Sitting of 7 August 1879

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART; ARMY ESTIMATES; CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS; Class II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (Supplementary); Class IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART; Class V.—COLONIAL, CONSULAR, AND OTHER FOREIGN SERVICES.
Resolutions[July 28 and August 1] further considered and agreed to.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolutions [August 6] reported.
NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1877–8—considered in Committee—Resolutions [August 6] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Exchequer Bills and Bonds (No. 2) * [289].
Select Committee—Report—Lough Erne and River I Continuance) [No. 347].
Committee—Metropolitan Board of Works (Water Expenses) [204]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [268]; Poor Law Amendment (No. 2) (re-comm.) [282]; Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices [78–288].
Considered as amended—Game Laws Amendment (Scotland) [143].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Shipping Casualties Investigations Re-hearing [262], and passed.
Third Reading—Public Health (Ireland) Act (1878) Amendment* [128]; Bills of Sale (Ireland) * [273]; Registry Courts (Ireland) (Practice) * [259], and passed.
Withdrawn—Linen and Hempen Manufactures (Ireland) * [202]; Debtors Act (1869) Amendment* [115]; Bankruptcy Law Amendment (re-comm.) * [254]; Courts of Justice Building Act (1865) Amendment* [156]; Irish Church Act (1869) Amendment* [269].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS.—STANDING ORDERS.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT MR. J. G. TALBOT moved to add, at the end of Standing Order No. 13—
  (Notice to Owners and Lessees of Railways, Tramways, or Canals crossed, affected, or interfered with by proposed Tramway.)
  "On or before the 15th day of December immediately preceding the application for any Bill for laying down a Tramway crossing any Bail-way or Tramway on the level, or crossing any Railway, Tramway, or Canal by means of a Bridge, or otherwise affecting or interfering with such Railway, Tramway, or Canal, Notice in writing of such application shall be served upon the Owner or reputed Owner, and upon the Lessee or reputed Lessee of such Railway, Tramway, or Canal, and such Notice shall state the place or places at which the plans of the Tramway to be authorised by such Bill have been or will be deposited."
  The Select Committee of the House of Lords on Tramways had recently made a Report which contained the following recommendation:—
  "Notices ought also to be served on Railway Companies in all cases in which it is proposed to cross their lines upon the level, or to lay Tramways over any of their bridges; and the attention of the Board of Trade ought also to be called to such cases, in order that they may be especially reported upon by the Inspectors of the Board."

  389
  It appeared that in one case, in regard to the Midland Railway Company, the Company received no intimation that their line was to be crossed by a Tramway until they were actually informed that their lines were to be cut for the purpose. Mr. Allport, the Manager of the Midland Railway Company, in his evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords, said—
  "It may have teen an oversight; but last Session without any notice, or without the cognizance of the solicitor of the Midland Rail-way Company, a Tramway Company obtained power to construct a Tramway across the main line of the Midland Railway, and on the level between Gloucester and Bristol."
  The Tramway was the Gloucester Tramway, authorized by a Provisional Order. It was considered only reasonable, to guard against such surprises in future, that notice should be required to be given; and he, therefore, begged to move this addition to the Standing Order.
  Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY (IRELAND)—AUXILIARY FORCES —THE MILITIA—SERGEANTS OF THE FIRST CLASS.—QUESTION.
  MR. GRAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the first class staff sergeants of the Irish Militia receive the same fuel and light allowance as the first class staff sergeants of English and Scotch Militia regiments; and, if not, if he would explain to the House why?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, I have to state, in answer to the lion. Member, that I am not aware of there being any difference whatever between the first-class Staff sergeants of the Irish Militia and those of English and Scotch Militia; but if the hon. Member will give me any particular case in which such a difference exists, I will inquire into it.

  ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS ACT, 1875.—QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When he intends to introduce the Bill for the amendment of "The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1875?"
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he was sorry that the Bill introduced on the previous day for the amendment of the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1875, had not been printed; but he hoped it would be in the hands of hon. Members in a few hours.

  ARMY—THE VETERINARY WARRANT OF 1878.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state the number of Veterinary Surgeons disqualified as regards eligibility for promotion to the first-class grade by the operation of the Veterinary Warrant of 187e, and the reason why those Veterinary Surgeons who have completed the twelve years' qualifying service still remain unpromoted; and, whether certain Letters and Documents complaining of and urging a reconsideration of the Warrant, which were received at the War Office prior to the commencement of the present Session, have yet been referred to him; and, if so, whether he has arrived at any decision on the subject?
  COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, he was not at present prepared to give the numbers referred to in the first part of the Question; but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would repeat that part of the Question at a future date, he would endeavour to supply them. With regard to the reconsideration of the Warrant, there were certain calculations which would have to he made before he could give a decision on the matter, and owing to pressure of Business, the actuary had not been able to furnish him with the results of those calculations up to the present time.

  GRANTS FOR FISHERY PIERS (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, considering the distress that exists in Ireland, and the urgency of some of the applications for works under the Fishery Piers Acts, the Government will favourably consider and soon decide on the list of applications specially recommended by the Commissioners of Public Works for immediate execution, without waiting for the completion of Ardglass Harbour?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Sir, I quite admit the importance of the subject which the hon. Member has brought before me in the Question he has put. I am at present in communication with the Board of Works about one or two applications for grants for harbours; but my difficulty at present is that no provision has been made for these works in the Estimates. However, that is a difficulty I shall endeavour to overcome, if I find from the Correspondence with the Board of Works that I am able to carry out the object of its recommendations.

MINES REGULATION ACT, 1872—BLANTYRE COLLIERY EXPLOSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the inquiry that has been, or is now being, made into the cause or causes of the recent explosion at the Blantyre Collieries, near Hamilton, is to be of purely a private character, such as are common in Scotland; and, as such, to be seen only by Government officials; and, whether he will present to the House a summary of the result of the inquiry, when completed?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, as the inquiry by the Procurator Fiscal is solely directed to the question whether criminal proceedings should be taken against any person or not, and does not necessarily touch any important question as to the administration of the pit, I have determined that it had better be conducted in private. After that inquiry, I will send down Mr. Dickinson to make a further investigation as to the administration of the colliery.

AFGHANISTAN—HEALTH OF THE MILITARY FORCES—THE 10TH HUSSARS.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERasked the Secretary of State for War, What truth there is in the following statement of the "Lancet," copied into the "Army and Navy Gazette" of the 26th ult. respecting the return march of the 10th Hussars beyond the Indus, viz.:—
  "The 10th Hussars, who, it will he remembered, lost fifty men in crossing the Cabul River at night some four months ago, have again been unfortunate, and head the list of cholera casual-
  392
  ties—at Fort Balley, the second march from Gundarnak, they reported fifteen deaths from cholera; fourteen more fatal cases occurred at Dakka, and six at Bosawul;"
  whether, while suffering from cholera, the 10th Hussars were hurried on by forced marches to reach the Indus, before the bridge broke down on the 22nd of June; whether any order for forced marches was given while the regiment was suffering from cholera, either by the Viceroy or his military advisers; and, whether such order would under the circumstances be approved by him?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, I have very little information on this subject. The only official information I can trace is a letter from the officer commanding the 10th Hussars, in which he states that unusually large drafts were required, and that recruiting would have to be carried on vigorously; and, in connection with that, reference is made to the regiment having passed through a country where a good deal of cholera has prevailed. That is the only reference I can find. I have no means of knowing whether the facts stated in the Question are correct; and as to the latter part of the Question, whether an order for forced marches would have been approved by me, that is a matter on which I must suspend my judgment, as it would very much depend on the circumstances of the case.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERasked, Whether the Secretary of State for War would grant a Return of the strength of all the regiments at the time of their advance on Ali Musjid, and at the time of their falling back to get beyond the Indus—a return which would of course include the casualties in the 10th Hussars; and, whether he would inquire of the Viceroy why the regiment was hurried on when suffering from cholera?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, I believe the real reason why the regiment was hurried forward was, because it was attacked with cholera, and because it was desirable to move it as quickly as possible out of the district where cholera prevailed, and that it had no reference to the breaking down of the bridge, which could not have been anticipated.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: Were there forced marches?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am afraid I cannot answer that Question.

RAILWAYS—CONTINUOUS BRAKES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, seeing he has made a Parliamentary Paper of the North Eastern Railway Engineer's Report on the Westinghouse Brake, he will ask the Caledonian Railway Company to get a Report from their Engineer on the Steel-McInnes brake, and make that a Parliamentary Paper also?
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: Sir, a copy of the Report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which has been sent to us by Mr. Harrison, the Engineer of the North Eastern Railway Company, was presented to the House on the Motion of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay); but the President of the Board of Trade has repeatedly stated that we decline to give any opinion as to the relative merits of competing brakes. With regard to Papers on the subject of continuous brakes, my noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) has stated that as this controversy excites so much interest, in Parliament, he thinks it right to lay upon the Table any Papers of interest concerning the various brakes which are sent to the Board of Trade, which hon. Members may wish to have made public in this way; but we must entirely decline to ask particular railway companies for reports as to particular forms of brake.

BRITISH BURMAH—SALE OF OPIUM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RICHARDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received a copy of a petition presented by natives of British Burmah to the Chief Commissioner of that Province, the prayer of which was that the sale of opium in Burmah might be entirely prohibited, and that an extra tax be put upon the land to make up the loss of revenue; whether he has received from the Chief Commissioner a Report of the results by an inquiry which the Chief Commissioner had instituted as to the effects of the sale of opium in Burmah; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House these and other documents relating to the sale of Government opium in British Burmah?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, the only answer I can give to the Question of the hon. Member is that we have received no Petition on the subject.

THE INDIA OFFICE—BEER TASTERS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that it is proposed to abolish the office of Beer-taster at the India Office; and, if so, whether any compensation will be given to those who have filled the office during the last ten years, and have effected great economies?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, the examiners of malt liquor have hitherto been appointed from year to year. It is now proposed to adopt a less costly; but it is thought equally efficient, system, of examination, and it will, therefore, not be necessary to renew these appointments. Upon the question of compensation I can express no opinion; but I have no doubt that any application would receive careful consideration from the Secretary of State in Council.

PRISONS (ENGLAND) ACT—TRANSFER OF PRISONERS—QUESTIONS.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, under section twenty-four, or any other section of the Prisons Act, debtors, unconvicted persons, and non-criminal prisoners, can be sent out of their own county for confinement in the prison of another county?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes, Sir; otherwise the clause of the Act would be practically inoperative. Great care is taken, however, that the persons alluded to should not be sent any great distance, so that they may not be caused much inconvenience in returning.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, that Section 26 of the Act seemed to contemplate that the prisoners should be confined in their own county?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the matter had been very carefully considered, and he was advised that there was no doubt about the matter.

SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES—REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-

395
ment, Whether he has yet considered the Report of the Royal Commission on the Scottish Universities; and, whether he proposes to bring in a Bill next Session to carry out their recommendations?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes, Sir, this question has undergone careful consideration. Her Majesty's Government cannot pledge themselves to bring in a Bill next Session, and all I can say is this, that the subject will not be lost sight of.

INLAND REVENUE—OFFICE OF DISTRIBUTOR OF STAMPS, GREENOCK.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAMEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been directed to the circumstances under which the office of distributor of Stamps at Greenock is to be transferred to the Excise; whether those employed in that office are to be discharged without notice; whether interim appointments are not usually made in such cases in order to give those in the office time to find other employment; and, whether he will not be so good as to direct that there should be some delay in this case, seeing that some of those employed have served many years?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Sir, the transfer is taking place in consequence of the death of the late distributor, and is in accordance with the practice which has been followed for the last 10 or 12 years. The clerks employed by the late distributor were in his, not in the public, service, and their connection with the business of stamp distribution ceases because of his ceasing to be distributor. Interim appointments are sometimes made in these cases; but only when the interests of the service require such appointments, and not merely "to give those in the office time to find other employment." In the present case, the collector of Inland Revenue is ready to take over the business at once, and as considerable economy will result, I should not be justified in delaying the transfer.
  SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME: Will the employés be discharged without any notice at all?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: They are not employés of the Government. The employé of the Govern-
  396
  ment up to this time has been the distributor. He is dead. Those persons are connected with the office as his servants, and on his death they ceased to be in connection in reality with the office.

NEW ZEALAND—THE MAORIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. J. SMYTHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he is in a position to make a communication to the House respecting the state of the relations between the settlers and the Maories in the northern island of New Zealand; and, if it is true that preparations are being made to "settle at once and for ever the native difficulty" in accordance with the ideas of these settlers?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I have heard nothing from Sir Hercules Robinson on this subject, and should, therefore, infer that the New Zealand Government do not consider there is anything very serious in the state of affairs; and as the latest news from New Zealand with regard to it which has appeared in the Press is six weeks old, I should hope that any fears of a disturbance which may have existed have by this time subsided.

CYPRUS—REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.—QUESTIONS.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the accounts promised with regard to Cyprus will include a statement of the actual receipts during the past twelve months, and the actual expenditure for the same period?
MR. BOURKE: Sir, the way the matter stands is this—The Estimates with regard to the revenue and expenditure of the Island for the year 1879–80 have already been presented to the House, and are now in the hands of hon. Members. The Estimates for 1878–9 will be in the hands of hon. Members this afternoon, and accompanied by a Memorandum of the late Financial Commission of Cyprus. The hon. and learned Member asks me whether we will present the actual expenditure and revenue for the last 12 months. My answer is, that the actual expenditure and revenue for the Island

397
of Cyprus up to the end of the financial year 1878–9 has not yet been received by Her Majesty's Government. We have beard quite lately that these accounts are nearly finished in Cyprus, and Colonel Biddulph informs me that he hopes his financial officer will be able to send them home in a very short time, and we have also been told by Colonel Biddulph that there is every reason to believe that the actual revenue and expenditure of the Island up to the end of 1879 will bear out the Estimate which is in the hands of hon. Members now.
MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I should like to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which I have given him private Notice. In the Paper which has been circulated, we find the revenue of Cyprus estimated at £177,000, and the expenditure at £174,000; but there is also an item of £34,000 to be spent on buildings, repairs, and moles during the year 1879–80, and the interest on the money borrowed for those works is given as part of the expenditure at the rate of £1,200 a-year. I wish to know from whom that money will be borrowed, and, if from the Exchequer, whether he proposes to bring in a Bill to enable the Treasury to make such a loan? I wish to ask, also, whether any considerable part of that expenditure has already been incurred?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I cannot answer the last Question now; but I can say that there is no intention whatever to make any advance from the Exchequer. The Government of Cyprus will make their own arrangements for borrowing whatever sum is required.

LUNACY ACTS—WADSLEY LUNATIC ASYLUM.—QUESTION.
MR. MUNDELLAasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners on the death of a lunatic in Wadsley Asylum will be presented and distributed?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, the Lunacy Commissioners appointed to make this inquiry have, I am told, returned to London; but up to the present moment no Report has been made to me, nor have they sent a Report to the Lunacy Commissioners. I presume that
398
it will come into my hands before long, and when it does, of course, it will be presented.

THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—RICHMOND PARK.—QUESTION.
DR. KENEALYasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is true that the game of cricket is absolutely prohibited in Richmond Park, which is kept up at the expense of the public; and, if so, whether he will kindly state by whose command this restriction is imposed; whether it is true that salaries ranging from £300 a-year, paid to the Duke of Cambridge's gamekeepers, and pheasants eggs purchased at one shilling a-piece, and other considerable incidental expenses for the private and Royal preserves in the park, are all charged to the public; and, whether the gamekeepers are pensioned off with considerable annuities at the public charge; and, if so, whether he can hold out any prospect of reducing these expenses under the present depressed condition of the Country?
MR. GERARDNOEL: Sir, the game of cricket has always been prohibited in Richmond Park, and it is so stated in the Rules of the Park, under the Act of 1872; but it is allowed in Petersham Park and on Richmond Green. Salaries ranging from £300 a-year are paid to the gamekeepers, as appears in the Estimates. No pheasants' eggs are paid for at the public expense, although £150 is charged for feeding the game and watching, of which the House is fully aware, as attention has frequently been called to this by the hon. Member for Chelsea. The gamekeepers, like all other servants of the Crown, are pensioned, according to their length of service, when they have to retire or are superannuated. Notwithstanding the depressed condition of the country, I fear it will be impossible to reduce the salaries or pensions of the gamekeepers in Richmond Park.

THE COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.—QUESTION.
MR. JOHN BRIGHT: Sir, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which I have not given him Notice, but which I daresay he will have no diffi-

399
culty in answering. It is, Whether the names of the Commissioners on Agricultural Distress can now be stated to the House, or whether there is any probability of our knowing the names before the rising of the House? There is great anxiety in the country to obtain information upon this subject.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to this subject is fully shared by Her Majesty's Government. There has been a great deal of difficulty experienced in arranging the Commission. It is now nearly completed, and as soon as it is, the names will be submitted to Parliament.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked, What would be the Business taken on Satur-and on Monday; and, when the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill would be proceeded with?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Government were anxious to proceed with the Bill as soon as possible; but they were obliged to take the Public Works Loans Bill first. That would stand as the First Order on Saturday, and the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill would be taken as soon as conveniently might be.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he rose to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, to put himself in Order, he would conclude with a Motion if necessary. He wanted to call attention to the state of the Older Paper. There were no less than 36 Orders of the Day—Government Orders—downforthat night, and almost the whole of them were in reference to matters which were still contested. Certainly, it was a serious inconvenience to many lion. Members of that House, that they should be brought down there lest any of those Bills should be brought on, as to the passing of which there could be no longer the slightest chance in the present Session. He did think it was not too much to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to clear the Paper a little, in order that some of them might be able to leave earlier than they would be able to do otherwise. Of those 36 Bills, four of them had not even reached the second
  400
  reading. They knew that, from time to time, the Government was bringing in new Bills, and Bills of considerable importance, which they hoped to be able to pass the present Session. For instance, there was an Amendment to the Artizans' Dwellings Bill, which was really very important, and which required consideration. Now, he did not say anything as to the Bills which were waiting in Committee; but he would say a word or two about one Bill which was awaiting its second reading, and that was the Public Works Loans Bill, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced he would take as the First Order on Saturday next. He begged to point out to the House that this was a Bill of the most important character. It affected something like 60 Acts of Parliament—materially affected them; for, in some cases, it amounted to a practical repeal of legislation. The proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were hotly contested, and he asked if it was possible that a Bill of that kind could be passed at this late period of the Session? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken a most unusual course. He had attached the contentious clauses of the Bill to an ordinary Money Bill, and to the latter part there was not the slightest objection whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that he must get his money; but there was not the slightest objection to him getting his money, provided he removed the objectionable clauses. Now, he was quite sure that, even if it were possible that a Bill of this kind could be carried this Session, it was not right to the House that it should be passed. It was a subject of the greatest possible importance, which ought to have been brought on earlier in the Session, and if it had been brought on earlier in the Session, and the House were in favour of it, of course he should be prepared to accept the decision of the majority; but he was not prepared to accept the decision of a majority now, at the present period of the Session, upon a matter which affected, really to a great extent, the whole of our local government. The appeal he wanted to make was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might relieve the Order Paper of some of those 36 Orders, and particularly with regard to this Public Works Loans Bill, considering the lateness of

  401
  the Session. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might abandon the clauses to which he had referred, leaving the whole matter for consideration, when it could be fully discussed in another Session. If the Bill were taken on Saturday, it appeared to him that opposition to the limits of obstruction would be perfectly justifiable. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in seconding the Motion, said, they had had the "massacre of the innocents" for the year, and what was asked for now was the massacre of the guilty—those Bills which had no chance of passing. There were eight or ton legal Bills on the Paper, some of which had not even reached the stage of a second reading. He called particular attention to the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill, which the Government had suddenly brought forward, and intended to renew for three years, in order to tide over the General Election before dealing with the question. He considered such a proposition simply monstrous. Any important measure passed now in a House of 60 Members, at the fag-end of the Session, would not command the respect of the country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDcomplained of the delay in the presentation of Papers on Egyptian affairs. This delay he attributed to the difficulties the Government thought they might be placed in by the questions that would be founded upon the documents he referred to. He appealed to the Government to give some opportunity for discussing Egyptian affairs, and the deposition of the Rhedive, observing that they would otherwise be considered to have deliberately shirked discussion because they could give no satisfactory explanation of their conduct. It was quite time that the constant interference of Her Majesty's Government in the affairs of small and weak countries should be put a stop to. If the question was not brought forward and properly discussed before the Session was closed, the Government would have disregarded the pledge which they themselves had previously given on the subject. The matter had been treated much too
  402
  lightly by the Government. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He was glad to find that observation carried conviction even to the prejudiced minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He also pointed out that there were several Bills which might be conveniently removed from the Notice Paper.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that the Public Works Loans Bill could not possibly be passed in its entirety in the few remaining days of the Session. At the same time, it was absolutely necessary that the money part of the Bill should be passed this Session, to enable the Commissioners to fulfil the engagements into which they had entered. He advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer to limit the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill to its two first clauses, which were really the only part of it that was asked for, and there would then be no objection to its passing on that side of the House.
  MR. MUNDELLAurged the withdrawal of the Bankruptcy Bill, and trusted that the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill would only be passed in its simplest form. This period of the Session was not the time to legislate in a crude and inconsiderate manner on such an important subject as Bankruptcy.
  MR. HEYGATEdeclared that if the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill were limited to the two first clauses, as suggested by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Thomson Hankey), it would not be sufficient to give the relief that was required, and would not, in fact, meet one-half of the case. The great majority of unlimited joint-stock banks were not in a position to avail themselves of any Act to limit their liability, by reason of the fact that too large a proportion of their capital was called up, and enough uncalled capital was not left to afford a sufficient security to their depositors. Consequently, some such clauses as those contained in the Government Bill, for providing reserved liability were absolutely indispensable. He earnestly hoped the Government would adhere to their proposals as far as those points were concerned.
  SIR HENRY JAMESthought it would be dangerous to pass, in regard to Bankruptcy Law, what he might describe as an explaining Bill this Session, with a promise of a consolidating Bill

  403
  in next Session. Such an Act as he had referred to would be simply an unsettling, rather than an explaining Act. As the Bill now stood, there were no less than nine pages of Amendments to it, some of them of the most important character; and as the Long Vacation had commenced, it could not be expected that the legal Members would remain in the House to discuss it.
  MR. ANDERSONthought the House had not been fairly treated with regard to the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill. That hon. Members took a very great interest in that measure was shown by the fact that there were four or five pages of Amendments on the Paper, and they were asked to shelve the question entirely for three years. He thought that was not a right course to take with the House. They had been promised that Bill over and over again, and now, at the end of the Session, Members were asked to give up their opposition to it. He himself was asked by the Government to take off his block, in order that this important Bill might be brought on at any hour, and rushed through the House, not in its present form, but as a Continuation Bill for three years, thus shelving the question of any amendment of the present law by the present Parliament. He thought that was going too far. The answer he gave was, that he would be very happy to take off the block if the Government would continue the Bill only for one year, and promise them a Bill again next year. He thought the House might be content with that arrangement, seeing that within a reasonable time it would have a chance of discussing this important matter.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he was not at all surprised at the complaints made by hon. Members who had addressed the House of the state of Business which the Order Book represented. On the contrary, he was convinced that these complaints were well founded. By far the greater part of the Bills introduced at the commencement of the Session were about to be thrust out at the end of it; while a complete uncertainty reigned as to which of their measures Her Majesty's Government would now press upon an exhausted House at the end of a weary Session. He hoped that the House would allow him to represent, but with
  404
  all possible respect for the House itself, that unless measures were adopted to secure time for the due consideration of important measures early in each Session, and. during the body of the Session, it was impossible that these measures should be considered by full Houses, while the energy of hon. Members were unexhausted. Experience had proved that there was no insurmountable difficulty in attaining that object, but much depended on the manner in which the House was led; and after what had occurred during the present and the two last Sessions, to which he would not further refer, it was manifest that, unless adequate measures were adopted for securing regularity and a reasonable expedition in the proceedings of the House, the House would always, at the close of each Session, when exhausted, find itself in the state of incumbrance and uncertainty which at present prevailed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERadmitted that the block of Business this year was unusually great, and he was anxious, as far as possible, to diminish the pressure upon the time of the House. At the same time, he thought there was great force in the remark of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that if the time of the House in the early part of the Session was taken up in lengthened discussions, it was really impossible to get on with the Business as rapidly as they could wish; and when they were met by two practices which now prevailed—one of putting a block against every Bill, so as to prevent its being brought on at a late hour, and the other of asking for pledges that particular Bills should be brought on as a First Order on some day or other—it was impossible to avoid the difficulty in which they now found themselves. There were a great many Bills on the Paper which had marks against them, which, if persevered in, would render it impossible to proceed with them; but, as regarded some of them, he thought that hon. Members might be disposed to remove their objections, when they might pass—such, for instance, as the Chartered Banks (Colonial) Bill, as to which he did not feel at all sure, when it was understood there would be some strong objection to it; but, with regard to other measures, he thought the Government must come to a

  405
  conclusion, especially as to the Bankruptcy Bill. They regretted exceedingly that that Bill, which was prepared with great care by the hon. and learned Attorney General, could not, owing to the pressure of other Business, be brought on at a time when it could be fully and satisfactorily discussed; but after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Sheffield, who took the subject up in a practical way, and who spoke in the interests of the mercantile community, he could not but acknowledge that it was desirable and necessary to lay the Bill aside. There might be one or two other Bills in the same connection which, perhaps, might also go, but he would rather not name them at present. With regard to the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill, it was, no doubt, promised last year that it should not be continued again, and that the annual continuance Bill should be brought forward this year, early in the Session, in a shape which would be more or less complete. This Bill had been brought forward, and it had been on the Notice Paper. There did not seem to be, certainly, the same reasons for pressing it forward as some hon. Gentlemen had suspected; but the Government was anxious that this should have been passed in the course of this Session. However, they found themselves so late in the Session that it was impossible to expect a full discussion of the important questions raised by the Bill. As the measure must be continued in some shape or other, he would propose to re-commit the Bill pro formâ, and cut it down, making it simply a continuance Bill. It would be proposed, however, to make it a continuance Bill for a single year, and it would be proposed to make a change in the law to this effect—that the trial of Election Petitions shall be before two Judges, instead of one. That change, he believed, might be made if they continued the Bill only for a single year. He thought there need be no delay in getting through the Bill as it would now be submitted to the House. As to other Bills, he should carefully go through the Order Book and see the Bills he could take off. He was very anxious to proceed with the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill, and he thought it was desired by the mercantile community. His hon. Friend the Member for
  406
  Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) suggested that the Bill should be cut down to the first two clauses. When the Bill got into Committee, it would be seen whether that course was thought satisfactory or not; he considered, from what had reached him, there would be two opinions on that question. He believed that, when they got into Committee, it would be found that the difficulties were not nearly so great as was supposed. Then there was the Public Works Loans Bill; and with regard to what had been said on that subject, he must say he did not think the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) was the Member of that House who had a special and particular right to make an appeal. The Bill was one of ver}' great importance. It dealt with a matter to which he had, more than a year ago, called attention in a Budget speech. A question of considerable financial importance was involved, and it was a question on which the House ought to have an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion. With regard to the fact that the Bill stood on the Paper so late in the Session, he must remind the House what had happened with regard to it. At the request of the hon. Member for Birmingham, he gave a promise, early in the Session, that the Bill should not be brought forward except as the first Order of the Day. A small technical error happened in the way the Bill was originally delivered. He never had the slightest hint that there was such an error as would impede the progress of the Bill, although that fact was perfectly well known to the hon. Member for Birmingham at an early period.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it was perfectly well known to him that there was an irregularity in the Bill; but it was not known to him that it was not also known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Then he was supposed to have allowed that Bill to remain on the Order Book for several months, knowing well that there was this irregularity in it, knowing, at the same time, that whenever the Bill came on, the hon. Member for Birmingham would be able to take advantage of it. The Bill was brought forward as the First Order of the Day on Wednesday fortnight, for the purpose of

  407
  fair discussion, and the irregularity was immediately pleaded, and he was obliged to put the Bill off. In these circumstances, he felt bound, in point of honour, not to break the pledge given earlier in the Session—that a Bill of this importance, which really would not take a very long time to discuss, should be brought forward. He was now asked to drop it. All he could say was—"I won't." He was exceedingly sorry to take any course that would be inconvenient to the House; but this was a matter in which personal honour was concerned, and it would be absolutely necessary to take some steps by which the judgment of the House would be taken on this Bill. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid), he hoped there would be an opportunity found for the discussion of Egyptian questions. The hon. Baronet was in error in supposing that the Papers had been deliberately kept back. They were now nearly ready; indeed, he was surprised they had not been delivered already; and he hoped there would be time for a discussion of a question which the Government were most anxious to have discussed.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought that, considering all the difficulties of the case, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated the House very fairly; but he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that this would be a lesson to them in future Sessions, to consider at the beginning how more effectively to carry on the Business. They had questions of this kind raised at the close of every Session; but he never knew an occasion when there was so much reason for them as now. He was glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that the Bankruptcy Bill could not be proceeded with and that the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill would not pass without an important addition. The Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill, he quite agreed, they would have to consider; and as to the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill, he thought it was evident that would give rise to a good deal of discussion. As to the Public Works Loans Bill, on which, on Saturday next, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must expect some discussion, he wished to say he was not aware of the irregularity until the day
  408
  it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham. He was rather surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not aware of the irregularity.
  THR CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he wished to explain. What happened was this. When the Bill was brought in, he accidentally gave a wrong copy into the office. It was not sent to the Treasury, as usual, to be revised before being distributed; but as soon as he was aware that it was a wrong copy, he sent one of the officers of the Treasury down to the House to know what was the right course, and the officers of the House sent word that if he gave another copy in that would do. He took that course, and he took for granted that this correct copy would take the place of the one delivered by mistake two days before. He never heard a word on the subject again until the hon. Member for Birmingham raised an objection.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, no one thought of charging the Chancellor of the Exchequer with irregularity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had lightened the Order Book of two important measures, and the House could not expect him to do more on so short a notice. He appealed to him whether, between that day and to-morrow, he could inform the House what other Business he intended to take.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, referring to the Great Seal Bill, said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General knew perfectly well the terms on which he was ready to take off the Paper the Notice he had given, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman would only communicate to him that he agreed to those terms, the only objection he had to the Bill would be removed. Some remarks had been made as to the difficulty the House had got into in consequence of the little progress made with Public Business this Session. He thought there was a great deal of exaggeration on that subject. People out-of-doors were in the habit of saying that the House had done very little this Session, when they had really done a good deal. The Army Discipline and Regulation Bill was equivalent to three or four considerable Government measures. He had some means of knowing something about that Bill before

  409
  the commencement of this Session, and he always thought it would take a great deal of time. The number of days that Bill was in Committee did not exceed, or even equal, the number of days occupied in the consideration of the Ballot Bill, which probably had only a third as many clauses as the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill. He did not wish an impression to go forth that the House of Commons was less capable, than at any former period, of performing the functions that devolved upon them.
  MR. RAMSAYwas understood to express regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not acceded to the appeal of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) in regard to the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill. He also explained that his reason for putting down a Notice of opposition to the Chartered Banks (Colonial) Bill was that, not understanding fully the position of these banks, he could not assent to its principle. He disapproved the conduct of the Government with regard to it. It was only introduced on Saturday last, and it was read a second time on Tuesday morning, before the Bill was circulated. That was not a proper way to deal with a measure affecting important principles, of which the House had no cognizance. There was in the Bill nothing to show to the House what its principles were, and what the powers and privileges were which it proposed to grant and continue to the Colonial Chartered Banks. He deprecated such a mode of introducing an important Bill as disrespectful to the House, and calculated to make the public feel that the Public Business was not properly attended to. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to withdraw the Bill. He wished also to refer to the Scotch Poor Law Bill. This measure was introduced for the purpose of providing for Scotland an increased grant in aid of the cost of providing for the medical relief of the poor. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that it was not at all necessary that a Bill should pass through the House to effect the object desired. He offered the suggestion to the Government that the Board of Supervision should be given the sums deemed necessary to put Scotland on a footing with England and Ireland, subject to the condition that it
  410
  must be distributed according to rules to be laid down by the Government.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, with reference to the Irish Church Act (1869) Amendment Bill, that he had, in consideration for the convenience of hon. Members, made up his mind to withdraw the Bill before the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The real object of the Bill was to give redress to the poorer clergy who were wholly deprived of their incumbencies by the operation of the Church Act of 1869, though that Act did not contemplate such a result. Therefore, the Bill did not propose in any degree to challenge the principles of that Act. At this late period of the Session he was determined to move that the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged; but he hoped that next Session the Government would aid him in passing the Bill at as early a period as possible.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that with respect to the Public Works Loans Bill, he might be permitted to say that he exceedingly regretted that the course he and his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had pursued should have given the Chancellor of the Exchequer any annoyance. It was certainly not his, or his hon. Friend's wish that the right hon. Gentleman should have experienced any annoyance. He thought, however, it only right to remind the right hon. Gentleman that a year ago, when the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) brought forward his Hypothec Bill, and before the second reading substituted an amended Bill in precisely the same way as had been done in the present instance, objection was immediately taken to the second reading by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he took objection upon the second reading.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that the Home Secretary acted regarding the Hypothec Bill just as he and his hon. Friend had done respecting the Public Works Loans Bill. They, however, did not wish to have any unpleasant feeling in the matter, and regretted very much to learn that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should imagine that he had any ground of complaint against them. At the present time they would be quite willing to

  411
  allow the right hon. Gentleman to take the second reading of the Bill as a matter of form, if they were to understand that in Committee those portions of the Bill which were of a contestable nature should not be pressed at this late period of the Session, because although it was perfectly true that the Bill was introduced early in the Session, the right hon. Gentleman had never had an opportunity of placing it on the Paper in a position in which it could fairly be discussed. Therefore, they were entitled to say that if, in the expiring moments of the Session, a Bill was introduced involving matter of that kind, they would be justified in using every endeavour in their power to prevent the Bill passing. In reference to the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill, distinct pledges were given last year by the Government to the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. Those pledges had not been redeemed; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that they should be allowed to continue the Bill for another year with slight alteration, the Government undertaking that next year they would deal with the question. He was in a position to say that the hon. Baronet agreed with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, providing that there would be a repetition so to speak of the pledge given last year. He gathered that the right hon. Gentleman was willing that that should be so; but in order that it might appear in the records of their proceedings, he would ask the Homo Secretary, inasmuch as the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not, according to the rules of debate, speak again, to rise in his place and assure them that the Government would feel themselves under the obligation of dealing with the question early next Session.
  MR. COURTNEYfelt convinced that if the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill were extended to England, it would add largely to the expense of the trials and would diminish the efficiency of the Courts. It would be very difficult to spare two Judges in England, but it would not be difficult to provide them in Ireland. He noticed that the Report on the University Education (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill was set down for the First Order to-morrow; but he thought it should not be so taken until after the Bill had been reprinted.
  MR. D. O'CONORsaid, the recommendation of the Committee applied equally to England.
  MR. J. LOWTHER, said that there never had been any understanding that the University Education (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill should be taken as the First Order. Supply must be concluded before the Bill could be taken. If Supply were closed that evening, the Report of Supply would be taken tomorrow, and then the Bill in question would come on. With reference to the Irish Church Act (1869) Amendment Bill, the hon. Member (Mr. Plunket) had exercised a wise discretion in proposing to discharge the Order for the Second Reading. The subject was, no doubt, of great importance, but the Government did not feel bound to deal with it, as the Bill was intended to redress a grievance for which they were not responsible.
  MR. MELDONsaid, it would be impossible for the House to take the University Education (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill to-morrow, because it had not yet been reprinted.
  MR. J. LOWTHERhoped the reprinted Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members in time to allow of its being taken at the Evening Sitting.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in response to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already signified that it was the intention of the Government to bring forward the subject of corrupt practices early next Session, and he did not know that any further pledge could be given. Although he was aware that the discussion which had taken place was quite natural, he must admit having been astonished at the minute details which had been spoken of by hon. Members, and as almost every Bill in the Order Book had been discussed, he hoped the House would be allowed to proceed with the Business.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREasked for a clear understanding with regard to the Public Works Loans Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that after he had made his statement upon the subject of the Bill on Saturday, it was possible hon. Members would not see much difficulty in the way of its passing.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PUBLIC RECORDS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, considering that the Rolls and Records of England and Scotland have been to a large extent already calendered, and many of them printed, the Government will resume the work on the Irish Public Records, which has been suspended for over ten years?
  MR. J. LOWTHER, in reply, said, that no provision had been made in the Estimates of the current year to cover the expenditure which had been incurred by the work; he would, however, before the preparation of the next Estimates, consult his Colleagues of the Treasury on the subject.

WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS).

  QUESTION.
  MR. MORLEY (for Sir JOHN LUBBOCK)asked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the insufficiency of the supply of water to the poor, and especially to the occupiers of artizans' and labourers' dwellings in the East London "Water Company's district; and, if he will cause an inquiry to be instituted with respect thereto, and also to the powers vested in the East London Water Company, by which it declines to deliver water at a greater height than forty feet, with a view to remedial measures being adopted?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he had made inquiry into the subject, and had been informed that it was not the fact that any general complaint had been made by or on behalf of the poor people at the East End of London, with regard to an insufficient supply of water. Complaints had been made from time to time; but there had been none recently, so far as he was aware. A complaint had recently been made by the Improved Industrial Dwellings Company, that certain buildings which they had adapted for the poorer classes were not adequately supplied with water. The Water Company contended that the supply was actually in excess of the Parliamentary obligations under which they lay; and they also alleged that the Dwellings Company had declined to make arrangements suitable for the re-
  414
  ception of the water. However that might be, certain it was that the East London Water Company were not bound to furnish water to a higher level than 40 feet.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ROYAL CONSTABULARY, IRELAND— CASE OF MR. JOHN CROKER.

  RESOLUTION.
  DR. O'LEARYrose to call attention to the case of Mr. John Croker, and to move—
  "That the punishment inflicted on Mr. John Croker, late Sub-Inspector in the Royal Irish Constabulary, by reduction in rank in 1867, and subsequent dismissal from that force for offences of which he declared himself to be innocent, without first affording him an opportunity of proving his innocenee before an independent tribunal, was not just, and in the opinion of this House such an opportunity ought now to be given."
  The facts of the case, he said, were well known to the Irish public. Sub-Inspector Croker, without notice or inquiry, had been dismissed from the first and the second class upon an alleged infringement of the rules of the force, notwithstanding that he offered to prove that he did not violate any rule, and was uniformly refused a hearing. It was notorious, and he (Dr. O'Leary) held it was perfectly true, that one of the very first causes which led to the affair was the promotion of officers over the heads of sub-inspectors, he being left behind. He found that the Inspector General had been in the habit of borrowing money from the officers, and it was those officers who secured promotion. That excited the ire of Inspector Brownrigg, which was further increased by Sub-Inspector Croker having had occasion to report that the son of Inspector Brownrigg, being on duty at Bray, at a time when an officer had fled from duty. That was another black mark against Sub-Inspector Croker Hence, when the next Inspector General came into power, Mr. Croker still continued to protest by letter against the

  415
  injustice he had suffered, and Inspector General Wood became so annoyed that he declared he would dismiss him altogether, and accordingly, subsequently, he was dismissed out of private pique. Colonel Wood refused to sign the necessary certificate of efficiency, and so the unfortunate man was deprived of the usual allowance, and had since been endeavouring in vain to obtain redress. That was the second time the matter had been brought before the House. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen), in May, 1876, introduced the matter, and was at the time opposed strongly by the then Chief Secretary for Ireland. At a later stage of the debate, the Solicitor General for Ireland said he could not accept the Motion, because it implied a Vote of Censure upon Colonel Wood, a distinguished public servant, and he further said that since the Chief Secretary had spoken, matters had come to his knowledge with which he had not been acquainted before, and that if the Motion were withdrawn such an inquiry should be instituted as would be satisfactory to all parties, Upon that assurance the hon. Member for Carlow withdrew his Motion. An inquiry had been held in Dublin Castle. That inquiry did not fulfil the promise given in the House of Commons by the Solicitor General for Ireland. It was necessary to obtain a screen for the authorities, and, accordingly, a false issue was raised. The whole inquiry in Dublin was confined to the issue as to whether Mr. Hamilton sent a draft Report to the Treasury, while the merits of the case were not entered into at all. The Report of Mr. Hamilton, it appeared, was lost in the Treasury, so that no answer to the man's appeal for justice was made. The conduct of the inquiry was not made in compliance with the promise given to the hon. Member for Carlow, to the effect that there should be a full inquiry upon the subject. The Commissioner found that Mr. Croker did make the application to the Treasury, and that the document had been lost, and he also certified that there was evidence that Mr. Hamilton had made a draft Report. He further stated that it could not be considered that the paper produced was a correct copy of the draft Report sent in by Mr. Hamilton to the Treasury, of which there was no trace, either in the private papers of Mr. Hamilton, or at the Trea-
  416
  sury. Thus it was plain that there was no foundation for the excuse which the Government set up as a reason for denying justice to this unfortunate man, and under the circumstances he appealed to the Government to extend merciful consideration to him, and would conclude by moving the Motion set down in his name upon the Paper.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYdid not think that the Chief Secretary had been rightly informed in the matter. The real question was, whether the fresh inquiry having miscarried, Mr. Croker was not now entitled to another, which would carry out the promise given by the Government to the hon. Member for Car-low (Mr. Bruen). The facts were that Mr. Croker was reduced from the first to the second class of inspectors without an inquiry, and that because he insisted upon inquiry, he was dismissed. Let them look at what took place when this subject last came before the House. It was then admitted that, in the first instance, the information on which the Government acted was inaccurate. If that were so, could the present Chief Secretary rely on the information which he now received from the Constabulary authorities? On the previous occasion, it was urged, as against the veracity of Mr. Croker, that no draft Report of Mr. Hamilton, as he alleged, really existed; but it was now admitted, as the result of the inquiry in Dublin, that there was evidence that such a draft Report did exist. But this was a by-issue, and what was asked was that it should be disregarded, and that there should be an inquiry into the real merits of the case. He begged to second the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the punishment inflicted on Mr. John Croker, late Sub-Inspector in the Royal Irish Constabulary, by reduction in rank in 1867, and subsequent dismissal from that force for offences of which he declared himself to be innocent, without first affording him an opportunity of proving his innocence before an independent tribunal, was not just; and, in the opinion of this House, such an opportunity ought now to be given,"—(Dr. O'Leary,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he regretted that he could not consent to re-open this case. Let the House see its history. There were several reports made against Mr. Croker by successive Inspectors General, by Sir Duncan Macgregor and Sir H. Brownrigg, and as the result of an inquiry?which took place, it was proved that his financial position was, through his own fault, not what it ought to have been. It was also shown that he had violated the regulations of the Service in various respects. When, in 1868, Colonel Wood recommended his dismissal on the ground of a long series of offences, it was laid before the then Chief Secretary, who assented to his dismissal. On the faith of a document circulated by Mr. Croker, the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen) brought the matter before the House two years ago. The then Solicitor General promised that there should be a new inquiry. It was said that this promise had not been carried out; but that he denied, the duty of making the inquiry having been deputed to a Queen's Counsel. Mr. Croker appeared before him by counsel. In the course of the proceedings a document was produced which was said to be a Report by the late Mr. Hamilton, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury; but it was impossible to believe that such a document as that was could, even as a rough draft, have proceeded from a gentleman of the long official experience and the education of the late Mr. Hamilton. The Commissioner reported that, looking to the internal evidence afforded by the document, he was not satisfied that it was a genuine document. That being the case, and having regard to the previous offences alleged against Mr. Croker, the Government were of opinion that there was no cause for further inquiry, and that it was impossible to reinstate Mr. Croker.
  MR. MELDONdenied that there had been a full inquiry into the facts of the case before Mr. De Moleyns, for that gentleman was restricted from going into the merits until he had ascertained whether the alleged draft Report of Mr. Hamilton was a genuine document. That document Mr. Do Moleyns did not report to be a forgery. With respect to the merits of the case, the question as to Mr. Hamilton's Report was not brought before the House in 1876. Mr. Croker,
  418
  after 30 years' service, was reduced from the rank of inspector to that of sub-inspector on one ground, and one ground only—namely, that he had broken one of the rules of the Constabulary Force in taking a house outside his district with a larger quantity of land about it than three acres. Upon that he was reduced. He had taken a house with seven acres attached to it. His reduction in rank was obtained, he would not say by fraud; but it was obtained indubitably and admittedly by suppression. In the Constabulary Force promotions were made and judgments formed on the conduct of officers with reference to the number of favourable or unfavourable records in each particular case. At the time that his superior asked to have Captain Croker's sentence of reduction approved by the Lord Lieutenant he had 14 favourable records, and only six of them were brought to the notice of the Lord Lieutenant. Captain Croker was, it appeared, transferred to the town of Carlow. There he could not get a suitable residence adjoining the police barracks; but there was a house near the barracks, though outside his district, but according to the rules of the force he could not take it. Besides, that house had seven acres attached to it, and that, again, was another objection. Accordingly, he went to Dublin to consult the Inspector General, and, calling at his office, he was told that the Inspector General was engaged, but that his Secretary would see him. The Secretary conducted the communications, and said there would not be much difficulty in getting permission for Captain Croker to take the house required. The Secretary, closing the interview, said Captain Croker had the Inspector General's permission to take the house with the seven acres of land. These were the admitted facts; and, accordingly, Captain Croker entered into possession of the house and the seven acres, and lived there for some time. Some informer, not knowing that Colonel Wood had given his permission, complained to the Inspector General, who, forgetting the permission he gave, reduced Captain Croker from the rank of inspector to that of sub-inspector. The Lord Lieutenant's sanction to the reduction was obtained upon an ex parte statement in which there was a suppression of favourable records. Captain Croker,

  419
  feeling very indignant, wrote a hot letter to the Inspector General, which letter was declared insubordinate. The dismissal of Captain Croker was then decided upon; and the Lord Lieutenant, when applied to to confirm the dismissal, refused to do so until the Inspector General gave a positive undertaking that he would never oppose Captain Croker getting a retiring allowance or compensation. On this second occasion the Lord Lieutenant's assent was obtained by the Inspector General stating that he would not oppose the granting of a retiring allowance to Captain Croker. Thereupon, without the inquiry to which he was entitled, Captain Croker was dismissed the force. He was, no doubt, much dissatisfied by having the authorities against him, and protesting his innocence, was willing to take compensation. Captain Croker appealed to Lord Mayo, and he recommended the matter to the Treasury. The Treasury, when asked for the retiring allowance, pointed to the section of the Act requiring that the Inspector General should give a certificate of good conduct. Colonel Wood in this matter actually broke the promise he gave to the Lord Lieutenant, and said he would not give any certificate of the kind. When charged with this afterwards he tried to escape by a quibble, saying that he never promised to give a certificate; that he merely promised he would not oppose the granting of the retiring allowance. In consequence of the withholding of the certificate the compensation was not granted. Then Captain Croker made an appeal to the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), who directed Mr. Hamilton to go and make an inquiry. Lord Mayo wished the retiring allowance to be granted. Mr. Hamilton made a draft Report, which he sent to Captain Croker for his approval, and surely he would never have done so if it had been against that gentleman. But the draft Report and other documents in the case had been lost at the Treasury. In 1816 the facts were brought before the House by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen), who never referred to Mr. Hamilton's Report. Then the Solicitor General of the day stated that an inquiry would be instituted which would be satisfactory to all parties. Up to that moment no human being had spoken of an inquiry into Mr.
  420
  Hamilton's Report, and it was idle to say that that was what was contemplated. What was asked for then, and what they asked for now, was a full inquiry into all the facts of the case.
  DR. O'LEARYasked permission of the House to withdraw the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," proposed.

INDIA—THE MAHARAJAH DHULEEP SINGH—APPLICATION FOR INCREASE OF ALLOWANCE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. FAWCETT, who had given Notice of the following Motion:—
  "That, considering the present financial condition of India, and the promises that have been made to reduce the expenditure of that country, this House is of opinion that the application which has been recently made to the Secretary of State for India in Council by Maharajah Dhuleep Singh, for an increase of the allowance which he annually receives from the revenues of India, ought not to be granted,"
  said that, in reply to a Question put by him to the Under Secretary, he was informed that an application had been made for an increased allowance, and that it had been referred to the Government of India. That he regarded as a very unusual proceeding, considering that the Secretary of State and his Council were primarily responsible for the expenditure of the Revenues of India. He had also asked the Under Secretary of State for any Papers referring to the application to be produced; and if the hon. Gentleman was now prepared to grant that request, and to undertake that the increase should not be acceded to before Parliament had had an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the case, he would not pursue the subject further. No answer, however, being forthcoming from the Ministers present, he must lay before the House some considerations which seemed to him to offer most cogent reasons why the application should not be assented to. Some years ago a Treaty was entered into, by which an allowance of not less than four lacs, and not more than five lacs of rupees, was made to the Maharajah. Applications had frequently been made for an increase of the allowance. The subject had been frequently considered by previous Governments, and they were of opinion

  421
  there was no reason why the allowance should be increased. If there was no reason 10 or 15 years ago for an increase, was there anything in the present financial condition of India to justify an increase of the allowance? £13,000 had been advanced to the Maharajah in order to extricate him from pecuniary difficulties, which, by extravagance, he had brought upon himself. The Government, as trustees of the monies of the people of India, had no right to spend their money for such a purpose. A Report on the estate had been made by Colonel West, who had shown that if the Maharajah gave up his passion for excessive game preserving his financial position might be restored without any additional grant of money. If, then, they spent the money of the people of India in spite of that Report, they would only be encouraging wasteful extravagance. The Under Secretary of State ought to be the very last man to sanction any proceeding that would cause the unnecessary sacrifice of a single shilling of Indian money; for when the abolition of the Indian Museum had been discussed it had been urged, perhaps with some force, that a saving of £9,000 would be effected. If, however, £9,000 was regarded as so important a sum, how much, more serious was the amount applied for by the Maharajah? The Government would find, if they granted the application, that they had indefinitely increased the difficulties in the way of a policy of economy. He might probably be told that so rigid an economist as Sir John Strachey was not likely to yield to the' Maharajah's request; but, possibly, the influence that had made some of the Council of the Secretary of State falter might also be brought to bear upon him. To accede to this application for an increased grant would put into the mouth of every person whose salary the Government might propose to reduce the argument that they were taking money from the poor, and giving money to one who had influential friends to support his claims. He regretted that the Forms of the House did not admit of his moving his Resolution; but if the application for an increased grant was acceded to, he should not allow a single day to elapse next Session without moving for a Committee to inquire into the whole circumstances connected with this matter. He
  422
  hoped, however, that the Government would take such a course as would make it unnecessary for him to re-open the subject.
  MR. E. STANHOPEhad no reason to complain of the observations of the hon. Member for Hackney; but it was well for the House to understand the position in which the question stood. The Home Government had instituted an inquiry into the affairs of the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh, and had referred certain questions arising out of that inquiry to the consideration of the Government of India. Within the last few days they had received a despatch from India, giving the views of the Indian Government upon the position of the Maharajah; but the despatch had not yet been submitted to the Secretary of State in Council. Within a few weeks the subject would be fully gone into. The House had been often told by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) that, by Act of Parliament, the control of the finances of India was, in the long run, vested in the Secretary of State for India in Council. That was a body who, having all the facts before them, were competent to form an opinion; but the Motion, as placed upon the Paper, would put the House in the place of the Secretary of State in Council. The hon. Member seemed to assume that there was an intention to give an increased allowance out of the Indian Revenues to the Maharajah; but he was at a loss to imagine what ground he had for that assumption. Until the Report received from India had been carefully gone into, there was no right to assume anything of the kind; and when the hon. Member alluded to influences brought to bear upon the India Office he (Mr. E. Stanhope) must say that there was no more independent body, able and anxious to do their duty, than that which had control of the finances of India. As to the advance of £13,000 without security, as the hon. Member said, it should be borne in mind that the Government had the best of all security in the fact that they were the paymasters. These advances were made pending the settlement of affairs, and there was ample security for repayment in the terms of settlement. It was true that the Secretary of State had thought it right to obtain a Report upon the Maharajah's

  423
  estate. It should be remembered that they were not solely dealing with the Maharajah personally. There were obligations from India due to the Maharajah, and when he spoke of a final settlement he hoped to establish such a state of affairs as would prevent the necessity of any further applications from the Maharajah, and would place his children in that position which, looking to all the circumstances of the case, they ought to occupy. To do that it might be necessary to lay a Bill before Parliament. He could not say that that would be so; but, possibly, it might be necessary to introduce a Private Bill on the subject, but he could not speak with certainty until he knew the decision at which the Secretary of State in Council had arrived. The most careful consideration would be given to the whole question, and all that could be urged in India or England would have every attention, and he hoped now the House might be allowed to leave a difficult and delicate subject.

PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION—FLOGGING IN PRISONS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. PARNELL, in calling attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on the working of the Penal Servitude Acts, and to the rules for the management of county and borough prisons in England, Scotland, and Ireland, said, he had purposed, if the Forms of the House had permitted, to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House, no sufficient necessity exists for the continuance, of flogging for the punishment of prison offences."
He was not quite sure whether the punishment was much resorted to in borough prisons; but in convict prisons it was very extensively inflicted. Flogging, he might add, was first introduced in the Irish convict prisons by the Penal Servitude Act of 1856; and he saw no good reason why, as a variety of other punishments might be put in force, it should be continued. He referred to the case of a prisoner named Murphy, who had been knocked down by a warder. When five men who had seen the assault made some exclamation they were marched off to punishment, which consisted of three dozen lashes of the cat, 28 days' bread and water, and the wearing of cross irons and chains night and
424
day. He called that a case of horrible brutality, and a disgrace to the Government. The punishment of flogging was resorted to for the most frivolous offences, chiefly in consequence of the want of independent inspection. He asked the Home Secretary if he meant materially to reduce the punishment of flogging in the prisons under his control, restricting its infliction to cases of assault on warders, and only after careful investigation. Military men ought not to be employed as Governors of prisons, or as warders. Those brought up in the military school were not the men for reforming our criminal population. He strongly disapproved the power given to gaolers and Governors of inflicting upon prisoners the punishment of close confinement with bread and water in the prisoner's own cell. The Chairman of the Visiting Justices of Middlesex complained of this power. Another matter was this—the Irish Prisons Act of 1877 required that a Return should be made every year of the punishments inflicted and the offences for which they had been inflicted. They had no Return from the Irish prisons which complied with the requirements of the Act; for though there was a Return of the number of punishments there was none as to their nature, or as to the offences for which they had been imposed. The hon. Gentleman then referred to the case of Patrick Grimes, who had died in Armagh gaol, and said that the Chief Secretary had thrown a slur on the verdict that had been returned by saying that the jury was largely composed of prisoners in the gaol. [Mr. J. LOWTHER: Half-and-half.] That long interned prisoners should be put on a jury was open to objection, as they might be under the influence of the prison authorities; but it would be useful, he thought, to have prisoners undergoing short sentences acting on such juries. It would be also better if the authorities showed greater regard for the verdicts of juries. A representation on the case of Patrick Grimes had been drawn up by 12 jurors, citizens of Armagh, among whom was the foreman of the jury; but the only answer that had been received from the Castle was an acknowledgment that the statement had been received. The dietary in all the Irish prisons was entirely insufficient.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the hon. Member had a great objection to

425
corporal punishment in all its shapes and forms; and, therefore, it was quite natural that he should raise the question. For his own part, however, he was not prepared to give up that punishment, which was very useful, and had not been carried to excess. His own opinion was that, in the long run, a man was more likely to be improved by a punishment being sharper and shorter than if it were of a prolonged kind. As to the way in which corporal punishment had been inflicted in convict prisons, the hon. Member seemed to think that punishment had been excessively employed even of late years. The facts, however, did not bear out that opinion. The number of whippings inflicted in convict prisons in 1877–8 was only 39, as compared with 92 in 1871–2, and 81 in 1872–3. The Returns, in fact, showed that since 1871 there had been a gradual and progressive decrease in the amount of corporal punishment inflicted in their convict prisons. The whole question had been examined by the Penal Servitude Commissioners, who were gentlemen most competent to deal with such a matter, and not at all likely to recommend undue rigour or harshness in the treatment of prisoners. In their Report the Commissioners said that corporal punishment was inflicted only for grave offences; that the evidence they had received showed that in many cases it produced a salutary effect; and that they saw no reason for thinking that it was inflicted more frequently than was necessary for the maintenance of proper authority over the worst-conducted class of convicts. With regard to local prisons, the gaoler had no power of flogging, and no prisoner could be flogged, except for the more serious kind of prison offences. If a criminal had been guilty of repeated offences in prison, or of an offence which the gaoler was not empowered to punish, then the Visiting Justices might, after inquiry upon oath, order him to be punished by personal correction. He had not yet received the figures with respect to corporal punishment in local gaols during the last year, but before Parliament separated he hoped to obtain them; but the Reports relating to the old local prisons showed that in very few of the smaller prisons was flogging resorted to at all. It was confined, principally, to the large prisons. He had ordered a careful investigation to be made of all
426
the cases in which corporal punishment seemed to be more largely used than in other prisons, with a view to prevent any mischief or abuse arising in those gaols; for no one was more anxious than he was that this punishment should be employed as seldom as possible with a due regard to discipline. With respect to the instrument used for corporal punishment, he had had long conversations, before the recent debates occurred, with the Director of Convict Prisons and the Chairman of the Prisons Commission, and he had come to the conclusion some time ago that if there were no knots on the "cat" used in the Navy there should be none on the "cat" used in prisons; but he made up his mind to introduce no alteration until the Commission reported. The Commission had reported, but they did not touch this part of the subject; and he saw no reason now why he and the Director of the Convict Prisons should not now act on the conclusions at which he had arrived. The Report referred to would be laid upon the Table before the end of the Session. The prison at Spike Island had been condemned, and the prisoners would be removed elsewhere as soon as a suitable place for their reception had been determined upon. In conclusion, he could assure the House that every endeavour would be made to secure that the prisoners should be properly treated and discipline fully carried out. On the one hand, prisoners must not be allowed to say that any unfairness had been practised towards them; and, on the other hand, care must be taken that when they left prison, whether as reformed characters or not, they would go away with the feeling that the gaol was not a desirable place to which to return.
MR. A. MOOREsaid, that there had been one gratifying feature in the speech of the Home Secretary—namely, that in future a cat-o'-nine-tails without knots was to be used. He (Mr. A. Moore) had not been able, during the recent discussion on the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, to support the proposal for the total abolition of flogging; but when the various specimens of cats were exhibited in the Library of the House he was horrified at the fearful character of these weapons. There were certain other matters affecting prison discipline which he hoped would also receive attention from the right hon. Gentleman. In England a prisoner was allowed to ap-

427
peal to the authorities; but the Prison Commissioners, referring to Irish prisons, reported that a certain Captain Barlow never allowed a prisoner to appeal. Now, who was this Captain Barlow? Was he the Captain Barlow who had recently been placed on the Irish Prisons Board? He should be glad to have a distinct answer from the Government on that point. Then he found in the mouth of the Governor of Chatham Prison the astounding statement that "under no conceivable circumstances" would he accept the word of a prisoner against that of a warder. That was a point to which he would also direct the attention of the Home Secretary. Another was the regulations relating to the putting of a prisoner on bread and water. In Ireland this could not be done twice by a Governor without the consent of the superior authority; but in England a Governor might sentence a prisoner repeatedly to three days' bread and water, allowing only an interval of a day between each infliction of the punishment, and it had sometimes been the case that prisoners had been subjected to a bread-and-water diet for what was, practically, a term of 60 or 70 days. It would be well, he thought, to have a distinct understanding as to how far a Governor's powers in this direction extended. Then there ought to be some understanding as to whether prisoners should be handcuffed in front or behind. He protested against the mixing of prisoners of all kinds indiscriminately, and pressed upon the Government the necessity of providing for the classification of prisoners, and for some outside, unpaid, independent inspection of prisons. Did the Homo Secretary propose to remedy the state of things of which he complained? With regard to the present system, he felt that nothing could be better calculated to turn out a continual supply of criminals.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, it was a very unfortunate circumstance that the Report of the Penal Servitude Commission was not in the hands of hon. Members when they had now to discuss the subject. However, he would not complain of that, because, no doubt, the labours of the Commission had been excessive. He had heard with satisfaction the careful and conciliatory statements made by the Home Secretary. In the early Sessions of the present Parliament it had been all but impossible to make any impression on the Treasury
428
Benches on the subject of prison discipline; but now incredulity was about to yield to facts. A number of recommendations were made on the subject of prison reform, and he joined with other hon. Members in appealing to the Government as to whether they intended, during the Recess, to prepare what he might call a Prison Reform Bill, for the purpose of carrying out their recommendations. What they desired was the classification of prisoners, accompanied by independent inspection. It ought, for instance, to be impossible to make prisoners for treason-felony associate with common criminals. He had been advised by the Home Secretary to bring in a Bill to repeal certain portions of the Treason-Felony Acts; but, perhaps, it would be better if the Chief Secretary for Ireland found time to do so. They were justified in demanding that the regulations which would apply to habeas corpus prisoners should be specified, and that they should be treated similarly to prisoners awaiting trial. If the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) did not repeat his Question at Question time, he should himself ask what steps the Government proposed to take to give effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners on that important subject. His strong conviction was that no measure on this subject could be satisfactory that did not provide for an independent medical inspection.
MR. J.LOWTHERsaid, of course, the Report of the Commission would receive the anxious consideration of the Irish Government. In reference to what had been said as to the absence of flogging in Irish prisons, other than convict prisons, he only wished to add that in prisons corporal punishment was only inflicted in cases especially inquired into by the Board of Commissioners, and such cases of punishment were exceedingly few. With respect to the case of the death of a prisoner named Grimes, which had been referred to, he explained that the jury empanelled by the Coroner consisted of six convicted persons suffering sentence in Armagh Gaol, and six other persons; and at that inquest the evidence of the medical officer went to show that the death was in no way duo to the treatment of the deceased in prison, and that probably confinement in prison had little to do with the death. The diet adopted was that recommended by a Royal Commission which, inquired

429
into the subject, and which, had been adopted by the Home Office for the English prisons. The only portion of the verdict of the jury which would present cause for further inquiry was the reference to the diet; but that would not apply, because the deceased convict was not, from the state of his health, put upon that dietary.

GRAND JURIES, IRELAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. O'DONNELL, in rising to call attention to the recent resolutions of Grand Juries in Ireland on the state of public security, contended that the only danger to peace and order in Ireland could be effectually prevented by a just recognition on the part of the classes from which Irish grand jurors were drawn that the tenant cultivators of the soil ought not to bear an unfair share of the consequences of agricultural loss and depression. Certain Grand Juries in Ireland, such as those of Mayo and Westmeath—especially the former—had passed resolutions implying that there was a dangerous and groundless agitation in Ireland on this subject, which threatened the peace and order of the country. But the agitation was very far from being "groundless." The present agricultural distress and crisis in Ireland was of a very severe description, and the people were suffering, in addition, from a pressure of high rents. The people all over Ireland, under the direction of their clergy, were passing resolutions, not in favour of the abolition of rent, but for the reduction of rent to a reasonable degree. At Dungarvan an immense meeting was held, at which resolutions were passed laying stress on the existing pressure, and calling for the reduction of rent. The tenants were ready to recognize kindness wherever it was shown, and one of the resolutions at the Dungarvan meeting thanked those landlords in the County Waterford who had reduced their rents to enable their tenants to tide over the present severe season. He asked them not to be frightened by the alarmist resolutions passed by a number of landlord Grand Juries; but would call their attention to a letter from Miss Agnes Eyre, Eyre Castle, County Galway, in which she spoke of the destitution as universal, remarking that whereas in most
  430
  other rural districts there were various other industrial callings, over a very large area in Ireland there was no industry but the raising of a few crops. It was all very well for capitalist newspapers and the cultured and well-paid correspondents in Dublin of London papers to send over here the heated expressions of some poor peasants, which were then taken as the calm and settled view of the whole class. But he asked the Government to go behind Dublin correspondents and the declarations of landlord Grand Juries and look at the condition of the population of Ireland with eyes not of Liberals or Conservatives, but with the eyes of men, and men of the world. If they did that they would find reason to be very cautious and very gentle in their treatment of the poor peasantry of Ireland during the present distress. Some years ago, Mr. Charles Ormsby Blake wrote to the papers saying that his poor tenants had been dragged out of their beds and obliged by men whom they did not know to swear in the dark that they would pay no rent, and this, Mr. Blake stated, was the cause of dissatisfaction upon his estate. But a meeting of the tenants was held, and each asked who had been pulled out of his bed, and none was to be found who had been so treated. But there were, perhaps, causes of dissatisfaction on the estate. One man whose farm was valued at £12 paid a rack-rent of £18; another, the Government valuation of whose farm was £10, paid £l7 15 s., and another paid a rack-rent of £22 10 s. on a Government valuation of £15 5s., while he found £13 paid for a farm the Government valuation of which was £12 10 s. These excessive rents the tenants said were imposed some few years ago. James Hessian, whose farm was valued for the Government at £12, paid £15; but now he paid £26 13 s. 6d., and the majority of the tenants paid in the same proportion. He asked the Government, as humane men and fellow-men, to consider these facts. The tenantry of Ireland were not now able to pay the full rent they paid a few years ago, and that was their complaint now. If it were only to supply recruits to the British Army the Irish tenantry were useful; and he asked the Executive not to quarter military and police in poor districts, which would only make the present heavy burden severer still.

  431
  The mass of the priests, the hereditary defenders of order and peace, and the mass of the tenants wore pleading for kindness and consideration, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would give them cause to remember with gratitude his tenure of Office. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of saying what the Government were prepared to do.
  MR. BIGGARseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.
  MR. GRAYhoped the Government would do something before the utter hopelessness among the peasantry of Ireland would lead to its natural result of desperation. Since 1847 there never had been such widespread and general distress. This distress had been brought about by causes utterly beyond the control of the cultivators of the soil. When they looked around and saw no relief, and no attempt upon the part of the Government to bring about relief, they were naturally induced to despair of any Constitutional relief. Now, it must be remembered, when dealing with the declarations of the Grand Juries, that they were dealing with by no means representative bodies. Grand jurors were not representative; they were mere nominees; and it had been recognized by the Government that the Grand Juries of Ireland were not public bodies which deserved to be continued. These were under sentence of extinction. A Bill had been introduced to re-model them. Therefore, their opinion, at any time not worth much, must now be taken as quite worthless. They were bodies which would now be non-existent in their present shape but for the pressure of Business before the House. The Boards of Guardians were representative bodies throughout the country; and they had, in many instances, called public attention to the necessity of dealing with the present distress, and of considering the extravagant rents now charged the peasantry of Ireland. He had also to point
  432
  out that the tenants of Ireland, in the present condition of affairs, were more defenceless by reason of the operation of the Land Act than they otherwise would have been. Whatever the intention of the Land Act, the scheme, which was most complicated, was not one suitable to the Irish people, and was not what they had asked for. They had asked for a simpler plan. They asked for fixity of tenure at fair rents, which they defined to be a rent varying with the varying value of produce. Such men as John Stuart Mill had agreed to regard rent as a share of the surplus profits of the soil; they considered the true economical theory to be that a rent should vary according to the value of what the soil produced. The Government, in framing the Land Act, did not take that view. They took the view that it would be sufficient to inflict a penalty for a wrong done, instead of prohibiting the wrong of eviction. It was evident the framer of the Act never contemplated the possibility of a large reduction in value of land consequent upon a reduction in the value of its produce. The tenant who, under the ordinary working of the laws of supply and demand, would have received from his landlord a reduction of rent proportionate to the reduction of prices—and every landlord would have admitted the propriety of such reduction—found new difficulty under the operation of the Land Act. Landlords where there were a large number of small holdings thought it better to lose one or two years' rent, and clear the land of the incumbrance of small tenants, who could not contract themselves out of their rights under the Land Act and consolidate their holdings into farms of £100 value. The tenants who held the larger farms could contract themselves out of these rights. This Act, passed for the benefit of the tenant, was really destructive of the class of small tenants—the class, indeed, for whose benefit it was devised. That was the reason why the tenantry of Ireland should be treated with exceptional consideration. The Irish tenantry were placed in their present position by a law not passed in compliance with their demands—they recognized its usefulness in protecting tenants' improvements, but did not think the other clauses worth much. The provisions of the Land Act were altogether the scheme of the Government of the

  433
  day, and not the proposal of the tenants. In the condition of affairs which had arisen the small tenants would be destroyed as a class if the depreciation of the value of produce continued, and there was not the slightest sign that it would not continue. In that case there would be wholesale evictions in Ireland for non-payment of rent. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had been asked a question as to the condition of Ireland, and he had answered it in a manner more curt than satisfactory, that if the reduction were pointed to the Government had no intention of dealing with the matter. If a like question had been put by the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire with reference to England, would he have received such an answer? He knew that not only had the answer of the right hon. Gentleman given the greatest dissatisfaction in Ireland, but that it had induced a feeling that Government had not merely no consideration for the position in which the tenants were placed, but that they considered it a fit subject for jibe and jeer. That was not the way in which the Government should treat great questions of that kind. In a very short time, if things did not change, there would be in Ireland a repetition of the calamities of 1847 and 1848, when 1,000,000 of people were lost to the country through famine and diseases resulting from starvation. Did Parliament, in view of that, contemplate doing nothing? They were entitled to ask Government, at any rate, not to treat this state of things with a jeer which was unworthy of them. They asked the Government to realize their responsibility as statesmen, and to say something which would inspire some glimmer of hope in the hearts of thousands of people who were on the verge of starvation—something to encourage them to take Constitutional action, and not rush to un-Constitutional measures to redress the grievances they felt so keenly. The condition of affairs in Ireland was so grave as to call for the most earnest attention of the Government to the duty of devising some means for the relief of the starving tenantry. There had been an arrangement for a Commission to consider agricultural depression; but no satisfactory assurance that the condition of Ireland would be duly considered. It would not be much to ask that this Commission should sit in Ire-
  434
  land, and in Ireland investigate the condition of affairs there. It had been acknowledged that the Commission sitting in England could not ascertain the facts with regard to Ireland. Surely there could be no difficulty in the Commission sitting in one or two centres in Ireland and taking evidence. He hoped the Government would give an intimation that this proposal would be favourably considered. If the Government were desirous to preserve the peace of the country, and to prevent the people taking action that would be regretted, some assurance should be given that this great subject would not be overlooked.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I shall avail myself of the opportunity irregularly afforded to me to say that the hon. Member for Tipperary seems to have misunderstood me in referring to some remarks that I made as a sneer at Irish distress and the difficulties of Irish tenants. I meant nothing of the kind. My remarks were in reply to a Question calling for certain legislative action. If I had answered in the hackneyed style that the matter was under consideration, or something of that kind, I would have been charged with giving some countenance to suggestions of a kind not entitled to countenance. I thought the House and the country ought to be informed that if there were such ideas abroad it was not for us to foster them by any vague hopes. As to the Commission on the depression of agriculture, Ireland will be fully represented 'upon it, and the fullest inquiry will be made into the circumstances of Irish agriculture.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERhoped they were not to infer from the silence of the Chief Secretary on the point that the Government would act on the extravagant recommendations of Mr. Justice Harrison and the Grand Jury which he addressed. He twitted the right hon. Gentleman with having used the word "Communism" in reference to proposals as to Irish land, just as he would have used the word "Darwinism" if it had expressed something equally unpopular. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, when he became better acquainted with the educated mind of Ireland, would be ashamed of the description he had given of the demands of the Irish tenants.

ARMY—COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF OFFICERS.—OBSERVATIONS.
GENERAL SHUTE, who had the fallowing Notice upon the Paper:—
"To call attention to the hardship experienced by those officers who were obliged by the regulations of the Army to pay certain named sums for the purchase of their Commissions, and are now forced, or are liable to be forced, into retirement, under the Warrant of the 13th of August 1877, who might be granted the right to bequeath in favour of their widow, children, or others, the amount which, in strict accordance with the Queen's Regulations, they have actually so expended; and to move, That it is expedient that the Secretary of State for War should consider whether such amount might be paid by the Treasury, within six months of the officer's decease, to his executors, or, in case of an officer's death intestate, then a similar amount might be paid to his administrators,"
and which Resolution he was prevented by the Forms of the House from dividing on, said, it was the taxpayer who suffered by the high-handed manner in which the abolition of Purchase was forced on the Army; but the officers suffered now by the almost equally high-handed manner in which the forced-retirement scheme became law. He said that, by hurrying the Warrant of August 13, 1877, through the House during the last few hours of a most wearisome Session, the few hon. Members then remaining in London were led into committing a breach of faith. A British Parliament, he remarked, would never knowingly sanction a breach of faith. But what did they sanction? Why, after subjecting officers to six years of stagnation, from the postponement of a promised promotion Warrant, they then allowed one to be pressed through the House without time for debate, which inflicted on these very Purchase officers who had become old for their rank, by this forced stagnation, a system of compulsory retirement, not adopted for the benefit of the Army, but to procure a flow of promotion, at the professional expense of the officers, which should, in common honesty, be paid for out of the Exchequer. He (General Shute) pointed out that certain officers had been required, by the Orders of the Army, to pay certain regulation sums for certain steps of promotion which they should be entitled to hold so long as they showed themselves to be good and efficient officers. If they could not pay those sums they were liable to be passed over
436
by their juniors. Many a poor man, he observed, had scraped together these sums, at the risk of leaving his widow and children penniless, rather than forfeit promotion; but by adopting this system of compulsory retirement this contract with these Purchase officers had been ruthlessly broken. He (General Shute) therefore asked that, from the date that this breach of faith came into force, the slight and not costly compensation suggested in his Resolution should also have effect. He (General Shute) said that he thus asked for no money compensation to be paid during the lives of officers thus unfairly treated. He said nothing about extra money. He asked for nothing where steps had been obtained without purchase. He asked only that the Regulation money actually paid out of the patrimony might be left to, or be inherited by, the families of Purchase officers, with all of whom, since August 13, 1877, the Government had virtually broken their contract. This been, he said, would be only just as well as generous. It would not be a permanent charge on the Exchequer. It would considerably decrease from year to year. It would not be costly oven from the first, and it would relieve many most distressing cases. His plea, he (General Shute) said, was for the orphan and the widow, and specially deserved the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, he was ready to admit, had behaved very liberally to the Army when they abolished Purchase at a cost of upwards of £22,000,000, and who, he believed, had they remained in power, would have acted up to their promise that the officers should not be in a worse position after than before that abolition, but that the country would be prepared to pay the same amount to secure a flow of promotion that had been hitherto paid by the officers themselves. He said that, though so late in the Session, it had been specially necessary for him to move this Resolution, in consequence of the War Department having refused to return the Purchase money or grant a pension to the widows of sundry officers slaughtered at Isandlana. By these deaths the country now benefited, and not, as formerly, the brother officers and friends of the officers killed; and, in this instance, the country was more responsible for their lives than he should like publicly to explain. He (General Shute)

437
said that, in this remark, he did not mean any reflection on Lord Chelmsford, who, on the contrary, he had always considered to have been very ill-used, and of whose crowning victory he was most proud and most pleased to hear. He said that, though late, nevertheless, it became now his duty to read to the House two or three of the many cases of widowed sufferers that had been brought to his notice. He then, first, read the War Office Correspondence with the widow of the late Captain Degacher, 24th Foot, killed at Isandlana, which, he said, showed that she was not thought entitled to have either her late husband's Purchase money or pension of £80 a-year for self and £16 for her child, because, having £480 a-year, she came under the head of "Wealthy circumstances." Next, he read the Correspondence regarding the case of the late Captain Younghusband, 24th Regiment, also considered in "Wealthy circumstances." And, finally, he read the case of the mother of Lieutenant Porteus, 24th Regiment, also killed at Isandlana, which, he said, showed that this poor widowed mother had five children, three of them entirely dependent on her, and that her small income had been reduced to only £300 a-year by her having advanced, the Purchase money for her son, trusting to his being ultimately able to repay her; but she was now officially informed that this was to go into the pockets of the public. He (General Shute) added that he would now only thank the House for their attention, and express a hope that the Government would meet his views, which he would again press, if necessary, next Session, when he hoped to be able to divide on the subject.
MAJOR O'BEIRNEhoped the appeal of the hon. and gallant Member would be generously responded to by the Secretary of State for War. The Purchase officers were placed by the Warrant he referred to in a worse position than before the abolition of Purchase. The subject was one which deserved the careful attention of the Government. It was one, too, on which as many as 2,000 officers in 1873 petitioned the late Government.
CAPTAIN MILNE-HOME: I am equally anxious with any right hon. or hon. Gentleman to proceed with the Business on the Paper; but, as a Pur-
438
chase officer, I think it due to the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute) that I should not sit silent; and I desire to express to him my acknowledgments for his having once again brought before Parliament the "grievances of Purchase officers." Whatever the result of this discussion maybe, we, at all events, can have nothing to complain of as to the manner in which the hon. and gallant General has stated our case. If the result be favourable, we may congratulate ourselves and him on the success of his advocacy; if otherwise, no fault can attach to him as the advocate. I do not, however, wish to detain the House on the general question, which has been treated so fully by my hon. and gallant Friend; but I will address myself more particularly to a point alluded to in the Amendment, which does not concern my own individual case, but which is, to my mind, the great hardship of the new system—I mean the "compulsory retirement" of officers who have purchased their commissions. I know that this term is not literally correct, because the Warrant simply states that the officers in question shall not be promoted after so many years' service. But it will at once be seen that this is practically the same thing, because it is not likely that officers of such standing will remain in the Service without the prospect of promotion, allowing others to go over their heads. Perhaps I can best explain how matters are by giving one or two instances where the Warrant will press with undue severity. And for this purpose I need not go further than my own regiment. As I have said, the obnoxious provision cannot apply to me; but the officer who stands next to me in the Army List, and who purchased his troop before 1871, must, unless unforeseen contingencies occur, be precluded from promotion, because the 25 years' rule reaches him, and he will have exceeded that period by two years when his turn for promotion comes. Then, another officer, further down in the list of captains, will also be shut out from promotion, the 20 years' rule taking effect with him, he having purchased up to the rank of captain, which he attained after 1871. To take another phase of the subject; by way of example, there are at this moment two Cavalry regiments, whose lieutenant colonels are not interfered

439
with, by the Warrant, and cannot be compelled to retire, on completion of five years in command. I do not complain of this, because I am one of those who are of opinion that if a regiment has a good commanding officer the longer he stays the better. But the mere fact of these colonels remaining keeps the subordinate officers down and debars several of them, under this Warrant, from expecting promotion. Let me remind the House what purchase really meant with regard to promotion. It meant that, when a vacancy occurred in any rank otherwise than by death, the senior of the next rank was appointed to it, subject to two provisions—(1) that he was fit, and (2) that be paid for it. What says this Warrant? It says that an officer, whether fit for promotion or not, is to be passed over, because he has served a certain number of years. Now, I would ask bon. Members, is this fair play, or can it be shown to be in any way conducive to the efficiency of the Service? The officer was compelled, as the hon. and gallant General has well put it, to pay a certain price for his commission, in the full assurance that he would be promoted in his turn, subject to his being reported fit. Hence the new Regulation is nothing short of a breach of faith. The only really fair remedy for this state of things is to refund at once to Purchase officers the money they have lent to the State, and then all officers are placed on equal terms; but the proposal of the hon. and gallant General is a compromise which would be acceptable to the officers, and cause no outlay to the country. My hon. and gallant Friend has already alluded to the pecuniary benefit derived by the State from the deaths of officers. I will not go into that, but, in passing, remark it might be interesting to have a Return, showing to what extent the debt for the Zulu War has been lessened by the death of Purchase officers. Of course, the reply is always ready—the reply first started by Lord Cardwell—that there was no desire to place us Purchase officers in a worse position than before. Certainly, be and his successors have taken care that we shall not be in a better one. But I maintain we are in a worse position, through the almost total stoppage of promotion, there being in these days little inducement for the Purchase or
440
non-Purchase officer to leave the Service till he is, as it is colloquially termed, "kicked out." In the old days, a captain, e.g., who foresaw a wait of several years before he could obtain a step, and knew that then he must, in all probability, pay heavily for it, was often induced to go, especially if be were a married man. Now, there is every inducement to stay till the last moment, steps being obtained free, and pensions given on retirement, after certain periods. What can be the consequence, but an absolute block to promotion? I regret that, owing to the Forms of the House, no expression of opinion can be taken on the Amendment under discussion; but I do trust that my right hon. and gallant Friend, or whoever speaks from the Front Bench, will, when he rises, give us some hope that measures will be taken to give effect to the very fair and moderate proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton.
SIR HENRY HAVELOCKexpressed himself in favour of the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton. Although an advocate of the abolition of Purchase, he thought it was unworthy of the great country which had swallowed the camel of £22,000,000 in the abolition of the Purchase system to strain at the small gnat which the proposition of the hon. and gallant Gentleman represented. The system introduced by Lord Cardwell had not been productive of results, and if the House had known as much about the operation of the present system as the figures that would hereafter be laid before them would show they would have been reluctant to pass the Act for the abolition of Purchase. Instead of the country having derived any benefit at all from the abolition of the past system and the substitution of the present one, the operation of the present system had been worse for the country, worse for the individual, and productive of no benefit whatever. The proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton was a very small one, and he trusted it would receive favourable consideration from the Government. If it were not, it would be brought forward again one day in a very forcible form. One effect of the present system had been to cause languor and want of zeal on the part of some of those officers who had been 17, 18, or 20 years in the Service, and who had the prospect of being compelled, under the

441
operation of the present system, to leave the Service at a time when they were thoroughly attached to it, and which it was more than possible they would adorn. He thought it was scarcely worthy of this country to deal with its officers in such a manner, and he trusted the Government would give the subject their most serious consideration.
COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYthought his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (General Shute), in his temperate speech, had not much difficulty in establishing the fact that there was a considerable amount of hardship caused by the Regulations to which he had called the attention of the House. There were, however, some facts which he had mentioned which did not come quite within the scope of his Resolution. As to pensions, there was an old Regulation which provided that, when officer died and left a widow she should have a pension; but that if, fortunately, she happened to be in affluent circumstances, she should not receive the pension to which she would otherwise be entitled. Now, that had been always the rule of the Service, and he did not see how it was to be set aside. But to come to the point to which his hon. and gallant Friend particularly referred, he would observe that when purchase was abolished the Secretary of State laid down the rule that an officer should, in consequence, be no worse off, but that neither should he be better off; and in all the discussions on the question in that House Lord Cardwell had never departed from that proposition, which had been inherited by the present Government from their Predecessors in Office. A bargain having been made, there was, he thought, considerable reason in the argument that a bargain should be adhered to. There was one point which he trusted would be borne in mind, and that was, that when they spoke of Purchase being abolished they did not state all the facts of the case. Officers, on leaving the Service, were still enabled to retire by the sale of their commissions, and where there was a seller there must be a purchaser. The difference was that where it used to be a junior officer who bought the commission it was now the State. As to the fact that officers of a certain age were compelled to retire from the Service, he need scarcely point out that the recommendation to that
442
effect had been made by a Commission composed of officers of the highest standing, because they found it to be absolutely necessary for the good of the Service that a flow of promotion should go on. But it should not be forgotten that when an officer was compelled to retire he received a retiring allowance better than that which he would have derived from the sale of his commission. It would be impossible to hold out hopes that a change in the system could be made, and he was authorized by the Secretary of State for War to oppose the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton.
COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, the bargain spoken of was between the two sides of the House, and the officers were the sufferers. Great injustice was done to them through the working of the system being unequal. He hoped the complaints made would receive the attention of the Secretary of State for War.

THE GERMAN LEGION OF 1855— THE CASE OF MAJOR DE DOLISE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MAJOR O'GORMAN, in calling attention to the case of Major de Dolise, said, that when the German Legion was raised, in 1855, this gentleman received employment in it. He served in Asia Minor and in the Crimea; and when the war was over he was sent home with his regiment, a portion of which was sent to the Cape of Good Hope to form a regiment there. Major de Dolise was not sent out, but was kept at home in order to settle the accounts and pay off the men who remained behind. For that purpose he was intrusted with a large sum of money, which he disbursed, and he received the thanks of the authorities for performing that duty to their entire satisfaction. Having paid off his regiment, he expected immediate employment either at the Cape or elsewhere; but he was informed by Lord Panmure, then Secretary of State for War, that his services would be no longer required. Major de Dolise had repeatedly asked for employment, but in vain. Had he proceeded, in the first instance, to the Cape he might have obtained employment; but he was kept at home as the most trustworthy officer to whom this large sum of money could be intrusted. The sum which he received on his dis-

  443
  charge was paid to all the officers as I was originally stipulated when they joined. It was submitted on all hands I that Major de Dolise was one of the best, if not the very best, officer in the German Legion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman then read testimonials which had been given to Major de Dolise—from Sir Henry Storks and Major General Cameron among others—and concluded by expressing a hope that the House would agree with him that this officer was entitled to the consideration of the War Office. Twenty-three years had passed since Major de Dolise served this country, and no notice whatever had been taken of the grievance of which he complained.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the House, as a rule, was not fond of what might be regarded as personal questions; but no one could take exception to this case being brought forward, still less to the clear and moderate manner in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated it. Though it would be his duty to show cause why the request made could not be complied with, he very much sympathized with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the case he had taken up. Major de Dolise was a captain in the Austrian Service; in 1855 he joined the Gorman Legion, and in 1856 that Legion was disbanded. Having discharged his duties with ability and zeal, Major de Dolise was retained for a short time to pay off the men and adjust the accounts of that branch of the Service. These duties he performed with an ability which was recognized at the time. Major de Dolise was very anxious for further employment; but the Act of Parliament under which the Legion was raised distinctly laid down that the officers should have no claim to half-pay, and provided the remuneration which could actually be received. The Correspondence with Major de Dolise was of a very voluminous character. Having looked personally through those Papers, he was bound to say that he saw no clause in their regulations which would enable them to deal with this case in any manner that would meet Major de Dolise's expectations. Some of Major de Dolise's brother officers owed their chance of getting back into the Service to the fact that shortly after the disbandment of the German Legion the Indian Mutiny broke out, and a large number of men at the
  444
  Cape then volunteered for service in India and formed a considerable portion of the regiment in the East Indian Service now represented by the 109th Regiment of the Line. Some of those officers and men were, he believed, serving to this day; and it was due, perhaps, to the chapter of accidents that Major de Dolise did not get the same chance of service. He had, however, received the gratuity, and so forth, and was dealt with in the same manner as the other officers of the Legion; and the gravamen of his complaint really was, not that he had been badly treated, but that he did not receive the same consideration which, through accidental circumstances, fell to some of his comrades. Then, as to whether compensation should be given to Major de Dolise, the matter had been under the consideration of different authorities at the War Office for a long time. Major de Dolise had, first of all, applied to be recommended to the Turkish Government for employment; but there were difficulties in the way of that being done, and he afterwards tried to get into various other Services. Then he appealed in language which it would perhaps have been well not to have addressed to the authorities for other employment. General Peel took exception to this, and, being pressed, said he had no claim for employment, and declined any further correspondence. The succeeding Secretaries of State for War took the same view of the matter. Sir Henry Storks, on perusing the Papers while at the War Office, appeared also to have come to the same decision, although with regret, and was unable to recommend that the question should be re-opened. In conclusion, he trusted that he had not said anything to wound the feelings of an officer who thought, rightly or wrongly, that he had a just grievance against the Government; but the contract, if it might be so called, had been strictly performed on both sides in this case, and after careful consideration of the whole subject he was unable to hold out the hope that anything further could be done in regard to it.

EGYPT—OBSERVATIONS.
SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDhad no wish to prevent Supply being taken, but was obliged to refer to the Notice standing in his name, which related to the interference of Her Ma-

445
jesty's Government in the internal affairs of Egypt. He would take the opportunity of saying that in respect of that Motion the Government had behaved exceedingly ill. He had a list of 11 other Members who wished to make observations upon the question, and that fact was a perfectly good test as to the fooling of the House. They had been very anxious that a discussion should take place since the 26th June, when the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington) asked the Government whether they would afford an opportunity for the consideration of this matter. They had been put off from time to time with excuses which had prevented that consideration of the extraordinary action of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt. He was reminded by an hon. Member from Ireland that had he followed his example there would have been no difficulty in obtaining an opportunity for discussion. He believed there was much truth in the opinion that the Government generally gave convenient days to hon. Members who made themselves disagreeable, in order to get rid of their opposition. Never having made himself disagreeable to the Government, no day had been given him, and notwithstanding the professions of the Government, he believed there was no intention or desire that this question of their conduct with reference to Egypt should be discussed at all. His reason for holding this opinion was that the Government know their conduct in Egypt had been perfectly indefensible; and if he ever had an opportunity of pointing out the circumstances of their interference there, he would be able to show that they had placed this country in a very awkward position by acting in a way which had promoted stock-jobbing, and reduced the influence of England in the East. Consequently, he was not surprised that the Government had put difficulties in the way of performing their promise. On one occasion, about a week ago, when he had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer what opportunity would be given for the discussion of this subject, the right hon. Gentleman said he could find one for himself if he liked. It was known full well that the Government now took every night to themselves, and that it was impossible to get an opportunity to venti-
446
late a subject unless the Government chose to provide it. He ventured to point out that the hon. Member for Hackney desired to discuss the question of water supply in London; but without depreciating for a moment the importance of that question, he could see no practical result that could come from it this Session. But with regard to the discussion which he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) desired to raise, if it were put off until next Session a number of things might occur, and the Government would say—and say it with some sense—that it related to things which had occurred long ago, that the interest with regard to it had passed away, and that it was useless to ask them to discuss the matter. Now, that took place with regard to those events in which the Government had been mixed up; and, consequently, he thought they had considerable ground of complaint that the Government had shown a desire to shirk discussion in the present instance He believed that they had done so because they felt they would have great difficulty in explaining their conduct in reference to Egyptian affairs, and in dealing with the loss of influence to this country which their conduct had brought about. Had he acted like some of his hon. Friends from Ireland, an opportunity would have been given him long ago to bring forward his Motion. The course pursued in this matter was certainly no encouragement to those who had assisted the Chancellor of the Exchequer in getting on with the Business of the House. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really pledged the reputation of the Government in this affair, he thought he should appoint Tuesday morning, or part of Monday, for the discussion. If it wore put off to a later day, it would, in his opinion, be a proof that the Government did not want the question to be discussed. He emphatically protested against that course.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKErose to support the appeal of the hon. Member for Rochester for a discussion upon this subject. There had been an understanding with the Government that the hon. Member should have an opportunity for discussion; but it did not amount to a definite arrangement. However, looking at the statement of the Chancellor of the

447
Exchequer, and the great importance of the subject, he thought it was one that ought to have been considered at a much earlier time. He regretted to say that in this matter of Egypt the House appeared to him to have been, unintentionally, no doubt, deceived by the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, the Government, although they had presented certain Papers to the House bearing upon this question, had kept back others. On the 13th March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that Mr. Rivers Wilson went out to Egypt and entered the service of the Khedive. He had been shortly afterwards dismissed by the Khedive; and, on the 24th April, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Khedive had done what he had a full right to do by the dismissal of that officer from his employ. That statement had been accepted by the House and by the country. All that time, however, there had been in existence a despatch, dated 3rd of March, which had not been presented to the House, and which contained the following clause:—
"The Members of the Council are to have the right conjointly to put an absolute veto on all measures which they disapprove."
That despatch was sent out and handed to the Government of Egypt, and five days later the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that Mr. Rivers Wilson went out to the Khedive as an officer in his employ with power of dismissal. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) asked whether the country were not completely deceived with regard to the policy pursued by the Government in Egypt, and whether, as it seemed to him there should be, an opportunity ought not to be given for discussing this matter?
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLhad at one time taken an active interest in this question, which he had more than once brought before the House; and upon the last occasion the tone of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was such as to give him the greatest confidence in the action of Her Majesty's Government. He believed that they were endeavouring to do the right thing; although, perhaps, they had gone a little further than their own judgment and good sense might have suggested. He thought, upon that occasion, that they were in a
448
difficult position, with regard to France, and should not be troubled unnecessarily. But as the question now raised was of serious importance, with regard to the past and future, he was compelled to join in this appeal to Her Majesty's Government to give hon. Members an opportunity of discussing it before the Session came to an end.
MR. E. JENKINSsaid, of course, he need not say that he did not altogether agree with his hon. Friend who had raised this question, with regard to his judgment of the policy of Her Majesty's Government; but there could be no doubt that, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea had stated, the effect of the statements which had been made in that House was that they had formed a wrong impression of what Her Majesty's Government had done with reference to affairs in Egypt. It must be felt by the House and the country that it was not unreasonable to expect that Her Majesty's Government, which had been allowed to work its wicked or righteous will in Egypt without interference on the part of the House, should now make some explanation of their policy. The country had been put in a curious position with regard to Europe, and if anyone read the public journals of Europe it would be seen that there was the gravest anxiety abroad with regard to the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Member for Pochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had very properly pointed out that the effect of this silence on the part of the Government had been seriously to act upon the stock markets in Europe, in which the stocks of Egypt had gone up and down spasmodically, because no one had known to what their policy might lead. He asked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should afford an opportunity of discussing this subject, and hoped that the Secretary to the Foreign Office would be able to place more Papers relating thereto in the hands of hon. Members in the course of a few hours.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, there were circumstances in connection with the treatment accorded to Mr. Rivers Wilson—he believed, owing to his still being in the employ of the Government—which were eminently worthy of discussion. Mr. Rivers Wilson had not received the support of the British Consul in Egypt. It was a matter of

449
notoriety that not only did the Consul not support him, but that he used his influence to a great extent in opposition to that gentleman. Then, again, at the most critical moment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced to the world that the Khedive had a perfect right to dismiss him. He (Mr. Shaw Lofevre) had not spoken with Mr. Rivers Wilson upon the subject; but he was informed that the announcement was telegraphed within a few hours to many persons throughout Egypt, and had contributed, no doubt, greatly to the fall of that gentleman. He thought the question was seriously deserving of the attention of the House, and that time ought to be given for the discussion of the subject.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I can only repeat what I have stated before—namely, that there is no disposition on the part of the Government to evade discussion on Egyptian affairs. I am perfectly ready, and I am quite willing, to enter into a discussion of that question. So far as I am concerned, I have not the least objection to do what is in my power to assist hon. Gentlemen by allowing' time for the discussion of this subject. But I must really point out that the explanation of our not having appointed a time for this purpose is that we have a great deal of Business to do, and that it is very difficult for us to find time for everything we are asked to discuss. We are continually interrupted in our endeavours to get through our Business by questions raised by hon. Gentlemen, who have, of course, a perfect right to raise them. But as we get on in the Session we have a great deal of Business before us, and when we are pressed to find time for this question and for that, we are really obliged to say we cannot undertake to fix beforehand on what day a particular Motion can be brought forward. When I was asked by the hon. Baronet that an opportunity should be afforded for discussing the affairs of Egypt, I suggested to him that an opportunity might be found on a stage of the Appropriation Bill. I am told that the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington) wanted to use that occasion for bringing forward a question with regard to Afghanistan. If that is so, why could not the hon. Baronet settle with
450
the noble Lord who should have precedence? It seems to me perfectly possible for the arrangement to be made by which some opportunity might be availed of for bringing forward this matter. I can only say that, so far as the Government are concerned, we should be very glad to have an opportunity of considering this subject. It was just now remarked that it is very awkward to discuss these circumstances while negotiations are going on. The hon. Member for Reading has just now made some observations which, I think, elucidate the sort of difficulty we are in. A question was raised in this House as to the position of Mr. Rivers Wilson in Egypt. I answered that question, as I was bound to do, by speaking the truth, saying that Mr. Rivers Wilson was allowed to take service under the Khedive, that he was not in the employ of the English Government, and that it was at the option of the Khedive to dismiss him. That was the statement which I volunteered, and it was a statement which I felt myself obliged to make in consequence of being challenged as to the position taken by England with reference to the affairs of Egypt. What was the consequence? It was immediately telegraphed out to Egypt, and produced such and such consequences, while we, having been obliged to make the statements, are now told that we are causing mischief. I can fully believe, as has been stated by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), that he has not been in communication with Mr. Rivers Wilson, who, I am quite sure, would have given him a different account of this matter. Nobody can have a higher opinion of the conduct of that gentleman than we have had. We felt that, in all he did in Egypt, he was acting with the best possible motive, and with the desire to do his duty in the difficult position in which he had placed himself. I do not think that Mr. Rivers Wilson can feel that there is any unwillingness on the part of the Government to acknowledge the excellence of the work performed. With regard to the question of the affairs of Egypt, I can only hope we shall be able, in the course of next week, to find an opportunity for the discussion which the hon. Baronet proposes; but I do not feel myself, at the present moment, able to fix a day, in consequence of the great diffi-

451
culty we have with regard to our own Business
THE O'CONOR DONwished to call the attention of the House to a statement which he understood was made on Saturday last, by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with regard to a matter intimately connected with Supply. He had learnt that the right hon. Gentleman had intimated that it was the intention of the Government to increase the salaries of the National School teachers in Ireland from the 1st of January next. That change was one of the very greatest importance, and could not, in his opinion, be made without previously being submitted to the judgment of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman intimated that this increase would be in the form of salary and the payment by results; and as he (the O'Conor Don) believed nothing during the last 20 years had been debated in Ireland more than payment by results, he did not think it fitting that the statement should go forth that the House was pledged to this proposal, because they might be told next year that, as it had not been objected to, it would not be fair to object to it then. If there was any intention on the part of the Government to make this important change, it ought to have been submitted in the first place to Parliament, and that it should not be made next year by proposing what were called Supplementary Estimates to be sanctioned by the House.
MR. SPEAKERpointed out to the hon. Member for Roscommon that he was not discussing an Order of the Day.
THE O'CONOR DONwas alluding to a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, which was connected with Supply. The right hon. Gentleman had said it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose an Estimate this year, but that the increased salaries would appear in the Supplementary Estimate of next Session. If the matter was allowed to remain in that way, they would be told next year that the House was pledged to this change. He must, however, express his intention to oppose it.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYdid not think that his hon Friend who had just spoken could be regarded as the exponent of the views of Irish Members
452
upon that subject. For his own part, he was delighted to hear that there was an intention to raise the salaries of those wretchedly-paid individuals—the school teachers. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had no objection to their salaries being supplemented by results.
MR. LYON PLAYFAIRhad been exceedingly annoyed that such an important announcement should be made without the House having an opportunity of discussing it. In England, a great deal of the teachers' remuneration came from private sources; but in Ireland it came from the Treasury. If there was any increase in the salaries of school teachers, he hoped it would be done in the manner best calculated to promote the interests of education; and he thought that those interests were in this matter, at all events, represented by the hon. Member for Roscommon. It was a serious thing that they should be pledged to a broad line that might be detrimental to the interests of education in Ireland.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

    CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
    (1.) £15,606, to complete the sum for Universities, &c, in Scotland, agreed to.
    (2.) £5,034, Queen's University, Ireland, agreed to.
    (3.) £12,994, Queen's Colleges, Ireland, agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
(4.) £1,330,000, Manufacture and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, agreed to.
(5.) £853,300, Superintending Establishment of, and Expenditure for, Works, Buildings, and Repairs, &c., agreed to.
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £166,800, "be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Establishments for Military Education, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."
MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, that by the Return published this year the number of Catholic boys in the Royal Hibernian Military School was 169, and the number of Protestant boys 196. He complained that nearly all the staff of the College were Protestants, only five out of the 29posts in the establishment being hold by Catholics, while out of the 25 monitors only six were Catholics. In the minor posts, however, like those of servants, the Catholics were fairly proportioned; but the offices of commandant and secretary had always been held by Protestants. He wanted some assurance that this system should be changed, and begged, therefore, to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £9,460.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £156,340, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Establishments for Military Education, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."—(Major O'Beirne.)
COLONEL STANLEYhad had great difficulty in hearing the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member. He gathered that he referred to the disproportion which, in his opinion, existed between the Protestant and Roman Catholic officers in the establishment; and, he believed, he also referred to something in the nature of a promise as to the proportion which should exist. He confessed that, until the hon. and gallant Member had said so, he -was not aware that any such promise had been given. Nothing would be deprecated by him more than that a hard-and-fast line should be laid down by marking religious distinction in the Military Service. He understood that all formed a portion of one Service, and that there was no line of demarcation between Protestants and Catholics; and that in these matters they had to consider what was beneficial to the Service generally. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman could point out to him any case in which the education of the boys had directly suffered by the appointment of officers of different denominations, such a case should undoubtedly receive his most earnest attention. He was not aware that any ground of complaint existed of the kind referred to. He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press his Motion.
COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, that previous to 1872 there was much reason to be dissatisfied, both with regard to the number of Roman Catholic boys who were admitted to the Royal Hibernian School and the way in which the duties devolving on the Governors of the school were discharged. In consequence, however, of a statement which had been made in that House by the late Member for Longford on the subject, he was bound to acknowledge that the state of things in the school had been very much improved since that time. The objectionable rule which limited the admission of Roman Catholic boys to the number of one-third of the pupils had been abrogated, and a new Board of Governors had been appointed who did not even know to what religion the applicants for admission to the school belonged. But as regarded the officials of the school there still remained just ground for the complaint that they were not selected in due proportion from members of the Roman Catholic faith. He should not wish to ask that any of the present officials should be dismissed; but seeing that in the course of the natural working of the present system three-fourths of the boys in the school would be Roman Catholics, he did not think it was right that all the good appointments connected with it should be in the hands of Protestants; and he, therefore, hoped that as vacancies occurred among the superior officers the Government would take into their consideration the desirability of giving Roman Catholics a preference in filling up those vacancies, if only the applicants were competent to the performance of the duties which they would have to discharge. It appeared to him, also, that the position of the Roman Catholic chaplain of the school was unsatisfactory, inasmuch as he was not allowed the same salary, and had not the same official standing as the Protestant chaplain. But while he thought there were defects in the present system which called for a remedy, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) would not think it necessary to press his Amendment to a Division, seeing that the affairs of the school were now better administered than used to be the case.
MR. CALLANdrew attention to the management of the Royal Military Asy-

455
lum and Normal School, and urged upon the Government the propriety of increasing the salary of the Roman Catholic chaplain connected with it, who only received at present £38 a-year, although more than one-sixth of the boys belonged to the Roman Catholic religion.
COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he would inquire into the matter, but that no do-finite complaints on the subject had, up to the present moment, been brought to his notice.
MR. PARNELLsaid, the Royal Hibernian Military School was formerly very exclusive in the sense that the advantages which it conferred were confined almost entirely to Protestant children. It had, however, of late years been open, to a certain extent, to Roman Catholics. He found by a Return which he held in his hand that the number of children now in the school was 398, and that of that number 198 were Protestants, 169 Roman Catholics, and 31 Presbyterians and members of other religious denominations. He also found that the right of admission to the school was reserved to a Committee of the Governing Body, which consisted of 13 Protestants, four Roman Catholics, and one Presbyterian. Now, it seemed to him somewhat extraordinary that, seeing the proportion of Irishmen in the Army was 10 Roman Catholics to one Protestant, there should be so many more Protestants than Roman Catholics in the Governing Body of a school to which Roman Catholic children were eligible. The Irish soldiers being almost entirely Roman Catholics, how, he should like to know, had it come to pass that such an unwise selection had been made of the Governors of the school? Everyone who knew Ireland was well aware that it was perfectly impossible that the religion of a candidate for any office in that country should remain unknown. It was the first thing into which inquiry was made; and, of course, the religion of the parents of those boys who presented themselves for admission into the Royal Hibernian School was well known to the Committee of Governors before their claims were considered. He did not mean to say that the question of religion was discussed, or that it was openly made the ground on which an application was granted or refused; but that it secretly had an effect upon the
456
decision which was arrived at he had no doubt. Indeed, the question of religion entered into every form of election in Ireland, including even the election of Poor Law Guardians; and it was utterly impossible to believe that, constituted as the Governing Body of the Royal Hibernian School was, their selection of candidates for admission to it could be altogether unbiassed.
COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman who just sat down had been in the House when the hon. and gallant Member for Cork (Colonel Colthurst) had addressed the Committee, he would find that the criticisms in which he had indulged had been by anticipation completely answered, for that hon. and gallant Member had stated that whatever might have been the grounds of complaint formerly as to the admission of Roman Catholic boys to the Hibernian School there were now no reasons for supposing that the election of candidates was not conducted upon a principle which was entirely fair.
COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, the hon. Member for Meath might take his word for it that since 1872, when a new Board of Governors was established, no partiality was shown to candidates on the score of religion, although he was ready to admit that great cause for dissatisfaction previously existed. At present, there was nothing like unfairness in the action of the Governing Body towards Roman Catholics as compared with members of the Protestant religion.
MR. A. MOOREcould not help thinking that it would be satisfactory if the answer to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) came from the Treasury Bench instead of being given by the hon. and gallant Member for Cork (Colonel Colthurst). There had been no reply made on the part of the Government to the allegation that the Roman Catholics had not their fair share of power and authority in connection with the Institution in question, and he should feel it to be his duty to move that the Chairman do report Progress unless a thorough and impartial inquiry into the subject were promised.
MAJOR O'BEIRNEpointed out that the hon. and gallant Member for Cork (Colonel Colthurst) and himself were quite in accord as to the undue proportion of Protestants as compared with

457
Roman Catholics on the staff of the School. Out of 29 on that staff, five only were Roman Catholics, which was not a fair proportion, he maintained, inasmuch as the relative proportion of the boys in the School was 198 Protestants to 168 Roman Catholics. Seeing that the staff was composed almost entirely of Protestants, he did not think what had been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Cork about the School was calculated to convey to the Committee an accurate idea of the real state of affairs.
COLONEL COLTHURSTreplied, that he bad said nothing about the teaching staff of the School, which, he admitted, required alteration.
COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he was not aware that there were any complaints with regard to the management of the School until that evening. If any promise had been made on behalf of the Government, he should, of course, consider himself bound by it, and any complaints which were laid before him would be inquired into; but he could not undertake, without good cause shown, to dismiss particular officials in order to replace them by others.
MR. PARNELLsaid, that if the hon. and gallant Member for Cork (Colonel Colthurst) was satisfied that there was no unfairness in the proportion between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant boys in the School, he, too, ought to be satisfied. The whole case seemed to show how extremely moderate the demands of the Roman Catholics were, seeing that, in a Roman Catholic country, in which the vast majority of the soldiers, and, consequently, of soldiers' orphans, were Roman Catholics, they were satisfied that in an Institution like the Royal Hibernian Academy half the children admitted should be Protestants, and only half members of their own religion. The fact was, however, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland had always shown great moderation in their demands. Had he been a Roman Catholic he did not think he would have been quite so moderate.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 114: Majority 97.—(Div. List, No. 213.)
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £232,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Administration of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March 1880."
LORD ELCHOsaid, the amount appeared to be a very large one for the performance of the duties of the War Office. He found that there were now 505 clerks employed in connection with the Office, and 64 military clerks; and he should like to know from his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War whether any steps were being taken to employ a greater number of the latter class of clerks? He (Lord Elcho) was a Member of a Committee which sat three Sessions ago, who recommended that, whenever it was possible, military clerks should be employed in the Office, which was, he believed, the only military Department of the kind in any State in Europe in which the work was done almost entirely by civilians, for the Committee had laid before them the evidence of Prussian and French military men to show that in those countries those who had been in the Army were largely engaged in the capacity of clerks in the Administrative Departments. He did not, however, on the present occasion, propose to enter further into the question beyond asking what steps had been taken to increase the number of military clerks in the War Office? He wished also to say that he had intended to move a reduction in Vote 13—that for the manufacture and repair of warlike stores—although, at that late hour of the night, he should not, of course, have pressed his Motion to a Division. The Vote, however, had been passed without his knowing that it had been put from the Chair, and as the question which he desired to raise was a somewhat technical one he would not enter into it upon the present occasion. But he wished to give Notice that, as, in his opinion, his noble Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Lord Eustace Cecil), who was responsible for the manufacture of the arms served out to the Army, was making a great mistake as to the weapon thus supplied—was, to use a familiar illustration, buying small beer for the price for which he might get good ale—and that it

459
would greatly add to the efficiency of the Army if the weapon now in use were given up—he would, if the Vote were brought forward in its present form next year, and that he had the honour of a seat in that House, move, not the reduction of the Vote, but the omission from the Estimates of the sum of £1,500, which was, he believed, the amount of his noble Friend's salary.
MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he did not propose that evening to raise so important a question as that which was involved in a Motion for the reduction of the salary of the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, because it appeared to him that it would be somewhat of an impertinence to do so without previous Notice. He wished, however, to give Notice that early next Session he would raise the whole question of the organization of the Ordnance Staff, with special reference to the manner in which the Office of Commander-in-Chief was conducted in this country. He knew that there was great dissatisfaction among the officers of the Army in connection with the subject; and while he was desirous of abstaining from any invidious reflection of any sort on the present Royal tenant of that Office, whose bravery and zealous discharge of his duties demanded the respect not only of that House, but of the whole country, still, he thought the efficiency of the Army required that the attention of Parliament should first be directed to that particular spot in its administration. He begged now to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £4,000, not because he wished seriously to raise the question on the present occasion, but in order to inform the House that it was his intention to bring it forward for thorough discussion next Session.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £228,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Administration of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1880."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that, although some addition had been made to the number of military clerks employed in the War Office, that fact must not be regarded as implying the slightest derogation of the manner in which the civilian clerks had performed the duties which they had to discharge. He had,
460
he might add, laid down a rule that in certain cases the duties to be fulfilled should be intrusted only to men who had served in the Army; but he was afraid that scarcely as much could be done in that direction as his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) desired. His noble Friend would excuse him if he did not at that hour of the night follow him in what he had said as to the manufacture of the rifles now served out to the Army; while, in reply to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), he would point out that the question which he desired to raise, and to which he had called the attention of the House, was not one which could be conveniently dealt with on the present occasion. It was, however, he was prepared to admit, an important question; but he would now merely observe, with regard to it, that it was a great convenience that the occupant of the Office of Commander-in-Chief should be quite free to go about to inspect the Army, and that a Minister whoso time was fully occupied in that House would not be likely to have many spare hours for the purpose.
MR. CHAMBERLAINbegged to move pro formâ that the Chairman report Progress, so that he might put himself in Order in asking a question as to the course of Public Business. There was a rumour that the Government had changed their intention with regard to the Business which they proposed to take to-morrow and on Saturday; and he had been informed that they meant to take the Report of Supply, if the Committee got through Supply that night, at 9 o'clock to-morrow night, and the Irish University Bill on Saturday instead of the Public Works Loan Bill, which had been previously fixed for that day. He should like to know whether the rumour to which he referred was correct?
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if the Committee got through Supply that night, as he hoped they would, he proposed to take the Report of Supply at 9 o'clock to-morrow night; but no change had been made in the order of Business, which, as had

461
been stated, it was proposed to take on Saturday.
MR. DILLWYNasked when the Irish University Bill would be proceeded with?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: On Monday.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £35,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals (In-Pensions), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."
MR. CALLANsaid, that although he was not going to make a Motion for the reduction of the Vote, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the smallness of the salary which was given to the Roman Catholic chaplain at Chelsea Hospital. That salary amounted to only £25 a-year, and he believed he was correct in stating that there was a greater number of Roman Catholics in Chelsea Hospital than of Protestants in the hospital at Kilmainham, where an allowance of £300 a-year was made to the chaplain. He should also like to point out that the Roman Catholic pensioners at Chelsea Hospital, who were old and infirm men, were obliged to trudge, no matter how severe the weather might be, a long way from the hospital to the Roman Catholic church which they attended; and a room, he contended, ought to be set apart in the hospital for Roman Catholic service, so that they might no longer be subjected to so great an inconvenience. He hoped, under these circumstances, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would give the Committee an assurance that the matter would be inquired into during the autumn, and that, if the facts were as he had stated, a remedy for the present state of things would be provided.
COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he certainly would have the matter inquired into, and expressed a wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman, in the remarks which he had made, spoke from his own personal knowledge?
MR. CALLANsaid, that he happened to have entered into conversation with one of the Roman Catholic pensioners of Chelsea Hospital, who, on learning that he, too, was a Roman Catholic, had opened his mind freely to him, and had made statements to him which subsequent inquiry tended to corroborate.
COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he would take care to find out exactly how the matter stood.
MR. BIGGARcould not regard the answer of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as being at all satisfactory. The salary of the Roman Catholic chaplain ought, he thought, to be at once increased.
THE CHAIRMANinquired if the hon. Member for Cavan moved to reduce the Vote, or an item in the Vote?
MR. BIGGARsaid, that he moved to reduce the item for the chaplain at Chelsea Hospital by the sum of £200.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £400, for the Salary of the Chaplain of Chelsea Hospital, be reduced by £200."—(Mr. Biggar.)
MR. CALLANsaid, that it was a gratifying fact that no such Motion had been made in the House for a number of years, and he trusted that his hon. Friend would not proceed with his Motion. It was the first time that the attention of the authorities had been drawn to this matter. The salary of the Roman Catholic chaplain had only been paid for a few years, and it was the first time the Vote had been discussed, and that attention had been drawn to the discrepancy between the salaries of the Roman Catholic and the Protestant chaplains. After the assurance that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had given upon the subject, he did not think that they ought to say anything more respecting it. If nothing were done in the matter during the ensuing year, it could be brought forward next Session. He would appeal to the hon. Member for Cavan not to press his Motion.
MR. BIGGARdid not think that the reply of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was so satisfactory that he should be justified in withdrawing his Motion. He wished to raise a protest against the discrepancy between the salaries of the Protestant and Roman Catholic chaplains.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEbegged to point out to the hon. Member for Cavan that it would be in accordance with the feelings of the Committee if lie would withdraw his Motion. There were many hon. Members in that part of the House who agreed with him that the Protestant and Catholic ministers ought to be placed upon the same footing, and that there should be no distinction drawn in any respect; if they paid salaries to ministers at all, then both salaries should be alike. The hon. Member moved to reduce the salary of the chaplain at Chelsea; but he thought that that would be an unfair course to take. If the hon. Member pressed his Motion he should certainly vote against it.
MR. BIGGARdid not see why, if they could not level up, they should not level down.
COLONEL STANLEYthought it would be better that they should take a Division upon the matter. He was not prepared to admit that there was any injustice existing. There certainly was a great discrepancy in the salaries, no doubt; but he was not prepared to admit that it was an injustice. He did not know how long the chaplain at Chelsea had held his appointment, nor what were the reasons for giving him the salary which he received. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Biggar) could scarcely wish him to reduce the salary until he had inquired into the subject; and he certainly thought that it would be unfair to reduce the salary of the present holder of the office. But as attention had been drawn to the subject it should be inquired into.
MR. CALLANsaid, that after the misleading and unsatisfactory explanation by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War he should be compelled to vote, unwillingly, with the hon. Member for Cavan. It would be better that a clear understanding should be arrived at before they proceeded to vote. He was acquainted with the facts as to Kilmainham Hospital, and was prepared to substantiate the accuracy of what he had stated. There was a Protestant chaplain at that Hospital belonging to the late State Church, who was paid £300 a-year to attend to the religious wants of the Protestant pensioners at Kilmainham; but a much larger sum was paid to that functionary than was paid to the Catholic chaplain attached to Chelsea, who had to attend
464
to a much larger number of pensioners. At present, the Catholic chaplain at Chelsea was not paid one-tenth of what the Protestant chaplain at Kilmainham was paid, for attending a very much smaller number of pensioners. He did not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could maintain that there was no injustice in paying the Protestant chaplain at Kilmainham £300, and, at the same time, paying the Roman Catholic chaplain at Chelsea £25, for attending a less number of pensioners. He thought that was an injustice that should not be tolerated, and he considered that they ought to have an assurance from the Government that it should be rectified.
COLONEL STANLEYdid not say that there was no injustice; he simply said that he was not prepared to admit that there was any. There was a discrepancy between the salaries; but there might be a reason for it. His noble Friend who had preceded him in the Office which he had the honour to hold had directed that no appointment should be made by the Governor of Chelsea Hospital until the War Office had had an opportunity of considering what salary should be paid to the chaplain in future. He did not think that it would be fair to reduce the salary of the present holder of the chaplaincy at Chelsea Hospital. But whether there would be a case for reduction on a new appointment he was not prepared to say. With respect to the pay of the Roman Catholic chaplain, if there was any reason for increasing it, it should be done, and if there was a difficulty in the Roman Catholics at Chelsea obtaining the ministrations of their own religion he would see what could be done.
MR. CALLANsaid, that with reference to Kilmainham Hospital, to satisfy the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, he might state that the Protestant chaplain received the same salary as the Catholic chaplain for doing one-third of the work. That might satisfy him that no injustice was done to the Protestant chaplain at Kilmainham. He was not complaining of the salary paid to the present chaplain there, for he was in favour of levelling up instead of levelling down. The exact number of pensioners at Kilmainham, he believed, was 200, of whom about 130 were Roman Catholics. The nearest Roman Catholic Church to Kil-

465
mainham was upwards of a mile and a-half distant from the Hospital, and Roman Catholic pensioners were obliged to walk that distance to attend the services of their religion. He would ask if the Government were prepared to allow the Roman Catholics at Kilmainham, who were in the majority, some accommodation for attending the services of their religion, instead of having to go a mile and a-half? He did not think that the lion. Member for Cavan would be justified in withdrawing his Amendment, unless some satisfactory assurance were given on the part of the Government.
COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that his noble Friend who had preceded him had given an assurance that an endeavour should be made to find a room in the barracks for the services of the Roman Catholic Church at Kilmainham. His impression was that that had been done. If the hon. Member for Dundalk would put a Question down on the Paper on this subject he would endeavour to answer it. The hospital at Kilmainham held from 200 to 240 pensioners.
MR. PARNELLdid not understand whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War intended to abolish the chaplaincies at Chelsea and Kilmainham. If that were so, it would be fair that he should not appoint Roman Catholic chaplains. But if he did not intend to abolish the Protestant chaplaincies at Kilmainham and Chelsea, thou he ought to appoint regular chaplains for the Roman Catholics. The Government declined to give any official recognition to any but the Protestant chaplains, and only gave what they called an allowance to the Roman Catholic clergymen. Unless there was a regular chaplain appointed for Roman Catholics at Kilmainham, where they were a majority of the pensioners, he did not see that there was any right to retain Protestant chaplains either for Kilmainham or Chelsea. He hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would give a plain answer as to whether he intended to abolish the chaplaincies at Kilmainham and Chelsea; and if he did not, whether he would establish a regular Roman Catholic chaplain for Kil-rnainham, where the majority of the pensioners were Roman Catholics?
MR. MELDONsaid, that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan were pressed he could not vote
466
for it. In his opinion, the assurance of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was very satisfactory. They had not the facts of the case before them; they did not know whether the ecclesiastical authorities would consent to the appointment of a Roman Catholic chaplain. There was an impression that a place had been provided for the Roman Catholic services at Kilmainham Hospital; and he thought that it was very unsatisfactory that they should be called upon to vote upon the question without a full knowledge of the circumstances. It was exceedingly unsatisfactory for the hon. Member for Cavan to take up the Estimates, and finding a discrepancy to take up the time of the Committee in discussing the matter. It should be ascertained, first, whether, if the chaplain were appointed, the ecclesiastical authorities would be willing that he should accept the office; and, consequently, they ought to know whether the Government had had any representations made to them from the person whose cause was taken up by the hon. Member. It was unpleasant to be called upon to vote until the facts were fully before the House. Although he should like to see a Roman Catholic chaplain appointed, he could not vote for the Amendment.
MR. CALLANsaid, that if the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had been listening to the course of the debate, and not indulging in conversation, as he was at present, he would never have made the observations he had done. When he brought forward this question he did not consult either the Roman Catholic Bishops or the priests. He did not consider it his duty to do so, for he had not brought forward the question in the interests of the Bishops or the clergymen, but solely on behalf of the pensioners. He regretted to say that the Roman Catholic chaplains appointed under the present system were so appointed under the patronage of the English Bishop, and he did not think that that was right. He had brought forward the Motion on the request of eight or nine pensioners, who objected to having to go a mile and a-half to church to attend the ministrations of their religion, when the other pensioners were accommodated in the Hospital. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare might come forward as the champion

467
of the clergy and the Bishops; but he (Mr. Callan) had come forward solely as the champion of the pensioners. He thought that, as a practical injustice had been shown, it should be inquired into, and, if found to exist, should be rectified.
MR. BIGGAR, before asking leave to withdraw his Amendment, wished to make a short explanation. What he understood to be the promise of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was, that he would inquire into the grievance, and that he would see justice done. Upon that understanding, he begged to withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
  (9.) £5,000, National Gallery Plans.
  MR. DILLWYNinquired whether these plans were in the custody of the Government?
  MR. GERARD NOELsaid, the plans were now in the Office of Works.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, that a discussion with regard to the plans had been brought forward by him on a previous occasion. The plans of Mr. Barry for the National Gallery were selected, and approved; but there was no undertaking with him that he should immediately build the whole of the new Galleries. The arrangement was that the Galleries should be built as required according to the plans selected. Mr. Barry had built a considerable portion of the new building, and he had received a commission in respect of that portion. There was no obligation, however, that there should be any payment for any other portion until and unless that other portion was built in like manner. He thought that they ought to have some explanation why, many years after these transactions, they should be called upon to pay Mr. Barry £5,000 in respect of further plans which he had really prepared of his own accord, and without instructions.
  MR. GERARD NOELremarked that, in 1868, Mr. Barry was appointed architect of the new National Gallery, and was
  468
  directed to prepare plans for the building. Mr. Barry divided the work into four blocks. Block A was to cost £88,975; block B £103,625; block 0 £339,721; block D £105,975. In 1870, it was decided not to proceed with the building, but merely to enlarge and increase the galleries. The cost of block A was reduced to £83,000, which was then completed, the architect receiving a remuneration of £4,150, or 5 per cent on the revised estimate. In this was included £830, or 1 per cent, for sketch plan of block A. Mr. Barry, according to instructions, also furnished the Government with sketch plans for the whole of the proposed National Gallery; but as there seemed to be no prospect of its being completed for some years it was thought only fair and just to Mr. Barry that he should be paid for these sketch plans, and this was the reason for the proposed Supplementary Vote.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) £10,000, Science and Art Museum, Dublin, agreed to.

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
  (11.) £30,000, Supplementary sum for The Mint, including Coinage, agreed to.
  (12.) £11,966, Supplementary sum for Chief Secretary for Ireland, Offices.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINwished to know why the original estimate under this head had been largely exceeded?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONobserved, that there had not been an increase in this Vote; but that no Vote had yet been taken upon that account, and the present Vote was in respect of the whole expenses.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, that a change had been made in the Vote, partly in consequence of the diminution of the protective inspection at the ports on this side of the Channel; although, in his opinion, the inspection could be much better done here than on the Irish side. The Government had given way in respect to allowing inspection to take place at the arriving ports; and the increase in the Vote was, therefore, in his opinion, justifiable, although an increased inspection had been made on the wrong side of the Channel.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
  (13.) £6,280, for Sydney and Melbourne International Exhibitions.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, it was perfectly obvious that the sum which had been sot apart on account of this Exhibition would not be sufficient. The expense had been estimated at £10,000, and it was made up of items such as £200 for travelling expenses. The members of the Commission who would go to Sydney and Melbourne would certainly not pay their own expenses, and that sum would not nearly cover the cost. If they took the items there, it appeared to him that they were under-estimated. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether he could give any explanation as to why the expenses had been under-estimated? Subsistence and lodging allowance was put down at £180. If they might judge from the Paris Exhibition, persons who went about for Government charged as much as they possibly could for subsist-once, and he did not think that the sum of £180 would cover that expense. Then, the telegraphing and passages would cost two or throe times as much as they estimated. He should like some explanation as to the reason Government had not looked the matter fairly in the face, and had not put down the full amount?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the amount estimated for these expenses was £10,000; but they only proposed to allow in the figures for the current year £6,280. With regard to the item of telegrams, he might say that it did not include the amount which would be paid for telegraphic communication with the Colonies, for the Government did not think that that ought to be an Imperial charge, but that, as it affected the interests of the Colonies, it ought fairly to be paid by them. With regard to the travelling expenses, the amount at which it had been put down was that at which it had been estimated by the members of the Commission themselves. The whole Estimate had been prepared to meet what it was thought would be the probable expenses.
  MR. RYLANDSwished to know whether the Government would, under any circumstances, grant a larger sum than £10,000?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that sum represented the part of the full amount that they believed would be required.
  MR. E. JENKINSdid not think that that explanation was satisfactory. In his opinion, the expenses would more likely amount to the sum of £25,000. He did not think the House was fairly dealt with, when the amounts that should be required were so under-estimated.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS V.—COLONIAL, CONSULAR, AND OTHER FOREIGN SERVICES.
  (14.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £26,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for defraying the additional expenditure entailed upon the Government of Cyprus by the Augmentation of the Police Force, rendered necessary by the reduction of the Military Garrison of the Island."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was quite impossible to adequately discuss the question raised by that Vote at that hour of the night. He did not, therefore, intend to enter upon the principle of submitting the Vote to the House; but, at the same time, he would venture to appeal to the Government as to whether it would not be better to postpone the Vote until the beginning of next Session? It could not really be necessary to establish a military police force at Cyprus. It was clear that it would be desirable that they should have some further information before saddling the House with so large a charge as £26,000, which, if once incurred, would be very difficult, subsequently, to get rid of. There were indications that the Government itself was not unanimous as to the desirability of the Vote. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, at an earlier period of the Session, when the Vote was proposed to be taken upon the Army Estimates, had considered that it would be illegal, and everyone who heard the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night would see that he had great doubt as to the desirability of the Vote. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had never spoken one word in its favour. The Vote had been the subject of a good deal of discussion, and there was by no

  471
  means unanimity concerning it. He would suggest that, looking to the period of the Session, and the improbability of fairly discussing the matter at the present time, it would be alike fair to the House and the country to postpone taking the Vote on that occasion, and to leave it till next Session.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEwished to have some information with regard to the military exemption tax in Cyprus. The military exemption tax was imposed by the Turks upon those persons who did not serve in the Army; but there was now no compulsory military service in the Army at all. He wanted to know whether the Christians now had to pay the tax, while the Mahommedans were exempt from military service? With respect to the police, the very large sum of £26,000 was asked for by the Vote. He might say that there was also in the Island of Cyprus a military police, and Captain Scott Stevens, late Adjutant of the 42nd Highlanders, was in command of that force. Thus, they had in Cyprus three distinct bodies of police. There was the Army police, which cost £23,000; and there was the police, for which they were now asked to vote £26,000—altogether, £50,000 was spent in Cyprus upon police, and of that sum Cyprus was to pay less than half. He did not think there was any adequate necessity for the police charged for in the Vote. In the Estimate for the revenue expenditure of Cyprus, a small sum was put down for interest upon money borrowed for Public Works, and a Schedule was given of the Public Works required to be executed. There was no doubt that the works which were intended to be constructed during the next financial year would be done by means of forced labour. That institution was entirely repugnant to this country, and the Vote would be opposed until the system was brought to an end.
  MR. MONKsupported the appeal of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that the Government would withdraw the Vote until next Session. It was a Vote which required a great deal of consideration before it was passed, and at that hour of the night they could not adequately discuss the advisability of establishing a new police. It would be next to impossible to discuss the question on Report the next day. He did not think that there could be any
  472
  immediate necessity for the Vote; it was one of very doubtful expediency, and there were very grave doubts whether the Government itself was satisfied as to the advisability of taking it. He would, therefore, urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to press the Vote at that period of the Session.
  MR. MUNDELLAventured to make the same appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but on different grounds. The Vote they were then asked to pass was a military Vote which had been placed upon the Civil Service Estimates, and he might say that it was not the only one. A new practice had grown up of placing Votes upon the Civil Service Estimates which had never' appeared upon them before. Several Votes for Military and Naval Services had that year been placed upon the Civil Service Estimates and not recharged as before to the Military and Naval Departments. The result was that the Civil Service Estimates were that year considerably swollen by the additions which had been placed upon them. He thought that was a departure from the usual practice which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the last to defend or tolerate. On a former occasion he had asked why the practice that had always been followed had not been adhered to; but he had received no answer from the Treasury Bench. They contended that in the case of special Services they ought not to be placed on the Civil Service Estimates. The present was another case of a Vote for actual military purposes being placed upon the Civil Service Estimates. The practical effect was to deceive the country.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas sorry that he could not assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Reading and postpone the Vote. If the hon. Gentleman wished to discuss the Vote he was quite prepared to enter into any discussion that might be thought desirable. But he understood the hon. Member to prefer to raise the discussion upon Report the next day. That being so, he would place Report upon the Paper as the First Order at 9 o'clock. He did not think he could undertake to enter into the questions raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) on that occasion; but he

  473
  thought a more convenient time might be found for discussing them.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREwas willing to postpone the main discussion on the Vote until Report; but there were one or two matters upon which he wished to have a distinct understanding. There wore two separate establishments of police at Cyprus—the British establishment and the Native establishment. Under the British establishment for 1878–9 there was an item for police of £11,000; under the head of Native establishments the pay of the zaptieths for six months was stated at 500 piastres, or about £12,000. As that was only the cost for six months, it followed that the charge for a year would be £24,000 for the Native zaptiehs, besides £11,000 for the British establishment. Therefore, there was a charge for the police force alone in Cyprus of about £35,000. That really required explanation; and they ought also to know why they were then called upon to pay £26,000 for a fresh police force. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would give some explanation on that subject.
  MR. BOURKEcould readily explain the matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He was not correct in saying that there were two police forces in Cyprus, as there was, in fact, only one. The police force that existed in Cyprus was that commanded by the gentleman whoso name had been mentioned. Several times during the debates they had had upon the condition of Cyprus the hon. Member for Reading had mentioned that there were two kinds of police in Cyprus. That was not so; sometimes they were called zaptiehs, and sometimes police the explananation was that they were originally called zaptiehs, and, since being organized, they had been called police. There was only one force, therefore, not two forces. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Reading, he would explain that the first sum he had mentioned related to the re-organization of the police. A question had been raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) with regard to the military exemption tax. On the British occupation that was found to be a tax existing in the Island. It was thought unfair to place the tax only upon the Christians; and, therefore, it had been
  474
  placed also upon the Mahommedans. With respect to forced labour so much had been said with regard to the question that he would only say a word or two. They knew that there had been forced labour in past times; but that institution had only been put in force in one instance. What was called forced labour was not so, but was paid labour. In future there would be no forced labour in Cyprus.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary with regard to the exemption tax was completely satisfactory; but in respect to the other matters his answer was not so satisfactory. He had no doubt that the hon. Gentleman made the statement as to there being only one kind of police in Cyprus in perfect good faith; but what he had said did not remove the impression that there were two kinds of police. There was the police commanded by Captain Scott Stevens, consisting partly of Europeans; but there was another force of police with entirely different head-quarters.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREcould not reconcile the statements which had been made. He believed that there wore two establishments—the British and the Native establishments—and £11,000 was the charge in respect of the British establishment. It would really appear from the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary that since the re-organization of the police there had been two bodies, one on the British establishment, and one on the Native establishment. He hoped that further inquiries would be made and the matter thoroughly explained before the discussion on the next day.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDthought it desirable that the Government should give some reasonable explanation for having placed the Vote for the Cyprus police on the Civil Service Estimates. He could suggest a reason for it, and that was that, in order to show a good balance-sheet for Cyprus, they had placed £26,000 upon the English Estimates. Therefore, they paid £26,000 for the enjoyment of having a good balance-sheet for Cyprus. At first, they knew that the Government did not intend to take it at all in its present form; and it was only because his hon. Friend the Member for Reading had found that the way in which they originally proposed

  475
  to take it was absolutety illegal that they had changed their tactics. They admitted that he was right by withdrawing the original Estimate.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 26: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 214.)
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

GAME LAWS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 143.]
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Cross.)
GAME LAWS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 143.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTobjected most strongly to the Bill being considered at that time. As he understood, the Bill was to be made to apply to England as well as to Scotland. It certainly was bad enough to have one law for Scotland and another for England; but he thought that before a law which was intended for Scotland should be applied to England they ought to consider whether it was a right or a proper law. He did not think that, at that time in the morning, such an important matter should be considered. The Bill deserved very serious consideration, and as his attention had only recently been called to it he strongly objected to its being taken.
  MR. MUNDELLAobserved, that the Bill had been discussed again and again in that House, and he was surprised to hear the lion, and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex state that his attention had never been called to it. The question as to poaching was discussed upon the Scotch Bill; and it was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that the provisions of the Bill should also be extended to England. The Bill contained reasonable and merciful provisions, and he hoped it would be allowed to pass.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)said, that when the Bill was before the House on a previous occasion it had been agreed that the law in Scotland
  476
  and in England should be the same. The Bill proposed to give powers to a Judge who tried a case of night-poaching to inflict something less than imprisonment with hard labour in certain eases. The law with regard to poaching differed according as the offence was committed by night or by day, and the law with respect to night-poaching was very much more severe than in regard to day-poaching. When offences were committed between day and night, or between night and morning, it was very difficult for an ordinary man to know whether he was, in effect, offending against the law for night or day-poaching. It was provided by the Bill before the House that where a man was out alone, and not acting in concert with another poacher, and where he had no arms or net, then the Judge, in his discretion, might inflict a fine instead of sending the man to prison. In one case, which had been brought under the notice of the House by means of a Question, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had thought fit to discharge a man from prison, where he had been sent by a Judge, under the precise circumstances in which the Bill gave a Judge power to inflict a fine instead of imprisonment.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, that a certain number of Amendments were to be inserted; but it was not certain how far they would go. He wished to ask the reason for the insertion of the Amendment-—"Having in his possession any net."
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the point raised by the hon. Member could not properly then be brought forward. The Question was that the Bill be now considered.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNrepeated his question with respect to the reason for inserting the words—" Or having in his possession any not."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)said, the case that led to the introduction of the Bill was the case of a farmer, who was not charged or suspected of any complicity with poachers, but only went out and set a snare to catch rabbits on his own grounds. The words were introduced for the purpose of distinguishing between the case which the Bill was intended to meet and the case

  477
  of men acting in concert as wholesale plunderers.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTHLOTasked why England was included in the operation of the Bill?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)observed, that when the Bill came before the Committee Clause 1 ran thus—"This Act shall only apply to Scotland." After a discussion, it was agreed that it should be applied to England also, and one of the very first Amendments inserted in Committee on the Bill was a provision extending the operation of the Bill to England as well as to Scotland. That was the only explanation he could give.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTbegged to move to leave out the word "England."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSwished to say one word with regard to the matter. The only question really was whether the clause could be made agreeable to a Bill already passed. The present Bill was made to apply to England, and the Amendment was for the purpose of making Clause 2 agree with the rest of the Bill. The question raised by the Bill was whether certain powers should be given to magistrates. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had said that the powers were limited to cases where a man was bonâ fide believed not to be a poacher. Nothing would induce him (Mr. Assheton Cross) to ask the House to modify the law with respect to the habitual poacher. The Bill, in effect, gave the magistrates power, in cases where a man had, by a short interval, brought himself within the offence of night-poaching, to try the case as if it had happened just within the day. The law with respect to night and day-poaching very much resembled that of burglary and house-breaking. Burglary was a superior offence to house-breaking, and the essential in burglary was that the act had to be done by night. A man was not bound to be charged with burglary; but he might be charged with house-breaking, whether the offence was committed by night or by day. But in the case of night-poaching the matter was regulated by a hard-and-fast line, and it was not in the lower of the magistrate to try the offence as of the lesser character; and this Bill was for the purpose of vesting such a discretion in the magistrate. He
  478
  might add that nothing was further from his intention than to limit the punishment upon the habitual poacher.
  MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONremarked that it did not appear from the Schedule of the Bill that it was limited in the way which had been mentioned.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSreplied that the Amendments were made in Committee.
  MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONsaid, that there was no mention in the Bill as to going with nets to catch game.
  MR. CALLANremarked that it was rather refreshing to see hon. Members on the Government side of the House, who attacked obstruction, persistently obstructing the Public Business of the country at that hour of the morning. Hon. Members were opposing a measure brought forward by one of the Law Officers of the Government of which they were supporters. He thought that they should now allow the Business to go on.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)wished to state that the Bill was amended in Committee, and the discretion of the magistrates was limited to the one case he had stated—namely, where the person accused had been alone, and not in concert with any other person, and not armed, and not possessed of or using any net.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate was that the Bill had been considerably amended; but they had not the Amendments there before them. It was not only hard, but also most unusual, to ask the House to consider a Bill without having the Amendments before it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (OFFICERS) BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 235.]
(Mr. Attorney General.)
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (OFFICERS) BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 235.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought it would be better to get rid of this Bill. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury could not make any announcement with regard to the Bill, then, perhaps, he could do so the next

  479
  day. He thought that the Bill was one which could be well sacrificed.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwould be very sorry to see this Bill sacrificed. The Bill was to arrange the Offices now brought together in the Law Courts, and to provide for certain consolidations. It would effect considerable saving, and would arrange the Offices under a new system. If the Bill were not passed, he thought they must pass a Suspensory Act in order to preserve certain officers. If the hon. Baronet would look at the Act he would find that the Bill was quite necessary.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.— [BILL 268.]
(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.— [BILL 268.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. MONKsaid, that very great interest was taken in this Bill on the part of a considerable number of the ratepayers of the City of London, who had presented Petitions on the subject, and who desired to draw the attention of the House to the way in which their interests were dealt with. There was one clause to which he wished to draw special attention, and which ran as follows:—
  "The Board may from time to time during the year ending the thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one expend … such money as they think fit. … The aggregate amount … shall not exceed one hundred thousand pounds."
  The Petitioners complained that the effect of that clause, if passed, would be to authorize the Board to pay out of the rates the expenses that had been incurred in promoting certain Water Bills; and, further, to authorize the Board to pay the expenses they had incurred in the promotion of the Tower High Level Bridge Bill. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) would, in Committee, accept an Amendment providing that that clause should not allow the Metropolitan Board to apply any portion of that sum of £100,000 in payment of the expenses incurred in those matters. If that were done, he would have no objection to the House going into Committee.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould assure his hon. Friend that that clause had nothing to do with the expenses which it might possibly cover; the clause really enabled the Board to continue to make grants already sanctioned. The improvements upon which an expenditure was sanctioned must be within the Metropolitan area, and the expenditure to which his hon. Friend had alluded was for effecting works outside the area. The Metropolitan Board could not make an expenditure for effecting works practically outside their jurisdiction.
  MR. MONKsaid, that, after so satisfactory a reply, he would withdraw his objection to the Bill being considered in Committee.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Power for Board to expend under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 144, and 25 & 26 Vict. c. 102, s. 72).
  MR. MONK MR. MONK moved, in page 3, line 2, after the word "respectively," to insert the words—
  "Provided always, That nothing in this section contained shall he construed to authorise the payment by the Board of any expenses incurred in the preparation or promotion of any Bills which shall have been disallowed by the auditor."
  If the Bill was not to authorize the payment by the Board of expenses incurred in the promotion of those Bills, he did not see that the insertion of that Proviso would prejudice the action of the Board; but would only make it clear that they had no power to pay those expenses.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 2, after the word "respectively," to insert the words "Provided always, That nothing in this section contained shall be construed to authorise the payment by the Board of any expenses incurred in the preparation or promotion of any Bills which shall have been disallowed by the auditor."—(Mr. Monk.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that he could not assent to the Amendment. The clause in no way sanctioned any payment in respect of those matters. Under these circum-

  481
  stances, the insertion of the Amendment would only practically tie the hands of Parliament. He thought that the Amendment was entirely unnecessary.
  MR. E. JENKINSdid not see why the Amendment should not be accepted. Everything that the Government wanted they got by the Bill, and there seemed to him no reason for not inserting the Amendment. It was clear that expenses, which had been disallowed by the auditor, ought not to be paid, and he thought that the insertion of a Proviso to that effect was very proper.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that the present Bill had nothing to do with the other one.
  MR. BARINGsaid, that either the clause did not authorize the expenditure on the matters in question, in which case there could be no objection to the Proviso, or it did authorize the payment of those matters, and then there was still more reason for the Proviso being inserted.
  MR. MUNDELLAwas sorry to say that at that moment the Corporation of Sheffield had expended £11,000, which they were liable to pay out of their own pockets. That was in consequence of some selfish ratepayers going to the Court of Queen's Bench. The Corporation had really only done its duty to the ratepayers in protecting them against the acts of the Water Companies, and yet they had had to pay the expenses so incurred out of their own pockets. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had now permitted that to be done in the case of London which had not been allowed in the case of Sheffield.
  MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONthought that no more unfortunate instance could have been adduced with regard to this question than that of Sheffield. The hon. Member for Sheffield had held out what had taken place in that case as the selfish act on the part of the ratepayers. But the case had also been considered as a selfish disregard by the Corporation of the opinion of the ratepayers. It was the most unfortunate instance that could have been adduced on the present occasion. He did not think that, by quoting that instance, his Lon. Friend the Member for Sheffield had done anything to get rid of the incubus that weighed upon the hon. Member who objected to the insertion of the Amendment on that occasion.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 53: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 215.)
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT (No. 2) (recommitted) BILL— [BILL 282.]
(Mr. Salt, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
POOR LAW AMENDMENT (No. 2) (recommitted) BILL— [BILL 282.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Salt.)
  MR. KNIGHThoped that the Bill might not be proceeded with, as it was a Bill containing many important provisions. It was a Bill granting money for various purposes to the Local Government Board—the Bill was money, money, money! There were some other things in the Bill which were very objectionable. The 7th clause gave power to alter the boundaries of parishes—parishes that had gone on as long as the British Constitution, and he thought might be allowed to go on one year longer. Clause 8 was a very mysterious clause, and he could not understand it; but he was assured by a great supporter of the Bill that it would enable the Guardians to take a large proportion of lunatics out of the hands of the Commissioners, and confine them in some workhouses or other large places. He was further told that that would very much diminish the cost of maintaining pauper lunatics. If that were really the object of the provision, and the Guardians would be enabled to make lunatic asylums of workhouses without being under the control of the Commissioners, he thought the power was indefensible. If money had to be spent in that way, there was great reason for not going on with the Bill without very much further consideration. In Clause 9 a power was given to the Local Government Board to alter Local Acts. He had not sufficient confidence in that Board to wish to give it power to alter Local Acts. Clause 10 was, again, taxation; power was taken to enable local taxation to be increased for certain purposes. In the next clause provision was made for borrowing money for purposes for which

  483
  it could not now be borrowed. The following clause provided that the money so borrowed should be repaid in 30 years. Then, in Clause 13, the managers of local Poor Law districts were given many powers which they did not possess at present. Then, Clause 14 was, again, a provision for money.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it was unusual for hon. Members to go through a Bill in detail on the Motion for going into Committee. It was the function of the Committee to proceed with a Bill clause by clause. The Question was that "I do now leave the Chair."
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL— [BILL 78.]
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Solicitor General.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL— [BILL 78.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported; to be printed, as amended. [Bill 288.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed for Saturday."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that as this was the first Bill for Saturday he would like to know what other measures it was proposed to take then? With regard to Ways and Means, he had heard that it was not the intention of the Government to take the usual step of introducing the Resolution on which the Appropriation Bill was founded that night. The Government, by omitting to introduce the Resolution that night, would lengthen the Session by one day or longer. If the Resolution had been introduced that night into the House they might have risen by Friday.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked, that there were a great many measures, not only of importance, but of necessity—money Bills, and so forth. What they proposed to take as the First Order of the Day on Saturday was the Public Works Loan
  484
  Bill. What other Bills were put down would depend very much upon the position of Business. He might say that they did not intend to take a lengthened Sitting for Saturday; but that it would be much the same as the previous week.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDasked if the Government only intended sitting till 6 o'clock? They would have a lengthened Sitting on Friday, as well as that night, and he thought there ought to be some understanding as to the time at which they should rise on Saturday.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINremarked, that if his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea proposed to divide the House upon the question he should vote with him. He objected to the Public Works Loans Bill being put down as the First Order for Saturday, as it was clear that the Government might very properly have taken the Bill one day earlier. He was very desirous of taking a Division upon the question as a protest against the treatment which had been shown them by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was clear that the right hon. Gentleman took a Sitting on Saturday as a sort of penal measure, because he felt aggrieved at the proceedings of certain hon. Members. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown an exhibition of feeling of a very unusual character, for he seemed to be very much aggrieved by the action of the hon. Member for Burnley in reference to the Public Works Loans Bill. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had any right to feel aggrieved by the action of his hon. Friend, for that action was the same which had been taken, not only in the present Parliament, but in many previous Sessions. If it were right for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce the Bill after the substitution of words, it was also right for his hon. Friend to object to the Bill being thus brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And his hon. Friend was still more in the right, because the Bill was brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, if anyone did, ought to know the Orders and Rules of the House. If he understood the denial of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mean that he was not aware of the

  485
  substitution of important clauses in the Bill, and he did not know that it involved the necessity of the Bill being brought in a second time, then it showed a want of knowledge on the part of the right hon. Gentleman which was not to be expected in one who had been 14 years in the House. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had any-right to feel aggrieved with the action that some of his hon. Friends had taken.
  MR. RAIKESwished to ask whether the hon. Member for Birmingham was in Order in referring to a debate which had taken place earlier?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Question was, that the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill be fixed for Saturday next. The observations of the hon. Member were irregular in so far as he referred to the Public Works Loans Bill, which was not then before the House.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINdid not understand the ruling to be that he was out of Order; at the same time, he did not intend to carry on a line of argument which might be irregular any further. He would only observe that, in his opinion, the Government had taken Saturday's Sitting very much on personal grounds, and he did not think they had any right to take that course.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill re-committed for Saturday.

WAYS AND MEANS—COMMITTEE.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee thereon be deferred till To-morrow, at Two of the clock."
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEinquired why the Appropriation Bill had not been brought in?
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONremarked that Supply had not yet been closed, and until they had closed it they could not bring in the Appropriation Bill. He might say that they proposed to bring it in the next day, when Supply was brought in.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEobserved, that the Resolution was usually brought in on the night that Committee of Supply was closed.
SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, that the fact was that the Government had told them that they intended to close
486
Supply that night; and now that it was announced that they had no intention of doing so the House felt very much disappointed. By Supply not being closed that night the Government had extended the Session by a day, to which he individually did not object, but which did not suit the convenience of many hon. Members.
MR. E. JENKINSwished to remark that hon. Members on the Opposition side did not altogether agree with their new leading men in the line which they were taking. As it was, they did not often agree with the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench, and it seemed to him that the present occupants of that Bench took no better line than the original one. So far as he was concerned, he was not anxious to have the Resolution introduced that night.
Motion agreed to.
Committee deferred till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords]— [BILL 146.]
(Mr. James Lowther.)
LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords]— [BILL 146.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee be deferred till To-morrow."
  MR. MUNDELLAremarked, that there was a strong opposition to this Bill throughout all parts of England, and he did not think that it should be taken at that period of the Session. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow the Order to be discharged.
  MR. CALLANhad understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that it was his intention to discharge the Order relating to the Bankruptcy Bill for England. Hon. Members for Ireland were under the impression that that statement included the present Bill. Representations had been made from various Associations and Chambers of Trade in Liverpool, Manchester, and other large towns against the Bill. They would not have time to discuss it adequately in the two or three nights that were left to them.
  MR. WHITWELLremarked, that the Bill would confer great advantages on large towns in Ireland. It would

  487
  give large towns like Belfast the advantages in bankruptcy that were now possessed by almost every moderate sized town in England.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in respect of the Bankruptcy Bill for England he had not referred to the present Bill. In the reference he made he alluded to the Auditors Act Bill, and some other Bills, which he thought were connected with the Bankruptcy Law Amendment. He could not consent to discharge the Order for the Bill at present.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL.
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL.

  [BILL 260.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time upon Saturday."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. CHAMBERLAINobjected to so important a Bill as this being taken on Saturday. He had only one other remark to add to what he had previously said. It was perfectly clear that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made up his mind to withdraw the objectionable clauses; but he should announce the fact, and so relieve hon. Members from the trouble of coming down on Saturday. He thought that that was as ingenious a way of obstructing the Business of the House as any other about which they had heard.
  MR. RYLANDShoped that, after what had occured that evening, the right hon. Gentleman would make a statement to the effect that he would omit the clauses in the Bill to which they objected. If he would make that statement, then they would withdraw their opposition.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdeclined to make any explanation at that time. At the same time, he did not desire to carry on any personal controversy with hon. Members. He could, however, assure the hon. Member for Birmingham that he did not propose to take a Sitting on Saturday, by way of a penal Sitting. It was
  488
  necessary for them to pass that Bill, in some form or other, and he proposed to announce to the House on Saturday his intentions with regard to it. He had not intimated his intention to withdraw those portions of the Bill to which the hon. Member for Burnley objected; but he should make a proposal which would, to a certain extent, modify some of the clauses of the Bill. He must, however, repudiate the idea that he intended to withdraw all the clauses to which the hon. Gentleman objected.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 8: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 216.)
  Bill to be read a second time upon Saturday.

SHIPPING CASUALTIES INVESTIGATIONS RE-HEARING BILL.
(Viscount Sandon, Mr. J. G. Talbot.)
SHIPPING CASUALTIES INVESTIGATIONS RE-HEARING BILL.

  [BILL 262.] CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Viscount Sandon.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Amendment proposed, "That the Rules to be framed under the Act be laid upon the Table of the House."—(Viscount Sandon.)
  MR. BRISTOWEwas glad that the noble Lord had introduced that Amendment. It was of great importance that those Rules should be laid upon the Table of the House. But he wished to direct the attention of the noble Lord particularly to two matters. Judgments that were to be delivered by the assessors ought to be put into writing. He thought that it would be for the convenience of the Board of Trade that that should be so. Assessors were provided at considerable expenditure, and it would be of great advantage that their judgments should be put into writing. He hoped that provision would be made for the assessors to be appointed by some arrangement in the nature of a rota from a list provided by the Home Secretary. If that were done it would be a great improvement, and would give very great satisfaction.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that he would bear in mind the matters the he and learned Member had referred to.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (WATER EXPENSES) BILL.
(Sir James M' Garel-Hogg, Sir Charles W. Dilke, MR. Rodwell.)
METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (WATER EXPENSES) BILL.

  [BILL 204.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir James M' Garel-Hogg.)
  MR. MONK: This is rather an unusual hour—3.55 A.M.—to ask that you do leave the Chair. Now, as the House is aware, I have put down an Amendment against going into Committee upon this Bill, and I did that because my hon. and gallant Friend brought on the Bill at half-past 2 o'clock, at a time when it was utterly impossible for it to be discussed. However, I took off that Amendment, so that my hon. and gallant Friend might bring on the Bill at a reasonable hour, for he was quite as anxious as I was that it should be discussed at an hour when the ratepayers in the Metropolis might know something of the legislation taking place in this House. Four o'clock in the morning I do not think is an hour at which we ought to take the Bill. At the same time, if the House desires to go on with it, I am perfectly ready to go on; but I shall have to occupy the time of the House for some time before you leave the Chair. I will, however, make this proposal—that you should at once be allowed to leave the Chair without any discussion, and that then the Preamble of the Bill be postponed, and Progress be reported. If my hon. and gallant Friend agrees to that I will say no more.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I am quite agreeable to that.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Preamble postponed.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY [28th July].
Postponed Resolution further considered:—
"That a sum, not exceeding £111,661, 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 1880, for the Expense of the Superintendence of Prisons, and of the Maintenance of Prisoners in Prisons in Ireland, and of the Registration of Habitual Criminals."
Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY [1st August].
Postponed Resolution considered:—
"That a sum, not exceeding £7,985, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Martial Law, &c. which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."
Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS. EXCHEQUER BILLS AND BONDS (NO. 2) BILL.
Resolutions [August 1] reported, and agreed to.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Gentlemen appointed to prepare and bring in a Bill upon the Resolutions which, upon the 1st day of August, were reported from the Committee of Ways and Means, That they do make provision therein, pursuant to the Resolutions now reported and agreed to.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill289.]

POST OFFICE—PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY'S CONTRACT.—RESOLUTION.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Contract dated the 7th day of February 1879, entered into with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, for the conveyance of the Mails between this Country and India and China, be approved."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
House adjourned at Four o'clock in the morning.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Public Offices Fees* (175); Regulation of Railways Acts Continuance* (176).
Second Reading—Volunteer Corps (Ireland1) (154), negatived; Mungret Agricultural School, &c.* (174); Land Tax Commissioners Names* (173); Municipal Elections (Ireland) * (169).
Report—Knightsbridge and other Crown Lands* (166).
Third Reading—East India Loan (Consolidated Fund) * (172); Turnpike Acts Continuance* (163), and passed.

VOLUNTEER CORPS (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 154.)
(The Viscount Monck.)
VOLUNTEER CORPS (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 154.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, the Bill, to which I am about to ask your Lordships to give a second reading, has come up from the Commons. It applies only to Ireland; but it exercises an important bearing indirectly upon the interests of the inhabitants of the rest of the Kingdom. I freely admit that a Bill of this description, affecting only a part of the Kingdom, and promoted in both Houses by unofficial Members, is liable to some suspicion. It is not quite unnatural that an apprehension might arise that the flavour of a job might lurk in its provisions, and that it might be intended to exonerate those who are affected by it from the performance of a disagreeable duty, or to release them
  368
  from an unpleasant liability. I am happy to be able to assure your Lordships that in recommending you to give this Bill a second reading I am not called upon to justify any such questionable proceedings. This Bill will not enable the people of Ireland to get rid of any duty or any obligation to which they are now subject. The Bill is purely an enabling Bill, and its purpose is to give to the people of Ireland a legal right to qualify themselves, equally with their fellow-citizens in Great Britain, for that which all must allow to be the first duty of loyal subjects—namely, the defence of their Sovereign and their country from foreign invasion. My Lords, the Bill comes up to your Lordships with the unanimous approval of the other House. It emanated in that House from the Opposition, and was assented to by Her Majesty's Government. It is much desired, in Ireland, and there is remarkable unanimity in its support by the Representatives of that country. It is a measure which will be highly appreciated by all classes. I have good reason for saying so, for I have the honour of being the President of a Society in Dublin for promoting the object of this Bill, and that Society embraces persons of all classes, creeds, and political opinions. It is not necessary that I should go minutely through the provisions of the measure, because they are identical with the Act of 1863, by which the organization of the Volunteers of Great Britain is regulated—except in the one particular that, instead of the recommendations for the organization of a Volunteer Corps being transmitted to the Secretary of State, through the Lord Lieutenant of a county, for approval by Her Majesty, they will be transmitted through the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. That, I think, is an important and proper change from the English Act, and I will, by-and-bye, point out why I hold it to be so. If it were not for certain indications which have reached me I might save your Lordships the trouble of listening to any further observations from me, and content myself with moving the second reading, in the conviction that the Bill would meet with the same reception at your Lordships' hands that it experienced in the other House of Parliament. But my noble Friend (Lord Waveney) has thought fit to give Notice that he means to move

  369
  "the Previous Question," and those who have any experience in Parliamentary life know what that means. I should be the last person to cast any imputation upon either the motives or acts of my noble Friend; but we know that "the Previous Question" is a very handy mode of strangling a subject when, either from Party, personal, or any other special reason, you do not wish to be found voting against the principle of a measure. A certain amount of light has been thrown—at least, to my mind—upon the intentions of my noble Friend, by a circular which reached me by post a few days since, and which I infer has reached others of your Lordships, signed by four Members of the House—all friends of my own, for whom I entertain the highest respect and esteem—asking me to come down and oppose the Volunteer Corps (Ireland) Bill. I do not know whether my noble Friend is acting in concert with these noble Lords; but, if so, I think I am justified in ascribing the meaning I have given to the moving of "the Previous Question". I am only able to guess at the reasons which have induced my noble Friend to take the course he has done and to give the best answer in my power. The first ground of objection that would naturally occur to anyone is that this Bill is to be opposed because the loyalty and fidelity of the Irish people are doubtful. I ask you to consider what that implies in connection with this Bill. It implies not only that the people of Ireland are disloyal, but that they are so depraved that they will take the oath of allegiance with no purpose, so far as I can see, except for the pleasure of breaking it. I will not waste time by arguing the improbability of this à priori. I will appeal at once to the inexorable logic of facts. If the Irish people are disloyal, and not to be trusted with engagements of this nature, what becomes of your Army and Navy, into which the Irish element very largely enters? I may be told that in the Army and Navy the Irish are mingled with the English and Scotch, and that in that way their evil tendencies are counteracted and neutralized; but, if that be so, how about the Militia? The Irish Militia is recruited exclusively in Ireland, and against their fidelity I never heard a shadow of reproach. What, again, about that magnificent Force, to which is specially in-
  370
  trusted the maintenance of law and order, life and property in Ireland—I mean the Irish Constabulary? The very name of the "Royal" Irish Constabulary suggests that, in a period of great excitement in Ireland, that Force stood the crucial test to which it was then subjected, without, as far as I know, the shadow of reproach resting upon it. During the Fenian times, that Force was recruited exclusively from the Irish people, yet it bore the test without a shadow of doubt being cast upon one single individual composing it. This proves that the Irish people, when trusted, may be expected to afford an example of loyalty and fidelity which any other people might well imitate. Then, there is another lesson to be learnt from the episode to which I have alluded. Assume, for a moment, that the Irish people are possessed with the demon of disloyalty, does not the example of the Irish Constabulary prove to demonstration the effect of trust, of organization, and of esprit de corps in exorcizing and casting out that demon? But that is not all. We have not only the test that there are no disloyal people in the Army, Navy, Militia, and Royal Irish Constabulary, but, in the civil branches of life, we have Irish magistrates, barristers, and Parliamentary electors, who dispose, without let or hindrance, of the lives and property of the people of Ireland. Is it not most ludicrous, when we employ them thus in every portion of our civil, military, and judicial administration, to maintain the wretched rag of distrust in reference to the Volunteers, as if it were one of the great bulwarks of the Constitution and a great protection to our lives and liberties? In the way of protection it can do nothing; and, like all other exhibitions of distrust, it is calculated to create disloyalty, and to perpetuate feelings of soreness in the minds of those who are subject to that distrust. So much for the disloyalty of the Irish. Another argument I have heard raised against the Bill which has more plausibility in it, and that is the state of the country. I have heard it said that such is the state of religious and party feeling in Ireland that, in the interest of the people themselves, it would not be safe to trust them as Volunteers, or to put arms in their hands. Agrarian outrages are also adduced as a reason.

  371
  why Irish Volunteer Corps should not be allowed; but I would venture to suggest that this state of things prevails only in a very limited portion of the country, and the provision of the Bill, which places in the Lord Lieutenant the power of sanctioning the formation of Volunteer Corps, will enable him to refuse his sanction where the state of the country renders it inexpedient that Volunteer Corps should be allowed. I think that, in addition to the prevention of the organization of a Volunteer Force, the power of disbanding any which may already exist in a disturbed neighbourhood would have a powerful effect in removing the feeling which causes the disturbance. Those who know Ireland know that a great deal of the system of secret societies in Ireland arises from a love for association which exists among the people of that country; and it appears to me that if we turn that love of association into a legitimate channel that would have some effect in keeping the people from dangerous combinations. These are two of the grounds upon which I have heard this Bill disapproved of. There is a third ground which requires attention, but which, I think, can be easily disposed of. I had a great deal to do with the organization of the Volunteer Force when I had the honour of being officially connected with Canada, and on this we always insisted—that there should be a secure place for the keeping of arms in every district where a Volunteer Corps existed, and no Volunteer Corps were ever sanctioned where no such secure receptacle existed. I should like to say a word or two on the subject of religious strife and bigotry in connection with the Volunteers in Canada. I was much struck, when I went to Canada, at the similarity of the burning questions with regard to politics, religion, and education there and the burning questions I had left behind in Ireland; and the Volunteer Force, organized much on the plan it is here, was the only Force at my disposal for the suppression of any civil commotion that arose. The Volunteers were constantly called out; but I never heard of any instance of failure of duty through sympathy with those whose disorder they were called upon to cheek. The Corps were taken indiscriminately from the population, and I never heard of one difference of opinion or dissension be-
  372
  tween the different Corps. About two years ago very considerable excitement prevailed at Montreal about the burial of a man in unconsecrated ground, which led almost to insurrection. The Governor had no Force to rely upon but the Volunteers. The Volunteers were called out, and, in their military capacity, put down a not in which, if they had not been Volunteers, they would probably have been participants. That is a remarkable example of power of association to counteract personal feeling, and I think it affords a strong argument in favour of the Bill I am now submitting to your Lordships. I think stringent provision ought to be made for the security of the arms; but as the recommendation of the organization of a Corps is left to the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant I presume he will take care not to sanction the formation of a Corps except where such provision has been made. I am old enough to recollect when a great difference in reference to taxation existed between Great Britain and Ireland—very much in favour of the latter portion of the Empire; but that difference has, very properly, entirely disappeared, and now the Representatives of Ireland seek to free their country from the reproach of not being thought worthy to participate, with their fellow-citizens of Great Britain, in the defence of the Empire to whose resources they, equally with them, contribute.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Viscount Monck.)
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he was perfectly aware of the disadvantage under which he laboured in asking their Lordships to come to a different conclusion to that of one who had the personal experience of the noble Viscount (Viscount Monck); but he was concerned to observe the suggestion of the noble Viscount that anyone who held a different opinion to his believed in the disloyalty of the Irish people. That he desired to dispose of at once, for it was the part on which he least liked to dwell. He was, indeed, surprised to hear the noble Viscount suggest such an argument as actuating the opponents of the Bill. He (Lord Waveney) did not believe that there was a single noble Lord, or a single reader of a newspaper who would read the observations of the noble Viscount to-morrow morning, who believed

  373
  in the disloyalty of the Irish people. He thought he had quite enough before him to justify his action in regard to this Bill, excluding altogether the idea which the noble Viscount's argument seemed to impute; and he thought they had ample evidence before them, in the history of the last few years, to make them pause before they adopted the military system of England for Ireland once and for ever. A matter of this national importance must be judged by its effect upon those who wore to be the object of the proposed legislation. True it was that in the great struggle of 1867, when so much depended upon the Irish Constabulary, there was but one member of that noble body upon whom the taint of disaffection rested; and while he did not contemplate that any Volunteer would be unfaithful to the obligation he undertook to the Grown, he believed there were causes existing which rendered it unadvisable at present that Volunteer Corps should be organized in Ireland. With respect to the Bill itself, they had scarcely heard of it during its progress through the House of Commons. He understood that the promoters of the Bill were a body of Members, who were intimately connected, no doubt, with the Irish people; but he could not find that that Body of Members derived their inspiration from any public meeting whatever. There was no assembling of the masses crying for it; there had been no Petition in its favour; they had heard nothing, so far as he was aware, of that; and, therefore, he was justified in saying that there was no public demand for it. He doubted, indeed, if the Irish people generally knew more about the progress of this Bill than their Lordships did. If he understood the noble Viscount rightly, he was familiar with the opinion of the Irish people upon this subject, inasmuch as the noble Viscount had himself been the President of an Association for the very purpose for which this Bill had been brought in. Now, as he understood that Society, it was simply an Association for rifle-firing, and. not for regimental purposes. He thought the noble Viscount had attributed an undue importance to the fact that the recommendation for the establishment of a Volunteer Corps in any particular place was to be made by the Lord Lieutenant, and not through the Lieutenants of the county.
  374
  He held that to be a mistake, and held that opinion for this reason. What they wanted, to teach in Ireland was that a sense of responsibility, fairly and fearlessly carried out, should rest upon the Lieutenants of the counties. He thought the advantage which the noble Viscount seemed to see with regard to this point was perfectly illusory. He would ask where the knowledge of the Lord Lieutenant was to be got from to enable him to form a Corps in a particular district? If it was obtained from the usual source—namely, the reports of the Constabulary, he thought it would be a mistake. With regard to further observations of the noble Viscount, he would add that he was perfectly aware of the value of "the Previous Question." He had adopted that course because he did not desire to wound the susceptibilities of those to whom he had to refer as lightly as possible. "The Previous Question" gave time for consideration. And here, by the way, he might inquire whether his noble Friend had considered that there was barely time in this Session of Parliament to carry the measure through. Again, if disposed to be hypercritical, he might inquire what provision had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for paying for the staff, formation, and arms of this Force? He believed the Irish Volunteer would be true to his last breath to his oath of allegiance, and to his duty as he understood it. On that point there could be no doubt. He would ask them, however, to descend from their high position to the daily walks of Irish life. What did they find there? They found, he grieved to say, that there was a greater separation and estrangement between the professors of different religious faiths than he had in 40 years ever known. He was afraid that when Volunteers were distributed throughout the country some spark would ignite a flame, from which a conflagration would ensue which would show itself in a dangerous way. As to the danger to the Crown, the only danger to it would be on the English side of the Channel. They had seen many invasions, and knew how utterly worthless they were. Great as was the knowledge of his noble Friend, he did not know the whole of Ireland, and least of all did he know those parts of Ireland where the tides met. They knew well in the North what the dan-

  375
  gers were, and he had made it his business to inquire into the matter. A distinguished man, whose name had only to be mentioned to be respected, had eloquently described the state of affairs, and had said that Ireland was now more loyal than it ever was before, that many of the worst symptoms had disappeared, and that the people had been fairly treated. But they had complaints against the repeal of the Party Procession Act, and demands for more stringent legislation. In the streets of Belfast there had been conflicts which the magistrates had been unable to prevent. Unless, therefore, the provisions of this Bill for the establishment of Irish Volunteers were carefully considered, it could not be contemplated without some reasonable apprehension. Much as they might wish to see an Irish Volunteer Force established in the interests of the Crown, they could not but entertain doubts whether the measure before Parliament was a prudent one. There was no necessity for the measure, which was, at the best, of a tentative and a doubtful character. Therefore, at all events, they ought to leave it alone. To play with edged tools was proverbially dangerous. For Ireland, at least, they had had enough of playing with legislation. He begged to move the Previous Question.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, that he should ask their Lordships to agree to the Amendment. He was quite certain that there was no noble Lord in the House, and certainly no Irishman, who would not, if he could honestly, accept this proposal. He was most anxious to see a Volunteer Force established in Ireland; but up to this time, and for a long period past, it had been thought and felt in this country, and felt throughout the greater part of Ireland, that it would be most dangerous to establish a Force of this kind in Ireland. What they had, therefore, really to consider was this—Had the circumstances of Ireland so altered that the force of the arguments used hitherto was no longer valid? Had the circumstances of Ireland so changed as to leave them without fear with regard to the establishment of a Volunteer Force in Ireland? He had always considered it almost an insult that they had not a Volunteer Force in Ireland—Irishmen like himself regarded it as most annoying that they could not be
  376
  trusted with such a Force. Nevertheless, when it came to the practical question whether such a Force should be established or not, their Lordships ought to carefully and most seriously consider the step they were asked to take. The main argument he intended to put before them against the Bill was that in Ireland they had at the present moment in force the Peace Preservation Act. That was an Act of the most repressive character, and one which the Government had thought it absolutely necessary to pass; and it did really appear to him most incongruous to pass a measure such as that before them, which was totally opposed to the reason of the Peace Preservation Act. When that Act had expired—which it would do in another year—the Government, if they thought the circumstances of the country justified it, might come forward and say—"We no longer consider it necessary to have a special Act for the preservation of the peace in Ireland, and therefore we think you may safely pass a measure such as this;" and might then propose a Bill on their own responsibility—for, certainly, a measure of this kind ought not to be left in the hands of a private Member. He had another argument against the Bill, and it was this—It appeared to him to be almost an absolute impossibility to have a Volunteer Force without giving the custody of the arms, more or less, into the hands of the Volunteers. He certainly had no wish to be an alarmist; but, living as he did in the West of Ireland, he thought that would be most injudicious. He did not care what oaths were administered unto the men into whose hands the arms were placed—it would be injudicious to leave them in their custody. It was not the individual Volunteer who would do the mischief; but it was certain that his arms would be stolen from him—he could not be responsible for their safe custody if they were carried home at night. If they were not carried home at night, how were they going to make due provision for their custody? In the case of a Volunteer in the country the drill must be in some central place, and every night the men would have to put their arms under sufficient protection. If the arms were left in the hands of the Volunteers individually, it would be tantamount to telling the disloyal and disaffected where they might supply them-

  377
  selves with rifles—in fact, they would be stolen. As far as the drilling was concerned, he had no objection whatever. So far as his own individual feeling was concerned, he would just as soon be shot at by a good marksman at 500 yards as by a man with a blunderbuss at 10. If the Bill was passed there would be a certain sort of feeling amongst people that the marksmen might practise at the running deer, and, perhaps, shoot the wrong animal. He admitted that in parts of Ireland there was very little crime; but the magistrates of Westmeath were actually asking for increased powers to repress agrarian crime, although they had but just before been relieved from the Peace Preservation Act. He maintained it would be most illogical to propose to put arms into the hands of a population whom they were at the same moment compelled to put under the repressive action of the Peace Preservation Act.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, that the noble Lord who spoke last had not given any substantial reason why they should not pass the Bill. The noble Lord had pointed out that it would be inconsistent to place arms in the hands of the Irish people, seeing that some districts of the country were proclaimed. But the noble Lord seemed to forget that the working of the measure would be entirely in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, and that he would not sanction the formation of a Volunteer Corps in any district that was proclaimed. There would, in his opinion, be no more difficulty in calling in the arms in Ireland than in England, or in Scotland, seeing that they would only be placed in the hands of well-disposed persons; and, for his part, he did not apprehend the least danger that the arms would be used for any improper purpose whatever. Of course, there might be some provision made in the Bill to secure the proper custody of the arms; but that was a mere detail. There might be possibilities of danger; but he thought those possibilities did not outweigh the advantage which would attend on the establishment of the Force. He had intended to explain the reasons why he should vote for the second reading of the Bill; but the noble Viscount who moved the second reading had spoken so much better than he could, and he so entirely agreed with what the noble Viscount
  378
  had said, that it was necessary to relieve Ireland from the stigma and disgrace of knowing that she was not sufficiently trusted to be allowed to have a Volunteer Corps, that he felt there was no necessity for travelling over the same ground a second time.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, after the best consideration he could give to this Bill he was unable to give it his support. He objected to it, both inform and substance. But he chiefly desired to direct attention to the fact that there seemed very little real desire that the measure should become law. In the first place, it had been allowed to lie for three weeks on the Table of the House before being brought forward for the second reading—and this at a period of the Session when delay was a great inconvenience, and then it fell into the hands of the noble Viscount opposite, who, in this case, seemed to be a refuge for the destitute, for he believed several noble Lords had refused to have anything to do with it. The apparent object of the measure was to increase the Auxiliary Forces of the Crown—of course, with a corresponding increase of the Army Estimates—but, if so, it ought to have been introduced under the direct responsibility of the Government, and not left in the hands of a private Member, however respectable he might be, and however eminent the position he might formerly have held. What authority had they for this measure? Was the Lord Lieutenant there to say that the Bill had his approval? No; he was far better employed, attending agricultural meetings. Were there any Reports from the Government officials—from the Chief of the Constabulary, from the Judges, from the Commander of the Forces in Ireland—in favour of the Bill? The only approval he found was that of the Attorney General for Ireland in "another place," who said that the Bill could scarcely be acted upon. At all events, it would produce very little effect. In 1863, after what was termed "The Volunteer Movement" had been in existence for six years, and the Government were satisfied that it was a useful one, the Government of the day, under Lord Palmerston, introduced a Bill for the regulation of the Force, and it was then proposed to extend its operation to Ireland. But both Lord Palmerston and the Marquess of Hartington refused to

  379
  include Ireland in the measure, on the Report of the then Commander of the Forces, that the country was not in a fit state to allow arms to be placed in the hands of the people, and that the operation of the Act could not be extended to that country without great danger. He could not help thinking that the same reasons still existed; and, therefore, while not in the least degree wishing to impute the slightest disloyalty to the Irish people at large, he thought the Motion of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Waveney) was the best mode of meeting the Motion for the second reading, for the very reason that it expressed no distrust of the people. At the same time, no one could be ignorant of the fact that there were at elections, and at certain anniversaries, scenes of great disturbance. Even up to a very recent period the Reports of the magistracy to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland were not very encouraging and if Volunteers were allowed in one county and not in another they might depend upon it that there would be a great cry for equality, which it would be extremely difficult to satisfy, and which might tend to serious disturbances. As to the operation of the proclaiming Act, he had lived all his life in a proclaimed county, and very little inconvenience was felt; but he must be allowed to express great doubt as to whether, should Volunteer Corps be formed in districts not now proclaimed, but which might hereafter have to be so, they would be very easily disbanded; while he was quite certain that the Government, under such circumstances, would have the greatest difficulty in getting back their arms.
  EARL SPENCERassured their Lordships no one could be more reluctant than he would be to support any measure which was at all likely to endanger the safety of the Empire or to lead to difficulty in Ireland. He knew Ireland too well not to attempt any dangerous experiment; but, notwithstanding all that had been said against this Bill, he must say he thought it his duty to give it his support. The noble Earl who had just sat down had referred to the fact that Ireland had been deliberately excluded from the operation of the English Volunteer Act; but, while he did not question the propriety of the decision of Lord Palmerston and the Marquess of Hartington, he was bound to
  380
  say that no sufficient reason had been stated, either in 1863, or on the present occasion, why the Volunteer movement should not be extended to Ireland as well as to England and Scotland. He wished to call their Lordships' attention to the present condition of Ireland; and he wanted to know whether there were to be found in the present circumstances of that country any real reason why they should be longer excluded from the operation of the Act of 1863? The Volunteer movement had benefited this country in a political, military, and social point of view. Why should the United Kingdom be deprived of the addition to its military resources which would be given if Ireland were permitted to raise Volunteers; or why should Ireland be deprived of the benefit which the other portions of the United Kingdom derived from the establishment of that body? The Irish were essentially military in their predilections, and he was afraid they too often showed if they could not get military discipline in a regular, they would seek it in an irregular, manner. The Regular Army had most excellent Irish soldiers, and no one would wish to deprive Her Majesty of their services; and he would say, in the presence of so many distinguished Generals, that the Irish regiments compared with any other in the Service. The Militia regiments of Ireland would vie with those of England or Scotland, not only for the precision with which they moved and paraded, but also for good conduct and order. He admitted there were some difficulties in the way; but he thought they could be overcome. He admitted that there were certain districts where the people were easily excited; but as he believed that the respectable body of the population were those who would fill the Volunteer ranks the formation of such a Force would go a long way to check rowdyism. It was said that the raising of Volunteers would give occasion to disturbances in the North of Ireland. During the unfortunate riots which broke out in Belfast in 1873, and which kept part of that town in disorder for several weeks, the conduct of the Antrim Militia was most exemplary. During that time the position of the regiment was necessarily much discussed in Dublin. The regiment, however, maintained the most excellent order, not only under training,

  381
  but even when they were dismissed to their homes before the riots were concluded, though many of them must have been connected by blood and sympathy with the rioters. In Ireland one of the great difficulties was to get the loyal and order-loving element to come forward, while the rowdy and disorderly portion of the population was only too ready to come to the front. People in this country were too apt to think that the whole population of Ireland were of the latter class. Noble Lords had given testimony to the loyal character of the Irish people, and he was convinced that large numbers of loyal men were to be found in every part of the community. Any movement which would induce the order-loving portion of the people to overshadow the rowdy element ought to be encouraged. He need not refer to that excellent body, the Royal Irish Constabulary; but he would call attention to the fact that that Force was drawn from a class more likely to be disorderly and disloyal than the class from which the Volunteers would come. The Royal Irish Constabulary were placed in circumstances of the greatest temptation; they lived in twos and threes in barracks, and in the midst of the population, and scattered all over the country, and yet no one could speak too highly of the way in which, under all circumstances, they fulfilled their duty. If the argument on the score of disloyalty applied to the Volunteers, it applied with at least equal force to the Constabulary. The Government ought to express an opinion on this Bill. In his opinion, it ought to be a Government measure. The Government could speak with absolute certainty upon all the points to which he had referred; and he (Earl Spencer) wished to subordinate his own views to those of the Government, because no outsider could possibly speak with the same certainty of the state of the country. The Government must be responsible for the working of the Bill if it became law, for the formation of the regiments, the appointment of officers—adjutants, colonels, and staff. He would ask the Government, therefore, whether they had well considered the Bill; and if they declared they saw no difficulty or danger in carrying it out their Lordships ought to give it a second reading. If, on the other hand, the Government declared that they did not see
  382
  their way to carry out the measure, with due regard to the safety of the Empire and the peace and order of Ireland, though his predilections were in favour of having Volunteers in Ireland, he would vote with them.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREasked what would be the use of having Volunteers if, at the moment any tension arose, they would have to be disbanded? The question of changing the condition of the people of Ireland, as this proposal would do, was a very serious one. If 40,000 or 50,000 persons came forward in Ireland and asked for arms, were they to get them? It would be very easy to distribute arms, but not very easy to get them back if they desired to do so. He had recently been in a country—Roumelia—where arms were being distributed very freely; but he doubted very much whether the authorities would be very successful in recovering them. When the Bill was before the House of Commons the Attorney General for Ireland said it was desirable it should go into Committee, and be examined very thoroughly, with a view to the introduction of Amendments. He supposed since that time some inquiries had been made, and he wished Her Majesty's Government would tell the House now the result of their inquiries. Were the Head of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Commander of the Forces in Ireland in favour of the Bill? Their opinion would have a great effect on his mind. As at present advised, he could not support the Bill, because he did not think the condition of Ireland had changed so much since 1863 as would justify their Lordships in passing the measure.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that as a direct appeal had been made to Her Majesty's Government by the noble Earl who spoke last but one (Earl Spencer), to state their opinion on this Bill, he thought it might be expected that he should address a few observations to their Lordships. Their Lordships, no doubt, were aware that the Bill was by no means a Government Bill. It was not even a Bill under the protection of the Government. The history of the measure was briefly this—It was brought in by a private Member in the other House of Parliament; and it had, during its passage through that House, been so altered, in accordance with the sugges-

  383
  tion of the Law Officer of the Crown in Ireland, that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it was now divested of those objectionable features which it at first appeared to possess. The action under the Bill would be entirely in the hands of the Government. The Lord Lieutenant was to have the first appointment of the officers; he was to have the entire control as to where Volunteer Corps should be formed; he was to have the power of disbanding the Volunteers, if that course was necessary; and also the power of suspending the Corps in any part of Ireland where he might think it expedient to do so. The Bill had been so re-cast that, in its present form, it was almost a literal transcript of the English Act, which had been found to work so well and to provide such complete safeguards for order and the due conduct of Volunteer Corps, that it was felt by Her Majesty's Government that there could be no danger or difficulty in allowing it to be extended to Ireland. It was a very different thing for the Government to bring in a Bill at this time, and to avoid expressing an adverse opinion on a Bill of this kind. In the state of Public Business which existed in "another place," it might not have been altogether convenient for the Government to burden themselves with the passing of a measure which might, in their hands, have provoked some amount of opposition. But, at the same time, it would be a very grave responsibility for the Government to express the opinion that the Irish nation was not fit to be trusted with arms. That, indeed, was not their opinion; nor was it, as far as he gathered, even the opinion of those who had opposed the measure in their Lordships' House. Almost all the noble Lords who had spoken had said that their only fear was that the discussions in regard to religious and political subjects in Ireland were such that the possession of arms would lead to their use in times of excitement; but not one of them had expressed any fear that the persons who, under this Bill, would be intrusted with arms, would use them for disloyal purposes. Then, the only thing they had to do was to be careful that those arms were placed in the hands of the well-affected portion of the population. And it surely could not be wise to keep up a distinction of that kind between Ireland and the rest of the Kingdom, when they had it in their power to select the
  384
  persons in whose hands arms should be placed, and when they felt perfect confidence that those to whom they would be intrusted would not be the disaffected—who were already surreptitiously armed—but the friends of law and order. There were, no doubt, points in the Bill which, if it went into Committee, would require attention. Probably, it would be advisable to provide that no county which had been proclaimed within a certain time—say two or three years-should have a Volunteer Corps. He also thought that the clause which provided for the due custody of arms ought to be made somewhat more stringent and extended. But they must remember that, whether or not those alterations were made, the Lord Lieutenant would, under the Bill, have the full control of the regulations under which the Volunteer Corps would exist. His noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Donoughmore) said perhaps 20,000 men would be enrolled under the measure. But, from all the information which had reached him, it was not supposed by those who had* brought in the Bill, and who were responsible for it, that anything beyond a small nucleus of a Volunteer Force would be formed.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREexplained that what he said was that 30,000 or 40,000 might offer themselves for enrolment.
  VISCOUNT BURYregarded that as a very sanguine estimate indeed. A very considerable expense would be incurred by those who enrolled themselves under the Bill; and, therefore, it was reasonable to infer that it was the well-to-do part of the population who would enter those Corps. Noble Lords had adverted in terms of the highest praise to the loyalty exhibited, under all circumstances, by the Irish Militia and the Royal Irish Constabulary. He quite agreed in the praise which had been bestowed upon those admirable Forces; and he begged to point out that the persons who enrolled themselves in the Volunteer Corps would be of higher social standing than those who enlisted in the Militia and the Royal Irish Constabulary. He quite agreed with those noble Lords who had expressed their opinion that the habits of discipline, of good I order, and of obedience to authority, to be acquired by volunteering, might have: a beneficial effect throughout the country. If this measure should pass the

  385
  second reading, and should a Committee on it be appointed, he should propose such alterations as might, in his opinion, render the measure a valuable one.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that as he was connected by property with Ireland, and was at one time able to spend more time there than he could now, he wished to make a remark or two. In the first place, he wanted to know why, when Ireland had been excluded for so many years from the operation of the Volunteer Act, a Bill should be introduced to include her at that moment? When, so recently, parts of Ireland had been proclaimed; when, in the present Session, they had had accounts of persecution and outrage, endured by Protestants in the West of Ireland, from members of a Church which, only when it was not the most powerful, talked of liberty of conscience and freedom of worship; and when only in yesterday's paper they read an account of a meeting of the magistrates of the county of Westmeath to consider the subject of the undetected crimes referred to in the charge of the Lord Chief Baron to the Grand Jury, it seemed to him that the advocates of this Bill ought to make out a good case for its adoption and to show that it would not operate mischievously in a country so situated as Ireland was. It had been urged that the power given to the Lord Lieutenant would afford security against any danger resulting from this measure; but he (Earl Fortescue) preferred legislative security to the discretion of any Lords Lieutenant, recent, present, or prospective, or to the discretion of the Cabinets under whom those Lords Lieutenant had to act—especially if any extraordinary electioneering pressure were brought to bear on them. Thoughtful men looked, like himself, with much anxiety to the future, seeing the want of firmness of purpose in the Government, as strikingly evinced with regard to the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill which had so long occupied the other House; while the conduct of the Leaders of the Opposition with regard to that same measure, proved conclusively that the Government enjoyed no monopoly of vacillation. The fact was the Government had lost, but the Opposition had not gained the confidence of the country.
  LORD DENMANobserved, that the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Waveney) was not intended to show any
  386
  distrust of the Irish people, but merely to express the opinion of the House that this proposal to establish Volunteer Corps in Ireland was premature, and he thought that most of their Lordships, and even the Government itself, were agreed that this was not the most happy time to introduce a measure of this kind. They would find that it would be much better to wait a little longer before passing such a measure, although he most earnestly hoped that the association between England and Ireland would grow closer and closer; but, at the present time, he thought their Lordships would do well to pass to the Previous Question, and bring forward this measure on a more favourable occasion.
  LORD STRATHNAIRN: My Lords, I cannot coincide with my noble Friend (Earl Spencer) in the opinion which he has expressed on this subject, although I admire the frankness with which the opinion was expressed from beginning to end. It is my duty to say that my experience of the Militia of Ireland is different from that of my noble Friend. Neither can I concur in the observations of my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State. Does the Under Secretary of State propose to give us a system of limitation and restriction in Ireland, while professing to put the United Kingdom on an equality? I do not see we can give this privilege to Ireland, and accompany it with limitations; were we to do so, the Irish would charge us with taking back with one hand what we give with the other. That was really the gist of the speech of the noble Viscount. 1 shall give my decided vote against the Bill, which appears to have been thrown like an apple of discord into our ranks. I am the last man to give a vote in this case which would seem to imply a want of confidence in the Irish. I have always considered them my countrymen, and I have always voted for any Liberal measure to put them on equal principles with us; but, to vote that arms should be placed in their hands and then limit them, and so distrust them, is to subject them to all kinds of vexation, and, I think, my Lords, is opposed to all prudence and statesmanship.
  Then, a Question being stated thereupon, the Previous Question was put, "Whether the said Question shall be now put?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 16; Not-Contents 39: Majority 23.

  CONTENTS.

  Cairns, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Clermont, L.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Emly, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.) [Teller.]

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.) [Teller.]

  Spencer, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Norton, L.

  Truro, L.

  Cranbrook, V.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Bedford, D.

  Carew, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Clinton, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Colchester, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Denman, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Clonmell, E.

  Dundonald, E.

  Grey de Radcliffe, L.(V. Grey de Wilton.)

  Fortescue, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Hampton, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Silchester, L. (E.Longford.) [Teller.]

  Hardinge, V.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Melville, V.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Sudeley, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Waveney, L. [Teller.]

  Resolved in the Negative.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.