Sitting of 19 July 1877

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Resolutions [July 16] reported—Postponed Resolution [July 17] agreed to.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Solway Salmon Fisheries* [250]; Saint Catherine's Harbour, Jersey* [251]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Artisans and Labourers Dwellings)* [255].
Select Committee—Public Health (Ireland)* [116], nominated.
Committee—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) (re-comm.) [184]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Fisheries (Oysters, Crabs, and Lobsters)* [217ߝ257]; Building Societies Act (1874) Amendment (re-comm.)* [243]; Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act (1857) Amendment* [246].
Third Reading—Telegraphs (Money)* [227]; Married Women's Property (Scotland)* [169], and passed.
Withdrawn—Poor Law (Scotland)* [134]; Valuation of Property* [63]; Patents for Inventions* [64]; Public Health (Metropolis)* [187]; Bishoprics* [153]; Valuation of Property (Ireland)* [102].

QUESTIONS.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—CIRCULARS TO MEMBERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. FORSYTHrose to ask a Question of the Speaker with reference to the Privilege of Members. He had lately received no fewer than 10 printed Circulars headed "Laymen's Association." He would read one of them—
  "Sir,—As one of your constituents, I beg to address you as to the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874. The passing of that Act was so notoriously partizan, and the confusion and injustice consequent on its working have been so prejudicial to the work of the Church in many parishes, that I am compelled as a matter of duty to ask you whether you will vote for its repeal. I beg very courteously, but still firmly, to inform you that the next Election I shall, apart from all questions of politics, feel it my duty to withhold my vote from any candidate who will not pledge himself to the repeal of this Act."
  He had no objection to any number of his constituents individually expressing their opinion with reference to any vote of his; but he did object to a body of men banding themselves together to manufacture printed papers asking his constituents not to support him if he did not give his vote in a particular way. That seemed little loss than intimidation, and he wished to know, Whether a breach of Privilege had been committed?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone has handed to me a copy of the Circular which he has now read. I cannot say that the offence contained in it is of so grave a character as to constitute it a breach of Privilege. At the same time, I am bound to observe that expressions such as those contained in that Circular are calculated to influence the independent judgment of Members, and as such are highly reprehensible.

  EXPLOSIVES ACT—THE MAGISTRATES AT LANCHESTER.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the decision of the magistrates at the Lanchester Petty Sessions, county Durham, on the 5th instant, in fining a miner named Fletcher for making cartridges
  1514
  with blasting powder in his own house, which cartridge he was going to use in his occupation in the Stanley Colliery, county Durham; and, whether, considering the decision is one that affects the whole mining interest of the Country, there are any means of ascertaining if the decision of the magistrates is in conformity with the provisions of the Explosive Act under which Fletcher was tried and convicted?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I am informed that this case will be brought before a superior Court; and, if so, the case will be decided; and I do not think that I should be justified in giving an opinion as to a question of law in a matter which is sub judice.

  MALTA—FOOD TAXES—MR. ROWSELL'S REPORT.—QUESTION.
  MR. BAYLEY POTTERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, When Mr. Rowsell's Report in reference to the Food Taxes in Malta will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, when the decision of the Government on the subject will be made known?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Mr. Rowsell's Report has only been recently received, and before any decision can be arrived at, it will be necessary that communications should be made with the Local Government as well as that the subject shall be very fully considered by Her Majesty's Government. Meanwhile it would be unadvisable to lay the Report upon the Table until the decision arrived at can be communicated to the House.

  ARMY—ALDERSHOT CAMP—PURCHASE OF CHOBHAM RIDGES.—QUESTION.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that under the powers of the Defence Act the War Office has given notice of its intention to acquire compulsorily the open land known as "Chobham Ridges," with the view of inclosing such land?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, there was no necessity for giving notice under the Defence Act, because the War Office had already completed the purchase—from the lords of the manor in May last, and from the commoners in July last. There was no intention whatever of inclosing the land.

  CHRIST'S HOSPITAL—SUICIDE OF A SCHOLAR.—QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the present inquiry into Christ's Hospital will be extended to the School where the junior boys are educated at Hertford; and, whether it is intended that the proceedings of the Committee shall continue to be conducted in private?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I have placed myself in communication with the gentlemen who have undertaken the inquiry, as to whether any good is to be gained by extending it to Hertford School. With regard to the publicity of the Inquiry, I believe the gentlemen who form the Committee are unanimously of opinion that they will attain the object of the Inquiry best by having the Inquiry private, although the Report which they will make will, of course, be laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. FAWCETT: I beg to give Notice that on Monday I will ask, Whether the result of the answers to the Home Secretary's inquiry as to Hertford School will be laid before the House; and that on going into Committee of Supply I shall move a Resolution that any Report founded upon a private Inquiry will not be satisfactory to the public.

  POOR LAW UNIONS (IRELAND).

    QUESTION.
    MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it has been finally determined by Government that a Commission shall issue to direct a local inquiry as to the propriety of reducing the number of workhouses in Ireland; and, if such local Commission is to be appointed, whether the scope of its inquiry will be extended to the advisability of utilizing for the accommodation of harmless lunatics and idiots any workhouses which may be deemed superfluous and unnecessary, and also into the advisability of reviewing and re-arranging the present inconvenient limits and boundaries of dispensary districts in Irish Poor Law Unions?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: It has been decided that this subject should be locally inquired into by a
    1516
    Commission, and their attention will be directed to the following points:— Whether, having due regard to the extent and population of the present Poor Law Unions, the necessities of the sick and destitute poor therein, and the proper administration of the Poor Law, any Unions can be dissolved and amalgamated with adjoining Unions; and whether it would be necessary in carrying out such changes to re-arrange any of the present dispensary districts. Whether, without altering the boundaries of Poor Law Unions, any existing workhouse could be wholly or in part dispensed with, and accommodation provided in other adjacent workhouses for the whole or for any class of the sick or destitute poor of the Union, the workhouse of which is dispensed with; and whether any workhouse that may be dispensed with might be used for the reception of the lunatic poor or for any other purposes.

  ARMY RETIREMENT—THE RESERVE FORCES.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can now say whether the new scheme of Army Retirement will include provision to make the services of retired Officers available, in case of need, with the Reserved and Auxiliary Forces?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Without going into details, I think there will be some provisions which will meet, to a certain extent, the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I have every hope of being able in a few days to lay that scheme before the House.

NAVY—H.M.S. "MONARCH."

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, To state the nature and cost of the intended alterations and repairs of H.M.S. "Monarch," and probable time that will be required for her completion; if she is to be furnished with compound machinery and increased power of speed; whether her capacity for fuel is to be enlarged; if so, for how many days; and, further, to inquire the intended speed and capacity for fuel of the gun boats ordered to be built during the present financial year?
  MR. A. F. EGERTON,in reply, said, that the Monarch was to have new boilers, her machinery was to be overhauled by her makers, and other repairs were to be done. The estimated cost was about £50,000. No date was fixed for the completion of the work, but it would probably be about the end of this year. The machinery would not be compound, nor would her speed—which was 14 knots an hour—be increased. Her capacity for fuel would not be enlarged. He knew of no new gunboats to be built during the present financial year.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE WAR—ALLEGED BULGARIAN AND RUSSIAN ATROCITIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. R. POWERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the report in the "Daily Telegraph" (July 16th) of frightful cruelties and tortures alleged to have been inflicted upon the non-combatant Bulgarian Turks by Bulgarian Christians and Russian soldiers; and, if Her Majesty's Government have received any information concerning these outrages?
  MR. BOURKE: Besides the Question which has just been asked by my hon. Friend, there are two other Questions upon the Paper—one by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Hanbury), and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for Cricklade (Mr. Goddard). I think I can answer them all at the same time. Telegraphic Reports of these different transactions have been received by Her Majesty's Government from various sources, from our Consuls in Turkey, and from the Turkish authorities. A collection of these Reports is now being made in the Foreign Office, and will be presented to the House in a special Paper, in the same way as the Papers on the transactions in Bosnia and Bulgaria. Everyone will then be in a position to judge for himself of the nature of the occurrences, and of the amount of authenticity to be attributed to the statements.

  ARMY—RIFLE MILITIA REGIMENTS—UNIFORMS.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL NAGHTENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is in-
  1518
  tended to change the uniform of any of the Rifle Militia Regiments to red; and, whether, in case of any such alteration being carried out, an allowance will be made to the officers towards the expense incurred?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, that though he could have wished that some of the Rifle Militia Regiments were dressed in red, he did not intend to exercise any compulsion upon them to change their uniforms.

  THE SLAVE TRADE— AFRICA (EAST COAST)—LIBERATED SLAVES.

    QUESTION.
    SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTIIER (for Sir JOHN KENNAWAY)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state what number of slaves have been liberated by Her Majesty's cruisers on the East Coast of Africa during the years 1875 and 1876; to whom these slaves have been handed over under the Slave Trade Act of 1873; and what provision has been made for their protection and maintenance?
    MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, 456 slaves were liberated by Her Majesty's cruisers on the East Coast of Africa in 1875, and 634 in 1876. Of those captured in 1875, 239 were taken over by the Church Missionary Society, and 154 by the Universities Society—a society promoted by the Universities of this country. Two others were sent to Natal, and some were, at their own request, taken to the mainland and given letters of manumission. Of the 634 liberated in 1876, 45 were sent to Natal, to a protection society there which was well known and was under Government supervision, and they had every reason to believe that slaves sent there would be taken care of. Twenty others were taken over by the Universities Society, a great many others were taken by the Church Missionary Society, and 85 were landed on the mainland, at their own request, with letters of manumission. The statistics which he had did not account for the total number who were liberated in that year; but he believed a great portion of the remainder had been taken over by the Church Missionary Society and had been sent to Natal. Dr. Kirk had been specially instructed to report as to the difference between the figures,

    1519
    and his Report was expected shortly. As to the future maintenance of the liberated slaves, Her Majesty's Government had every reason to believe that both the society in Natal and the Church Missionary Society were able and willing to provide for them, and they did not suppose there would be any difficulty in disposing of them in the same way that they had been disposed of in the years 1875–6.

  NAVY—THE NEW NAVAL COLLEGE— THE SITE.—QUESTION.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, having regard to the great interest generally felt in the selection of a site for the new Naval College, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give this House as early an opportunity as possible of expressing an opinion on the proposal to purchase the Mount Boone site?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERin reply, said, he thought the most convenient opportunity for discussing the question of the site of the new Naval College would be when the Vote was proposed. That would be when the Navy Estimates were again brought forward. He was not able to say now on what day they would be taken, but there would be no unnecessary delay in bringing them forward.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—PUBLIC PROSECUTORS.—QUESTION.
  MR. CHADWICKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a report in the "Times" of the 22nd June, of observations by the Lord Chief Justice in the High Court of Justice, to the following effect:—
  "So long as the Government has not that which is essential to the administration of justice—a public prosecutor—so long every individual, however rash or ill advised, has a right to put the Criminal Law in motion;"
  whether the Government have any intention of proposing to Parliament next Session any Bill which will provide for the appointment of public prosecutors; and, whether they will consider in making provision for such appointments the practicability of authorising clerks to
  1520
  magistrates, who are paid by salary in lieu of fees, to act as public prosecutors?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, his attention had been called to the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice, who felt strongly on this matter. The question of a Public Prosecutor had formed a subject of consideration, not only to the present, but to the late Government. He must, however, warn the hon. Member and the House that the appointment of a Public Prosecutor, though necessary, would be found to be a very expensive luxury when carried out, not only with regard to the Staff to be appointed, but in the prosecution expenses, which would be heavier than at present. He was prepared, whenever an opportunity offered, to bring in a Bill on the subject; and with regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member that magistrates' clerks should be authorized to act as public prosecutors, he would refer him to the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice in the Report of the Judicature Commission, where his Lordship observed that they would not get better duties from the same men by paying them higher salaries and calling them by a different name.

  LOCAL TAXATION—HIGHWAYS AND TURNPIKES.—QUESTION.
  MR. SEVERNEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the continually increasing charges thrown upon the rates of rural districts by the abolition of turnpikes, and the unequal incidence of these burthens, Her Majesty's Government have any intention of introducing a Highway Bill during the next Session of Parliament, and of pressing its adoption?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, the Government were very well aware that in several of the rural districts a growing feeling had for some time past found expression as to the charges thrown on the local rates in consequence of the abolition of turnpike tolls. The complaint on the subject would have been met by a measure which he had introduced last Session and which was prepared with a view to be re-introduced this year. He did not feel in a position to speak as to future legislation, but he hoped to do something next Session.

  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS, &c. (IRELAND).

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. STACPOOLEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the practice adopted by certain Boards of Guardians and Governors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, in cases where officers seek an increase of salary, of compelling the officers to resign and take their chance of re-election before such application can be considered; and, whether, if he considers this method of dealing with such applications an improper one, he would be prepared to recommend its discontinuance.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: My attention was first called to this matter by the Notice of the hon. Member's Question. I have not been able to ascertain that any practice prevails among Boards of Guardians and governors of lunatic asylums of compelling their officers to resign before considering any applications for increase of salary; but I am informed that the Board of Guardians and the governors of the lunatic asylum at Ennis adopted such a practice more than two years ago. The Local Government Board at that time informed the Board of Guardians that they objected to their action on the subject; but I do not find that the Inspectors of lunatic asylums made any communication to the Board of Guardians. The practice seems to me open to objection; but the hon. Member is himself a governor of the lunatic asylum, and can move that it should be discontinued, if he thinks fit to do so.
    MR. STACPOOLE: Is there any regulation of the Irish Privy Council under which this has been carried out?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No; I believe not.

  INLAND REVENUE— GROCERS' LICENCES.—QUESTION.
  MR. DALRYMPLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a memorial signed by nine hundred medical practitioners, published in a recent number of the "Lancet," setting forth the evils resulting in their opinion, especially to women, from the purchase under the guise of necessaries of spirituous liquors from licensed grocers; and,
  1522
  whether he will bring that memorial under the notice of the Commission about to take evidence on that subject?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: My attention was not called to this matter until the Notice of the hon. Member appeared on the Paper; but I made inquiries this morning, and I do not find that any memorial has been presented at the Secretary of State's Department. The Lord Advocate is about to nominate the Commission to take evidence, and if the memorial in question comes before me or the Lord Advocate, it will receive full consideration.

  THE IRISH CONSTABULARY—SALUTES—QUESTION.
  MAJOR O'GORMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the Royal Irish Constabulary, serving at the Phoenix Park Depot, Dublin, are obliged to pay all compliments to Her Majesty's Military Forces, a courtesy which the latter refuse to extend to the Royal Irish Constabulary when passing, under arms, military barracks and guards; and, if so, whether it is intended to issue orders to the Royal Irish Constabulary to discontinue the practices of paying the compliments alluded to; or to concert measures to ensure that Her Majesty's Military Forces shall, on all similar occasions, pay to the Royal Irish Constabulary similar compliments and salutes?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: There is no regulation of the Royal Irish Constabulary making it imperative that the members of the Force serving at the depot in the Phoenix Park should pay compliments to the military. It has been customary for them to do so, and for the military to return the compliment. It may possibly have happened that in a few instances the military have failed to return them; but I do not see that there is an occasion for me to take action in the matter.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "INFLEXIBLE"—THE INSTRUCTIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. ASHBURYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Instructions given by the Government to the Committee appointed to inquire into the question of the sta-

  1523
  bility of H.M.S. "Inflexible;" and, if so, bow soon Copies can be distributed to honourable Members?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not think it would be convenient to lay the Instructions upon the Table. They have been settled by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and by the Board of Admiralty. They are now in the hands of the Committee, who are about to commence their sittings next week. As soon as possible the Report will be presented, and the Instructions with it.

  THAMES RIVER (PREVENTION OF FLOODS) BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. GORDONasked the Senior Member for Chelsea, Whether it is his intention to take any other step for the purpose of bringing under the notice of the House the course pursued by the Metropolitan Board of Works with reference to the Thames River (Prevention of Floods) Bill, having regard to the opposition offered to his Motion on the subject by the Chairman of that Board?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, it was quite true, as implied in the Question of his hon. Friend and Colleague, that the opposition of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel Hogg) had prevented, owing to the operation of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule, his bringing forward his Motion in favour of altering and proceeding with the Thames River (Prevention of Floods) Bill. The hon. and gallant Member had refused to proceed with the Bill, and nothing would now be done to prevent the continuance of these floods, the responsibility for which would lie at the door of the majority of the Metropolitan Board. He might, however, possibly find an opportunity for making some remarks upon the subject upon the second reading of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) Bill, which stood for second reading 28th upon the Orders of the Day, although it had not been printed.

  ARMY—DEFICIENT TRANSPORT—THE WINDSOR REVIEW.—QUESTION.
  MR. HAYTERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the deficiency of transport for the troops marching from Aldershot to Windsor for the late
  1524
  Review was so great as to necessitate the dismounting of two batteries of Artillery, and some of the Engineer Train, to supply horses; and, whether, even with that assistance, the blankets and waterproof sheeting for the men had to be left behind, contrary to the recommendations of the Medical Staff?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, the facts stated in the Question were, he believed, correct. The fact was that the transport was not increased for this purpose at all. The transport for the summer drills at Aldershot had been very hardly worked, and no increase was made for the march to Windsor, but every effort was taken to secure the comfort of the troops. Of course, the transport borrowed from the batteries and Engineer train was only owing to the special circumstances of the ease. It was true that the blankets and waterproof sheeting were not taken.

  METROPOLIS—THE NEW LODGE IN HYDE PARK.—QUESTION.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he can state to the House the circumstances under which Mr. Albert Grant was asked, by the Treasury, to pay the cost of the erection of a new Superintendent's Lodge in Hyde Park?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: When his own house was in course of erection, Mr. Grant applied to the First Commissioner of Works for the removal of the brick wall of Kensington Gardens and a Lodge which were immediately opposite the new house, undertaking to replace the wall by an iron railing, and to pay the cost of the erection of a Lodge in any spot that might be deemed suitable for the residence of the Park Superintendent. The First Commissioner of Works agreed to the proposals of Mr. Grant, as they were calculated to improve that portion of Kensington Gardens which was affected by them without involving any charge upon the public purse.

  MINES (SCOTLAND)—INUNDATION OF THE HOME FARM COLLIERY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it be correct that Mr. Ralph Moore,

    1525
    Inspector of Mines for the Eastern district of Scotland, reported to him the following things in regard to the inundation of the Home Farm Colliery:—
    "The inundation was wholly unexpected and unforeseen:
    "That the mines of Messrs. Hamilton and McCulloch were well conducted:
    "That the relatives of the four deceased persons who lost their lives by the inundation were satisfied that the bodies should remain in the mine;"
    whether it be true that Mr. Moore, when under examination before Mr. Dickenson, Inspector of Mines, on the 29th ult. admitted that if he had known what the witnesses stated as to sand and gravel being seen in large quantities among the water, that he would have been alarmed, and that he would have withdrawn the workmen from the mine; whether it be true that he admitted he really from his own knowledge knew nothing of the mine, as he had not been in it for over twelve months; whether he further admitted in his examination that he made the report about the relatives being satisfied without even consulting them directly on the subject in any way; whether it is a fact that the inspector did not visit the mine or enter it for over twelve months; and, if he is satisfied with the conduct of the Inspector in the discharge of the duties imposed on him by "The Mines Act, 1872?"
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that Mr. B. Moore had reported that the inundation was wholly unexpected and unforeseen. He formed this opinion from a careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case. The mines of Messrs. Hamilton and M'Culloch were well conducted. The Inspector had not himself been in this particular mine for 12 months, but the assistant Inspector had been.

  ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. M'LARENasked the honourable Member for Dumbartonshire, Whether, with the view of facilitating the passing of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) (recommitted) Bill, he will withdraw the 190 Notices of Amendments, which he has placed on the paper, to be moved when that Bill is in Committee?
  MR. ORR EWING: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had spent as much time in reading my Amendments as he has done in counting them, he would have discovered that I had only two Amendments upon the Paper, and that the other alterations were verbal ones, consequent on those two Amendments. I am as anxious as the hon. Member that the present system of maintaining roads and bridges by tolls and pontages should be abolished; but when making this change, I desire that between county and burgh the mode adopted should be equitable, simple, and definite, and without the intervention of Provisional Orders, which, when opposed, are as expensive as Private Bills. ["Order, order!"] I believe that my Amendments—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not anticipate the discussion upon the Bill.
  MR. ORR EWING: I was only giving my reasons for not being able to comply with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE WAR— THE SULINA MOUTH OF THE DANUBE.—QUESTION.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Russians have commenced to block up one of the principal mouths of the Danube by sinking stones and ships in opposition to the remonstrance of the International Commission; and, whether it is intended to direct the attention of the Government of Russia to such a breach of the public law of Europe, as declared by the Treaties of 1856 and 1871?
  MR. BOURKE: In answer to my hon. Friend I have to state that the British Danube Commissioner has reported that four vessels of the nature described in the Question have been sunk in the Sulina mouth of the Danube, and that, consequently, only a depth of four feet is left now for the navigation. When this came to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, he immediately expressed a wish and hope to the Russian Government that measures would be taken to prevent the obstruction of the navigation of the Danube. Papers on

  1527
  the subject will be laid on the Table of the House. I may also mention that the British Commissioner at the Danube has been authorized to join in any protest that may be made by his Colleagues, the other Commissioners, which they think it right to make on the subject. He had also been instructed to make detailed reports, and the matter will receive the serious consideration of the Government from time to time.

  SOUTH AFEICA CONFEDERATION— THE TRANSVAAL TERRITORY.— QUESTION.
  MR. A. MILLSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is contemplated that the whole debt of the Transvaal Territory, estimated by Lord Carnarvon at about £300,000, should be eventually met by the Imperial Treasury; whether the £100,000, placed on the Supplementary Estimate, represents the total amount to be asked from Parliament; and, whether there are any other grounds, besides the alleged fertility of the Transvaal, for anticipating the repayment of Imperial advances?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: It is not intended to ask the Imperial Treasury to discharge the debt of the Transvaal State, nor do we propose to ask Parliament for any further sum than the £100,000 of which Notice has been already given. With regard to the Debt, I should mention that while the Estimate must of necessity be only approximate, so far as can be ascertained, the total Debt—previous to the sum now asked for in the Supplementary Estimate—was about £220,000. The grounds for anticipating repayment of the advance, though they appear to be regarded by my hon. Friend as somewhat problematical, are, in addition to the great fertility of the country—which I may observe is not merely alleged, but thoroughly ascertained—its extensive mineral resources.

  THE PRISONS ACT— THE PRISON COMMISSIONERS.

    QUESTION.
    In reply to MR. HIBBERT,
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Prisons Commissioners, whose ap-
    1528
    pointment was just announced, were appointed under the recent Act which gave power to appoint them at once. Although the Act itself did not come into operation immediately, it was necessary that preliminary arrangements should be made by the Commissioners. The four gentlemen were all to be paid. Two of them were old directors of prisons and two were magistrates, one taken from the North and one from the South.

  ARMY—ESCAPE OF A DEFAULTING OFFICER—QUESTION.
  MR. CALLANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that a Lieutenant in the 94th Regiment, when charged early in the present year with gross misconduct, amounting to the most serious criminal offence, was placed under arrest merely on parole, and not in close custody, or handed over to the civil authorities, whilst the complainant was closely confined to the guard-room; that in the course of the night the Lieutenant broke his parole and absconded; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken by the military authorities to secure the arrest of the Lieutenant; whether the in formations on which the Lieutenant in question was so arrested have been handed over to the proper civil authorities so as to secure his being made amenable to justice; whether the attention of the Secretary of State for War has been directed to a letter which appeared in the "Broad Arrow" of May 26, in which it is stated that—
  "Whilst the 94th Regiment was at Rush-more, a Cavalry Officer, accompanied by a friend, came into the mess-room and loudly declared his intention to horsewhip a Captain of the 94th, whom he denounced as a blackguard and a scoundrel, for having, as he alleged, insulted his wife in a Railway carriage after he had confided her to his charge for the journey; the Commanding Officer (Lord John Taylour), who is a great friend of the insulted Captain, was content with receiving an apology from the Cavalryman for having disturbed the harmony of the mess, but no apology has been made to the Officer on whom the insulting epithets were bestowed, and who remains therefore under the stigma, content without apology or satisfaction of any kind, and thereby tacitly acknowledges the truth of the epithets in their application to him;"
  and, whether, in view of the foregoing grave charges, the Secretary of State

  1529
  for War will direct an inquiry to be immediately held into the circumstances disclosed above and the moral and discipline of the 94th Regiment?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I would inform the hon. Member that on June 11, in answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), I stated that an officer of the 94th Regiment, on being accused of an offence, was placed under arrest, that he broke that arrest, and absented himself. Officers under arrest are, except under extraordinary circumstances, considered on parole, and in this case no departure was made from the usual custom. The officer in question was gazetted out of the Service, and no further steps have been taken regarding him. I have no knowledge whatever of the occurrence said to have taken place at Rushmore, and, as the 94th Regiment has not been stationed at that place since 1870, it is not considered necessary after this lapse of time to take any further action in the matter. His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief is fully acquainted with the morale and discipline of every regiment in Her Majesty's Service, and does not think it requisite to have any special inquiry into the state of the 94th Regiment, in which opinion I entirely agree with his Royal Highness.

  PARLIAMENT—THE BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.—QUESTIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I rise to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is able to give the House any information as to the intentions of the Government with regard to Public Business, and the measures now before the House. I hold in my hand a list of measures which have been introduced by Members of the Government, many of which were mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Session; but which, although introduced comparatively early, have made up to the present time very little progress. I do not think I need trouble the House by reading that list, or by pointing out the stages at which the measures have arrived, for the right hon. Gentleman will probably refer in detail to the principal Bills. It is quite evident that, unless the duration of the Session be prolonged considerably beyond
  1530
  the usual limits, it will be quite impossible that all, or nearly all, of those measures which up to the present time have made but little progress can be considered by the House. The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps also be able to take this opportunity of informing the House whether he proposes to ask for any further sacrifice of the time which is still at the disposal of unofficial Members of the House; if so, at what time he will make that request. It may also be in his power, having fully considered the state of Public Business, to give some intimation to the House as to the time when he thinks it possible that our labours may be concluded. Perhaps the House will permit me to take this opportunity of making an explanation in regard to some misapprehension that I think has arisen—no doubt from some want of clearness of expression on my part. The other day, in the course of a discussion upon the conduct of the Government with regard to the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, in one or two observations I made, I intended to point out that the introduction of the Appropriation Bill, which I hoped would not long be delayed, would give a more appropriate opportunity of discussing a question of that sort relating to the conduct of the Government with regard to the measures that have been before the House. I find it has been understood in some quarters that the observations I made amounted to a Notice that it was my intention to take the opportunity of the introduction of the Appropriation Bill to make some general observations upon the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. It is quite impossible for me to know what may occur before the end of the Session; and I have not come to any formal and definite resolution in my own mind as to the course it will be my duty to take when the Appropriation Bill is introduced. I wish to say that nothing was further from my mind than to give formal Notice that I had any such intention, on that occasion, to comment on the conduct of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I may in the first place, perhaps, say, with reference to the closing observations of the noble Lord, that I quite understood the remark that he made on the occasion to which he re-

  1531
  ferred in the same sense as that in which he explains it. Of course, it is quite obvious that the stages of the Appropriation Bill always furnish very appropriate occasions for any critical remarks that may be thought necessary. I did not understand there was any special Notice given on the subject. With regard to the state of Business, I do not understand that the noble Lord at present desires that we should enter into any discussion as to the progress of Business, or as to any of the causes which may have interfered with the progress of some of the measures introduced by the Government. I understand the question is simply put for the convenience of the House, in order that we may know as well as we can how we stand, and may endeavour to make our arrangements accordingly. I am prepared to give such an answer as I can in the same spirit as that in which the noble Lord asks the Question. It is quite true there are a considerable number of Bills that have been introduced by Members of the Government which are still upon the Paper, and some of them are still down for rather early stages of progress. Of course, it would be impossible, without unduly prolonging the Session, to pass them all. At the same time, I feel some little difficulty in saying, with regard to particular Bills, that we intend to lay aside this or the other Bill, because the progress of Business is not altogether under our control, and it may happen, in the course of the time that remains, that we may find ourselves able to make more progress with some Bill than we expect, or that we may meet with unexpected obstacles with regard to another. I therefore do not wish that what I say now should be regarded as a complete and final programme of all that is or is not to be done in the course of the remainder of the Session. I may mention one or two Bills with which I feel it would not be possible for us, or convenient to the House, that we should proceed this Session, and as to which it is therefore desirable we should at once state why we do not intend to take up the time of the House with regard to them. Of these Bills the most important is the Valuation of Property Bill. The House will easily understand that this is a Bill which could not be proceeded with without fair and full discussion, and that, taken by itself,
  1532
  it would occupy some considerable— though I think not at all an unreasonable—time in Committee. But although, if the Bill stood alone, I think it might be possible that we might proceed with it, and pass it this Session, we find that the question of going on with it has been complicated by Notices given by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen), and I think also there is a Notice given by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and in connection with that Bill there has been raised the large question of representative councils and general questions of local government. Seeing that these questions would have to be discussed in connection with the Valuation Bill, we think it is not desirable or convenient to proceed with it. Then there is also the Irish Valuation Bill. That is a subject which I think the House will hardly have time to take into consideration. I may also say with regard to the Bishoprics Bill, the Patents for Inventions Bill, and the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill, we do not at present see our way to trouble the House with these Bills. The Bills that are immediately before us, and with which we think it is important the House should proceed, I will mention in this order:—There is the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill, which stands for to-night going into Committee, and which, perhaps, I am not over sanguine in hoping we may get through Committee to-night. There is the South Africa Bill, which we propose to take on Monday next, and there are the Irish and Scotch Prisons Bills, which we are anxious to proceed with as rapidly as possible. Now, the noble Lord asks at what time we thought of asking the House to give the Government more days for Business than we have at present. I hope we shall not be thought unreasonable in asking that from next week we may take Tuesdays and Wednesdays. In that case, if that should be given, we shall propose to take on Tuesday the Irish and Scotch Prison Bills. That would be in the Evening Sittings, so that there would be the whole evening for going on with those Bills. I would not mention any particular Business for Wednesday; we shall see before that day what it may be convenient to take. But on Thursday the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) has an engagement with the

  1533
  Government that we should give him that day for the discussion of his University Education Bill. That is the result of an engagement entered into with him, which he and his Friends have faithfully, and honourably, and loyally fulfilled, that they would not raise the question of University education on the Estimates provided a day was given for it. In addition to these Bills, we are anxious to proceed with the County Courts (Ireland) Bill, the Summary Jurisdiction Bill, and the Sheriffs Courts (Scotland) Bill, and there will be a question about the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill. Now, with regard to the Roads and Bridges Bill, I am in some little difficulty in giving a definite answer, because I really am puzzled whether there are 190 Amendments or only two. That is one of the Bills I would not at present propose to discharge, but as to which I would wish to take further time to see what progress it may make. I would say the same of the Bankruptcy Bill and Factories and Workshops Bill. We should be glad to proceed with them, and it is not necessary to abandon the hope of doing so, and I would rather not give any definite promise as to those two Bills. I believe my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board wishes to make a statement with regard to a Bill in his charge— the Public Health (Metropolis) Bill. There is, I think, very little Supply left to be got through. To-morrow morning we take the remainder of the Civil Service and Revenue Estimates; and I hope it will be in our power to get through them at that sitting. There will then remain only a certain number of postponed Votes and Supplementary Estimates, such as are usual at the close of the Session, and which, I think, on the present occasion are not likely to be very material. There will, however, be the Transvaal Vote of a large amount, and one or two questions arising out of the Navy Estimates. I suppose also that an opportunity will be taken, and is probably desired by some hon. Members, for some discussion on the subject of the Army Warrant, which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hardy) will lay on the Table before long. I do not think it would be convenient for me to make too definite arrangements with regard to these matters; but if the House is kind enough to give us the days we ask for, and if we have a fair amount of
  1534
  assistance from the House, I see no reason to doubt that we shall be able to get through the greater part, at all events, of what I have mentioned, and to close the Session about the usual day—that is, somewhere about the 10th of August.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEwished to know from the right hon. Gentlemen whether it was intended to take the Colonies Vote to-morrow?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, not to-morrow?
  MR. GLADSTONEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had stated that one of his Colleagues wished to make a statement as to the Public Health (Metropolis) Bill, or was it to be understood that after that statement they would learn from the Government whether they intended to proceed with the Bill?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had given Notice that he intended on Monday to ask whether the Government would proceed with the Public Health (Metropolis) Bill, and he had promised on Monday to make a statement, which, however, he was ready to make at once. This Bill was prepared last year, at the instance of the Statute Law Revision Commissioners, in order to supplement the work done by the Public Health Act of 1875, which put together the substance of 30 Acts of Parliament, so far as they applied to the country at large. Many of those Acts, however, affected the Metropolis, and it was desirable that they should be consolidated in a similar way. The Bill was, therefore, mainly one of consolidation, but certain provisions had been added that experience had shown to be desirable. It was not supposed that such a measure would encounter any opposition, but great objection was taken to the consolidation of the existing law by many of the local authorities. It was evident that a Bill of 100 clauses, if they involved any contentious matter, could not be introduced after Whitsuntide with any prospect of becoming law. Finding that Members were not satisfied to allow the Bill to proceed as a measure of consolidation, he had come to the conclusion that it would be better to withdraw it for the present Session. If he re-introduced it, it would be his duty to amend the sanitary law of the Metropolis more than

  1535
  could properly be done in a mere Consolidation Bill. In withdrawing the present measure, therefore, he would not bind himself to introduce the same Bill next Session, although he trusted it would be possible to introduce it in an amended state.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I understand the right hon. Gentleman that the Warrant which is to be laid upon the Table is a Warrant relating to retirement and promotion of officers in the Army. If so, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it may lead to considerable discussion. It is of no use, of course, at this moment to press the Government to make any further announcement of their intentions. But, as usual, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a somewhat sanguine view of the course of affairs for the remainder of the Session. I have made a list of the nine measures which he seems to have some hope of proceeding with in the remaining three weeks. There is, for instance, the Factories and Workshops Bill, and I really think the right hon. Gentleman will do well to devote himself to a further revision of this list. It will not impede the progress which he may make with a few Bills if he will withdraw from the Paper those which it is quite impossible to proceed with.
  MR. MELDON,who had on the Paper the First Order of the Day for Tuesday next, inquired whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow the ordinary Business to proceed on that day?
  MR. M'LARENhoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would re-consider the order in which Scotch Bills were to be proceeded with. The Roads and Bridges Bill was a more valuable measure than all the other Scotch Bills put together, and he hoped it would be taken first, especially as it was one of the measures promised in the Queen's Speech.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no doubt the hon. and learned Member for Kildare was only anxious to facilitate Business; and it was hoped he would see, with the Government, the importance of taking the Irish and Scotch Prisons Bills first, and would make his arrangements accordingly. He would, however, be glad to speak to the hon. Member on the subject.
  MR. PARNELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to proceed with the Irish and Scotch Bills on Tuesday, in the event of the Judicature Bill for Ireland not having passed through Committee by that day?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, all the arrangements depended very much upon getting through one Bill before taking up another. As Tuesday was not very close at hand he need not give a definite answer now.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL— [Bill 184.]
  (Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Sir Michael Hicks-Seach.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th July.]
  Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.

  Part II.
  Jurisdiction and Law.
  Clauses 21 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.

  Part III.
  Sittings and Distribution of Business.
  Clauses 29 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Divisions of the High Court of Justice.)
  MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 25, to leave out lines 12 and 13, and insert in lieu thereof:—
  "The Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions shall consist of the number of Judges following and no more, viz.: the Queen's Bench Division of four Judges, the Common Pleas Division of three Judges, and the Exchequer Division (from and after the next vacancy in the office of one of the Junior Barons) of three Judges."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 35 to 39, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 40 (Sittings in Dublin and on Circuits.)
  MR. MELDONmoved, in page 29, lines 42 and 43, to leave out "or any Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND(Mr. Gibson) assented to the omission of the words, which he thought was desirable.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 41 to 45, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 46 (Cases and points may be reserved for or directed to be argued before Divisional Courts or Courts of Appeal.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND(Mr. Gibson) moved, in page 32, line 29, to leave out the words "or of the Court of Appeal," which, he thought, would lead to complication, and their retention would render the clause inconsistent with other parts of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 47 agreed to.
  Clause 48 (Provision for Crown cases reserved.)
  MR. PARNELL (for Mr. BIGGAR)moved, in page 33, line 24, after "shall," insert "not." The object of the Amendment of his hon. Friend was to remove an admitted grievance in Irish legal procedure.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Gibson)said, that when the Bill was introduced it did not contain the appeal sub-section, which gave the Court of Appeal jurisdiction on a Writ of Error, in criminal cases, from the Queen's Bench Division. The intention was to assist the requirements of the humble classes of suitors, who could not afford the cost of carrying their appeals to the House of Lords, and it did that by preserving the operation of 11 & 12 Vict., c. 78, which had worked extremely well. By that provision, if the Judge found that a legal point of unexpected difficulty had arisen in the course of the proceedings in a criminal case, he had the power of reserving the point for the consideration of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved sitting in Dublin. That proceeding this clause sought to preserve, and it went further than the Amendment now proposed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to.
  Clause 51 (Costs.)
  MR. LAWmoved, in page 34, line 15, after "that" to insert—
  1538
  ("subject to all existing enactments limiting) regulating, or affecting the costs payable in any action by reference to the amount recovered therein.")
  His object was to preserve those statutory safeguards against bringing vexatious actions in Superior Courts.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MELDONdesired an Amendment in the clause. He said the principle of the clause was a most vexatious one, and had been introduced into the English Judicature Act, and he certainly did not like giving Judges a discretion as to awarding costs. The rule was that a successful party was entitled to his costs, and to allow a Judge to adjudicate upon the costs, no matter what was the result of the trial. But he feared that he would be unsuccessful. He proposed that a Judge should only have discretion "under special circumstances," and for good cause shown.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Gibson)said, if a Judge exercised his discretion as to the costs against the verdict of the jury he must state the "good cause," and there upon the Court of Appeal could review that decision. That course worked satisfactorily in the English Bill. He thought the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member unnecessary.
  MR. LAWwas afraid that the hon. and learned Member for Kildaro did not give sufficient weight to the words '' good cause shown."
  MR. SHAWopposed the Amendment.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsupported the Amendment.
  MR. BUTTpointed out that the words "for good cause shown," were not necessary to be stated by the Judge, and he had never known it done, and he had had some experience of the practice.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Gibson)said, that the Judges had to show good cause in order that their decision might be reviewed in the Court above.
  MR. LAWsaid, the learned Judge could only give costs apart from the verdict for good and sufficient reason. The clause was an exact transcript of the clause of 1855, placed in the Bill of 1875, and now inserted here.
  MR. P. MARTINsuggested that the Judge should be bound, if he refused to grant costs to the successful suitor, to

  1539
  state in the order he made the reasons he had for withholding costs. This would be a safeguard against a capricious exercise of the discretion proposed to be given, and in case of an appeal would facilitate the revision of any order made without good cause in the Appellate Tribunal. In the Act which constituted in Ireland the Landed Estates Court it was expressly provided that if the Judge did not order costs to be paid by a party unsuccessfully making or resisting an application he was bound to state his reasons on the face of the order. The clause of the present Act ought to be amended by the insertion of a similar provision.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Gibson)said, when the Amendment was disposed of he would be inclined to consider it.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he was decidedly against the clause. If the Judges could use this discretion they would destroy trial by jury altogether. If the Judge charged the jury in one way, and the jury decided against him, the learned Judge might, from irritation, do an injustice, by giving or withholding costs. It would be better to set out the reasons in the order.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Gibson)accepted the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member, and agreed that the statement of the "good cause" on the face of the order might be worked without inconvenience.
  MR. MELDONdid not think that his words, "under special circumstances," made the discretion more general, for he left the words for "good cause" still standing.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)would accept the alteration suggested, and alter the clause by striking out the word "good," and leave it for "special cause shown and mentioned in the order."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENmoved, in page 34, line 19, after "Divisional Court," to insert—
  "And Provided also, That in all actions for libel where the jury shall give damages under forty shillings, the plaintiff shall not he entitled to more costs than damages."
  1540
  His object was to assimilate the law as to libel with the law which for a long period had been in operation with regard to slander, and which had worked extremely well.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Gibson)had no objection to the Proviso on principle, but he suggested that his right hon. and learned Friend should add the words—
  "Unless the Judge who tried the case should order that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, he should obtain the costs of the action."
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, this would not meet the object of the Amendment, which was to ensure that where a jury said a plaintiff was not entitled to more than 40 s., then a Judge shall not override the opinion of the jury by a decision as to costs.
  MR. BUTTalso objected, stating that it would be placing a discretion with the Judge which the law never intended he should have.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Gibson)consented to the Amendment, reserving to himself the opportunity of making a further Amendment on the Report.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended agreed to.
  Clauses 52 to 57, inclusive, agreed to.

  Part IV.
  Trial and Procedure.
  Clause 58 (Assessors).
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKsaid, he proposed to omit this and the two succeeding clauses. The clause had reference to the appointment of Referees, and he was anxious that there should not be applied to Ireland a most mischievous piece of legislation—the appointment of Referees to discharge the duties of Judges. These Referees were introduced into the English Judicature Bill from the necessity of providing relief to the overwork of the Judges; but in Ireland no such necessity existed, and the number of Judges were being reduced because they were not sufficiently employed. He admitted that in these clauses the consent of the parties was to be required to a reference, but the suggestion of a Judge was practically irresistible, so that the discretion of suitors would be nominal. It was open to

  1541
  suitors now to refer a dispute to arbitration of their own motion, but it ought not to be done at the suggestion of a Judge; and he resisted this as an unconstitutional innovation. He, therefore, moved the omission of the clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)admitted that there was a strong feeling amongst the Irish people in favour of having their causes tried before what they called "a real Judge and a real jury;" but he considered that the clause did not go much beyond the power which the Judges had at present of referring cases to arbitrators. It was not proposed to establish Special Referees to be paid by the State, but merely to enable a Judge, if the parties consented, to refer the matter to a Referee, to be appointed by arrangement between the parties themselves.
  MR. BUTTsaid, it was sought to maintain the skeleton of the English clauses when it was found that they could not be maintained in their integrity. He would support the Motion to omit the clause.
  MR. SHAWconcurred in wishing the clauses omitted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Gibson)said, he was aware that these clauses were unpopular in Ireland, and after the appeal just made to him he would not press them.
  Clauses 58 to 61, inclusive, struck out.
  Clause 62 (Provision as to making of Rules of Court before or after the commencement of the Act).
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGmoved an Amendment to make the procedure and the rules as to costs the same in Ireland as in England. The hon. Member observed that no reason could be assigned for not having the law uniform on the points in the two countries.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that the real object of the clause was to make the scale of fees in Ireland the same as the scale in England; but Ireland was a much poorer country than England, and could not afford to pay them.
  Amendment proposed, in page 38, line 1, to leave out the word "and."— (Mr. Downing.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Gibson)opposed the
  1542
  Amendment, on the ground that the circumstances and conditions of the two countries were essentially different.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that the whole system of fees was bad, and that the relations of leaders and juniors levelled and, so to speak, "macadamized" the Bar.
  MR. MURPHYopposed the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 14: Majority 70.— (Div. List, No. 235.)
  MR. BIGGARmoved, in page 38, at end, to add—
  "This Clause shall not come into operation, and no part of it to he operative, till it had been affirmed by a vote of both Houses of Parliament."
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that an Act could not become an Act till it had been passed by both Houses of Parliament.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 63 (Circuits and assizes).
  MR. MELDONmoved the omission of the clause, on the ground that it would not be advisable to entrust the Irish Executive with the absolute power of altering or re-arranging the Circuits of the Judges.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, he would endeavour to meet the views of his hon. and learned Friend by introducing into the clause on the Report words to provide that all Orders in Council making alterations should be submitted to Parliament for approval before they came in force.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 64 (Winter assizes).
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he had a Bill now before the House to constitute winter assizes for Ireland. He had obtained some Returns from which it appeared that on the 1st September last year there were 160 prisoners who would not be tried till next March, and 28 of them were charged with murder. He would with-

  1543
  draw his Bill if the Government would have a winter assize this year.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKsaid, the Irish Judges were now going to deal with empty gaols, and the right hon. and learned Member was therefore premature with his Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that the necessity for winter assizes in Ireland was not nearly so serious as in England, because the County Court Judges having criminal jurisdiction, there were practically six gaol deliveries in the year in every Irish county.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 65 to 69, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 70 (Orders and Rules to be laid before Parliament, and may be annulled on address from either House).
  MR. BIGGARmoved, in page 40, line 14, to leave out from "Session," to end of clause, and insert—
  "and come into operation as soon as they have been affirmed by a vote of both Houses of Parliament."
  He considered that the new rules should have been embodied in the Bill, as was the case in the English Act of 1875. He had great respect for the members of the Judicial Bench in Ireland; but he thought that the making of these rules should not be delegated to any class of persons, no matter how exalted. He urged the necessity of direct Parliamentary control over such matters as fees, &c.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)pointed out that the Bill followed almost word for word the precedent in the English Acts of 1873 and 1875, and that it was impossible for Parliament to go into all the minute and special matters of the Court, even if Parliament had the time, which it had not. The rules would be framed by the Judges under the presidency of the Lord Chancellor, and the Bill provided that they should lie on the Table of the House for 40 days. In the Bill, therefore, was a Parliamentary control which, true, was rarely exercised in the case of the English Act, but which could be exercised if any broad principle were assailed, but it was not the function of Parliament to discuss every technical point.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKwas of opinion that Parliament could not well
  1544
  frame rules of legal practice, and that there would be in the Press, the Profession, and in Parliament a sufficient safeguard against improper rules being framed and acted upon.
  MR. PARNELLdenied that the clause afforded sufficient control; an objection to the rules to be operative was to be made within 40 days, but any hon. Member would have to put his objection into a Motion on the Paper, and take his chance of bringing on his Motion within that period. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Cavan to withdraw his Amendment in order to allow him to propose to insert the words, "and shall be submitted to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament."
  MR. BUTTcongratulated the Attorney General for Ireland on a Home Rule speech. He pointed out how the House of Commons was overloaded with work; but if this matter could be submitted to a Committee of Irish Members it might be satisfactorily settled. The Bill proposed to delegate to the Irish Judges legislative powers. It was the duty of that House to see that no rules were made to prevent the approach of the suitor to the tribunal which had to decide upon his rights. It was an utter sham to say that the proposal of the Government gave the House any real control over these rules. What power had he or any other Member of moving a negative of these rules within 40 days? If it were made a matter of "privilege," the control might be real and not a mockery. It was idle to quote the precedent of the English Bill, for that was the occasion of general complaint. The fusion of Law and Equity was more like a confusion of Law and Equity. As to the Bill itself, the people of Ireland did not want it, it was a Bill of crotchet; but if Parliament did change our ancient judicature it should take all the responsibility.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYthought that 40 days did not constitute a sufficient time for the consideration of rules which were to govern cases of such grave importance as those which came before the Superior Courts. If some means were not found by which the rules might be supervised by the House, he doubted whether the Bill would pass this Session.
  MR. LAWpointed out that the Bill, if passed, was to come into force on the 1st of January next, and that if the

  1545
  Courts were left without rules till the end of next Session it would be practically inoperative during that period.
  MR. SHAWsaid, that 40 days was too short a period to enable them to protect themselves from the lawyers.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDthought that the period within which it should be competent for Parliament to take exception to the rules should be the whole Session.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON),said, he adhered to the opinion that it would be practically impossible for Parliament to deal with the rules as it would do with a Bill; but as to the period of time during which they should lie on the Table, he saw no reason why it should be limited to 40 days, or why they should not remain on the Table till the end of the Session, or some equivalent period.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYmoved that instead of "within the next subsequent 40 days," the words "during the next Session of Parliament" should be inserted.
  MR. BULWERfeared that that Amendment would do more harm than good. Although it was desirable that Parliament should retain a power of control, it was not likely that the rules framed by the Judges would actually be altered, and it would be a great mistake to put off the approval of them from Session to Session.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHthought the understanding at which the Committee had arrived was that the time should be extended till the end of the current Session and not till a future Session.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYpointed out that there would be a difficulty in case the rules were sent up at a late period of the Session. If that happened, they might actually lie on the Table for less than 40 days, and it was for this case he wished to provide.
  MR. ASSHETONwas glad to find the Committee realized the fact that there was no use in providing that the veto of Parliament must be exercised within the stereotyped period of 40 day.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLexpressed a similar opinion, and thought the case might be met by leaving the rules
  1546
  on the Table to be challenged at any time.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 71 and 72 agreed to.

  Part V.
  Officers and Offices.
  Clause 73 (Transfer of existing staff of officers to Court of Judicature.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 44, line 12, after the word "Chancellor," to insert the words "with the concurrence of."—(Mr. Law.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)opposed the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 170: Majority 128.—(Div. List, No. 236.)
  MR. BIGGARmoved the omission of that part of the clause which empowered the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of the Treasury, to increase the salary of any officer whose duties may be increased by reason of the passing of the Act.
  Amendment proposed, in page 44, line 37, to leave out from the word "officer," to the word "Act," in line 41, inclusive."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)objected to the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 211; Noes 12: Majority 199.—(Div. List, No. 237.)
  MR. LAWmoved, in page 45, line 16, after "office," to insert—
  "Except in the case of any officer who shall, at the time of the passing of this Act, have served forty years, in which case the annual sum so to be awarded may be equal to the entire of the salary and emoluments to which at the time of his release such officer shall have been entitled."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that the

  1547
  matter must be considered on broader grounds. It was not a case of abolition of office, and the Act really added to the pension to which he was entitled.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 74 (Appointment of future officers of Supreme Court.)
  MR. BIGGARmoved, in page 46, line 11, to leave out from beginning, to "increase."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that this Amendment would prevent any addition to the duties of the officers.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. BIGGARmoved, in page 46, line 22, to leave out from "thereto," to end of line.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)opposed the Amendment, thinking that the object in view was already sufficiently met by the Bill as it stood.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. MACARTNEYmoved, in page 46, line 33, after "following," to insert—
  "All officers attached to the Supreme Court of Judicature, or to the High Court, or to any Division or Judge thereof, who have been heretofore appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, shall continue to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant in the same manner as heretofore."
  He considered it of great importance that the appointments of officers in those Courts should continue to be vested in the Crown, and not be transferred to the Judges.
  MR. BUTTsaid, the Amendment was a very important one that required discussion, and as it was then too late to discuss it he moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERadmitted that the question was a very important one, and agreed that it appeared desirable to report Progress, with the understanding that the Committee would resume to-morrow at 2 o'clock, and continue the consideration of the remaining clauses of the Bill.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  SUPPLY [17TH JULY]—REPORT.
  Postponed Resolution,—
  (28.) "That a sum, not exceeding £12,969, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Salaries and Incidental Expenses of Temporary Commissions,"
  —considered.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENcalled attention, on the Vote for the Railway Commission, to the fact that there was no such Commission for Ireland, and complained that the Commissioners had declined, when applied to, to go to Ireland to hear an Irish case, as they were bound to do.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the Act establishing the Commission reserved discretion to the Commissioners as to where they should hear cases. In the one case in which an application had been made for them to go to Ireland, the other side opposed the application on the ground that counsel had already been engaged in England; and the Commissioners decided not to go to Ireland, on the ground that the public convenience would best be consulted by their hearing the case in London. They were, however, prepared to hear cases in Dublin whenever it was shown that it would be for the public convenience that they should do so.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that what was wanted was that the Commissioners should make rules to hear all Irish cases in Ireland, and Government should, if necessary, bring in a Bill to compel this. If the Government would do so, he could promise there should be no obstruction; or perhaps the Government would give him their support and an opportunity to bring in such a Bill himself.
  Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY.
  Resolutions [16th July] reported.
  First Resolution brought up, and read the first and second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. PARNELLmoved the adjournment of the debate, in order that the

  1549
  Votes upon which he desired to raise the question of the Phœnix Park riots and the Irish Constabulary might be brought on at a reasonable hour for discussion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. W. H. SMITHoffered to postpone the Votes in question, and to endeavour to bring them on at such a time as would afford an opportunity for their discussion; but in the present state of business he would not undertake to enter into any engagement as to the precise time.
  MR. GRAYsaid, that he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) would persevere with his Motion. If he did not obtain a distinct pledge let him oppose every Vote brought forward, and very likely the Government would find it convenient to give way.
  MR. BUTTsaid, it would be reasonable to agree to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Smith) and pass the Votes not questioned.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 98: Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 238.)
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  DR. CAMERONasked for an explanation of the Scotch Vote.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would not object to postpone the Vote.
  MR. BUTTsaid, the challenge for the division had not come from any Irish Member. It had come from the hon. Member for Glasgow.
  Mk. PARNELLsaid, it was fortunate for the Government that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick was present, for had it not been for his declared wish he (Mr. Parnell) should have divided the House on every one of the 32 Votes.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, they were anxious to make an arrangement, but it really was hard to ask the Government to do more than it had done.
  The next Thirteen Resolutions agreed to.
  Fifteenth Resolution postponed.
  The next Resolution agreed to.
  Seventeenth Resolution postponed.
  The next Eight Resolutions agreed to.
  Twenty-sixth Resolution postponed.
  Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.
  Postponed Resolutions to be considered upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND.) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee do consist of Nineteen Members:—Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, Mr. MAURICE BROOKS, Mr. GIBSON, Mr. DELAHUNTY, Viscount CRICHTON, Mr. GRAY, Sir ARTHUR GUINNESS, Mr. RICHARD POWER, Mr. KAVANAGH, Mr. BUTT, Mr. BRUEN, Mr. G. BERESFORD, Mr. MELDON, Mr. VERNER, Mr. BIGGAR, Mr. MACARTNEY, Mr. REDMOND, Mr. KING-HARMAN, and Mr. SWANSTON:—Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Telegraphs (Money)* (152).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—(£20,000,000) Consolidated Fund*.
Committee—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bishop Auckland, &c.), now (Hyde, &c.)* (93).
Select Committee—Report—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Atherton, &c.)*(86)—(Caistor Union, &c.)* (94).
Third Reading—Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (151); Inclosure* (127); Saint Stephen's Green (Dublin)* (134); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (113) Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order* (111); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Leith)* (137); Public Works Loans (Ireland)* (143); Companies Acts Amendment (No. 3)* (141), and passed.

CONTROLLER OF THE STATIONERY OFFICE—APPOINTMENT OF MR. T. D. PIGOTT.—PERSONAL STATEMENT.
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, I rise to make one or two remarks upon a Resolution passed by the other House, which is on your Table, and which has been transmitted to us in the usual manner. That Resolution, my Lords, is a censure upon the conduct of the Government with respect to a public appointment recently made. My Lords, the immediate question before us arose in this manner. There was about the time when the present Government was formed—now more than three years ago—one of the Departments of the State which was not deemed to be administered in a manner entirely satisfactory to the public. A
1478
Committee was appointed by the House of Commons to inquire, among other matters, into the general state and conduct of business of that Department. That Committee, after receiving a great deal of evidence, issued a Report of interest and value. My Lords, I do not think that there is anyone who more values the labours of Parliamentary Committees than myself. They obtain for the country an extraordinary mass of valuable information which probably would not otherwise be at hand, or available; and formed as they necessarily are of chosen men from the two most important bodies of the State, their Reports are pregnant with prudent and sagacious suggestions for the improvement of the administration of affairs. My Lords, I have spent the greater part of my life in Parliament, and it has frequently been my duty—always my delight—to vindicate the rights and privileges of Parliament. I have sometimes been charged, indeed, with having taken an extravagant view of those rights and privileges, but I think charged unjustly. But, my Lords, I never for a moment have maintained, nor do I know any personal or written authority that has maintained, that the Resolutions of a Committee of the House of Commons were infallible. My Lords, I think you will see that if that were admitted, the utmost disorder and inconvenience must be occasioned in the administration of public affairs. In the first place, it would entirely destroy the responsibility of Ministers. If, when a public question arises, all that a Minister has to do is to propose a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into it, and if when that Committee has reported, all that he has to do is to incorporate their unimpeachable suggestions in a Bill, and afterwards an Act of Parliament, the House will at once see in what a position of difficulty—of disaster I might say—the Administration and even the legislation of the country might be placed. In the present instance, this Committee offered to the consideration of the country their opinions on all the points connected with the administration of the Department in question, and they offered them in considerable detail. I think the number of Resolutions at which they arrived with regard to that Department were not less than 50. Some of these Resolutions—I may say many of these Resolutions—were adopted by the Govern-

1479
ment, and have been found to work advantageously. Some of these Resolutions were adopted by the Government; but, in their operation, have not been successful, and they have therefore been abandoned. Some of these Resolutions were disregarded after due and deep consideration by the Government. The Department in question, my Lords, is that of the Public Stationery, and the office in question is that of its Controller. Among the Resolutions which were disregarded after the deepest consideration by the Government, was a Resolution that when the office of Controller again became vacant the person appointed to that office should possess the requisite technical knowledge of stationery and printing. My Lords, at the commencement of this Spring this office did become vacant. I was made aware of it by the courtesy of the gentleman who held the office some time before his resignation was formally announced. He told mo of it, I doubt not, from a consideration of the difficulties which were likely to attend the new appointment, and in order that the Government might have ample time to consider the matter. It fell to my lot, my Lords, to fulfil that duty—a difficult one, I assure you. I had to consider, therefore, the recommendation of the Committee of the House of Commons that the new Controller should possess "the requisite technical knowledge of stationery and printing." Now, my Lords, when I considered that Resolution, and when I made some inquiries respecting it, I found that it was one which, as it appeared to me, was utterly impracticable. No doubt, my Lords, there are gentlemen connected with the great private establishments for the sale of stationery in all its forms and descriptions, who possess the intelligence, the education, and the character which would render them perfectly competent to occupy this post in the administration of the business of the country. But your Lordships will see in a moment that persons connected with great commercial transactions, employing a vast capital, and getting a great return for it, could not be tempted to accept a post which, however honourable, is one with nothing of the glare of distinction about it, and the salary of which hardly exceeds the salary of a first-rate clerk or manager in a first-rate commercial establishment. Now,
1480
my Lords, what would be the consequence of such a position of affairs? To appoint a person who has technical knowledge of stationery and printing—that is te say, to appoint a stationer or a printer—I should have had to appoint some person who had retired from business, or some person from whom business had retired. My Lords, I felt the impossibility of dealing in such a manner with the situation—I could not undertake the responsibility of asking a decayed stationer or printer to fill a post of this character. My Lords, the post is one which requires considerable administrative ability—it requires some official experience, it requires a capacity for labour. These are the qualities which are generally necessary for an administrative office of this description; and it is our custom that they should be coupled with that of education and with the moral repute which society demands. My Lords, in these circumstances, the question which I had to decide was one of no little difficulty. Your Lordships may say that although it was not possible to appoint a man who had technical knowledge of stationery and printing, it is not to be believed that the superintendence of an important Department of the State, the expenditure of which amounts to £500,000 a-year, should be entrusted to a person ignorant of the particular knowledge without which it was impossible that successful administration could be secured. My Lords, I apprehend that this vote in that respect must have been arrived at under a considerable misapprehension of the circumstances. In the Stationery Office, as it at present exists, there is a complete and organized body of experts in every Department of that Office—men who have special acquaintance with stationery, with printing, and with bookbinding—they are thoroughly capable of deciding all points connected with these trades, so far as the public requirements demand. They are a permanent body, and they supply the individual who is responsible for the administration of the Department with all the technical knowledge which is requisite. Your Lordships will, perhaps, be interested to hear that there are in this Department two examiners and two assistant examiners of printing and of printing accounts; that there is one examiner and one assistant examiner of paper as material; that there is an exa-

1481
miner and two assistant examiners of binding—a very important part of the business of the Office—in short, there is not a single branch of the duties which require technical knowledge which is not already provided with competent experts, whose knowledge is at the service of the Controller. Well, my Lords, it was necessary for me to consider what course I should take. Far from having disregarded the Resolutions and opinions of the Committee of the House of Commons, the present Government have effected in this particular Department most important reforms, and have reduced its expenditure to a material extent. Since the publication of the Report of the Committee, and much in consequence of its suggestions, the expenditure of the Department has been reduced by £40,000 a-year, and at this moment there are changes in progress which will bring about a further reduction of £20,000 a-year. I think this is evidence that Her Majesty's Government have not in any way neglected the recommendations of the Committee of the House of Commons. Upon this point, my Lords, I may perhaps make an observation. It has been said this great saving of the public money, and the great and beneficial changes that have been effected, are a striking proof of the advantage of having as superintendent of the Office a person who has a technical knowledge of stationery and printing; for they have been ascribed to the influence and exertions of a distinguished Colleague of my own who is Secretary to the Treasury, and who, before he entered into public life—happily, I think, for the public—was himself the head of one of the greatest establishments in this country connected with printing and with stationery. I allude to Mr. W. H. Smith, the Secretary to the Treasury—a name known and honoured. Now, I assure you, my Lords—and I make this statement with his full authority, and at his special desire—that none of those alterations in the Stationery Office are at all attributable to his influence and exertions. As Secretary to the Treasury, he has signed all the documents which have appeared connected with that Department; but the truth is, he signed them formally with the full confidence that the work which had been done had been done properly. That work had been done
1482
by a Lord of the Treasury, Mr. Rowland Winn. It was solely by his individual exertions and unceasing care that those great improvements and that saving were effected; and I need not remind you, my Lords, that Mr. Rowland Winn has no technical knowledge of stationery and printing, but is a Lincolnshire country Gentleman. Well, then, my Lords, I arrived absolutely at this conclusion—that it was impossible, with any regard to the efficiency of the Public Service, to appoint as head of this establishment a gentleman who was a real stationer or printer. The question, therefore, arose, in what manner the vacant post could be most efficiently filled up. Some are of opinion that the post ought to have been filled by a literary man—because it had been filled by literary men before, and because that was thought to be a graceful tribute to men of letters. My Lords, I do not think that I shall ever be accused of any want of sympathy or respect for men of letters. While I have occupied my present post, and, indeed, in former times, I have omitted no legitimate opportunity of aiding and honouring men of letters. But I am not aware that I should be honouring literature in this country by placing a man of letters in a post which requires qualities he does not possess, and the duties of which, in consequence, would have to be performed by others. Now, glancing over the names of various men of distinction in letters, I did not find any one of suitable qualifications whom I could have expected to accept the post. But it might be said, although I might not have been able to fulfil literally the Resolution of the House of Commons, I might have found a person competent to carry on the established routine of the Office among the present members of the establishment. Well, my Lords, this is a delicate subject to touch upon; but when the public interest is concerned, I must treat it with frankness, and I trust that in treating it with frankness I shall hurt the feelings of no individual. My Lords, I have ever been of opinion that—not as a strict rule from which there may be no exception, but as a general rule to be observed—it is expedient that when the head of a Department retires, or is promoted, it is not desirable that, as a matter of course, his successor should be found among his subordinates.

1483
Generally speaking, I believe it would lead to obsolete routine and a supine system of administration which it is not desirable to encourage. I do not lay it down as a rule without exception; I can at once admit that if I found a Department conducted with great efficiency—a Department against the administration of which there had been no murmurs—and if I could trace that that efficiency was in a great degree attributable to the energies of some of the second in command—if I may use the phrase—-in the Department, I think that that efficiency and that ability would create a moral claim to promotion which I should be the first to acknowledge. But if, speaking generally, as I think it will be admitted, it is not wise that it should be considered a matter of course that a subordinate should succeed to the Chief on his promotion, certainly that rule would particularly apply when we are dealing with an Office, the administration of which was admittedly unsatisfactory. I say this particularly with reference to the Chief Clerk of the Stationery Department (Mr. Reid). I believe him to be an efficient and able officer; I believe that all that was good, or much that was good, in the late administration of the Office may be attributed to him. But, at the same time, the general administration has not been satisfactory, and it appeared to me of the utmost importance that fresh blood should be introduced into the Department. Under the circumstances of the case, my Lords, there was only one course to take. As it was really practically impossible to appoint to the head of the Stationery Department as Controller a retired or unfortunate tradesman; as it was clear to me that from the organized system of experts prevailing in the Stationery Department, all the necessary technical knowledge was to be obtained from men who had been trained as stationers, trained as printers, trained as bookbinders—the three great trades connected with that Office; as it did not seem to me expedient that a man of letters should be appointed merely because he was a man of letters, and as it seemed to me most desirable that, considering the state of the Department, some one should be put at its head that had the requisite qualities for establishing an efficient administration, and who was not connected with
1484
the old system, I had to see whether among the members of the Civil Service I could find such an individual. Well, my Lords, my first intention and my first step was to apply to some of the most eminent members of the Civil Service, and I endeavoured to induce them to retire from the offices which they filled and accept the one that was vacant. My Lords, I was not, on the whole, fortunate in that attempt; and I must say that, on calmly considering the objections that were made to it, I do not think those objections were unreasonable. The gentlemen to whom I applied all held offices equal—not to say superior—in dignity to the Controllorship of Stationery, and they all received salaries, equal, not to say superior, in some instances, to that which is accorded to that functionary. Therefore it was asking them to make a sacrifice without any adequate necessity for it. My Lords, what was to be done? I considered then that the best course I could take would be to see whether there was not in the younger members of the Civil Service some one equal to the occasion, and I let it be known that this post was vacant—that it was to be a reward of merit, and that anyone might have it who was fully competent to undertake its duties. Certainly, I did not advertize this in the newspapers, or proclaim it at Charing Cross; but I had the opportunity of making the matter known in official circles; and it was well known in official circles that the claims of any man who had shown that he had distinguished abilities, and that he was competent to cope with such a post, would Be favourably considered by me. Well, my Lords, what was the result of that? Six names were placed before me. One of them—and the only name I will mention, was that of the gentleman whose appointment is the subject of this Resolution of the House of Commons—Mr. Thomas Digby Pigott. I will not mention the others, because it might be invidious to do so; but I will name their positions, which it will be seen were not materially different from Mr. Pigott's. One was a clerk of the Treasury. The bias of my mind was certainly to have promoted that gentleman. It has fallen to my lot to introduce clerks of the Treasury to important positions in the Public Service, and they have invariably gained distinction by the opportunity that has been

1485
thus afforded them. Another gentleman was connected with the Office of Works; another was in the Board of Trade; a fourth was clerk in the War Office—the same Department in which Mr. Pigott was—and another was in the Geological Survey Office. These were the six gentlemen who were brought under my notice as being competent to fulfil high administrative duties. I believe that all of them are men who will rise in the Public Service, but I could not appoint all six. I had to make a selection. I made every inquiry, and I finally decided to offer the post to Mr. Digby Pigott. He had not asked for it—indeed, he would probably have looked upon it as an act of great presumption to ask for it. No friend of his ever interfered in the matter. His name was brought before me by a gentleman who has as large an experience of business in our Public Offices as' probably any living person, and who, from his observation alone, had fixed upon Mr. Pigott to recommend him upon his merits. And not only did no friend of Mr. Pigott's interfere in the matter, but Mr. Pigott himself was unaware that he had been proposed for the post, and was greatly astonished that his name had ever been brought before me. My Lords, I mention this, because it has been said, in an Assembly almost as classical as that which I am addressing, that this appointment was a "job," that the father of Mr. Pigott was the parson of my parish, that I had relations of long and intimate friendship with him, that he busied himself in county elections, and that in my earlier contests in the county with which I am connected, I was indebted to his exertions. My Lords, this is really a romance. Thirty years ago there was a vicar of my parish of the name of Pigott, and he certainly was father to Mr. Digby Pigott. He did not owe his preferment to me, nor was he ever under any obligation to me. Shortly after I succeeded to that property Mr. Pigott gave up his living, and retired to a distant county. I have never had any relations with him. With regard to our intimate friendship and his electioneering assistance, all I know of his interference in county elections is, that before he departed from the county of Buckingham he registered his vote against me. And, my Lords, it is the truth—it may surprise you, but it is the truth—that I have no personal
1486
acquaintance with his son, Mr. Pigott, who was appointed to this office the other day. I do not know him even by sight. And yet, my Lords, this narrative was the basis of the principal address upon which this Resolution of the other House was founded; and I am told by a gentleman who, necessarily, from his position, is the best and most competent judge of such a point, that if that statement had not been made there would not have been the slightest chance of the Resolution being carried. My Lords, there is in this question something much more than personal feelings to be considered. When such a Resolution was passed by the other House, and laid upon your Lordships' Table, I should have felt it my duty, under any circumstances, from my respect for Parliament, to have brought its consideration under your notice. But, my Lords, I am greatly mistaken if there are not considerations connected with this question much graver and deeper than personal feelings and personal interests. I will not dwell on the case of Mr. Pigott. Mr. Pigott, though of gentle birth, is the younger son of a younger son—the cadet of a cadet—and had nothing to depend on in this life except the salary which he had obtained by 17 years of honourable and not undistinguished labour in the Public Service of which he is a member—known there by eminent Ministers, now in this House, to whom he was Private Secretary, and known also for his distinguished services as Secretary to a Military Commission to which, I believe, some Members of your Lordships' House belonged. Having, of course, given up his appointment, nevertheless he did not hesitate, after the Resolution of the House of Commons, with the promptitude of a gentleman, to place the resignation of his new office in my hands. He is, of course, without resources; and why? Because for 17 years, having done his duty in a manner which never had been impeached, having obtained reputation even in his modest career, without soliciting promotion, ignorant that his name was brought before the Minister who could promote him, he was promoted for his sheer merits, and for his sheer merits alone. And now, unable to go back to the post which he filled—for that has naturally, of course, been immediately given to another—he finds himself in a position of honourable,

1487
but absolute destitution. I do not ask you to think of these things. If it is for the public interest that they should occur, they must occur. If it is for the public interest that Mr. Pigott should be placed in such a position, he must meet his fate. But, my Lords, there appears to me to be a much more general, a much deeper question, for us to consider at this moment. I have the opportunity of now addressing men, many of whom have been in the habit of transacting great affairs, and who know and have felt the terrible responsibility of Government. My Lords, how many of you there are, who, when Ministers of the Crown, have on occasions felt that there is a special reason for appealing, and a special object to be attained by appealing, to some member of the Civil Service, and asking him to relinquish his post and take another for the public interest and the convenience and advantage of the Government of the day? But can you appeal to a gentleman in that position now, if a Resolution, passed in a complete misapprehension of the facts, lays down the principle which I deplore to see expressed in the Resolution to which I have referred? Why, you might go to such a person, and he would naturally say—"Well, I have a post of £700 or £800 a-year, and a prospect of the salary increasing by the constancy and assiduity of my labours. You tempt me by an increased salary, you tempt me by higher duties, you touch the ambition natural to all men, and you appeal to that public spirit which, without exaggeration, is a distinguishing mark of the Civil Service of this country. But if I accept the post, what security have I that Parliament may not interfere with the Executive in the performance of the duty which has hitherto been regarded as the peculiar function of the Executive; and what guarantee have I that, in endeavouring to assist the public interest or the Administration of the day, I may not find myself absolutely destitute, with a family to provide for? "It is open at any time for somebody to get up in the House of Commons and say—"I understand Mr. So-and-So is appointed to be Controller (we will say) of the Stationery Office, with £1,200 a-year, who was only a clerk with a few hundred pounds before. This is an infamous job; I can prove to you that his father, or his grandfather, his brother, or his nephew,
1488
was once the election agent of a Member of the present Cabinet, and I call on you to denounce this flagitious arrangement." My Lords, I would hope that the House of Commons will consider this case in a different, a milder, and a juster spirit. It is a generous Assembly, and I am convinced that had it been aware of the facts, it never would have arrived at such a conclusion. But if Mr. Pigott is sacrificed, I am equally at a loss to know how I can meet the wishes of the House of Commons. I cannot place at the head of the Stationery Department a person who is technically a printer or a stationer—everybody who is consulted on the subject will give the same opinion—and I doubt not that your Lordships on both sides feel that such an arrangement is not only absurd, but is from the manner in which this Office is organized utterly unnecessary, for all special and technical information is provided. This appointment was, in my opinion, a good appointment; it was, in my opinion, an appointment which would have benefited the Public Service; and I am sure that never was an appointment made with purer motives. My Lords, under these circumstances I have felt it my duty to make this explanation in vindication of my conduct—I do not say of the Government, because, of course, from the nature of things, I am individually responsible. I have acted from no motive of which I am in the least ashamed. I have been influenced solely by a desire to advance the public interest; and, therefore, I think your Lordships will scarcely be surprised when I say that I cannot feel myself justified in accepting the resignation of Mr. Pigott.
EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say that the noble Earl not having given any public or private intimation of his intention to make the interesting statement which their Lordships had just heard, it was not to be expected or wished that the House should now enter upon the consideration of what had occurred in "another place." He (Earl Granville) desired, however, to state his opinion that the noble Earl had most naturally come forward, believing that the House of Commons had acted without a knowledge of the facts, to give an explanation of the circumstances which had led to the appointment. There could be no doubt that the right of bringing

1489
public opinion to bear on the exercise of Government patronage was one of the most important safeguards to the good government of the country. He believed, however, that their Lordships would think it better not to discuss this case on its merits, but to leave the House of Commons to consider the statement which the noble Earl had just made.
LORD PENZANCEsaid, he had the honour to be Chairman of the Commission on Army Retirement to which the noble Earl at the head of the Government had alluded. Mr. Pigott was Secretary of that Commission. It sat something like 18 months: it had to go through a vast mass of details, to group facts together, to draw conclusions on particular cases, and to place side by side with each other the claims of various classes of officers. In the investigation of those matters the Commission had the assistance of Mr. Pigott, and his only object in rising on that occasion was to state that, in his opinion, a more assiduous, a more intelligent, or more capable man for the duties he had to discharge in connection with the Commission could not have been found than Mr. Pigott; and, so far as he could judge, that gentleman was fully capable of taking charge of a Public Department. He had great pleasure in testifying to his great ability, and to his great success in the work he undertook.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKrose for the purpose of stating that when he was at the War Department Mr. Pigott filled the office of his private secretary, doing his work to his entire satisfaction, and showing himself an able and excellent public servant. He could express no opinion of the qualifications needed for the Stationery Office, having no knowledge of its working, or of the Report of the Select Committee; but he had felt it his duty to say what he knew in regard to Mr. Pigott.
VISCOUNT CARDWELLdid not rise to say anything in praise of Mr. Pigott, because he did not understand that anybody had cast any imputation on that gentleman in regard to the duties he had hitherto discharged. But he could also bear testimony to the faithful and efficient manner in which Mr. Pigott performed his duty at the War Office. He discharged his duties most faithfully and most ably—and when the noble Earl who had just sat down left office, he
1490
(Viscount Cardwell) recommended him to the noble Marquess who succeeded—and, if his memory served him, he had also had another opportunity of giving the same favourable opinion of Mr. Pigott's capacity and service.

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL—(Nos. 114, 138, 146, 151.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL—(Nos. 114, 138, 146, 151.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he trusted that the Commissioners, in carrying out the provisions of this Bill, would keep in mind the importance of offering every facility and encouragement to young men who wished to enter the ministry of the Church of England to obtain an education at the two Universities. He could conceive no greater mischief to the country than that her future Clergy should be driven from the Universities by any loss of the encouragements which already existed, and be educated at Theological seminaries. Such a course would destroy the intercourse that had hitherto freely prevailed between the Clergy and family life. The Clergy ought to be, as they had been, as much as possible educated with the Laity, and have free communication with them, and should not be required to pursue at all times studies which were purely theological. They should be encouraged to pursue a wider range of study, and not have their minds narrowed to the habits of a caste. It was one of the greatest evils of the Roman Catholic Church, but it was essential to its constitution, that the Clergy should be educated apart. Therefore, he would urge upon the Royal Commissioners who were to carry into operation this Act of Parliament to consider the very great importance of encouraging, by every means within their powers, the education of those who purposed to enter into Holy Orders, so that they might be kept as much as possible at the Universities, and their views and feelings kept in harmony and sympathy with other classes of the community.
  Bill read 3ª, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

RUSSIA AND THE PORTE—THE CIRCULAR DESPATCH OF THE OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD CAMPBELL,in rising to call attention to the progress of the War between Russia and the Porte; and to move for a copy of any Answer from Her Majesty's Government to the Circular Despatch of the Ottoman Government to its representatives abroad, dated the 25th January, said: My Lords, it will not, I think, be difficult to explain in a few words a change of form which is apparent in the Notice I have given. The despatch from the Ottoman Government of January 25th is one of the most important which late events have drawn out; because it contains, elaborately stated, their reasons for declining the last proposals of the Conference, and, at the same time, a sketch of the alternatives they offered. My impression was, after a good deal of research, that it had never reached us, except by foreign journals; but it now appears in the 15th Paper on the East, long after many things ought to have preceded it. But this is a small matter, so long as the despatch itself is not entirely unnoticed. I am far from urging that the Government were bound to answer it, although I move for any answer they have made. If they have made none, it stands intact as a reply to all the grounds on which the aggressive war against the Porte has been excused.
  Having given Notice also to call attention to the progress of the war, the House will possibly allow me to make some further observations, which events, as they move on, might soon render irrelevant. To justify the term aggressive as applied to the part of Russia—a term which some may disapprove—let me take refuge in the reply of the Government to Prince Gortchakoff, dated May 1st. A document more grave, as I think more conclusive, has never left the Foreign Office. It is pointed out, with more or less detail in it, that the Russian declaration violates the Treaty of 1856, and mocks the principle laid down in 1871; that the Porte was not bound to signify its acquiescence in the Protocol; that the pretension of the Czar to represent the views and interests of Europe was altogether inadmissible.
  1492
  One point the reply of the Government omitted, as it was not, perhaps, desirable to lengthen it. It is the fact, as stated by Lord Augustus Loftus in a despatch of April 6th, that Russia insisted on a manifesto from the Porte, after the Protocol had been imparted. Had it been otherwise, the Porte would have been responsible for the manifesto which appeared. But we learn from Lord Augustus Loftus that neither silence nor evasion, nor even verbal statement, was left open. A manifesto seemed to be insisted on, because a pretext for invasion was essential. The manifesto was elicited, and the invasion was commenced. Everyone may thus be led to see that the aggression was unwarrantable; but it requires greater patience to observe that it is much more unwarrantable than those of 1828 and 1853. In 1828, besides other pleas, the Russian Government had certain topics of complaint against the Porte as regards the imperfect execution of a Treaty—namely, that of Bucharest. When the present war began the conduct of the Porte involved no wrong, however shadowy, to Russia. In 1853 the Czar Nicholas was, in some degree, invoked to protect the Greeks against the Latins at Jerusalem. Russia has not been invited to her present task by any creed or interest whatever. The Exarch of Bulgaria never summoned her across the Danube. The Patriarch of Constantinople sends up open prayers for her discomfiture. The plea advanced is no equivalent to such a demand. When a Power has fomented insurrection in another country, and when that country has repressed it with wild, vindictive, or even barbarous severity, the Power which fomented it can have no locus standi of indictment, although other Powers may be qualified to claim one. The final cause of the atrocities cannot be the judge or the avenger of the crimes it has produced. But neither in 1828 nor 1853 could it be said that during the three previous years Russia had combined with other Powers against the Ottoman Empire. She had not then directed the subversive force of the Holy Alliance to any Eastern object. She had not made Commercial Treaties a lever to detach the vassal Principalities from their allegiance. She had not armed, let loose, directed Servia in a rebellious war against the Suzerain whose fortresses

  1493
  had been imprudently entrusted to it. She had not flung the Prince of Montenegro into the Herzegovinian strife, to feed and to extend it. She had not for 10 previous years employed at Constantinople, a diplomatist of great ability, no doubt, and only true to his instructions; but now proved by uncontested documents to have laboured for the gradual dismemberment of the State to which he was accredited. Above all, at neither of those periods was Russia making war against a Constitution recently inaugurated. The just conclusion would therefore be, not only that the step of Russia cannot be defended, but that it assumes a darker hue than those which have immediately preceded it, although among the similar attempts in the last century, which Major Russell has enumerated, some might be found perhaps to rival it in blackness. Since April 24th it has gone on unresisted except so far as the armies of the Porte, the waters of the Danube, together with the insurrection in the Caucasus, have been able to retard it. It is worth while to inquire briefly how far such a position can be deemed a satisfactory one. To maintain that it is not satisfactory implies no strong reflection on Her Majesty's Government. Their attitude may be the same as they described themselves at the beginning of the Session—namely, that of men who, anxious on conviction of their value to uphold the Treaties of 1856, find themselves impeded or discouraged by the faint support they get from some who were more immediately the authors of them. At the same time, we must recall the fact that they are utterly unexecuted, while all the pretexts for neglecting them have long ago been answered. The Proclamation of Neutrality does little to facilitate adherence to them. In point of fact, it favours the belligerent whom they engage us to resist. It was not demanded by neutrality. In 1828, as far as I can learn, there was not such a proclamation. In 1853 there certainly was not, although neutrality continued from July, when Russia crossed the Pruth, down to March, when Great Britain became an actual belligerent. Sir Robert Phillimore explains, in his text book, that a neutral is not bound to make a proclamation of the kind. You gain nothing by it. If it is desired to prevent British subjects mixing in the
  1494
  war, the Foreign Enlistment Act suffices. The proclamation only serves to flatter, where it is a duty to withstand.
  Beyond that, if the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire are desirable, both are violently outraged. If, as some reasoners contend, it would be better to have a more enlightened, civilized, tenacious Power on the Bosphorus—whether its origin was Athens or Vienna, whether its type was Federative or Imperial, whether it was connected with the Protestant, the Greek, or Latin form of Christianity—their hope is perishing before them. To a solution of the kind, Russian arms, when they succeed, are an inexorable barrier. It will not become a fact; but it will even cease to be a vision.
  But as soon as it is seen that the success of Russia would be a blow to Europe, we are forced to own that the Porte is making war for all the nations which abandon her.
  However, there is yet a more striking point of view in which the present state of things can hardly be defended. The favourite aspiration of the moment is thrown overboard. The improvement of the races subject to the Porte, when it might have been triumphantly secured, is ruthlessly abandoned. If Treaties were now observed even within narrow limits, and at little hazard or expense, no reform would be impossible. To defend the Porte is to control it. It is not any theory on my part. It stands on record that in 1854 and 1855 Lord Stratford de Redcliffe obtained concessions which at another time could scarcely have been granted, even to a mind so energetic and imperious. If Treaties were now observed, the Ambassador would be capable of anything. He could appoint Viceroys, organize tribunals, regulate finance, establish companies, overrule Grand Viziers, guide assemblies, restore ability to councils, and fling corruption out of Palaces. As things stand, he is placed in a manner utterly deplorable. By long tradition he is forced to use the language which becomes the organ of a defending Power, while that Power is hardly making any preparation to defend. When he advises he is an unauthorized, unwelcome, and importunate disturber. When he does not, he is an empty form and ceremonial nonentity. It is no reproach to him whatever that

  1495
  it should be so. The fault belongs to those who keep the Treaties unfulfilled. The result is incontestable. The British Embassy, which used to be the Mecca of the races no other Mecca lures towards it, is paralyzed, in deference to men who hypocritically clamoured for their benefit, but now throw off the mask which sat so cleverly upon them.
  At no period would such a situation be desirable or acceptable. But we are forced to reflect upon the time at which it happens. It happens when the fate of Denmark in 1864, the concessions on the Black Sea in 1870, the sacrifice of public law at Washington more recently—even without reproaching the successive Governments who had to do with these transactions—required to be balanced and redeemed: when national decline in foreign policy at least had reached the lowest point compatible with safety, and when a rare and long-required opportunity is granted, to reestablish on its former height the lowered honour of the Kingdom. Remarks of this kind, without even pretending to do justice to the topic, far less to exhaust it, may yet provoke the question of what should now be done to put an end to a position so derogatory—a question which nothing but official knowledge can dispose of altogether. But without that knowledge one preliminary step might be adverted to. It is that of renouncing a set of improvised, of artificial and untenable opinions, framed, as it were, by order and design to reconcile the country to what would otherwise be viewed as insupportable. One is that Great Britain can depend on Austria for the exertion she is not willing to partake. A less bold interpretation might suggest that the Powers reciprocally paralyze each other, in a mode which happened to two commanders of an Army at the end of the last century—
  "Lord Chatham, with his sabre drawn,
  Stood waiting for Sir Richard Strahan.
  Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em,
  Stood waiting for the Earl of Chatham."
  The next is that Egypt might indemnify Great Britain for anything which happened on the Dardanelles or Bosphorus, the very bait which more than 20 years ago was prudently rejected. If one point is better settled than another in discussions on the Eastern Question, it is that Egypt will always gravitate to the Power which has Constantinople,
  1496
  and that without such gravitation the Power which has Constantinople would move towards it and appropriate it. But I leave that topic to men who have commanded armies or men who may command them. Another of these idols which darken policy at present, is that Russian aggression has any pre-determined limit. Nothing can be urged in its defence, except that in 1829 Russia did not go beyond Adrianople. But why did she not go further? Count Moltke, the eminent historian of the campaign, has thoroughly explained it. It was not a matter of forbearance or diplomacy. Disease among the troops imposed a limitation on their progress. But of all the fallacies which rage like epidemics in the air, the most pernicious in its natural effects is, that after doing nothing in the war, we shall be able to step in and to control negotiations for a settlement. There is not one example in modern times to justify the fatuous assumption. Not a grain of à priori reason can be offered to defend it. On several occasions its utter folly was illustrated. In 1866, Napoleon III., after neutrality, wished to influence the peace between Austria and Prussia. In spite of all the genius, reputation, and pre-eminence, which at that time he commanded, he had no more voice in the adjustment than the Prince of Monaco. In 1871, many European States were solicitous about the definite arrangements between Germany and France. They were no more heard upon them than the American Republic. There is a further illustration, which, although more distant as to time, comes home to us more forcibly. After the war between Russia and the Porte of 1828ߝ9, the Duke of Wellington and Lord Aberdeen would have given anything to control negotiations. The whole course of their ideas has been brought before the world in a recent volume, by the successor of one of them, so that there is no excuse for overlooking it. These two distinguished men reflected gravely on the Treaty of Adrianople. The despatch of the Earl of Aberdeen might be cited as a masterpiece against it. It does not appear, however, that they were able to revise a comma or to regulate a paragraph in the obnoxious stipulations against which they had protested. Men who look forward to such a power under such

  1497
  conditions, have not learnt the alphabet of international affairs, or cannot draw an inference from the events which recent history might have forced upon their notice.
  If these illusions, and some kindred ones I pass over, were removed, sounder principles would vindicate themselves, and proper measures might emerge, without anyone being wanted to explain or recommend them. Their outline cannot be mistaken. The indispensable preliminary must be—in whatever manner we effect it—to regain the confidence and accord of the Sublime Porte itself, without which all operations of an effective nature are prohibited. That bar once removed, such movements appear to be desirable, as would lead to no collision with any European Power, and yet would stifle the designs upon the Bosphorus, which are repudiated in despatches, but to which inaction on our part gives prolonged vitality and irresistible encouragement. The Embassy would then at once recover its authority. The pretexts of the war might be annihilated, not by the violence of Russia, but the counsels of Great Britain. When they were gone, it would be difficult to prevent the Governments of Europe from uniting in remonstrance with St. Petersburg, as they did in 1863, upon another subject. The balance of power might be restored, whether or not the war was quickly put an end to. At all events, the greatest influence would be secured in any Conference at which the ultimate arrangement of the Eastern Question might be handled. As things are now gone on, two alternatives confront us. We are moving either to the verge of a division between the three Powers, such as that which happened at the end of the last century; or to the verge of a conclusion between Russia and the Porte like that of 1833 at Unkiar Skelessi, when Russia gained a special right of entrance to the Dardanelles, and when, on Asiatic soil, the general indignity of Europe was recorded.
  My Lords, it would betray a most imperfect estimate of things and men, which could not be excused at such a moment, for anyone to dwell much—however cautiously—on practical suggestions. The difficulty is elsewhere. As to strategic methods of upholding our honour and our interest, the Government, I dare say, might listen three
  1498
  hours a-day without hearing all the persons competent to offer them. The want is not in schemes, but resolution to adopt them in the face of what are deemed to be considerable obstacles. Those obstacles are foreign and domestic. Although it is habitual to contemplate the latter, and to shrink before them, it seems to me they vanish when they are approached.
  As to Parliament in one House, the Government have lately had a majority of 130 on the Eastern Question. As to agitation, it is silenced. But the agitation which existed in the Autumn, was an agitation for peremptory interference with the Ottoman Empire. Interference of that kind it has been long ago established has no foundation but defence. It was in point of reason, therefore, an agitation for defence, and cannot render it impossible.
  The late Government have been referred to often as an obstacle. If, indeed, the late Government were an united body on the Eastern Question, they might powerfully urge some course they had in view, or intercept with equal force a line they disapproved of. But it is no reproach to them to say they cannot be united on it. Placed as they have been in former times they cannot escape the influence of Lord Palmerston on the one hand, and of their more recent Leader on the other. They are bound by ties of gratitude, of sympathy, and of convention, to listen to authorities so diametrically opposite. Hence, it is fair to judge the wonderful variety of judgment which escapes their Bench upon the subject. When traced to its cause, their oscillation is in some degree a merit. But so long as it prevails, they cannot be a formidable obstacle. But some contend that their former Head, in his detached and separate existence, is invested with that character.
  Far be it from me to question the importance of the late Prime Minister upon the Eastern Question. In the eyes of all who analyze its sources, the present war has been created by him. To create an European war, without being at the time the Leader of an Opposition, or a Government, or Party, has hardly ever fallen to the lot of any individual. The achievement is remarkable, however little to be envied. In spite of the activity and energy which it condenses, it maybe shown that he is not so placed

  1499
  as to obstruct with much facility the measures policy requires. More loudly, more conspicuously, and much more frequently than others, he has called out for interference to bring the races subject to the Porte under the protection of Great Britain. He cannot deny that the British Embassy at Constantinople is the only instrument in our hands to further such an object. He cannot deny that it is paralyzed by our inaction. He cannot deny that it would be revived by our efforts. The conclusion rapidly presents itself. The more Great Britain spends in upholding the Sublime Porte against hostilities, the greater her ability to dictate its policy, reform its institutions, vindicate its subjects. If a Vote of £1,000,000 was proposed, the late Prime Minister ought to insist on its being doubled. Where is his escape? Can he refer to Russia as an object of unlimited credulity? Can he refer to Russia as the reforming and regenerating instrument against Mahomedan dominion? He might: but more than 20 years ago he joined in war in order to resist so odious a pretension. These obstacles may therefore be dismissed as wholly insignificant. They cannot weigh upon the counsels of a Government. But with regard to the foreign set, more gravity belongs to them. It cannot be denied that Great Britain nearly finds herself alone—France and Italy, on whom she might have counted, are deemed to be incapable of action. Germany and Austria, since 1874, have been moving in a Russian orbit, although this very war is tending to detach them from it. Let it be granted that to avoid war with Russia is important, although it may not be imperative. Let it be granted that it ought to come, rather than "sooner," "later," and rather than "later," not at all. If you desire to avoid a given form of conflict, it is not inappropriate to ask how you formerly got into it. The biographers of Lord Palmerston have made it wonderfully clear to us. We learn from them that during 1853 two modes of thought were brought into collision at every new juncture within the Cabinet itself. Lord Palmerston, time after time, was constantly suggesting to the Prime Minister proceedings to admonish Russia, the Prime Minister insisting on proceedings to conciliate her. On each occasion which arose, Lord Palmerston desired to act
  1500
  upon her fears, Lord Aberdeen to soothe her pride and count on her forbearance. The Prime Minister, of course, succeeded in determining his Cabinet. He was bound to do so. But yet a bloody war was the result of his miscalculating leniency. It is worth while to reflect whether we are not now advancing to the same rock, over the same waters; of ambiguity, of oscillation and inertness; of efforts to cajole where it is essential to intimidate; and to believe where ten times fortified distrust, yet more than walls or arms, is the security of Empires.
  It may be asked, however, whether there is any favourable precedent for acting upon Treaties when Great Britain is not surrounded by allies. To everyone who reflects upon the foreign policy of modern times, a precedent might easily suggest itself. In 1826 Portugal was attacked by bands which started from the Spanish territory. The casus fœderis arose, which binds Great Britain to come forward. If the ingenious mind of Mr. Canning had not been governed by a strict regard for national engagements, it would have been easy to attenuate it. The diplomatic novelties in which the present Session has abounded would have rapidly effaced it. When the Government of that day resolved upon their expedition to the Tagus, it was undertaken in a spirit adverse to the Holy Alliance, while France and Spain were both co-operating with that system. Many Powers might have joined to check the Expedition, while none was certain to support it. It triumphed without bloodshed. Its promptitude was such that the decision of our Government was only known to the inhabitants of Lisbon when they observed the ships, with 10,000 men, advancing to their rescue. It brought immortal credit to its authors. It was followed by repose for nearly 30 years. In all time it was a lesson that prudence and audacity are not incapable of union. It added to the public stock of character authority, prestige of which safety is the offspring; the public stock which now dissolves under our eyes.
  On the whole, the foreign obstacles to action, although much graver than the other class, can hardly be considered insurmountable. One fact, which has not in our various discussions been quite sufficiently alluded to, does much to balance and control them both together. It is, that policy and sentiment are so

  1501
  remarkably united in favour of the measures any Government would contemplate. Policy requires the Mediterranean to be guarded against a Power which is shown to be aggressive or unscrupulous. Sentiment demands that the Crimea shall not be turned into an unprofitable charnel house. Policy requires that the European balance should be upheld against hypocrisy and violence. Sentiment insists that those who rode at Balaclava shall not be mocked by the surrender of all the objects which they rode for. Policy exacts the maintenance of Treaties which such men as Lord Palmerston and Lord Clarendon established. Sentiment obliges nations to place their honour above money, since money soon returns, and honour lost is irrecoverable. Policy enjoins that the Egyptian and other routes to India should be open. Sentiment reminds that the co-religionists of Christendom ought not to be left to Ottoman misrule or Muscovite rapacity, and they are left to both so long as this attempt is wholly unresisted. A Minister who acts with policy and sentiment behind him cannot easily be daunted. He may defy the spirit which broke out a year ago and still perplexes our counsels; which first began to traffic on Bulgarian excesses; which then disparaged efforts to relieve them; which then confederated with the guilt which had produced them; which afterwards endeavoured to sow dissension between the late Plenipotentiary and those who had appointed him; which raged and fumed against the Treaties; which, last of all, succeeded in hounding Russia into war; and now, with furious philanthropy, exults in the depopulated villages, the blood-stained territory, and wasted harvests of the country it befriended. At least, it is not too soon to refer to the precedent of 1826, if any good can be derived from it. An eminent authority on that part of the subject is reported to have said that the present war is not directed against India, where tried organization, large resources, and the charm of seldom interrupted victory, might well enable you to grapple with it. Its aim is less remote, its character more menacing. We have waited for the passage of the Danube. We have waited till the Balkans have in some degree been traversed. Shall we wait till Adrianople has been occupied: or till
  1502
  the last defence—the line traced out by Sir John Burgoyne—has been approached? That line is distant from Constantinople only 20 miles. It connects two seas. According to Sir John Burgoyne, 60,000 Asiatic, and 40,000 European troops are wanted to defend it. Of one thing we may be sure, that, when it is approached, gold and iron will be joined in the exertion to surmount it. If that fails, shall we protect Stamboul after the European suburb has been occupied? Or, last of all, shall we hang up our unintelligible interests and shattered Treaties at Gallipoli?
  My Lords, there are two paths: the path of preparatory measures without war, and that of war without preparatory measures; the path of honour leading to repose, and that of national reproach, conducting to entanglement, to struggle, possibly disaster. By sending back the Fleet the Government may seem, to have adopted the becoming one. I recognize the circumstance. It is too late for them to quit it. I only venture to remark, that on that path, if they are enchained, they ought to be released; if they stand still, they ought to move; and, if they move, their movement ought to be impelled by the united voice of this House and of the public, in spite of every tool which the aggressor may employ.
  The noble Lord concluded by moving for any answer to the Circular despatch of the Ottoman Government to its Representatives abroad, dated January 25th.
  Moved that an humble address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copy of any answer from Her Majesty's Government to the circular despatch of the Ottoman Government to its representatives abroad, dated 25th January,—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell).
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I think it may be convenient, before the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs rises to reply to my noble Friend, if I make a few observations that occur to me, and give him a few minutes to think over and decide whether the speech which has just been delivered by the noble Lord, is favourable or antagonistic to Her Majesty's Government. Certainly, I have no desire in anything I may say to embarrass the noble Earl or Her Majesty's Government at the present crisis, when they have to deal with a very difficult and

  1503
  complicated question. Before I go to the subject-matter before your Lordships there is one point to which I wish to allude. The noble Lord who has brought this question forward has, I believe, made more Motions on the subject than have all the rest of your Lordships put together. Of this in itself I do not in the least complain, as I do not conceive anything less expedient than that a limit should be placed to the discretion of any Peer in regard to raising discussion in this House on any question which he thinks of public importance and interest. But not only has the noble Lord made so many Motions on this subject—he has also taken a course almost peculiar to himself of almost indefinitely multiplying the Notices of those Motions. The present Motion of the noble Lord was given Notice of, in the first instance, for the 9th of this month; it was postponed to the 12th, afterwards to the 16th, and now it comes before your Lordships on the 19th, without the slightest public or private Notice of the postponement, so far as I am aware. I presume that some communication was made on the subject to the Clerk at the Table, but I certainly have not been aware whether the Motion was to come on or not. It is not convenient for your Lordships who regularly attend the Sittings of this House that such a course should be followed, and certainly it is inconvenient for those noble Lords who come down chiefly to attend debates on important questions. I have no doubt that the inconvenience I complain of was perfectly unintentional on the part of the noble Lord, but it does really seem to imply some want of courtesy and to involve unnecessary loss of time to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who at this crisis must otherwise have so much on his hands. Carried to this point, such a course of proceeding amounts to an abuse. With regard to the Question before the House the observations I shall make will be very short. The Eastern Question is one of a very important and complicated character, and one which, if we were to go into it, would require to be gone into at great length and with great consideration. We are now placed in a state of suspense. The Russians have had great reverses in Asia; but, on the other hand, they are advancing in European Turkey,
  1504
  where they have already overcome one if not more of the great difficulties of the campaign—certainly not an easy one when we consider what has to be done. The principal lesson, I think, to be inferred from what they are doing is this—that any nation which, whether impelled by its own private interests, or by sympathy with other populations, or from mixed motives, undertakes to deal alone with those great and important questions in which every country in Europe has directly or indirectly some interest, and claims more or less to have a voice in their settlement—that any nation so acting alone in these circumstances exposes itself to enormous sacrifices which can hardly be compensated by success. The noble Lord who brought this question before your Lordships (Lord Campbell) used some strong expressions with regard to the ambition of Russia; but I am glad that he had the good sense not to advert to what is now a very usual topic—I refer to the horrors alleged to have been committed by the Russian army. I do not know whether these horrors are true or not. No war takes place without a great many unnecessary horrors being committed; and, not unnaturally perhaps, each belligerent is apt to attribute to its opponent the commission of a great many of these horrors. Now, I understand that in this case Her Majesty's Government have received information which comes chiefly from Turkish sources. Independently of the bias which belligerents have in the way of attributing irregularities to their opponents, the feeling of horror at Turkish atrocities has been shown in this country among Liberals by Conservatives and by Her Majesty's Government, has had its influence upon Turkey, which not unnaturally desires to take advantage of that feeling in trying to influence the policy of this country by making the most of her complaints against Russia, and the noble Lord who has just addressed us has acted wisely and discreetly in reserving any observations he may wish to make on the subject until the official Papers are before us as to the truth of the matter. With regard to this strong outcry that has been raised against Russia, I am certainly not inclined to become the defender of Russia—it is not my business to do so; but one thing occurs to me—what is the practical result of the violent speeches

  1505
  which are made here against Russia? Is it not to induce the Turks to rely on that assistance which Her Majesty's Government have told them they will not receive, but to the hope of which, nevertheless, they still cling at this moment? I am afraid, too, that there is an influence exercised in this country in regard to these matters with a view to try and drive Her Majesty's Government from that policy of neutrality which I believe to be our true policy under the circumstances. And with regard to Russia, supposing her victorious, its effect must be to induce her to listen more to the voice of other nations than to that of England. And further, I am afraid that such speeches tend to excite the feelings and prejudices of this country—in some cases very creditable, but which, on the other hand, might tend to drive the Government from that position of neutrality approved of by the country. I believe the only true policy to be observed on this occasion is that of neutrality, which Her Majesty's Government have declared their intention of following. There were certainly rather vague declarations made about protecting "British interests;" but explanations have been made on that subject by a Member of the Government in "another place" which have generally been regarded as satisfactory. An event happened some time ago which created considerable uneasiness in this country—namely, the despatch of our Mediterranean Fleet to Besika Bay. It is not for me to inquire whether those movements of the Mediterranean Fleet are calculated to add to the dignity or strength of this country, or are likely to be of any practical use; but Her Majesty's Government, by the same organ, have given explanations which tended to remove the alarms which existed at the moment in the minds of the people; and if we read the Papers we find that satisfactory assurances have been offered by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to other Governments with regard to the movements of that Fleet. There is one point to which I wish to refer. I am not aware that during the course of this Session Her Majesty's Government have given any countenance to that wild talk which prevails now, and which has persuaded a great many of our foreign friends as well as foreign enemies to believe that we—departing
  1506
  from the statement of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary that we are strong because we fear nothing and want nothing—that we are departing from our great principle of neutrality:—but there is a feeling abroad that we are meditating all sorts of annexation and additions to that extended Empire over which Her Majesty so happily now rules. I cannot but believe that Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to such schemes not only being contrary to all international morality, but opposed to wise policy, and of the worst possible example to other States. Events abroad may happen—things may be done or announced by Her Majesty's Government at home—which would require immediate and full discussion in Parliament, and I do not complain that any noble Lord should initiate discussion on these things:—but, in the meanwhile, I do not myself see any practical objects to be gained at the present moment by further debates. I hope the House will understand that I make no complaint of any Peer taking a different view. All that I wish to guard against is the notion that if I do not enter into debate on the question that has been raised, and if my Friends behind me take the same course, it is not because we shut our eyes to the great gravity of the present situation and the consequences which may arise, or from any blind indifference as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYhoped their Lordships would not let the subject drop without expressing an opinion on the cruelties committed by the Russian troops. A leading Russian organ had attempted to excuse many of these cruelties on the plea of military necessity; but there was no military necessity for such treatment of the women and children. The only object of these cruelties on the part of the Russians was to drive the Turks into acts of retaliation with a view to renew the agitation of last Autumn. He hoped the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would lay upon the Table the Reports of Her Majesty's Consuls on these cruelties, which were said to have reached the British Embassy at Constantinople. The cruelties lately reported as having been committed on women and children by the Russian Cavalry far exceeded in atrocity anything that had happened in

  1507
  Bulgaria or in Poland, and called for remonstrance and protest by England and the British Government so soon as Her Majesty's Government should have official reports of these massacres of children. They had been told that Russia was coming as a Liberator and to introduce the blessings of Christianity; but the only Gospel teaching which she had as yet carried out was to imitate the exploits of Herod. It was hardly necessary to urge that the British Government had a right of remonstrance, founded upon the Brussels Conference of 1874, to which a British Commissioner had been sent. The grounds of humanity and of Christianity were sufficient to require that these atrocities should not find the voice of England silent. He would ask the Government of Her Majesty the Empress of India to remember that 40,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects in India would expect their Government to protest against this ruthless slaughter of the wives and children of their co-religionists.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, if there is one thing connected with the Eastern Question upon which your Lordships seem, to be unanimous, it is the advantage of avoiding any discussion at the present time. I will, therefore, notice very briefly the observations of the noble Lord (Lord Campbell) who, after so many postponements, has at last achieved the delivery of the speech he has so long meditated. My noble Friend asks me to produce the answer of Her Majesty's Government to the Turkish despatch of the 25th of January last. My Lords, to that my reply will be very short. I cannot produce the answer, because there is none. No answer to that despatch was expected or required. My noble Friend has studied it very carefully, and he will therefore be aware—as your Lordships may be—that it was in the nature of a protest against some of the proceedings of the Conference that has just been held at Constantinople. It was a well-written document, as most of the Turkish diplomatic correspondence is, but it did not call for any reply from us. Indeed, it would have been certainly inexpedient, possibly injurious, to have entered into a controversial correspondence upon a matter which had practically b6en settled. We regretted the failure of the Conference; but it would have served
  1508
  no purpose to enter into argument with the Turkish Government to prove that they were wrong in the course they had pursued. My noble Friend, whom I will not follow over the various subjects which he treated, objected, if I understood him right, to the Proclamation of Neutrality which was put forth by Her Majesty's Government. He seemed, from some observations he made, to consider that we were wrong in remaining neutral. [Lord CAMPBELL was understood to dissent.] Then I fail to follow my noble Friend's reasoning. I can quite understand his saying that we ought not to have issued a Proclamation of Neutrality if he thinks that we ought not to have been neutral; but I cannot understand on what ground he contends that although we intended to be neutral, we ought not to have told anyone that we meant to be so, and that it was our duty to have left everybody, both at home and abroad, under a misunderstanding as to the course we really intended to adopt. That is a proceeding for which, I think, neither by the advocates of peace nor by the advocates of war any possible justification could have been found. The noble Lord went on to say that the influence of the British Embassy at Constantinople was paralyzed. That is not my impression, nor do I believe it is that of any European diplomatist. The noble Lord may only wish to imply that we do not possess the same influence with Turkey as if we were fighting on her side, or had promised to fight on her side. If that be all that is meant by my noble Friend, it is perfectly true and obvious; but if the noble Lord means that the British Ambassador at Constantinople does not exercise that influence and enjoy that position there which fairly belongs to a neutral and friendly Power, I am bound to say, in that case, that his information differs from mine. The noble Lord put forward a theory which, although he supported it by many historical precedents, I cannot accept. He said you cannot expect, after the end of a war in which you have been neutral and inactive, to exercise an important influence over its results. Now, I do not much care to argue abstract propositions on this or on any other question; but, if we are to discuss the matter at all, I totally dissent from his view. I cannot conceive a situation in which

  1509
  you can interfere with more influence or effect than at the close of a war when the belligerent Powers are more or less exhausted and worn out by the struggle, while you are still uncommitted to any course and while your own forces are fresh and unbroken. Under such circumstances, we are likely to exercise relatively greater power than if we had taken part in the conflict. The noble Lord then went on to remind us that we need not be afraid of agitation—that we have a majority, and he warned us not to lose it. I am obliged to him for that advice. We have a majority, and we intend to keep it. We do not intend either to fear or to encourage agitation, from whatever side it may come. I do not think that the position in which we stand requires any further definition at this moment. We have held all along language which I think is abundantly clear, and we have announced the policy which we intend to pursue. We were challenged by the Sovereign of Russia to give our opinion on the conduct of Russia when she proclaimed war, and we gave it. We further told the Porte, as long ago as May, 1876, when there was no pressure of popular opinion to influence our conduct, that Turkey was not to expect assistance from England. And since the war broke out, with the view of maintaining a neutrality which should be at once honourable and safe, we have defined what we regard as the British interests involved, and defined them with a fulness and a clearness which, as far as I know and believe, has not been usual on former occasions. We have done that in no unfriendly spirit to Russia; and the Russian Ambassador, when in conversation with him I referred to the statement which we had made of what we conceived to be our interests involved in this quarrel, thanked me for having warned his Government where those "torpedoes" called English interests were. I now come to the remarks of my noble Friend the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville). He certainly did not in any undue manner censure or criticize the conduct of the Government, and therefore I think I need not waste your Lordships' time in going over the ground which he traversed, except to protest against one statement which he made when he said that those declarations of what we con-
  1510
  ceived to be our "interests" involved were vague in their character. I think they were as distinct and as precise as it is possible for declarations on such a matter under such circumstances to be. I will not go into the question—especially since it has been explained "elsewhere"—of the reason why the Fleet was sent to Besika Bay. It is not the fact, as my noble Friend opposite thinks, that formal assurances have been given to Foreign Powers as to the reasons for which the Fleet was sent to that station. We did not give such assurances simply because they were not called for or required. If there be those who think there must be some sinister object in whatever we do—that we have some deep and secret design in moving the Fleet from one station to another—it is easy for such persons to find out a motive in regard to whatever place we may send it, whether it should be to Alexandria, to Crete, to the Piræus, or to Besika Bay. If it goes to Alexandria, the inference is that we are going to lay hands on Egypt. If to Crete, we wish to keep the Cretan insurgents in order. If to Athens, the object is to intimidate Greece. There is no end to such suspicions, and it is impossible to avoid their being entertained. I cannot myself see that any objection can be made to the station we have selected any more than would equally attach to any other in the eyes of anyone who is bent on looking at the matter invidiously. Besika Bay was a most central and most convenient station in case of disturbances arising in Turkey, and also one from which communication could most easily be maintained with the British Ambassador. My noble Friend who spoke last (Lord Stanley of Alderley) referred to the alleged outrages in Turkey, committed on the Turkish population, I do not say by Russian soldiers, but by persons acting on the Russian side. I draw that distinction because where these excesses are said to have occurred they ought probably to be ascribed, not to the Russian Army, but rather to those who follow the Army and are not subject to military discipline. I do not pretend to determine how far these statements, of which we have lately seen so many in the newspapers, are accurate or not. Speaking as a general rule, I should say—exactly as I did last year—

  1511
  that we must always allow in these cases for a great deal of exaggeration. If we go back to the instance of Bulgaria, the first statement made was that 30,000 persons had been murdered in Bulgaria. The inquiry made at the time on the spot by Mr. Baring reduced the number below 12,000, and subsequent inquiries have shown more and more that those who were supposed to be dead have been coming to life again; that many persons who were at first reckoned among the victims have since been found to have only run away and taken refuge in another place; and I have seen a statement that the number who suffered last year was really much smaller than even the reduced previous calculations gave it—something like 4,000. If that is the case in regard to Bulgaria, it is possible that something of the same kind may apply to these newly-alleged outrages. No doubt those accounts which come from Turkish sources are liable to the imputation of not being impartial: we have, however, some statements from our own Consuls on this subject; and I propose to collect together whatever information we may have on these matters, and to take an early opportunity of laying it on your Lordships' Table. I do not think it necessary to trouble you with any further remarks.
  LORD CAMPBELL,in reply, said, that although he could not ask their Lordships to remain at such an hour, what had fallen from the noble Earl the Secretary of State and the noble Earl who had preceded him in the same Department, imposed on him the necessity of a few words in answer. As to the noble Earl the Secretary of State, he had defended the Proclamation of Neutrality in a manner which implied complete forgetfulness of a maxim the late Sir Robert Peel had prudently laid down and which M. Guizot had recorded—namely, that a Government is often at liberty to act when it is not at liberty to speak of its intentions. Neutrality itself implied nothing but that the time for coming forward had not yet arrived, or that preparation was inadequate. Proclamation of Neutrality was an impediment or an encumbrance, when the support of an ally became imperatively requisite. On what grounds the Proclamation of Neutrality was more essential in this juncture than it had been in
  1512
  1828 or 1853, or was more incumbent on Great Britain than on other Powers, the noble Earl had not attempted to explain. As to the rather insignificant attack of the noble Earl the late Secretary of State with regard to the postponement of the Motion, on the first occasion he (Lord Campbell) was prevented by indisposition from attending and going on with it, on two others the hour was not one at which their Lordships could be present. As to the further complaint of the noble Earl, that he (Lord Campbell) had brought forward many Motions on the Eastern Question for three years, he was not anxious to defend himself. He had never yet originated a discussion on the topic which had tended to lower that House at home or on the Continent of Europe. Since the Foreign Office had not deemed it right to answer the Ottoman despatch of January 25th, there could be no difficulty in the withdrawal of the Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.