, hon. E. P.

    Flower, C.

    Buchanan, T. R.

    Flynn, J. C.

    Buxton, S. C.

    Fox, Dr. J. F.

    Byrne, G. M.

    Gardner, H.

    Cameron, C.

    Gilhooly, J

    Campbell, H.

    Gill, H. J.

    Carew, J. L.

    Gill, T. P.

    Chance, P. A.

    Gully, W. C.

    Channing, F. A.

    Haldane, K. B.

    Clancy, J. J.

    Harrington, E.

    Clark, Dr. G. B.

    Hayden, L. P.

    Cobb, H. P.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Coghill, D. H.

    Healy, T. M.

    Cohen, A.

    Hooper, J.

    Coleridge, hon. B.

    Hunter, W. A.

    Connolly, L.

    Illingworth, A,

    Conway, M.

    Jordan, J.

    Conybeare, C. A. V.

    Kay-Shuttleworth, rt. hon. Sir U. J.

    Cossham, H.

    Kennedy, E. J.

    Cox, J. E.

    1501

    Kenny, C. S.

    Plowden, Sir W. C.

    Kenny, M. J.

    Powell, W. R. H.

    Labouchere, H.

    Power, P. J.

    Lalor, E.

    Price, T. P.

    Lane, W. J.

    Priestley, B.

    Leahy, J.

    Provand, A. D.

    Leake, R.

    Quinn, T.

    Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

    Redmond, J. E.

    Lock wood, F.

    Reid, R. T.

    Lyell, L.

    Rendel, S.

    Maclean, F. W.

    Roberts, J. B.

    Mac Neill, J. G. S.

    Robertson, E.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Robinson, T.

    M'Cartan, M.

    Rowlands, J.

    M'Donald, P.

    Rowntree, J.

    M'Donald, Dr. R.

    Russell, E. R.

    M'Ewan, W.

    Russell, T. W.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Sexton, T.

    M'Laren, W. S. B.

    Sheil, E.

    Mappin, Sir F. T.

    Shirley, W. S.

    Molloy, B. C.

    Sinclair, W. P.

    Montagu, S.

    Smith, S.

    Morgan, O. V.

    Stack, J.

    Morley, rt. hon, J.

    Stanhope, hon. P. J.

    Mundella, right hon. A. J.

    Stevenson, F. S.

    Newnes, G.

    Storey, S.

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Sullivan, D.

    Nolan, J.

    Summers, W.

    O'Brien, J. F. X.

    Sutherland, A.

    O'Brien, P.

    Tanner, C. K.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Tuite, J.

    O'Connor, A.

    Watt, H.

    O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)

    Wayman, T.

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Will, J. S.

    O'Doherty, J. E.

    Williams, A. J.

    O'Hea, P.

    Wilson, H. J.

    O'Kelly, J.

    Woodhead, J.

    Pease, A. E.

    Wright, C.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    TELLERS.

    Picton, J. A.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    Pitt-Lewis, G.

    Williamson, S.

    NOES.

    Addison, J. E. W.

    Blundell, Col.H.B.H,

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

    Bond, G. H.

    Ainslie, W. G.

    Bonsor, H. C. O.

    Ambrose, W.

    Boord, T. W.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Borthwick, Sir A.

    Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

    Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Bristowe, T. L.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Brodrick, hon. W. St.

    Atkinson, H. J.

    J. F.

    Baden-Powell, G. S.

    Brooks, Sir W. C.

    Baggallay, E.

    Brown, A. H.

    Baird, J. G. A.

    Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B.

    Balfour, G. W.

    Campbell, Sir A.

    Barry, A. H. Smith-

    Campbell, R. F. F.

    Bartley, G. C. T.

    Charrington, S.

    Bates, Sir E.

    Clarke, Sir E. G.

    Baumann, A. A.

    Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.

    Beadel, W. J.

    Coddington, W.

    Beckett, W.

    Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.

    Bentinck, Lord H. C.

    Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.

    Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

    Bentinck, W. G. C.

    Corry, Sir J. P.

    Beresford, Lord C. W. de la Poer

    Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

    Bethell, Commander G.R.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Birkbeck, Sir E.

    Cross, H. S.

    1502

    Currie, Sir D.

    Holland, right hon. Sir H. T.

    Davenport, H. T.

    Holloway, G.

    Davenport, W. B.

    Holmes, right hon. H.

    Dawnay, Colonel hon L. P.

    Hornby, W. H.

    De Cobain, E. S. W.

    Houldsworth, W. H.

    De Worms, Baron H.

    Howorth, H. H.

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Hozior, J. H. C.

    Dixon-Hartland,F. D.

    Hughes, Colonel E.

    Dorington, Sir J. E.

    Hughes - Hallett, Col. F. C.

    Dugdale, J. S.

    Hunt, F. S.

    Duncan, Colonel F.

    Hunter, Sir W. G.

    Duncombe, A.

    Isaacs, L. H.

    Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

    Isaacson, F. W.

    Edwards-Moss, T. C.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Elcho, Lord

    James, rt. hon. Sir H.

    Elliot, Sir G.

    Jarvis, A. W.

    Ellis, Sir J. W.

    Jennings, L. J.

    Elton, C. I.

    Johnston, W.

    Evelyn, W. J.

    Kelly, J. R.

    Ewart, W.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Feilden, Lieut.-Gen. R.J.

    Kenyon, hon. G. T.

    Ferguson,R. C. Munro-

    Kerans, F. H.

    Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

    Kimber, H.

    Field, Admiral E.

    King, H. S.

    Finch, G. H.

    Knatchbull -Hugessen, hon. H. T.

    Fisher, W. H.

    Knowles, L.

    Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

    Kynoch, G.

    Fitz - Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

    Lafone, A.

    Lambert, I. C.

    Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

    Laurie, Colonel R. P.

    Forwood, A. B.

    Lawrance, J. C.

    Fowler, Sir R. N.

    Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.

    Fraser, General C. C.

    Lea, T.

    Fulton, J. F.

    Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

    Gardner, R. Richardson-

    Leighton, S.

    Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

    Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Gibson, J. G.

    Long, W. H.

    Giles, A.

    Low, M.

    Gilliat, J. S.

    Lowther, J. W.

    Godson, A. F.

    Macartney, W. G. E.

    Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

    Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

    Gorst,.Sir J. E.

    Maclean, J. M.

    Goschen, rt. hn. G. J.

    Maclure, J. W.

    Gray, C. W.

    M'Calmont, Captain J.

    Grimston, Viscount

    Malcolm, Col. J. W.

    Grotrian, F. B.

    Mallock, R.

    Gunter, Colonel R.

    Manners, rt. hn. Lord J. J. R.

    Hall, A. W.

    Marriott, rt. hn. W. T.

    Halsey, T. F.

    Matthews, rt. hn. H.

    Hambro, Col. C. J. T.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Mayne, Admiral R. C.

    Hamilton, Lord E.

    Mildmay, F. B.

    Hardcastle, E.

    Mills, hon. C. W.

    Hardcastle, F.

    Milvain, T.

    Heath, A. R.

    More, R. J.

    Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

    Morgan, hon. F.

    Heaton, J. H.

    Mount, W. G.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

    Hermon-Hodge, R. T.

    Mowbray, R. G. C.

    Hervey, Lord F.

    Mulholland, H. L.

    Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

    Muncaster, Lord

    Hill, A. S.

    Murdoch, C. T.

    Newark, Viscount

    Noble, W.

    Norris, E. S.

    1503

    Northcote, hon. H. S.

    Smith, A.

    Norton, R.

    Spencer, J. E.

    O'Neill, hon. E. T.

    Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

    Parker, hon. P.

    Stanley, E. J.

    Pelly, Sir L.

    Stewart, M.

    Penton, Captain F. T,

    Talbot, J. G.

    Plunket, right hon. D. R.

    Tapling, T. K.

    Plunkett, hon. J. W.

    Temple, Sir R.

    Pomfret, W. P.

    Thorburn, W.

    Powell, F. S.

    Tollemache, H. J.

    Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Rankin, J.

    Tottenham, A. L.

    Rasch, Major F. C.

    Tyler, Sir H. W.

    Reed, H. B.

    Vernon, hon. G. R.

    Ritohie, rt. hn. C. T.

    Vincent, C. E. H.

    Robertson, J. P. B.

    Walsh, hon. A. H. J.

    Rohertson, W. T.

    Waring, Colonel T.

    Robinson, B.

    Watson, J.

    Ross, A. H.

    Webster, Sir R. E.

    Russell, Sir G.

    West, Colonel W. C.

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Saunderson, Col. E. J.

    White, J. B.

    Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

    Whitley, E.

    Selwin - Ibbetson, rt. hon. Sir H. J.

    Whitmore, C. A.

    Selwyn, Capt. C. W.

    Wood, N.

    Seton-Karr, H.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

    Wright, H. S.

    Sidebotham, J. W.

    Wroughton, P.

    Sidebottom, T. H.

    Young, C. E. B.

    Smith, rt. hn. W. H.

    TELLERS.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    Original Question again proposed.
    DR. TANNER: There is another item in this Vote which ought not to be allowed to pass without comment, and that is the item of £810 for the Zanzibar Delimitation Commission. It is as well that the Committee should boar in mind for what purpose this Commission was issued. The Zanzibar Delimitation Commission was appointed in consequence of the Germans stepping in and succeeding, by their method of dealing with the Natives of Zanzibar, in ousting British trade. British Representatives had to step in and do their best to protect the interests of British traders in that part of the world from what they were pleased to term German aggression. What is the consequence? It is that there are no less than three editions of Blue Books dealing with the subject, and that the more we read about the matter, the more humiliating it is, or, at any rate, ought to be, to any of the British Representatives who are concerned in this item. The practical surrender which the Zanzibar Delimitation Commissioners made in the presence of Germany is something pitiable, humiliating, and ludicrous in the extreme. What is the good of all the talk we hear
    1504
    about patriotism? A great many hon. Members talk of patriotic pursuits; in my opinion, the most patriotic pursuit any Member can be associated with is that of saving the taxpayer's pocket. A considerable amount of money has already been paid in respect of the Zanzibar Commission, and now we are asked to pay £810 more. It is not a very large sum; but it is more than should be paid in connection with this humiliating surrender on the part of the British Representatives. Therefore, without any hesitation, I have to move that this Vote be reduced by the sum of £810, and I sincerely hope that we shall have an explicit explanation of the de tails of the Vote.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,975, be granted to Her Majesty for the said Service.—(Dr. Tanner.)
    DR. TANNERdeclared that the "Ayes" had it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member name a second Teller?
    Dr. TANNER failed to nominate an hon. Member to tell with him, whereupon—
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,050, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the Expenses of Various Ser vices (other than Consular) in connection with the Suppression of the Slave Trade, and the Expenses of the Liberated African Department."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Mr. Chairman, there are in this Vote one or two items of a very extraordinary character. In the first place, the increase of the Vote is very heavy, the supplemental part being nearly double the original Estimate. The third item is one of £4,650—
    "Compensation awarded to owners of American vessels detained in 1834, 1857, and 1860, on suspicion of being slavers."
    That there should have been pending for 33 years compensation to reputed owners of slavers is, to say the least, peculiar. Having regard to the explicit terms of the Slave Trade Act, this is something which requires very special explanation

    1505
    at the hands of the Government, which has, at last, resolved to pay this compensation. I presume from the nature of the third item it would be more convenient to treat it separately. Therefore I will not go into it. What I desire to do now is to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) how it comes that in spite of the increase in the capture of the slavers, which are said to be more numerous than anticipated, there is nothing in the way of set-off on account of the value of the vessels seized? There is in the Act a special provision made for the realization of the value of the vessels, whether they be British or foreign, whether they are sold in the market, or whether they are taken into Her Majesty's service, or bought by any foreign Power for the use of the Admiralty of that foreign Power. There certainly ought to be an item to the credit of the Exchequer upon this Vote. The next thing I have to ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) is what the slave suppression authorities do with the slaves when they have seized the slavers. Is it a fact that they hand them over to certain persons who may or may not afterwards make profit out of them? Do these authorities, after having caught the slavers, allow the slaves to be directly or indirectly sold into slavery again? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer these questions before I go into any other items of the Vote.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Mr. Courtney, a considerable sum is voted every year for the suppression of the Slave Trade, and a large amount is allowed for the pay of the officers and men employed in the service. I should like to know whether other countries contribute anything towards the suppression of the slave traffic; are we the only country in the world who take active and expensive measures against the Slave Trade? I should also be obliged if the Government will say where these ships are employed—on the West Coast of Africa or in the Red Sea? I am very much afraid these items for the suppression of the Slave Trade are a sort of revivals which everyone expect. From our own commercial point of view it is of great importance that the Slave Trade should be put down, but I believe that in the suppression very large sums of money might be saved. I should like
    1506
    some explanation of the general policy of the Government upon this question, and I should also like to know in what part of the world the vessels are employed; whether the Government see any necessity in continuing this expenditure, and whether other nations contribute in like manner towards the suppression of the slave traffic. I should also like information as to the kind of slavery found in the Red Sea?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I am afraid I cannot afford much information as to the slavery carried on in the Red Sea, but I will give the Committee all the information I can. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) asks whether other countries contribute any thing towards the suppression of the Slave Trade, or whether the whole of the expense is borne by us. So far as I know other countries do not contribute in any form or shape, but the whole of the expense is borne by us. The system of payment is based either upon the tonnage, or upon the number of slaves captured: this House has consented to the payment of so much per ton upon the vessels seized, or so much per head of the slaves who were liberated. The hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) very properly remarks that the Vote is very heavy, but I think he will see that this is one of the Votes it is absolutely impossible to estimate a year beforehand with any degree of accuracy. We are hoping that the Vote will die out through the stoppage of the trade. So long, however, as the House and the country are determined to carry on the crusade against the traffic in slaves, the Committee will hardly refuse this payment. The payments, amounting to £1,900, under the sub-head H, "maintenance of liberated Africans," are payments which are made according to the number of slaves who are liberated. An arrangement has been made with the Church Missionary Society and other Societies in that part of the world—[An hon. MEMBER: What part?]—Zanzibar—and during the past year there has actually been handed over to the Church Missionary Society 453 slaves, and to other bodies 27. For these, £5 per head was paid, and for that payment the Societies have undertaken to be responsible for the education of the slaves and their subse-

    1507
    quent freedom. The arrangement was made after very careful consideration, and it is an arrangement which, so far as we are concerned, admirably accomplishes the object in view—namely, the freedom of the men. And this is done at the least possible expense to this country. As to the credits, I regret I am not in possession of detailed information. So far as the Treasury are concerned, we have no knowledge of these credits. If there are any credits arising from these vessels, I can only suppose that they are dealt with by the Admiralty.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: Mr. Courtney, it seems, therefore, that the entire expenses in connection with the suppression of the Slave Trade are not in the Vote before us, but that some of the expenses are to be found in the Naval Estimates. Disguise it as you may, this is to be considered a Supplementary Estimate towards the support of Her Majesty's Naval Services in the parts of the world in question. I understand that there are many vessels employed in this service. It is said that "the captures of slavers have been more numerous than was anticipated," and, therefore, an additional sum of £2,500 is required. The total for tonnage and slave bounties is thus brought up to £6,500. £3,726 is the sum required for the maintenance of liberated Africans. What I wish to call the attention of the Committee and of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) to is this, that, so far as the captures go, they are an index that the Slave Trade is increasing. Seeing that the payments are by results, it is evident that the more that is paid the more slaves are captured. If there had not been a large number of vessels plying in the regions in question, if there had not been a very large amount of Slave Trading going on, it is as clear as day that the captures would not have been more numerous than was anticipated. Now, what is evident to any person who considers the matter is this, that the operation of the Slave Trade Act, and the operation of our Fleet in the suppression of the traffic, results in these two things—in a trade at night or in risky weather, and the inhuman treatment of the slaves. What do I find in the Act of Parliament? That all vessels which are found to possess accommodation for the carrying of slaves in proper
    1508
    condition are to be seized and sold; that all vessels bearing the marks of the slaver are to be captured. Under ordinary circumstances, the Slave Trade is not carried on in vessels which possess accommodation for the humane treatment of the slaves, and it is pretty clear that any humanitarian views of the traders are completely frustrated by the arrangements which are made for the suppression of the traffic. Furthermore, I should like to know why we hand over the men, if they are liberated slaves, to the custody of other men. What property have we in the bodies of these men that we should hand them over to the missionaries of any Society? It is questionable whether it would not be better to attempt to regulate the traffic in insisting that the vessels used shall be such that no mischief shall be done to the men, rather than to take them to places in which, so far as my reading goes, their lot is very little improved. For these reasons, and without believing very much in the bona fides of some of the reports that I see, I have examined the Votes, and taken an interest in looking up the particulars that are mentioned in this Act. Dealing with the entire Vote, it strikes me, on looking at the Schedule which points out the marks which are to guide British officers in forming an opinion as to whether a vessel is a slaver, that the steps we take to put a stop to slavery by these means impose a great deal of misery upon the unfortunate victims of the traffic. For instance, in the Schedule of the guidance of Her Majesty's officers, it is declared that vessels are not to have hatchings or open gratings, and that they are not to have spare planks which are fit for being laid down as a second or a slave deck, and that they are not to have a large quantity of tanks, and so on. In fact, everything which would be provided by a humane master of a vessel for the comfort of the slaves must be put a stop to. In that way you inflict untold misery on these poor creatures, and I, therefore, contend that this expenditure of money is not only useless, but contributes vastly to the misery of the unfortunates the traffic in whom it is your object to put a stop to. What the fate of the miserable slave whom you may have succeeded in rescuing is, I do not know. When turned out at Zanzibar, or anywhere else, he has only main-

    1509
    tenance for one year, for I believe the sum you pay for him is only £5. How long that sum will keep a man I do not know; but I think hardly more than a year. How long would the missionaries keep him? I think the Committee would be well advised in reducing this Vote in such a way as to mark their sense of the want of the necessity for such a system.
    MR. DILLON: I am entirely opposed to any Vote in the Estimates for the suppression of the Slave Trade. I am not opposed to it because I am in favour of the Slave Trade; and if it could be shown that during the long period of years, 40 or 50 perhaps, during which English cruisers have been engaged in the suppression of this trade, that any real results have been achieved for the money which has been expended, no one would support the Vote more warmly than I should myself. But hon. Gentlemen who read the accounts of travellers in Africa can hardly rejoice at the efforts which are taking place to suppress the Slave Trade. My view is that hon. Gentlemen who vote this money do it to save their consciences, thinking they have done a fine thing by spending money to put down the Slave Trade. They are content with that, and they do not go beyond it. They do not read the accounts the travellers give of the sufferings of the slaves. These accounts are to the effect that the sufferings of these unfortunate beings have been enormously increased through the operations of Her Majesty's cruisers in the Red Sea. In order to escape from these cruisers the slaves are battened down under closed hatches. Even that is a trifle compared with the enormous loss of life and horrible sufferings which the traffic entails upon many human beings through the closing of the Nile route. If the Committee take the trouble to read the descriptions of travellers on the Nile; if they will read that most delightful book of travel published by Dr. Schweinfurth, the great German traveller, they will see there a statement made with regard to the result which has attended the stoppage of the Nile passage through the influence brought to bear by the British Government upon the Khedive Ismail. Instead of taking the slaves comfortably down the Nile, as used to be the custom, the dealers now struck off from above where Bahr-el-Ghazal joins the Nile, and for 1,000
    1510
    miles the slaves, chained man to man, are marched through the desert. This traveller tells us that the bleached bones of thousands and thousands of these wretched slaves are to be seen along that desert track—and, of course, you have stopped the Nile route. Dr. Schweinfurth, as everyone knows, is one of the greatest opponents of the slave traffic; but he states that the result of our interference with the trade on the Nile has been to inflict enormous sufferings, and to bring about enormous sacrifice of life, and consequent increase in the capture of slaves by dealers. He says, that since the stoppage of the Nile route, for every 100 slaves that reach their destination 300 slaves start out. In the old days the slaves, instead of being driven to death in this way, were well treated. They were well fed and cared for, just as a man who deals in cattle takes care of his beasts, in order that they might fetch a good price in the market. The object, of course, always was to hand them over in good condition to the purchasers. But hon. Gentlemen, nevertheless, go on voting on sentiment, and will not inquire into the result of these operations. They will say anyone who votes against this item is in favour of the Slave Trade; but I deny it. I am not in favour of the Slave Trade; but I agree with General Gordon, that the only way to put down that trade is to strike it at the root. If you want to put a stop to the traffic, disperse the camps of the slave dealers. Is the English Government prepared to do that? General Gordon undertook to do that, and would have done it if you had furnished him with the means. I do not say whether he ought to have done it or not; but I say that carrying on the foolish system in which you are embarked, expecting thereby to put down the Slave Trade, only ends in inflicting great misery and injury upon thousands of people, and is the greatest folly. If you are not prepared to follow General Gordon's advice, you had better let the whole matter alone. These slaves are not badly treated in Arabia—at least, so Arabian travellers tell us. When the slaves reach Arabia they are treated as kindly as your household servants are treated. Read "Palgrave's Travels in Arabia," and you will there see that the slaves are not treated as they used to be in the Southern States of America, which

    1511
    you supported and endeavoured to maintain in their struggles with the Northern States. No, Sir; in Eastern countries slaves are treated as kindly as you treat your servants in London. Not infrequently they intermarry with the natives of the countries to which they are transported, and in many instances their children become recognized as citizens, and become owners of property. This is frequently found to be the ease in Arabia. Mr. Palgrave's statement in his book—which is, perhaps, the best description of Arabian travel that has ever been published—says that many of these slaves, when they reach Arabia, could not be induced to go back again to their own country even if they had permission to do so. I can perfectly well believe his description. But we are told that the proceedings on the part of the British Government, to which I take exception, are merely for the purpose of putting down slavery. I dare say some hon. Member will vote upon this question under that impression; but I have pointed out that the results are entirely in the opposite direction. By the measures you have taken you have not put down slavery, and you never will put down slavery. You send into the Red Sea a lot of old tubs—I have seen them at Malta, and I know exactly what they are—the refuse of the British Navy, to plough around and wear out your officers and men, doing a great deal of mischief, and not the slightest bit of good. This Vote is a declaration that the Government are anxious to put down slavery. Well, here in the Estimate we have compensation for three American slavers as long ago as 1854, 1857, and 1860. An American slaver was seized as long ago as 1860 to put down slavery! Surely, any British-born man ought to blush when he sees such a record as this in an official document. The seizure of a slaver carrying slaves is to cost us something like £4,000. I suppose there has been a lawsuit going on between the two countries ever since. You were maintaining our pledge with regard to the putting down of the Slave Trade by upholding the one great slave-holding portion of America. You were doing this whilst you were spending the money of the British taxpayer on sea and on land in the endeavour to put down slavery else where. Was your action consistent? You were doing all you could to thwart
    1512
    the Northern States in putting down slavery in the only way it was possible to put it down—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must invite the hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to the Vote before the Committee.
    MR. DILLON: I am very sorry, Sir, if I have transgressed against the Order of the Committee; but I was led into this observation by one item of the Vote, which is the compensation for the seizure of American slavers. As I understand it they were seized by mistake. Is that not so? We are called upon to pay for the mistake that was made. The compensation which was paid to the American vessels was on account of these vessels having been seized on suspicion of being slavers. I suppose the assumption was that these vessels were bringing slaves to supply the wants of the Southern States of America. But as you, Sir, wish me not to pursue that line I will abandon it. I oppose this Vote, not because I am in favour of slavery, but because I think it is not a fact that they have put down slavery, and because I am convinced, from the reports of African travellers, that it results in increasing the sufferings of the slaves, and in a tremendous sacrifice of human life.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I do not think the Committee should follow the advice of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and strike out this Vote, the result of which would be to allow the revival of the Slave Trade. Practically, the whole argument of the hon. Gentleman has been that we ought not to interfere in this matter, and should refrain from our endeavours to suppress the Slave Trade. I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman into that argument, because I feel sure that the whole sense and feeling of the country will be against him on that point. But what I rose for was to ask a question with reference to the item the hon. Member referred to last. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) if he can give the Committee some explanation of the delay which seems to have occurred in settling these claims, and why claims made so far back as 33 years ago are only now brought into the Supplementary Estimate? We have an item for vessels seized as far back as 1860. Why

    1513
    is it that the account is only presented in a Supplementary Estimate in 1887? There must be some reason for this, and I ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to give it to us.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I must admit that on the face of the account as it appears on the Vote, it does seem very strange that a sum should be charged for what occurred so many years ago. The simple explanation of it is that the item appears as soon as the money becomes payable. The item relates to three vessels. The first of these was detained 14 days, in 1854, on suspicion of being concerned in the Slave Trade, by the Collector of Customs at Bathurst, in Gambia. The second one, the Thomas Watson, was detained 24 days, under like circumstances, by Lieutenant Watson, of the Bloodhound, on the West Coast of Africa. The claims appear to have remained in abeyance for a long time. In 1866 they were again revived, and a claim at that time was made by the American Government for 233,000 dollars. The British Government accepted liability in principle and offered to refer the question to arbitration. Some delay occurred—nothing came of it at that time. The claim was again preferred in 1879, the amount demanded then being 250,000 dollars. In the negotiations which occurred, the British Government took up the position that they were willing to accept the liability in principle, and were willing to refer the matter to arbitration. Apparently no settlement was possible, and arrangements were made to have the case tried. The Government, on the recommendation of their advisers, decided that they would resist all claim to compensation on account of interest; and after some considerable negotiations the British Government offered in settlement of the claim a sum of 10,000 dollars. This amount was re fused by the American Government, but they made a counter off to accept 20,000 dollars, and the British Government, rather than proceed further with the case, accepted that as a compromise. Sir, that relates to two vessels, the Mary Farmer and the Thomas Watson. With regard to the other she was captured by one of Her Majesty's ships on January 12, 1860, under the belief that she was at the time in British waters, and was
    1514
    about to ship a cargo of slaves. It was afterwards found that this vessel was not at the time in British waters, nor was she within the limits of British jurisdiction. Her Majesty's Government when they had discovered these facts tendered an apology to the Ameri-Government, and nothing more was heard of the matter until October, 1880—more than 20 years after the occurrence, when a claim was presented for compensation amounting to nearly 30,000 dollars. In the opinion of the advisers of Her Majesty's Government this claim was a most exorbitant one and ought to be dismissed, and that reasonably and fairly nothing could be claimed beyond a claim which might be made for the demurrage of the vessel during the time she was detained. The matter was referred to arbitration; but in the preliminary discussion the principles of arbitration could not be agreed on, and again the matter remained in abeyance for some time. To settle the matter £500 was offered and accepted. I am not able to inform the Committee what the precise cause of the delay was. The Committee will, no doubt, remember that at about that time slavery was not very popular in the United States, and that may have had something to do with the postponement of the matter for so long. I have endeavoured to explain to the Committee why the Votes are now presented to the House. They are presented at the earliest moment they could have been presented. I think the Committee will agree with me that, under the circumstances I have narrated, the settlement was perhaps the best that could be come to; and that on such a matter it would have been a great misfortune that any interference with the cordial relations which exist—and which, I hope, will long continue to exist—between this country and the United States should have taken place.
    MR. JORDAN: The manumission of the slaves in the West Indies is one of the fairest chapters in English history, and so strongly do I sympathize with the suppression of slavery that I hesitate to vote against this demand; but if slavery is to be effectually put down vessels of a different character and of much greater force should be used. I should like to be assured that the money expended under this Vote is honestly expended,

    1515
    and that it is true and real expenditure. I would like further to know whether the £5 per head that has been mentioned is a full and final grant or a yearly grant. If I am satisfied upon these points, so strongly do I sympathize with the suppression of slavery, I shall vote in support of the Vote.
    MR. DILLON: In order to raise the question I will move the reduction of the Vote by £2,500.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,550, be granted to Her Majesty for the said Service."—(Mr. Dillon.)
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (5.) £1,500, Supplementary, Colonies, Grants in Aid.
    MR. DILLON: There is one item in this Vote that I should like some information about from the Government, and it is rather a curious item. The sum of £1,500 is asked for on account of the withdrawal of the gold and silver coins in Malta, and the issue of new ones, and I should like some explanation about this. First, I should like to know upon what principle the English taxpayer is called upon to pay for the re-coinage of the money of the Maltese people; and, secondly, how comes it that the re-coinage of so small an island as Malta—the entire population of which is but 200,000 persons, mostly poor people—amounts to the sum of £1,500. It seems to me a very extra ordinary sum to pay for the re-coinage and withdrawal of these coins when the nominal value of the gold coin is only £1,500 in all, and the nominal value of the silver coin £10,000. Upon an entire sum of £12,000 it has cost £3,000 to withdraw the coinage; therefore, I think the Committee is entitled to some explanation as to what system or method is adopted for withdrawing these coins; and why and upon what principle has this charge been placed upon the taxpayer of this country. I have been myself informed that what happened was this:—the Governor of Malta was under the impression that the amount of money in the island was small when he undertook to withdraw it from circulation; that, in fact, it would not be more than a tenth of the sum actually withdrawn; but that, when notice was given of the
    1516
    withdrawal, the Maltese dug up from various hiding places an amount of coin that no one had any idea was in existence upon the island—that bags of gold and silver coins were produced which dated back for hundreds of years. That may be all very well; but I do not see why the English people should have to pay for these extraordinary adventures. All I know is that, if these people were properly educated, they would be able to pay for their own coinage.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) is under some misapprehension. I may say, in the first place, that a great many difficulties arose with regard to the coinage, and by an Order in Council it was established that, in Malta and its dependencies, British coins should be the only legal tender. The existing coins in circulation, as the hon. Member says, have risen above the amount anticipated to be withdrawn. It is also the fact that the substitution of British silver coin for that which was then cur rent in Malta has resulted, in so far as the British taxpayer is concerned, not only in no loss, but I believe I am justified in saying a great advantage. The hon. Member is perfectly aware that upon the coinage in silver we reap a large profit, and upon the distribution of our silver coin for that in circulation in Malta there has resulted a large profit. The total cost, as the hon. Member will see, was £3,000. An appeal was made to Her Majesty's Government to bear some portion of the cost of that, and, inasmuch as the facts are as I have stated, and it will leave no loss to the British taxpayer, Her Majesty's Government agreed to bear one-half.
    DR. CLARk: The hon. Gentleman's education is still more puzzling. We are told the absolute value of the silver is greater than the nominal value of the coin, and that we gain by it; but how is it, then, that the cost is so great? I can understand the cost of the gold coins might have been very considerable; but there is only £1,500 altogether in gold, and the expense is £3,000. £3,000 of loss on coining £12,000 is something like 25 per cent, whereas there ought to be about 40 per cent gain. If we are really gaining upon the coinage, we ought to be able to show that from some other

    1517
    source; but it seems to be, as it stands, very extraordinary there should be 25 per cent loss. We still want further explanation of how it is—if we have gained so much—we have to pay this money; and, secondly, as to the principle upon which the matter is settled. We ought to object to it and vote against it on principle. The presumption is that the Colonists ought to defray all the expenses connected with the Colony. No country in the world, or in the history of the world, has ever treated their Colonies so well as we have done, and scarcely any Colony in the world, or in the history of the world, have behaved so badly to the Mother Country as ours have done. [Cries of "No, no! "] Hon. Gentlemen say "No, no!" but can they point out to me, except our own, any Colony that has put any special charges against the Mother Country, and given foreigners better relations than they gave to the Mother Country. As it stands at present, not on behalf of the English taxpayers, but on behalf of the British taxpayers—because we in Scotland are not Englishmen, though anyone would think that we in the North are the mere province of England, judging from the language of hon. Members, and upon this point I have to object to our Irish Friends, like the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), using this objectionable phrase—I protest against this sum; and I say the Imperial British taxpayer ought not to pay a single farthing towards any expense incurred by the Colonies. Directly and indirectly we now pay a large sum; and, on these grounds, I object to the Imperial taxpayer paying anything more for any Colony.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.
    (6.) £11,254, Supplementary, Super-annuations and Retired Allowances.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I have got a word to say upon this Vote. One item is £1,000 for Royal Parks; and I should like to know which are the Royal Parks and what are the Royal Parks. The other point I wish to say a word about is in regard to the item of £1,500 for Diplomatic Services. Some years ago a Rule was passed—I forget by what Secretary—that every Minister
    1518
    or Ambassador abroad should resign at the age of 70 years, and at that age he had a pension of £2,000 or £1,500, as the case might be. It always seemed to me that that Order was somewhat stupid, because while some are getting old at 70, others are in their prime. No doubt many of our servants abroad do good work, and are anxious to remain; but, against their own wishes, they are superannuated at the age of 70. I draw the attention of the Committee to this, because there is a case in point at present. I believe Lord Lyons, our present Ambassador at Paris, is verging on the age of 70 years. We all know what an excellent Ambassador Lord Lyons has been, how he has watched over the interests of the country, and it would be gene rally to the disadvantage of the country if Lord Lyons were not to remain at Paris.
    THE CHAIRMAN: There is no provision in this Vote for the pension of Lord Lyons; therefore, it is not competent to the hon. Gentleman to go into that.
    Mr. LABOUCHERE: I know there is no provision—that is to say, I am not sure of it, because there is £ 1,500 down that maybe prospective for Lord Lyons, or given to him instead of the gentleman for whom it is presumably asked. At any rate, I will not go to Lord Lyons; but I hope we shall hear some statement from the Government that this Rule is not a hard-and-fast Rule, but that when a Minister is able and ready to do the work, that he should not be superannuated merely because he had reached the age of 70 years.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I do not think there is any hard-and-fast Rule.
    MR. CLANCY: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) for some explanation, of the item of £2,000 for Public Offices in Ireland, and the item of £700 for the insufficient provision for gratuities. These two items require some explanation; and, unless it is given, I shall have to move the reduction of the Vote.
    MR. JACKSON: In Ireland there are two retirements from the Local Government Board, and one from public education. I am able to tell the hon. Member that none of these retirements have been

    1519
    compulsory, and none of them come out of the ordinary course.
    MR. DILLON: Some particulars ought to be given as to the cause of their retirement. There is a sum of £3,700 under the head, "Supreme Court of Judicature," which I am informed is not necessarily confined to Ireland, and therefore is not so enormous as it would otherwise appear; but I would suggest that it should be clearly stated whether it has reference to England, Ireland, or both.
    MR. JACKSON: I think the hon. Member is very well aware that some times men upon retirement get pensions, and sometimes gratuities. I am afraid I must plead guilty to the Treasury having, perhaps, failed to make the various matters sufficiently clear, and in future an endeavour will be made to make matters as clear as possible.
    Vote agreed, to.
    (7.) £157, Supplementary, Pauper Lunatics, Scotland.
    DR. CLARK: As the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) is not here to night, I will defer the remarks I had intended to make until we have a Secretary for Scotland.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
    (8.) £1,000, Adelaide Exhibition.
    MR.HENNIKER HEATON: I find that no provision is being made for two other exhibitions. I have been informed this sum is charged in consequence of a similar Vote having been given eight years ago to Melbourne; but, on the other hand, we find that debt has been cancelled by the people of New South Wales voting large sums in support of the Colonial and Indian Exhibition and others held in London. Unless a similar large Vote is given for the great Centenary Exhibition to be held in Australia for Sydney and Melbourne it will cause great annoyance, and I would like to have an assurance that it will be treated similarly.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): The time to consider the question whether a further grant should be made to Sydney and Melbourne will be when the Exhibi-
    1520
    tion to which my hon. Friend refers takes place. I may remind him that Government, on a former occasion, made a grant of £10,000 to Sydney and Melbourne, £2,000 of which was spent at Sydney, and £8,000 being spent at Melbourne. In regard to the Exhibition about to be held at Adelaide, the Royal Commission connected with it made an application to the Government which was backed very strongly by the Colonial Office. The Government agreed to make a grant of £2,600, and subsequently a further grant of £1,000 was made for the special purpose of having exhibited there a collection of pictures by English artists. I understand that Sir Frederick Leighton, who is the President of the Department Commission, is engaged in getting together a most excellent collection, the property of the artists, and that they are to be insured by them. We shall have no risk or further responsibility, and the Government, therefore, felt that, having on a former occasion given £10,000 to Sydney and Melbourne, they could hardly on this occasion refuse to give something. I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied with this explanation.
    MR. O'HEA: I do not think we should be asked to Vote money for such purposes as this. Other Exhibitions have taken place in various parts of Her Majesty's Dominions, and I am not aware this House was asked to Vote sums of money in consequence. There is no doubt the Vote is put rather speciously, and the money will ultimately go towards the funds of the Exhibition. Now, Mr. Courtney, in the City of Cork, three years ago, there was an Exhibition, in which the hon. Member for the Borough of Cambridge took an active part; but we in the City of Cork put our hands in our pockets and paid our own money, and thus raised the necessary funds for making that Exhibition a very great success. We did not send the begging-bag as far as Westminster, but the people of the South of Ireland gave all the expense; and yet we are asked to contribute our quota in connection with this Adelaide Exhibition. In a country in which gold is one of the chief products they ought to be able to pay all the expense of the Exhibition themselves. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury referred to works of Art. Well, Sir, I do not think

    1521
    any person would show any disposition against giving works of Art the greatest prominence; but the artists themselves, and the purchasers, may very well go to the expense of having their products exhibited either at Adelaide, Toronto, or anywhere else where works of Art are part of the show. I think this Vote unnecessary, and I must protest against undue favouritism being shown to one place as against another. So far as the City of Cork and the City of Dublin are concerned, no grant is ever made for the purpose of enabling the citizens to get up an Exhibition.
    DR. TANNER: It is not my intention to speak at any great length in connection, with this Vote. The subject, Sir, is one which does not admit of any great amount of debate; but I must thoroughly endorse the remarks which have just fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Donegal West (Mr. O'Hea). We have held Exhibitions in Ireland within the past few years, and no Vote has been passed by this House to try and assist our Exhibitions, although it is the fact that in our country manufacturers are scarce, and we require every stimulus that could possibly be given to us. In Ireland we certainly do require as much power as this House is in a position to bestow upon us in order to force Irish affairs on. Now, as to Australia, there is no reason for me to speak of the forwardness of Australia. Its motto, "Advance, Australia!" has been its leading characteristic, and it is to the fore. It is one of the most noble Colonies which any nation in the world ever possessed, and, for that reason, I should be the very last person in the world to say anything against it, or which could militate against this Vote; but what I would recommend is this, that when right hon. Gentlemen are able to put a Vote like this upon the Paper, and when they are able to promenade from one end of the country to the other talking about what they do for Ireland, they should not, when they have the power, turn their backs upon Ireland and kick her out of Court if they possibly can. That I tell them in their teeth. Well, Sir, if they do this for one country—a country that has got Home Rule, why do they not do it for Ireland? When an Irish Exhibition is brought forward—when the Cork Exhibition came on the tapis, or when the Dublin
    1522
    Exhibition was to the fore—right hon. Gentlemen studiously neglected such undertakings, and instead of putting down in the ordinary Estimates a few thousands of pounds for them, they passed our country by. Therefore, I say in connection with this Vote that—though I do not stand up to oppose the Vote—I do stand up to oppose the hypocrisy of these right hon. Gentlemen. They come here from time to time, and they call for Votes in connection with our country in order to supply us with extra police—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    DR. TANNER: And with extra law and order so far as they can manage it; but they do not give us the remedial measures which are absolutely necessary for the benefit and welfare of our land.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    DR. TANNER: I am not going to say a word more, Mr. Courtney, upon that point. I should be the last person to trespass upon your invariable courtesy and kindness to me. Sir, I speak the truth. I will say this much, that what I have remarked about right hon. Gentlemen is noted and known in Ireland, and some of these days it will have to be accounted for very dearly.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Just one word, Mr. Courtney, by way of explanation. I wish to inform the Com mittee that the Australian people have spent £100,000 on English Exhibitions during the last few years, and, therefore, this small sum ought not to be felt or grudged.
    Dr. CLARK: You have spent over £30,000 in aid of the Colonies for which you are getting no return. What you have done to-night has added £1,500, whichmakestheamount £31,516, and this will now be £32,500 under this Vote for the Colonies altogether. Sir, on behalf of the British taxpayer, I strongly object to all this; and I hope and trust that the economic section in this House will aid us in trying to prevent the rich Colonist from putting his hands into the pockets of the poor Mother Country, and taking away so much money from her.
    Vote agreed to.
    (9.) £9,306, "Telegrafo" Claims.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid: I am afraid that hardly anyone would be prepared to believe in the really extraordinary character of

    1523
    this Vote. It is taken in connection with the ship Telegrafo, which was arrested in the year 1870 by the British Authorities at the instance of the Government of San Domingo. Anyone would imagine that by a careful reference to the Library of this House you would be able to ascertain something of the character of the proceedings, and of the history of our dealings with the Government of San Domingo in connection with this subject; but I am bound to say, that though I impressed into my service the assistance of the gentlemen in charge of the Library, we have been absolutely unable to discover in the Library any Parliamentary Paper or any Correspond ence or any document whatsoever to throw any light upon this matter. At last, I felt almost ashamed to trespass upon the time and services of these gentlemen, and it was only when I began to institute a search for myself, which I carried on with great trouble, that, after going through no less than 37 volumes, I did come upon some trace of the matter. I found that the earliest reference to anything which appears to relate to it is in the Civil Service Contingencies Fund account for the year ended March 31st, 1872. That is a document which very few hon. Members would be able to trace out or even to suspect. From that it appeared that, among the then outstanding advances on the Paper, a sum of £1,664 was due to Her Majesty's Government. In the cor responding account for 1873 the first entry appears of a sum of £12,000 as the amount of further expenses incurred by the detention of the vessel Telegrafo at Tortola. The expenses are charged against the Government, and a claim for repayment is made against the Govern ment of San Domingo, so that in 1873, taking the balance from the previous year's account, there was £13,900 still outstanding. From some Notes and Correspondence annexed to the Controller and Auditor General's Report it would appear that £1,864 had been paid before March, 1872. In June of that year £11,750 was paid, and in July a further sum of £299, and under the date of February 23rd, 1874, communications were still going on between Her Majesty's Government and the Governor with the view of obtaining the repayment of the claim, if possible In the financial year 1873–4 the
    1524
    matter was untouched; but in April, 1874, a further advance was made of £378 3s. 11 d., making a total sum of £14,291; and at that time an offer was made to the Domingan Government with the view of settling the question; but it came to nothing, as that Government was not in a position to make any payment of any kind. In the years 1874, 1875, and 1876 matters remained in the same position, though Her Majesty's Government, through the Foreign Office, instructed the Minister to call attention to the claim, which was not abandoned. In 1877 the Treasury decided to accept, in full settlement of the claim, the following obligations from the Domingan Government:—One of 12,500 dollars, payable on the 27th June, 1877; another of 6,250 dollars, payable six months later; and a third of 6,250 dollars, payable a year after the second. In 1881 the Controller and Auditor General noted that the amount realized would be added to the Civil Service Contingencies Fund, and an Estimate was made to Parliament for the sum required to make good the balance. From the beginning to the end very nearly eight years had elapsed, and the Government had never brought the mat ter to the knowledge of this House. These bills were held by the British Minister at Hayti; but when the first of them was presented, in the month of June, 1877, it was dishonoured. After that Her Majesty's Treasury seem to have become alive to the fact that their position was not regular—at any rate, rather anomalous and somewhat absurd. On the 27th January, 1879, the Commissioners of the Treasury at last revealed the whole circumstances connected with the affair, and in a letter to the Controller and Auditor General they pointed out that during the insurrection in San Domingo in 1869 the Telegrafo, then belonging to San Domingo, was impressed by the Revolutionary Government for hostile purposes, and was afterwards sold at Tortola to a Mr. Mac-Reverdyfor 10,025 dollars. In January, 1870, she was arrested by the Colonial Authorities of the Virgin Islands, at the instance of the Government of San Domingo, and prosecuted in the Vice Admiralty Court at Tortola as a pirate vessel, under instructions from the Colonial Office, founded upon advice given by the Law Officers of the Crown to the

    1525
    Foreign Office. The Court decreed restitution; but gave no costs or damages. The Crown appealed from that verdict to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, though the proceeding was a purely vexatious one, and, in point of fact, it was an attempt to break Mr. MacReverdy, by causing him enormous expenses. In 1871 the Judicial Committee gave judgment that the sentence of the Vice Admiralty Court must be affirmed; and they further directed that Mr. MacReverdy should have the costs of his appeal, but not of his adherence to it—though why that distinction was made I do not know—and there were to be no damages. In the meantime, Mr. MacReverdy brought an action against the officials of the Virgin Islands for demurrage on his vessel, amounting to £30,000. The trial came off in the Civil Court at Tortola in October, 1871; but although the Law Officers of the Crown were of opinion that the judgment was a bar to obtaining damages, that was not set forth, and the jury gave damages to the amount of £18,000, although the original cost of the vessel was only 10,000 dollars. The Colonial Government moved for a new trial; but the Chief Justice, before whom the matter came, repeatedly expressed his opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to substantial damages, and counsel agreed to a compromise, under which Mr. MacReverdy was to receive £11,500 damages and £250 costs. Now, the San Domingan Government had, in July, 1869, undertaken that the British Government should be held harmless for the arrest of the vessel; so a claim was made for that sum and expenses, which raised the amount to £14,259. As to the bills which were ultimately given by the San Domingan Government; on the pre sentation of the bill which fell due on the 27th of June, 1877, Her Majesty's Eepresentative at Port-au-Prince was informed that the Government were unable to meet their engagements, and that the President owed 200,000 dollars to the Domingan Government. In reporting these circumstances, Mr. Stewart observed that the Customs Duties for the City of San Domingo alone amounted, for the first six months of 1877, to 45,000 dollars; but all salaries were in arrear, and he appeared to be of opinion that the President had carried
    1526
    70,000 dollars out of the country, and suspended all payments, in order to obtain enough to buy an estate when ever the inhabitants refused to obey his rule any longer. Other payments were also dishonoured; and Her Majesty's Government were then informed that the late President having left the Treasury empty, the present Government of San Domingo had no means of meeting the claim; but they proposed to set apart one-tenth of the import duties as a reserve fund, out of which to pay the amount which Her Majesty's Government had agreed to accept, and the Treasury there fore inquired what steps the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would take. Lord Salisbury, who was then Foreign Minister, said it was not possible to judge then what was the probability of recovering from the San Domingan Government the sum awarded, or whether any measures were to be taken to enforce pay ment. The Lords of the Treasury de clared that they had little hope that the Government of San Domingo would experience any anxiety to discharge its obligations; but they were unwilling to ask Parliament to vote the money until the Secretary of State informed them that, in his opinion, the Domingan Government would not pay, and that he was not prepared to enforce payment. In the last paragraph of their letter, which I confess I do not understand, the Lords of the Treasury declared that the Imperial Government had itself been guilty of no laches in harbouring a piratical vessel or otherwise; but, un fortunately, it endeavoured to oblige a friendly Government without demanding a deposit to cover expenses. Excessive damages were given, which the Imperial Government did not feel able to resist—and the result was a loss of £14,000 to the Imperial Exchequer, which was likely to prove a bad debt. So that, eight years ago, the Treasury were well aware that there was no pros-spect of recovering the money. Under these circumstances, the House ought not to have been kept so long in ignorance of the state of affairs. If this is a kind of thing which can be allowed to go on, hidden away in documents little known, and to which few people have access, we shall find some fine day that the Government have embarked intransactions of a very extensive character, in regard to which the House is altogether

    1527
    without information. The next thing ' we find is, not any payment on account from the Government of San Domingo, but a further sum of £9 12 s. 0d., notary's charges for protesting the dishonoured bills of the Government. In March, 1880, the Treasurer informed the Controller and Auditor General that the Domingan Government had proposed to pay all foreign claims, including the liability of £14,300, by means of an extra tax of 2 per cent upon imports. The Lords of the Treasury consented to that arrangement; but the Government which proposed it since fell, and upon its fall disposed of the amount collected upon that extra tax. The whole of the story is one long series of absurdities on the part of Her Majesty's Government in trusting what they must have known were parties utterly unable to meet the obligations which they had undertaken. Since then a proposal has been made by the Controller and Auditor General, and supported by the Secretary of State, that upon some security, the proceeds of the suggested tax should be placed in the hands of certain merchants, to be by them distributed to the persons entitled, and the Lords of the Treasury agreed to that; so that it comes to this, that be tween such high contracting parties as the Government of San Domingo and Her Majesty's Government there were intermediaries—private persons—upon whom they had no check whatever, who were not to be responsible, with whom they make bargains on percentages to collect bad debts. If that is proper or becoming, we have got into days when nations are very different from what they were. In 1880, the patience of the Government was rewarded by obtaining a sum of £891 5s. 0d., and so it went on in a hand-to-mouth fashion, small sums being repaid, and the payments were varied occasionally by additional liabilities for notarial fees on dishonoured bills. The end of the whole story is that we now have a charge of £9,000 on the taxpayer which ought not to appear now, for it should have been paid off years and years ago as soon as it was found that the Domingan Government could not possibly meet its obligations. You have had this carrying on of a fic titious balance to the Civil Service Contingencies Fund, which you must have known you would have in the end to wipe off. I do not think it reflects very
    1528
    much credit upon any of the long series of Official Secretaries or Treasury Officials, who are responsible for it. I should like very much to ask, not only in regard to this Yote, but in regard to a previous Vote of Compensation due to certain American vessels seized in 1854 on suspicion of being slavers, whether there are still upon the Treasury account books any outstanding claims of this kind which will have to be written off sooner or later, as due to injured parties, or balances looked upon as quite irrecover able?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I feel exceedingly obliged to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. A. O'Connor) for having stated so clearly and so conclusively the whole of the facts of this case. I think, however, that he stated that the vessel waa arrested at the instance of the Colonial Government. Now, according to my information, it was arrested at the instance of the Government of San Domingo, but in reference to the other portion of his statement, the hon. Gentleman has stated with complete accuracy the full history of the case; and the only point I disagree with is his conclusion, that it would have been better if we had wiped the claim off years ago. If that had been done, we should not have got the £5,000 which we have received. Really it comes to this, that in 1872 the Government for whom we had acted, and who were responsible, avowed their responsibility and their intention to pay. In 1874 negotiations were carried on, and at that time the British Government thought so badly of their claim of £14,000, that they agreed to accept in full discharge a sum of £2,500. That £2,500 was not raised in consequence of financial em barrassments; and subsequently, in 1876, it was agreed between the two Governments to accept a sum of £5,000 in full discharge. That ought to have been paid in 1877–8, but it was not paid in consequenceof finaneialembarrassments. In 1880, however, they commenced to pay, and in 1886 they completed the last payment, making up the £5,000; and, immediately on the completion of that, the question was brought forward to wipe off the balance so far as the Trea sury were concerned. They have now brought this to a satisfactory issue, and I do not think I need detain the

    1529
    Committee any further on the sub-ject.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The words I used were not my words, but the words of the Treasury, under date January 3, 1879, and they are signed, "R. R. Lingen." They state that the Telegrafo was arrested at the instance of the Government at San Domingo. I read out these words, and the letter goes on to say that—
    "She wag prosecuted in the Vice Admiralty Court at Tortola as a pirate vessel, under instructions from the Colonial Office, founded upon advice given by the law officers of the Crown to the Foreign Office."
    My complaint is that when in 1877 the Government agreed that on payment of the £5,000 they would forego their claim or reduce it to that £5,000, it was their duty to let this House know it, then and there, and apply to Parliament for the necessary balance.
    Vote agreed to.
    (10.) £147, Treasury Chest Robbery.
    DR. CLARK: I should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) for some explanation respecting this Vote. Why should the Imperial Government pay for losses oc casioned by a breach of duty on the part of the officials of the Indian Government? Our charges in regard to India are so many that I am certainly astonished that the Imperial Government should ask us to pay any fresh Indian charge. I must admit that if I could pay money cheerfully for any of our Dependencies it would be for India, but I should like to know what is the reason why India should not pay this sum herself?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I think that when the hon. Member knows the facts he will see that this is not a charge which ought to be borne by the Indian Government. The occurrence took place at Trincomalee, in Ceylon, and the circumstances are these. An official went down to the strong room and brought up 2,000 rupees, with which to pay some accounts. The men to whom the money was due did not call for it on that particular day. The officer therefore locked the money up in a safe of which he supposed he had the only key. It was discovered the next day that the
    1530
    safe had been opened, and the money was gone. An investigation took place, the result being to show that during the term of office of the officer's predecessor there was a duplicate key to the safe. That duplicate key was lost on the death of the predecessor. Put shortly, therefore, the explanation amounts to this, that somebody had the duplicate key, opened the safe with it, and stole the money. The Government feel that the officer who put the money in the safe was not to blame, and they, there fore, ask the Committee to agree to the Vote.
    DR. TANNER: Mr. Courtney, this is a very small item, and the whole affair appears to me to be very simple. But with regard to the duplicate key, it appears to have been brought into existence during the term of office of a predecessor of the present holder of the post. Surely if the money was stolen through that predecessor's want of capacity, or through any negligence on his part in allowing the duplicate key to pass out of his possession, the loss ought to be made good—
    MR. JACKSON: I think the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied if I tell him that the officer to whom he refers is dead.
    DR. TANNER: I can assure you, Mr. Courtney, I was not acquainted with the poor gentleman. I am sorry he is dead. At any rate, even granting that point, I would ask what would happen if a sum of money were stolen in the same way from the Treasury chest in Ireland. In this case the event occurred, as I understand, in Ceylon. But suppose it had occurred in any other portion of Her Majesty's Dominions—say in Ireland—what would be the result? Why, the local rates would have to make good the loss. It appears that there has been a certain laxity in connection with the management of these affairs. [Ministerial laughter.] I am delighted that Gentlemen opposite take so much interest in this case as to laugh at it. I would, however, re mind them that it is no laughing matter for the taxpayers of the country. It appears, I say, that there has been a certain amount of laxity in connection with the proceedings which led to this robbery, and I should say that, instead of asking this Committee to pass this Vote, the Government ought to have

    1531
    levied it upon the district in which the robbery took place. I would, without any hesitation, recommend the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to refer this matter to the local authorities, and ask them to pay the money.
    Vote agreed to.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg, Mr. Courtney, to move that you do report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson).
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I hopo the hon. Member will be so good as to allow the next Vote to be taken. I think I may say that there was an understanding on both sides of the House that it should be disposed of to-night. The understanding has been most fairly carried out by hon. Gentlemen hitherto, and I am exceedingly obliged to them for it. I am sure the Committee will see that it will be for the convenience of the Public Service if the understanding is carried out in its entirety.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I have a suggestion to make as to the Post Office Vote. The Vote is almost always taken at a very late hour, when no proper discussion can take place. I would venture to suggest that the Vote should be taken first in the coming year, so that it can be fairly discussed. If such an arrangement can be made, I think it will be possible to take that Vote to-night.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is a reasonable one, and I will endeavour, as far as I can, to carry it out.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Mr. Courtney, I wish to put a question to you on a point of Order. I am desirous to know whether any hon. or right hon. Gentleman in this House is entitled to ask in an audible voice, "Who is the animal?" referring to another hon. Member?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) press his Motion to report Progress.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: No, Sir.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
    (11) £236,000, Supplementary, Post Office.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I shall not press you, Mr. Courtney, for a ruling as to the remark which I mentioned just now. It was with regard to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson). I shall pass it by with the contempt it deserves. On this Vote I desire to bring forward a slight grievance respecting the Post Office in Cork.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I rise to ask you a question, Sir. My hon. Friend (Mr. John O'Connor) is referring to Ireland. I wish to know whether I shall be in Order in referring to England and Wales after he has dealt with Ireland?
    THE CHAIRMAN: If otherwise in Order, it would not be out of Order be cause taken after Ireland. I cannot say whether it would be in Order until I hear what it is.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I will give way to the hon. Member.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I believe the remarks I have to make, and which will be very brief, will be perfectly in Order. I wish to refer to a matter con nected with Vote C. 1, which relates to the salaries and expenses of postmasters, clerks, &c. I should not have troubled the Committee with the question at all if I had been able to bring it under the notice of the Postmaster General in the shape of a Question, as I wished. But when I attempted to do so, I was in formed that, in the exercise of the discretion which the clerks at the Table possess, they could not allow my Question to appear on the Paper, and, there fore, I am obliged to take this oppor tunity of bringing the subject forward. The facts are, briefly, these. A gentleman named Archibald Vicar, who is connected with the Post Office in the Manchester District, has received his notice of discharge under circumstances which appear to me to demand some inquiry, and to indicate that he has not been fairly treated. This gentleman happened to be visiting Glenbeigh at the time I was there, and I met him and made his personal acquaintance. It appears that since his return to Manchester there has come under his notice

    1533
    some of those interesting leaflets published by the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union, and containing some of the usually truthful statements—the exceedingly truthful statements—respecting the evictions at Glenbeigh which that well-known and exceedingly truthful journal, The St. James's Gasette, is in the habit of publishing. This gentleman, having been on the scene of the Glenbeigh evictions, wrote a letter to The Manchester Guardian, in which appeared this sentence—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the hon. Member connects this with the Vote, unless he is prepared to say that the gentleman in question had his services provided for under Vote C 1. This is a Supplementary Vote. Of course the salaries of persons on the establishment of the Post Office are provided for in the regular Estimates.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I take it, Sir, that this Supplementary Vote refers to the clerks in the service of the Post Office during the past year.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Original and Main Vote would do so, but I do not think the present Supplementary Votes would.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Well, Sir, I do not know how many clerks there are in the Post Office. It would be very difficult for me to prove that this gentle man's salary, or any one sixpence of it, is included in a particular Vote. I think your ruling, Sir, would be, if I may so say, rather hard upon me.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The presumption evidently would be that the salaries of clerks in this office are provided for in the Main Estimates. It would be an exception if they appeared in these Supplementary Estimates. It lies on the hon. Member to establish the exception.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I will not press the point, but I will urge, as my reason for raising it at all, that this gentleman received notice of his discharge some weeks ago, and that no one can tell when the Main Estimates will come on. I have endeavoured to bring the matter under the notice of the Postmaster General but have been foiled, and, therefore, I was anxious to avail myself of this opportunity of stating the grievance. However, I do not wish to detain the Committee, and I will merely ask that, as I have been refused permission to
    1534
    put a Question in the House to the Postmaster General on the subject, the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to bring the matter before him privately. [The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. Raikes) signified assent.] I may mention another matter in connection with postmen in the County of Cornwall, and will ask leave to bring that subject before the Postmaster General also.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The question to which the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) has just alluded affects the rural postmen not only in Cornwall, but throughout the United Kingdom. Their wages are charged for in this Vote. Their case is one of exceptional hardship, because they do not receive the same amount of salary as their fellows in the towns, although their duties are much harder. Their wages amount only to 15 s. or 16 s. a week, and sometimes are as low as 12 s. They have greater distances to go than the postmen in the towns. The roads they have to traverse are nothing like as good as those in towns, and they have far heavier burdens to carry. In other branches of the Service—the Excise for instance—where men have to go long distances and to be away from home at the time of the mid-day meal, some kind of subsistence allowance is granted to them. The rural postman has nothing of the kind, although he is obliged to be from home from early morning till late at night, and is, therefore, forced to get his food away from home. This seems a small matter, but it is a very important item in the domestic economy of a man with a salary of only 15 s. a week. Lately, the rural postmen have had a great number of new duties imposed upon them in connection with the weighing of letters, the sale of stamps, the weighing of parcels and the carrying of parcels. In connection with the carrying of parcels, it must be remem bered that before they were bound to do this work they used to eke out their slender salaries by carrying parcels on their own account, and the result of the new regulations has, therefore, been to diminish their earnings. There is also a great grievance in connection with the way in which the system of having only a limited number of stripes works out. In one place there may be a considerate postmaster, who will press a man forward

    1535
    as deserving of a stripe, and the man will get it at the end of five years' service. Another man in a district close by ap plies for a stripe after seven years' service, and is told that as the number of stripes is limited he cannot have one; and he finds that, instead of five or seven years, he may have to serve as long as 12 years before he obtains a stripe. This system of having a limited number of stripes is, therefore, very unfair. The number of men who are eligible for stripes, or who would be eligible if the number was not limited, is constantly in creasing, and the grievance is therefore growing day by day. I trust that the Postmaster General will be able to give us some assurance that the condition of these poor men will be ameliorated.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I wish to make some remarks re-specting the condition and the wages of postmen in Cork. In that town, postmen are not eligible for promotion to the position of letter-sorters and to other positions of that kind, although in other offices all over the country they are eligible for such promotion. We all know what an incentive promotion is to men in the public service to do their duty well. There is also a grievance in regard to sick pay in the Cork Post Office. In Cork, the men only receive half-pay when they are sick, although in the Dublin Post Office the married men receive full pay when sick, and the single men three-quarter's pay. The grievance is all the greater because of the fact that the salaries of the men em ployed as postmen in the Cork Office are 25 per cent lower than the salaries received by the postmen in other offices of a like status. This, though a small grievance, is a substantial one; and I believe it is only necessary to bring it under the notice of the Postmaster General to have it inquired into.
    MR. J. BARRY: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has brought the question of the condition of the Irish postmen under the attention of the Committee. For several years past we have had discussions on the subject, and suggestions have been made that something should be done to increase the miserably inadequate pay of the Irish postmen. The present system operates harshly, not only on the postmen in Ireland, but also upon the tem-
    1536
    porary letter-carriers, who are treated even worse than the postmen. I know cases in which men have acted as tem porary carriers for 20 years. They have to walk distances of 20 miles a day, and their wages do not exceed 10 s. or 11 s. a-week. It is quite a mistake, therefore, to suppose that their duties are light; and they have to undertake serious responsibilities, because at certain times they have to carry letters containing large sums of money. It is highly creditable to them, as a class, that so few cases of robbery or defalca tion take place. The distances traversed in my own county are sometimes very great. In one case it amounts to 25 miles a-day, and in that case the wages paid to the carrier certainly do not exceed 11 s. a-week. It is altogether unworthy of a great Department like the Pott Office to continue men in the position of temporary letter-carriers for several years. What objection can there be to putting them on the permanent staff, and advancing their wages 4s. or 5s. a-week? I certainly hope the present Postmaster General will give this matter his earnest attention, and see if some thing cannot be done to improve the position of this most deserving class of men.
    MR. FLYNN: I desire to emphasize the remarks which have been made by my hon. Friends as to the position of the Irish postmen. Some time ago, Questions on the subject of the Cork letter-carriers were addressed to the then Postmaster General. The grievances I wish to bring before the Committee are three or four in number. In the first place, the letter-carriers complain that Cork is classed as a first-class office, and that the postmen receive second-class pay. In addition to this, they are most unfairly treated as regards stripes and promotion; and another grievance is, that they only receive half-pay when they are sick. They complain, further, that in Cork they have a larger amount of work to get through than the same class of men in Belfast or Dublin, and that they have to work longer hours. Besides this, they are obliged to work on Sundays all the year round. In Belfast, I understand, the carriers have the Sundays to themselves, and in Dublin they have two or three out of the four. We should like to know, from the Postmaster General, if

    1537
    the inquiry promised last year by the late Government has been held, and, if it has been held, have any recommendations been made to the Department, or, if not, is there any probability of the inquiry being held soon?
    MR. O'HEA: The services of these men cannot, I think, under any circumstances, be over-rated. We have here a very large sum to be voted under this particular Estimate; and it must be admitted that among the recipients of State pay there is no more deserving class than these men. I do not mean to travel beyond any particular radius; but in my constituency (Done gal) there arepostmen and letter-carriers who have to walk 10 or 12 miles, and who, during the 24 hours, have to walk, I dare say, 20 Irish miles. It would be a great injustice to this class to have any reduction made in their salaries. I know a great deal about the rural districts in Donegal, and I know the work these men have to do, in sunshine and storm, in rain or snow, from one year's end to the other. If there is any in crease of salary which lies within the discretion of the Postmaster General, or whoever is the head of the Department, the claims of this deserving class of public servants should not be ignored.
    DR. CLARK: I am glad we are to have another opportunity of discussing questions that arise out of this Vote, and I will now only give Notice of one or two points that will receive attention. Under head G 15, I notice an item, £1,300, for a new and extended mail cart service; and in reference to this I should like to ask why special facilities are given, why favourit ism is shown in the allocation of these contractors, whereby old contractors are left out? In my own constituency, the Thurso and Castleton mail express was contracted for by a man two years ago; but he had no opportunity of tendering for the new contract. I want to know if these contracts are all publicly advertised? Then, again, I should like to mention the mail service to the North. The Wick and Thurso morning mail from London only arrives an hour before the evening mail leaves. We want to induce the Postmaster General to give the same facilities as are afforded by the evening mail service, and this is a point that will be raised when the time comes for discussion.
    MR. ANDERSON: I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the difficulties that are encountered in some parts of Scotland with reference to founding Post Office Savings' Banks in rural districts. In a Northern constituency there have been two applications made for the establishment of a savings' bank; but they have been refused. In one village there are some 300 or 400 houses and a population of 1,800 or 1,900 people; and I cannot help thinking that the Post Office would do well to promote habits of thrift by encouraging the establish ment of savings' banks among the vil lagers. I hope the Department will consider this, even though there may be some slight loss. I do not know that there would be any loss in the two cases of Archieston and Dallas, which were brought to the notice of the Post Office Authorities.
    MR. BARRY: Before the right hon. Gentleman rises I should like to ask him to be good enough to explain the large additions to the original Vote for sites; there is an addition of £122,000 in one instance, and £126,000 in another; the original sums being £60,000 and £74,000. May I ask what were the unforeseen circumstances that led to this very large additional expenditure?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have carefully noted the various points raised, and am very glad to have the opportunity of giving what answers I can. As to the matter raised by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr.Conybeare), Ishallbe extremely glad to receive any representation he will be good enough to make. As to the general question of rural postmen, especially in Ireland, which has been pressed upon my attention by several hon. Members, I would point out that during the last few years something has been done to improve the position of these very deserving public servants. I entirely concur in all that has been said of the excellent character borne, and the important public services rendered, by these men. I think, considering their responsibilities, the sums of money entrusted to their care, and certainly the very moderate wages they receive, the high character they bear, and the rare occasions when any of them are found unworthy of the

    1539
    trust reposed in them,they deserve recog nition. Of course, the wages of any large class of employés are ruled by the consideration of what is sufficient to attract good men. When you find you are well served at a particular price, the Department would be hardly justified in coming to this House and asking for a grant of money to raise the salaries. Particular cases are constantly under consideration, particularly in Ireland during the last three years, and there has been a general tendency to raise the wages of rural postmen. The hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) referred to the question of good-service stripes, and the loss to men from the institution of the parcel post. I sympathise with the men who have been deprived of a small source of emolument they used to enjoy by the institution of the parcel post; but there is a certain amount of compensation, in some instances, from a slight though constant increase of pay in the place of what was formerly a casual employment. Having regard to the very great advantage the parcel post has been to the country, the wonderful strides it has made in public favour, minor and private interests must give way. As to the distribution of stripes, there is a good deal to be said in favour of the view which at different times has been pressed upon the Post Office, that the number of these stripes should, be increased, so as to bear a larger proportion to the number of men in the Force. At the present time it is strictly limited to a particular number; therefore, though a man may have earned his stripe he may have to wait some time for a vacancy before it can be obtained, and this is said to have a discouraging effect on the men. I shall be extremely glad if I can arrive at some system to make the distribution of stripes more regular among the men. An hon. Member spoke of the question of Cork Post Office, and I have to say there has been an inquiry into the status of the men employed there. I am informed that the result was to prove that, although they do not receive the same pay and allowances as their brethren in Dublin, they do receive the same pay and allowances as obtain in other Offices of the same class. But I will look into the matter again and see if there is any real grievance to be redressed. The hon.
    1540
    Member for South Wexford (Mr. Barry) said something about the position of temporary letter-carriers. They occupy a position, no doubt, not so good as established postmen; but if they are allowed to remain in that position it is an advantage to them, for they could not, it most instances, become established postmen, because they are not eligible. In many cases the men are above the prescribed age, and in other cases they are below that age. In the latter case it is possible they may become established letter-carriers, but in the other case their eligibility becomes less and less. A question has been raised by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) in regard to Scotch mail cart contracts. I am not aware of any instances where such contracts have not been exposed to public competition. There may have been cases of a special character, but I am quite aware that it is proper and desirable there should be public invitation of tenders. As to the mail train service, I think I remember something about that, and there is a certain amount of correspondence on the subject. I am afraid the cost to the Revenue of an acceleration of the morning service would hardly be justifiable. There is a good evening service, but the morning mails have to be sent by trains that stop much more frequently. The Department is always trying to accelerate the mail service, and you may be sure that if an opportunity offers for accelerating the morning service, without increasing the cost and producing a loss that is not justifiable, we shall take advantage of that opportunity. Another hon. Gentleman referred to Post Office Savings' Banks. I think it is very desirable to multiply Post Office Savings' Banks as far as possible, and I think some recent disclosures have deepened that conviction in the minds of persons who take an interest in this question. There are, however, some cases where it is undesirable to open Post Office Savings' Banks, having regard to the qualifications of the local postmaster or postmistress. In some cases where these are equal to the routine business of receiving and despatching letters, they would not be equal to the more responsible duty of keeping a savings' bank. But I think with the hon. Member, that wherever an opportunity offers we should extend the system of savings' banks, and I shall

    1541
    be very happy to entertain and consider any representation that hon. Members may make in this direction. A really important question, one of first-class importance, was that raised by the hon. Member for South Wexford, and one upon which I expected a great deal more would have been said. I am glad he has asked the question, because there is no doubt its importance deserves the consideration of the Committee. The very large addition, amounting altogether to £200,000, to be provided for sites for post and telegraph offices, represents as closely as possible the sum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the late Government were in Office last year, struck off the Estimates which were submitted by the Post Office. The Com mittee will recollect that in 1885 there was passed the Post Office Sites Act, which gave the Government the means of extending the premises of the General Post Office. When the Act was passed the Treasury proceeded to sanction the service of notices on owners of property in the locality. Those persons being served, became entitled to receive the purchase money as soon as the sums were decided by arbitration. The Authorities at the Post Office, including my Predecessor, now the Chancellor of the Duchy, arrived at the conclusion that it would be necessary in carrying out the plans to spend £443,000 in the acquisition of sites in the course of that financial year; but when the Estimates were submitted to the Treasury, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—for there had been a change of Government in the meantime, and the right hon. Gentleman the Mem ber for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was Chancellor—had, or imagined he had, good ground for assuming that the sum would not be expended in the course of the current year, and with a stroke of his pen he knocked off £200,000 from the Estimates submitted by the Post Office Authorities. But although it was very easy to remove that sum from the Estimates, it was not equally easy to lessen the liability of the Post Office to that extent, as the Post Office was bound to complete the purchases as soon as the arbitration was over. It has turned out that the Post Office made a wonderfully correct calculation; and the mistake of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was in
    1542
    exact proportion to the accuracy of the Post Office, as that very sum of £200,000 must come in course of payment during the financial year. The Post Office had foreseen this, and the sum now asked for is the same that ought to have been included in the ordinary Estimates for the year. I think nothing more need be said on this point at present. I rather expected that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby would have been here, and, I hoped, would have explained the situation, and how it was that such a curious financial method should have found favour in his eyes. But the hon. Member for South Wexford has given me the opportunity of explanation, and I am glad to have had the opportunity of showing that, although the sum is very large, it has been an automatic expenditure fixed on the Post Office by the Act of 1885. Why it was not foreseen by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is rather a matter for that right hon. Gentleman to explain than myself. With regard to the other expenditure included in the Estimate, I have only to say I think the Committee will be glad to hear that the additional expenditure on the establishment repre sents additional earnings. The addi tional £110,000 expended on the establishment represents an increase of £160,000 in estimated revenue. It is hoped, therefore, that though the sum is considerable, it will be much more than covered by revenue accruing in the course of the year in excess of the calculation made in the spring of last year. Something has been said of the telegraph system; but I will not enter into that now. I will take an opportunity of doing so on the general Estimates; but the immense extension of the telegraph system has brought on a corresponding additional cost. And now I think I have gone through the various points raised in discussion.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: May I ask, will the £200,000 complete the purchase of the sites?
    MR. RAIKES: Not entirely; there is another large sum to be paid; but this will complete the purchase of those sites which were estimated for by the Post Office last year as requiring completion in the course of this financial year.
    MR.BARRY: I am obliged totherlght hon. Gentleman for his clear explana-

    1543
    tion, which, to me is quite satisfactory, although it indicates a very peculiar method of finance. I would just like to ask, if I am in order in doing so, in relation to transactions of a more than ordinary magnitude. I would ask, if I am in Order, can the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee any idea of the cost of the arbitrations referred to? I have reason to believe that in this par ticular case the cost was excessive—very largeindeed. If theright hon. Gentleman could give any details on the point they would be interesting. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared with the information now? Then I will take an opportunity of repeating my question when the ordinary Estimates are under discussion.
    Vote agreed, to.
    (12) £122,000, Supplementary, Post Office Telegraphs.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Perhaps the right hon. Gen tleman can tell us what the increase of Telegraph revenue is estimated at? We understood last year that upon the introduction of the sixpenny telegrams there would be a loss of revenue in the present year of from £10,000 to £20,000, but, I understand, there has actually been a very large increase of business, so that not only has the loss of revenue not been realised, but there has been a large increase of income. I should like to know the total.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The right hon. gentleman has correctly surmised the result. I may say that when the Estimates for the present financial year were prepared it was then feared that the Telegraph revenue would be £20,000 less than last year, but we have realized a sum of £80,000 more than last year, that is to say, about £100.000 in excess of the Estimate.
    MR. BARRY: May I ask if any attention has been given to the development of the Telephone system or dealing with overhead wires?
    MR. RAIKES: There have been no special negotiations in progress in regard to Telephones, nor do I anticipate that it will be desirable to take up that question during the present year—there are suf ficient reasons for postponing it. As to overhead wires, no doubt it is a subject
    1544
    that has been forced on our consideration by the great damage caused by the snow during the winter. In different directions there have been extensions of the underground system, but generally in the Department opinion is in favour of retaining overhead wires because thev are very much cheaper, and on the whole it is thought desirable to retain that system even in view of an occasional dis location such as occurred at Christmas last. The expenditure for remodelling the whole system would be so great that I do not think the most extravagant House of Commons would be expected to sanction it.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

    FIRST OFFENDERS BILL.— [BILL 132.]
    (Mr. Howard Vincent, Lord Randolph Spencer Churchill, Sir Henry Selwin-lbbetson, Mr. Hoare, Mr. Addison, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Law-son, Mr. Molloy.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. HOWAED VINCENT: I beg to move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, and I do so in order that certain Amendments may be introduced, and that the Bill may be reprinted and circulated with a view to its recommittal.
    Motion made and Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"—(Mr. Howard Vincent)—put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee, and reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 189]; re-committed for Monday next.

    LICENSED PREMISES (EARLIER CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    (Dr. Cameron, Mr. Robert Reid, Mr. Mark Stewart, Mr. Donald Crawford, Mr. Lyell, Mr. Provand.)

    [BILL 153.] SECOND BEADING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    DR. CAMERON: At this late hour, I will not, of course, trouble the House with any lengthened explanation of the objects of the Bill. Briefly, the object is to close licensed premises in Scotland at an earlier hour

    1545
    than is required at present. The hour named in the Bill is 10, instead of 11 for public-houses, and 8 in the case of licensed grocers, 10 on Saturdays. The earlier hours for grocers' premises is in accordance with the desire of some leading representatives of the trade; and since the Bill was introduced hearty-Petitions in its favour have been sent from the Association of Licensed Grocers of Edinburgh and Leith. The Bill was introduced some Sessions ago; but was blocked, and never had an opportunity of being divided upon. The present Bill has also for some days past had a block against it, though not from a Member representing any Scotch constituency. Of course, he was perfectly within his right in blocking it; but it is proper that the House should know that no Scottish Representative has thought it his duty to oppose the Bill, and that among Scotch Members there is a great preponderance of opinion in favour of the Bill, the second reading of which I now move.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    COLONEL HUGHES: I bog to move that this debate be now adjourned. The Bill requires more attention than we can give it now. I know that it relates to Scotland; but it has a bearing on the general question which should be dealt with in a general measure. From what Iknowofthe restric tions placed upon the sale of liquor in Scotland, they have not been attended with any very beneficial result, neither have they in Wales. This proposal for a still further restriction in Scotland, whether it be benefioial or not, is worthy of debate; it refers to a class of legislation for the three countries, and is not to be disposed of in this summary manner.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Colonel Hughes.)
    MR. MARK STEWART: Without troubling the House for long, and imitating the brevity with which the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) has moved the second reading, I rise to cor roborate him, and express my belief that it is the general opinion in Scotland that this principle should be affirmed,
    1546
    and that this Bill should be read a second time. I feel assured that a large majority of the Scotch Members will support it.
    DR. CAMERON: Since a Division is to be taken, I may say we will consider it, for all practical purposes, a Division upon the Bill.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): This Bill unquestionably deals with a very large subject; and I am quite clear about this—that whatever opinions hon. Mem bers may express on the subject, and whatever their belief as to the general opinion in Scotland on the matter, as far as I know there has been no matured opinion in Scotland at all; the proposal has not come before the constituencies in any marked manner. I would point out to the House that the Bill deals with a matter that must unquestionably be dealt with in the larger scheme that must come within the scope of general measures dealing with Local Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland. No doubt, in some parts of Scotland, it would be an advantage to have these shortened hours for licensed hounes; but whether such a provision is equally applicable to the whole country, and particularly the large towns, is quite another question. I would suggest that, at this time, the second reading should, not be pressed. It is quite impossible that matters of this kind should be dealt with in a piecemeal way. The Bill is of a sweeping character; it is for the purpose of closing all public-houses in Scotland at an earlier hour than they now close, and it is absolutely necessary that the House should know what is the feeling in Scotland on the subject before we proceed with such a Bill as this. The subject must be dealt with, as I said before, in a totally different way. The whole ten dency of the present time is towards the subject being dealt with in a comprehensive scheme of local government. If the Second Reading Motion is pressed now, I must be under the necessity of again moving the adjournment.
    MR. SINCLAIR&c.): The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate says there is no matured

    1547
    opinion in Scotland on this subject; but I desire to say there is no subject upon which my constituents have made known their wishes with more precision; and I have no doubt many other Members have had a similar experience. I will not go into the merits of the Bill now. I will only say that if a large system of local government really were proposed dealing with the subject in an effectual way, I have very little doubt that those in charge of the Bill before the House would be prepared to withdraw it in favour of the more effective method.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I must express my regret that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has seen fit to oppose the second reading of this Bill. I regret that a Motion for Adjournment should have been moved from this side, when a large majority of the Representatives of the people interested are in favour of the measure. I think it is by such opposition that the spirit of Home Rule is encouraged. I, therefore, desire heartily and cordially to support the Motion of the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Cameron).
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: When this Bill was before the House in 1885, I expressed myself in favour of it, though I also expressed my preference for having the subject dealt with in a general scheme of local government. I was, and am, ready to accept the principle of Local Option in any form. My adherence to the principle of Local Option induces me to oppose the restrictions in the Bill. I agree with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that a measure of this sort ought not to be discussed apart from the large measure in which it needs must be included, and I shall support the Adjournment.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Not only are we informed by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that public opinion on this measure is not matured; but the House of Commons is not given the benefit of any detailed explanation of the provision of the Bill, or of the grounds upon which it is proposed, do not think that hon. Members can expect us, without good reasons being given, to agree to a measure that seriously restricts liberty in Scotland, and without knowing what the feeling in Scotland really is. I hope the view
    1548
    of the Lord Advocate will be adopted; and to give the House the opportunity of expressing an opinion, I move the Adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Debate be now adjourned." (Viscount Cranborne.)
    MR. E. R. RUSSELL: The noble Lord opposite (Viscount Cranborne) need be under no apprehension for the liberties of Scotland. Scotland has Representatives; and even if this were not so, the people of Scotland are perfectly competent to look after their own freedom. We are sometimes puzzled on this side of the House to know what there is in the position of the noble Lord to make him so exceedingly pugnacious on this particular subject. Unless it be that he represents—
    SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I rise to Order. Are these observations pertinent to a Motion for Adjournment?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member (Mr. Russell) will bear in mind the Motion before the House is the Adjournment of the Debate.
    MR. E. R. RUSSELL: I quite submit to your ruling, Sir, but the noble Lord said, the rights and liberties of Scotland were in danger; and I wish to point out there is no danger of the kind, and that that, therefore, cannot be urged in favour of an Adjournment of the Debate under the circumstances. Perhaps the noble Lord, as representative of a principle stated in this House before—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member would not be in Order in continuing those remarks.
    MR. ANDERSON: I hope this Motion for Adjournment will be withdrawn. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has expressed his desire to know the opinion of Scotland, and that, I understand, is the ground upon which the noble Lord opposite bases his Motion. But I think that, with one exception, all hon. Members for Scotland will vote in favour of this Bill. The Lord Advocate is in his usual unfortunate position of not knowing what the opinion of Scotland is. I think it will be expressed in the Division List, if we are allowed to Divide.
    MR M'LAGAN: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend (Mr. E.

    1549
    Robertson) express himself in favour of Local Option; but that is no reason why he should not support the Bill. It is a small Bill, and universally approved in Scotland, not with standing what the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has said. I have heard no dissentient voice raised against it, and we have had no Petitions against it, and if there have not been a great many in its favour it is because it was taken for granted the Bill would pass. As to waiting for the Local Government Bill, I can only say that we have waited for that Bill so long that there is every reason to pass this Bill now, including the provisions of it in the Local Government Bill afterwards.
    DR. CLARK: As to the question of restricting rights, public-houses will be allowed, to be open until 10—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled, on a Motion for Adjournment, to discuss the merits of the Bill.
    DR. CLARK: The question is simply this, whether this matter has been sprung upon the House and the country, or whether the opinion of Scotland has been taken. The ground taken up in favour of adjournment is not tenable. We have had an expression of opinion from Scotch Members all in favour of the measure, the only Member who has spoken on the other side being the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson), and he has spoken because the question came before him in his constituency, and he pledged himself to go against the measure. All other Members on both sides of the House have been in favour of the Bill, and have expressed the wish of their constituents. I think it is very undesirable that English Members should interfere, and prevent a Scotch question being discussed by Scotch Members, when from both sides there is a feeling in favour of the discussion.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: I shall vote against the Motion for Adjournment, although I am opposed to the principle of the measure. But I think that hon. Members from Scotland are entitled to discuss any Bill they may bring forward, and I protest against the Government trying to check that discussion.
    SIR ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL: I must say I hope this Motion for Adjournment will be withdrawn. Although one could have wished to
    1550
    have had this Bill considered at an earlier hour, yet I feel sure from the silence of those from whom we might have expected opposition, that there is a strong desire the Bill should pass. It would be a great pity to burke that desire by a Motion for Adjournment.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: I will venture to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), well aware, as he is, of the few opportunities private Members have of bringing on any question, to exercise his influence with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, who, of course, has opinions for which we all have the greatest respect, except in relation to Scotch matters, for he does not understand the feeling of Scotland. On this side, we are entitled to say we find the expression of Scotch opinion; and seeing the opinion expressed in favour of the Bill, I venture to think it would be a graceful thing for the Government to allow this small Bill to pass its second reading, seeing that there is no opposition to the principle of the measure.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): The reason why the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Cranborne) moved the Adjournment was, that there had been no attempt to discuss the question or to enlighten the House as to the reason why these proposals were now urged. I will venture to say there are very few Members of the House who expected a Bill of this kind, involving such grave principles, would come on so late at night. The moving the Adjournment of the Debate was in order to invite the House to express an opinion as to who ther, under these circumstances, the House should be asked now to come to a decision on the principle of the Bill. I do not understand that the noble Lord, or any other hon. Member, has any desire to weary the House with constant Motions for Adjournment. It is with a view of giving the House an opportunity of saying if a question of this magnitude should be discussed and decided at this hour.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 100: Majority 12.—(Div. List, No. 45.)
    Debate adjourned till Wednesday.

    COUNTY COURTS [EXPENSES].
    Coiuitttred in Committee
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any Expenses that may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for amending the Acts relating to County Courts, so far as regards the payment of certain Expenses connected with County Courts.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  MOTION.

    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SEAMEN'S VOTE) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Atkinson, Bill to enable Master Mariners, Marine Engineers, Seamen, and Fishermen to Vote in Parliamentary Elections in the same manner in which Members of Universities are now able to record their Votes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Atkinson, Sir Kobert Fowler, Mr. Baden-Powell, Mr.Grotrian, Mr. Thomas Sutherland, Mr. Ewart, Sir Edward Birkheck, Mr. King, Mr. Gourley, and Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 190.]
    House adjourned at twenty minutes before Three o'clock.