Sitting of 1 June 1880

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Sugar Industries, re-appointed and nominated; Fishing Vessels (Regulations as to Lights), nominated; Merchant Shipping, nominated.
SUPPLY — considered in Committee —Resolutions [May 31] reported.
PRIVATE BILL—Committed to a Select Committee — Liverpool Corporation Water*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered— Land Drainage Provisional Order (Frodsham, &c.)*.
Second Reading —Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order*[123]; Local Government (Highways) Provisional Order (Salop)*[124]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Aberavon, &c.)*[125]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Abergavenny, &c.)*[127]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Abingdon, &c.)*[129]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Alnwick Union, &c.)*[l20]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Arner-sham Union, &c.)*[126]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Ashford, &c.)*[122]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Beth-esda, &c.)*[128]; Conge d'elire [158], put off; Merchant Seamen (Payment of Wages, &c.) [119].

QUESTIONS.

  SOLWAY SALMON FISHERIES.
  SIR RICHARD MUSGRAVEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state when the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Solway Salmon Fisheries will hold their Courts?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that he had made inquiries, and he had been informed that Mr. Walpole and Mr. Young would hold Courts at Carlisle, Annan, Dumfries, Kirkcudbright, and other districts, if necessary, in August.

  THE ARMY ESTIMATES—TRANSFER OF VOTES.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary to the Treasury to state, Whether the Instruction from the Treasury to the War Office, at page 17 of the Public Accounts Committee's Re-port of l880, is intended to allow of transfers of savings in Vote 1 of the Army Estimates from the item of Infantry of the Lino to meet excess of
  892
  charges on the General Staff or Household Cavalry, without any record thereof for the notice of Parliament, merely on the plea that the transfers are from one item to other items of the same Vote, quite irrespective of the condition that the services are quite distinct; if such be the interpretation of such an Instruction, whether the Treasury will now require the sum of Five Millions, at present voted in one Vote of the Army Estimates, to be broken up into separate votes for each branch of the service, so as to enforce the old and established practice of not permitting funds voted by Parliament for one purpose from being appropriated to another and different purpose, without an application to and sanction by the Treasury; and, finally, whether the annual Appropriation Act will be so altered as to enforce the use of funds granted by Parliament to the strict purpose for which voted?
  LORD FREDERIOK CAVENDISH: Sir, the Treasury Minute of October 27, 1879, on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, made no change whatever as to the power of transfer of savings in the Votes of the Army Estimates, nor in the record that is made in the Appropriation Act of any such transfer. That Minute has, therefore, created no special reason for making any change in the form of the Army Estimates or in the Appropriation Act.

  METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY—WOOLWICH.
  MR. S. BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the proceedings, as reported in "The Standard" newspaper of the 27th May, at the inquest held on the deaths of two men by fire at North Woolwich, when all the witnesses complained of the lack of water, several of the jury said that the water service, which was nominally constant, had been practically no supply at all for a fortnight, and the Coroner remarked that he had just seen children begging for water at the Raihvay Station; and, if he will direct inquiries to be made on the subject and take such steps as may be necessary to compel the Metropolitan Water Companies to fulfil their statutory obligations to provide a sufficient supply of water for the extinction of fires?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, with respect to the first part of the Question of the hon. Member, I have received a letter from the Coroner, dated May 31, in which he says that, according to the statements of various persons who attended the inquests on the two men who lost their lives by fire, the account as reported in The standard is perfectly correct. It was plain that no water was to be had, and that, generally speaking, the supply of water in Silvertown is, and ever has been, most insufficient, and sometimes there is no supply at all. With respect to the second part of the Question, I am sorry to say that no statutory power exists to compel the Metropolitan Water Companies to provide a sufficient supply of water for the extinction of fires. I will read a short extract to show how that matter stands. The Report of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Committee states that the—
  "Companies are controlled by general enactments, subject to which they were governed by their own Acts, each company having a separate system of pipes and peculiar regulations suitable to their special circumstances. None of the companies were under any obligation to provide water for the extinction of fire. All that was required of them under the general enactments was to allow the gratuitous use of water for that purpose. But, except in that particular, the companies throughout the kingdom, whether private or public, were treated as mere purveyors of water for general consumption, and were authorized to carry on this business, considering simply the convenience of their customers and the profits of their shareholders. The result was that, while what was needed was an ample delivery of water, the conditions by which that might be secured could not be easily satisfied."
  That is, I believe a true statement of the existing state of the law on the subject, and it is one of the most unsatisfactory features of the present water supply of the Metropolis.

  POST OFFICE, MANCHESTER.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked the First Commissioner of Works. If the plans for the new Manchester Post Office are completed, and if the building is to be proceeded with; and, whether he is aware that a costly plot of ground has been set apart for this purpose for more than two years?
  MR. ADAM: Sir, from the complex nature of the proposed building, the plans for the new Post Office at Man-
  894
  chester required a very great deal of consideration, and involved many conferences and much discussion between the authorities of the Post Office and the Office of Works. Hence it took some time to obtain the final approval of the Postmaster General. The working drawings are now, however, in the course of preparation, and every effort will be made to complete them as soon as possible, so that immediate steps may then be taken for the erection of the building. The site was finally cleared in April, 1879.

  PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT, 1874.
  MR. WARTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in any Bill for the purpose of repealing, wholly or partially, "The Public Worship Regulation Act of 1874;" and, if so, when?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; Her Majesty's Government have not had any question in connection with that Act under their consideration since they have been in Office.

  UNIVERSITIES OF SCOTLAND—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. WEBSTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government will consider the Report by the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the Universities of Scotland (which Report was presented to Parliament in 1878), with the view of introducing a measure, either during this Session or during the next Session Parliament, to give effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that there was no doubt that the Government would consider the Report by the Royal Commissioners with respect to the Universities of Scotland with a view to legislation. It would, of course, be impossible to introduce a measure during the present Session, and he could not give any absolute pledge that a Bill would be introduced in the next, as other matters might require attention first. Hon. Members might, however, rest assured that the question would be kept in view by the Government.

  RAILWAYS—CONTINUOUS BRAKES.
  MR. BAXTERasked the President of the Board of Trade, If, notwithstanding the circular of August 1877, and the Act of Parliament of June 1878, there are still 42,729 railway carriages running in the passenger service without brakes which comply with the conditions laid down by the Board of Trade; if 2,706 of these carriages have actually been fitted with brakes not approved of or emphatically condemned since June 1878; and if, in order to avert the necessity of legislative interfere for the public safety, the Board of Trade will issue another circular asking for full information as to the intentions of the directors of the various Companies in respect to providing all the passenger vehicles with self-acting continuous brakes answering the requirements of the Department?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, although the figures given by my right hon. Friend do not quite agree with those in the possession of the Board of Trade, yet I believe that they fairly represent the present state of affairs in reference to continuous brakes. I have already given instructions for the issue of a Circular to the Railway Companies of the nature suggested by my right hon. Friend.

  THE SEA FISHERIES—PROTECTION OF FISHERMEN.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, during the approaching herring fishing season, the Board of Trade are prepared to secure the presence of a gunboat on the fishing grounds off the coast of Northumberland, to enforce the present Law for the prevention of damage to drift-nets by trawlers, and to protect British fishermen from the depredations of foreigners?
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, in consequence of the evidence already given at the inquiry instituted by the Home Office relative to the depredations by Foreign on English Fishermen (and at which abundant proof has been given of constant and increasing destruction of nets, &c), the Government will order gunboats to be stationed on the North
  896
  and East Coasts of England during the summer and autumn fishing to protect our fishermen as efficiently as the French Government protect theirs on these coasts?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, the inquiry conducted by the orders of the Home Office as to the complaints of the fishermen on the East Coast of the damage done to their nets by foreign fishermen is not yet complete, and the Admiralty have not been furnished with a Report of the evidence given. But instructions have been given to the captains of the First Reserve ships at Leith and Hull to send the two gunboats under their orders, and also the Coastguard sailing vessels, to protect the English fishermen in the case of collision with the French boats during the coming fishing season; the Jackal has also been sent round from the Clyde to the East Coast of Scotland for the same purpose. If it should appear to be necessary, an additional gunboat will be sent from Harwich.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—ICE-BOUND VESSELS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he had observed in the "Standard" that a ship called the "Brunette" on her arrival at St. John's, Newfoundland, five weeks ago, reported "several vessels, including one steamship, fast in the ice, about 150 miles from land;" and, whether anything had been done to ascertain the truth of the report, or to search for those vessels and afford them relief; or, if not done already, if it would now be done?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, the attention of the Admiralty has not been called to the statement referred to by my hon. Friend, nor has any application been made to them on the subject by the Board of Trade, or by anybody representing the mercantile community. I may remind my hon. Friend, however, that I stated a few nights ago that Her Majesty's ship Blanche is now cruising to the eastward of the banks of Newfoundland, in search of traces of the Atalanta, very much in the district referred to in his Question. It is probable, therefore, that she would hear of or come across any vessels in the condition alleged, and would then do her best to relieve them.

MOTIONS.
  CYPRUS (ORDERS IN COUNCIL).

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. RYLANDS,in rising to call attention to the Papers laid before Parliament respecting the Island of Cyprus; and to move—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to direct Her High Commissioner in Cyprus to propose to his Council to repeal the Ordinances establishing forced labour, giving power of arbitrary exile, and prohibiting the sale of land to any but British or Turkish subjects; and further directing him to call upon his Council to consider the reform of the tribunals of the Island by the admission of the Greek to an equality with the Turkish tongue, and by the nomination of Cypriote Christian Judges to an equality in numbers and power with the existing Turkish Judges; and also directing him to report whether, in his opinion, some measure of constitutional or elective government might not wisely be introduced into Cyprus,"
    said, that on former occasions, when his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) and others brought forward the question of the occupation of Cyprus before Parliament, they were met with statements based on illusions which the late Government studiously fostered, and which were accepted with almost childlike simplicity by the majority of the House of Commons. They were asked to look at Cyprus as through the halo of historical associations, and they were told that the Island would become a most valuable and important property of the English Crown. He was glad to see the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, because he wanted to call his attention to a prophecy which he made on March 24, 1879, when he said that—
    "He had no doubt that Cyprus would become a place of arms for England, and that Famagousta would become one of the finest harbours in the world; and these results could be obtained without any appreciable expense on the part of the English Exchequer."—[3 Hansard, ccxliv. 1535.]
    The idea that Cyprus would become a place of arms for England, and Famagousta one of the finest harbours in the world, without any appreciable expense to the Imperial Exchequer, had vanished, and we could now judge of the probable
    898
    value of the Island apart from those poetic associations, and in the dull light of practical experience. He (Mr. By-lands) regarded our taking possession of Cyprus as the fulfilment of a dream of a youthful novelist. Forty years ago, that youthful novelist had said "The English want Cyprus;" and when he became Prime Minister he had introduced to his Cabinet the question of possessing an Island in the Mediterranean. The Members of the Government appeared to have selected the Island in an haphazard fashion. They did not know anything about Cyprus except what Lord Salisbury said he had learned from the Encyclopœdia Britannica. In order to obtain possession of the Island, which was now admitted to be worthless for the purposes intended— ["No!"] —well, it was, at any rate, worthless in the opinion of good judges—we entered into a secret Convention under circumstances that were disgraceful to this country; we violated the Treaty understandings of Europe, and excited the suspicion and disapproval of the European Powers. Of all the marvellous pieces of folly which he had ever read of in the history of statesmanship, the Anglo-Turkish Convention was the worst. He hoped the time was not far distant when England would be relieved from obligations of the character which were contained in it. The taking possession of the Island was a blunder, and its occupation had been marked by a succession of blunders. A number of soldiers had been sent to Cyprus under conditions which were certain to produce that which actually followed—disease and death. But that was not the only blunder which had been committed. Upwards of 1,000 enormous coal-boxes had been sent out for their use, so large that four men were required to carry one of them, and that they filled the entire hold of one of Her Majesty's ships; yet, when they were landed in Cyprus, they were found to be totally useless, as there was not a single fireplace on the Island. Our wise Administrators had, moreover, sent out some hundreds of copper warming-pans, in order, he supposed, to comfort the troops in a climate where the temperature ranged from 100 to 120 degrees. What had become of the coal-boxes he was unable to say; but he might observe that he had heard something of the same kind had been going on in Zulu-

    899
    land. Instead of the British soldier, he might add, we had now got in Cyprus what was called a military police; for the Government, finding they had no right to enlist foreigners as soldiers, had evaded the law and converted a regiment of 800 Natives, who had been enlisted, drilled, and clothed as soldiers, into a force of police, for which a sum of £26,000 was put down in the Civil Service Estimates, which sum he would move should be expunged if it did not disappear from the Estimates next year. The House had been informed by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that it was the intention of Lord Granville to remove Cyprus from under the control of the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office; and the only reason, so far as he could see, why it had ever been put under the Foreign Office was that it was the pet child of Lord Salisbury, who retained the entire direction of it in his own hands, and in those of his satraps, and who was entitled to whatever credit or discredit attached to its administration, which he was afraid reflected upon the noble Lord much more of the latter than the former. The great vice of that administration was that we stepped into the shoes of the Turk; we had adopted Turkish laws and customs and clothed ourselves in the spirit of Turkish despotism. The Christian population not unnaturally expected to be relieved from the Turkish incubus, to be governed in the free spirit of English institutions; but they soon found that the sympathies of the Government officials were entirely on the side of the small Turkish minority, and that the entire Cypriote and Greek population were regarded with suspicion. According to Sir Samuel Baker—
    "The Cypriotes had expected to see England and the English as their rulers; hut, like the well-known saying 'Scratch a Russian and you discover the Tartar,' they might have' scratched an Englishman and found the Turk,' in the actual régime"
    In another passage of his book on Cyprus Sir Samuel Baker said—
    "If Cypriotes were Candians (Cretans) their voices would he forcibly heard, and the Turkish rule beneath the British uniform would he quickly overthrown. The Cypriote, downtrodden for centuries, is like sodden timber that will not awaken to the spark; he is what is called 'easily governed,' which means an abject race, in which all noble aspirations have been stamped out by years of unremitting oppression and injustice."
    900
    His hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), by the admirable speeches he had made in the last Parliament, had excited the gratitude of the Christian population of Cyprus by showing how great was the hatred towards them of the English authorities, and how bad was the treatment which they had received at their hands. Mr. Oratis, of Alexandria, in a letter quoted by his hon. Friend, said—
    "It is quite impossible for me to describe to you the hatred of the English authorities against the Christians in Cyprus."
    The Bishop of Citium, speaking of Colonel Warren, the Commissioner of Limasol, said—
    "His conduct towards the Christians is such as to lead one to believe that he is dealing with some uncontrollable people, who, under the Turkish rule were, forsooth, troubling a paternal Government."
    Within the last fortnight or so letters had also appeared in the Journal des Lebats, written by a gentleman who had been a short time before in Cyprus, fully confirming that view of the state of things in the Island. M. Charmes, the gentleman to whom he referred, said—
    "The First Commissioner of Larnaca, Colonel White, has left behind him in the country a legendary renown. No Turkish Pasha had exercised a more despotic power. The richest proprietor in Cyprus spoke of him to me as a 'petit Robespierre.'"
    M. Charmes also wrote—
    "One of the members of the Legislative Council, who had at first been most favourably disposed to the English, who had given them land on which to build Protestant places of worship, and who had always shown himself their most faithful friend, irritated by the proceedings of an administration both revolutionary and violent, said one day to the Governor of the Island in full Council—' Sir, we perceive that you take us for either Zulus or Afghans; but you are mistaken. We are a people whom I have always believed up to the present time to be as civilized as the English. Since you have come among us I perceive that we are still more civilized than they are"
    From both public documents and private narratives, there appeared to be on the part of English officials in Cyprus a distrust of the Greek population—a fear of some revolutionary rising which was not at all creditable to an enlightened and civilizing Power like England. Mrs. Scott Stevenson, in her very readable book, entitled Our Home in Cyprus,

    901
    although favourably disposed to the English occupation, wrote—
    "It is doubtless true, and rather a strange coincidence, that both the civil and the military authorities have a decided antipathy to the Greek portion of the population. Even my husband, who never lets prejudices or personal feeling bias his opinion, says the Greeks arc not to be trusted. They dislike us and the Turks equally, are discontented and treacherous, are fond of secret societies, and generally employ craft and deceit to gain their ends."
    Again, Colonel Warren, of Limasol, spoke of a class which would welcome his absence, but which in no way benefited the country, and might become a positive source of danger. He continued—
    "I allude to the writers of the letter from the President of the Club at Limasol. The so-called club is formed principally of sympathizers with the Greek national movement. This organization would desire to introduce the Greek language; and it was through them, headed by the Greek Consul, that a movement was instituted to encourage a voice for annexation to Greece. This would be a dangerous class if they had a discontented people to leaven with their sedition."
    It was a most significant fact that this Commissioner makes it a charge against the Limasol Club that they desired to introduce the Greek language, as though it were not the native language of the Island, spoken by five-sixths of the "inhabitants. Sir Garnet" Wolseley spoke of the "revolutionary aims of this Club," and he connected the Bishop of Citium with Athens, "the hotbed of the revolutionary party." In another despatch, dated April 11, 1879, Sir Garnet Wolseley said—
    "The Moslem Cypriotes compare favourably in honesty and sobriety with their Christian compatriots, with whom they live on good terms. I am well aware, however, how easy it would be to stir up an ill-feeling between them, which if not checked might lead to serious and disastrous consequences. It is the undisguised desire of a few agitators to drive every Moslem from the Island by handing over its entire government to the Christians. There would seem to be a longing on the part of these foolish fanatics to punish the present race of Moslem Cypriotes for the offences and cruelties of the Turks centuries ago."
    As the result of this official dread of disaffection, two Ordinances had been issued—one giving the High Commissioner power to banish dangerous persons from the Island, and the other prohibiting the sale of land to any but Turkish subjects—which were a perfect
    902
    disgrace to the English Administration. The fact that Turkish officialism was entirely out of sympathy with the Christian population lay at the root of the most objectionable features of the existing régime. In the first place, the police force, to which he had alluded, consisted of seven English officers, seven interpreters, eight Native officers, and 836 non-commissioned officers and privates. Now, it would naturally be supposed that these 836 men were made up in proportion to the religious opinions of the population. Nothing of the kind. With the exception of some of the officers there was not a single Christian soldier. They were all Turkish Zaptiehs under the English uniform, and with all the qualities that earned such evil notoriety in Asia Minor. In the first instance, a number of Greek Cypriotes were enlisted; but they were soon dismissed from the force. Mrs. Scott Stevenson said—
    "The Greeks objected to wearing a white turban round their fez, declaring that it turned them into Turks ! Her husband (the Commandant) had no patience with this and said they might wear it or be dismissed."
    The officer of the Zaptiehs at Lefka was the Turkish Mudir, Neim Effendi, whom Mrs. Scott Stevenson said was "quite what we call socially a gentleman, and has travelled a good deal in Europe." The history of this "gentleman," as given by Mrs. Stevenson, was interesting, and furnished a good sample of the Turks employed by the British authorities in responsible positions. She told us that—
    "Neim, in his eventful career, had passed through nearly every grade. At one time Governor of a Province, he was dismissed for embezzlement of State funds; at another, sergeant of Zaptiehs; and then, again, promoted to a high appointment through the influence of his friends. He had lived in Constantinople for some time, and finally got sent back to Cyprus as Mudir of Lefka."
    If they could fill in all the hidden incidents of that checkered career, they would, no doubt, have a still more striking portrait. It was not surprising that numerous complaints were made of the conduct of these Zaptiehs, who, in many cases, were soi disant brigands commanded by officers of the stamp of Neim Effendi. Last year his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea stated that cases of flogging had occurred, and that the

    903
    Zaptiehs had used violence and put on manacles in cases where prisoners ought not to have been treated in such a manner. On a careful examination of the Blue Books, he thought he found substantial evidence of the correctness of his hon. Friend's statements. Of course, the Commissioners stood up for the Zaptiehs, and said they had never flogged anybody by order. No one alleged that they had done so; but, nevertheless, they might have acted with undue harshness on many occasions. In the same discussion last year his hon. Friend referred to the Ordinances respecting forced labour. Attempts had been made to show that this forced labour, instead of being a grievance, was a blessing to the people of Cyprus. The forced labour was paid for at the rate of 1s. a-day; but in many places, according to the testimon3' of Sir Garnet Wolseley himself, labourers were obtaining 1s. 3d. a-day. It was clear that if we paid the necessary wages we could get the labour without forcing it. Mrs. Scott Stevenson, in one of her little tours with her husband, came across a number of men who were engaged in making a road. She said in her book on Cyprus—
    "We met gangs at work, men, women, and boys, who were paid ls., 9d., and 6d. a-day each respectively. There are over 1,000 employed on the road, every hatch of 100 having an overseer, who, when they lagged, cried out and threatened their backs with a light whip."
    Did not hon. Members feel that they had been dragged into humiliation and disgrace by the administration of a Dependency which we were governing in such a fashion? He thought all the Ordinances required the careful supervision of the Government, although they might not be open to such serious objections as those to which he had drawn special attention. Last year the Government took up a singular position. They justified these Ordinances, because they said none of them could be passed unless they had the sanction of the Legislative Council of Cyprus. It sounded as if there was Constitutional government in the Island. In point of fact, the Legislative Council consisted of the High Commissioner, who was its President, of two English officers appointed by the High Commissioner, of one European, who, at the present time, was an Italian inhabitant of the Island, of one Turk, and one Greek. Therefore, the
    904
    Constitutional government of Cyprus by a Legislative Council did not represent the people of the country. M. Charmes said that—
    "The Ordinances are decided contrary to the opinions of the natives of the country. English military officers, perfect strangers to the language, manners, and ideas of the Cypriotes, have passed many Ordinances which, in the unanimous opinion of the Natives, are in striking contradiction to the interests of the Island. These Ordinances are given in English, they appear in the official bulletin, which is not given publicity, and the public only know them when a process is issued against them which reveals the existence of the Ordinances."
    No wonder there should be a jumble in the administration when the Island was governed by Ottoman law, and such British Ordinances as he had described. In an ordinary Court of Law in Cyprus, the Judge presiding was a Turkish Cadi, who did not know English or Greek, and he administered the law among people who did not understand Turkish. The English Government, to assist the Judge, put by his side an English Assessor, who did not know either Turkish or Greek. There was consequently a large number of interpreters, and cases had occurred in which the interpreters had been bribed. He said, therefore, that Greek should be made an official language as well as English or Turkish, and that means should be taken by which the large majority of the inhabitants should obtain justice. He proposed to address Her Majesty to direct the Governor to appoint Cypriote Judges as well as Turkish and English Judges. Then, again, he could not speak highly of the manner in which justice was often administered. It constantly happened that the sentences passed bore no proportion to the guilt of the offenders. Many such cases had been mentioned by M. Charmes in his account of the Island. Of one instance in particular M. Charmes had written as follows: —
    "During my stay at Nicosia all the country was moved by a sentence of death pronounced upon a Greek native guilty of having killed a Zaptieh, who had been the first to attack him during a village festival. Against the unanimous protest of the Assessors, the Chief Justice pronounced sentence of death. The scandal was so great, the Consular protests were so unanimous, the complaints addressed to England were so loud, that it was decided to begin the trial again, and this time before the Mussulman Court of Appeal."
    He (Mr. Rylands) had reason to believe that the sentence of death pronounced at

    905
    the second trial had been again quashed by the Foreign Office for irregularity in the proceedings. It was not too much to say that the administration of the law in Cyprus was characterized by incompetence and excessive severity. There was one more subject to which he must allude—the taxation of the Island. Having undertaken to pay over to the Turks a large sum annually, we were compelled to raise no less than £177,233 from the unfortunate population of the Island in the year 1879–80. This amounted to about £1 per head upon a population who were wretchedly poor, and out of this was paid over 12s. 6d. to the Turkish Government. Nor was it merely that the amount of taxation was excessive. It was rendered the more vexatious by its variety and searching character, interfering with and burthening almost every industry, profession, or occupation, and meeting the unfortunate population at every turn of life. The tithe system was especially condemned by Sir Samuel Baker, who said of it—
    "This system is a blight of the gravest character upon the local industry of the inhabitants, and it is a suicidal and unstatesmanlike policy that crushes and extinguishes all enterprize."
    He admitted that many of the worst abuses which prevailed under Sir Garnet Wolseley had been removed under General Biddulph, who seemed desirous to administer the affairs of the Island with the greatest possible leniency. Probably some administrative improvements had followed in consequence of the debates originated by his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea; but the chief defects still remained. The existence of the Ordinances, the fact that Greek was not recognized as the official language, and that the sympathy of the Government was always with the Turkish rather than with the Greek population, were blots on the Administration of the Island. It would be the duty of the new Government to put an end to what had been described as "Turkish rule under British uniform." They must entirely reform the laws and administration. They must get rid of the Turkish Sovereignty —relieve taxation, and develop the industry of the people. By giving freedom and fair play to the Christian Cypriotes, they might hope to awaken them from the stupor of a down-trodden race, and might do something to compensate them for centuries of injury and injus-
    906
    tice, and to rekindle in them the intellectual spark that characterized a people of noble aspirations. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    MR. H. SAMUELSON,in seconding the Motion, said, he was glad to find that there were Members of the Opposition who admitted that the government of Cyprus was not in the satisfactory position it was supposed to be. He had no doubt that the Government was capable of dealing with the question, and that the abuses to which his hon. Friend had called attention would be remedied before the subject came again before the House. Notwithstanding the strenuous denial of the existence of forced labour by the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, it was proved that the Cypriotes were compelled to pay 15s. perannum to works of public utility, or to labour to that extent at 1s. a-day. If that was not forced labour he was at a loss to know what was. As to the administration of the law, the vas, majority of the people spoke the Greek language; but the Judges did not understand that tongue, and interpreters were required. It was said by those who had studied the matter that everything depended upon the interpreters. In his opinion, it was necessary to have the law administered by Judges acquainted with the language of the people. At present all the summonses were issued in English, and the persons to whom they were addressed had to pay for the translation of them. They ought, he thought, as they were miserably and pitiably poor, to have that translation supplied to them free of expense. At present the Judges sat listening to the evidence which they did not understand, and smoking their cigarettes and meerschaums, the Cadi amusing himself by hunting for fleas in his waistcoat. He must say that in every case the officials of the Island were endeavouring to do their duty with zeal and self-sacrifice. But he was sorry to say that some of the English Commissioners had been extending their patronage to Turkish brigands. Then the education of the people was lamentably deficient. Sir Samuel Baker spoke of the establishment of schools as the primary necessity of Cyprus. In many villages there was not a single person who could either read or write. From that want of edu-

    907
    cation sprang some of the worst evils in Cyprus. He hoped the Government would take care to put primary education in the Island in a satisfactory position. He would also like to ask whether it was intended to abolish the military exemption tax. It was a very unpopular tax. He hoped it would be reduced in amount and more fairly assessed. Then he would shortly refer to the Anglo-Turkish Convention. That Convention had, on the 24th of March, 1879, been spoken of in that House as "a wretched Convention;" and, at the same time, the present Prime Minister styled it "an insane Convention." Sir Samuel Baker described it as "foolish," and Mr. Archibald Forbes termed it a "fiasco." On the same night the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said we were occupying the Island for military purposes. That could scarcely be alleged now, as there were but a handful of soldiers in the Island. But the right hon. Baronet on the same occasion had said we were not taking Cyprus as a model farm to be under our own management, and had preferred to rest our claims upon its utility in enabling the Anglo-Turkish Convention to be carried out, which he regarded as the charter of our occupation of the Island. But when he asked whether Turkey had done anything on her part to carry out the Treaty we found she had done nothing. He would refer to Blue Book (Turkey) No. 4, which showed clearly the inability of Turkey to reform the administration of Asia Minor. The evidence therein given by our Ambassador, Sir Henry Layard, who could not be accused of unfriendliness to Turkey, showed the hopelessness of expecting her to reform. The fact was the occupation of Cyprus gave no power to this country to compel Turkey to redeem her pledges. It was an obligation without any corresponding benefit. Turkey having failed to carry out her part of the contract to reform the administration of Asia Minor, we were therefore at liberty to retire from the Convention, or, at least, from that part of it which bound us to defend Turkey against an attack by Russia on her Asiatic dominions, no matter how the contest might have been brought about. Much, however, as he had disapproved of the original acquisition, he thought we ought to retain the Island, even if we
    908
    withdrew from the Convention, believing that under a just and energetic Administration the resources of the Island would be developed and its resources greatly increased. It would be unjust to hand over Cyprus to Turkish misrule; and its inhabitants ought to be governed as Englishmen, and secured in all the rights and liberties which Englishmen enjoyed. But it would be far better to purchase the Island out and out from Turkey, which would be glad to sell it at a reasonable price. It was not many years since it had been offered for £300,000. He was inclined to think the model farm theory was the best. The price could be defrayed in a few years out of the Revenues of the Island. He certainly thought it would be more economical than the present annual payments made to Turkey, which absorbed the greater part of the Revenue, and left very little for us to carry out the administration of the Island. The people of Cyprus rejoiced when they heard of the accession to power of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), believing that it was the opening for them of a new era of prosperity and freedom from oppression. It was in the power, as he believed it was the intention, of the Government to take care that the hopes of a people so strangely brought under our dominion should not be disappointed. They had not only undertaken a great responsibility, but they had also a great opportunity; and it was because he believed that the reforms mentioned in that Resolution would promote the advancement of the Cypriote people and the honour of the country that he had great pleasure in seconding it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to direct Her High Commissioner in Cyprus to propose to his Council to repeal the Ordinances establishing forced labour, giving power of arbitrary exile, and prohibiting the sale of land to any but British or Turkish subjects; and further directing him to call upon his Council to consider the reform of the tribunals of the Island by the admission of the Greek to an equality with the Turkish tongue, and by the nomination of Cypriote Christian judges to an equality in numbers and power with the existing Turkish, judges; and also directing him to report whether, in his opinion, some measure of constitutional or elective government might not wisely be introduced into Cyprus."—(Mr. Rylands.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEbegged to compliment his hon. Friends for the clearness with which they had placed their case before the House. The Seconder of the Motion had, perhaps, in the latter part of his speech, gone rather wide of the Motion on the Paper; because in the Motion there was no reference to the question of the continual occupation of Cyprus, and no reference to the Convention by which the Island had been partly acquired by this country. He would, therefore, ask his hon. Friend (Mr. H. Samuelson) to excuse him if he dealt only with the first portion of his speech. His hon. Friend had, to some extent, answered himself; because, while he had asked the Government on what ground the occupation of Cyprus was to be continued, in his concluding remarks he had placed before the House reasons which must weigh with any Government in considering whether the occupation must be maintained or not. Turning to the admirable speech of the Mover of the Resolution, there could be no doubt, if they were to go only to the ordinary sources of information, that there had been in the past very considerable tension in our relations with the people of Cyprus. But of late there had been greater harmony between the Governor and the population he ruled; and the present Governor, Sir Robert Biddulph, had displayed a great amount of tact and conciliation in the government of the Island. At the same time, the remarks of his hon. Friend on that subject would, he thought, in the opinion of the majority of the House, have confirmed the justice of the view which was taken by Her Majesty's present Government and which he had recently announced, that Cyprus ought rather to be handed over to the Colonial Office than kept under the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office was not fitted, either by its constitution or by the general nature of the subjects with which it had to deal, to undertake—or, at all events, permanently undertake—the government of such a dependency as Cyprus. He spoke of that Island as a dependency. Unfortunately, the character of our connection with it was altogether anomalous; yet, for the purposes of government, it must be looked upon practically as a dependency. It was true that at first there were matters connected with the occupation of Cyprus which might have
    910
    made it desirable that it should be placed temporarily under the Foreign Office. But he thought the time had undoubtedly now arrived when, as soon as the pending questions were dealt with, the charge of the Island ought to be taken over by the Colonial Office; and he could not but hope that when it had been transferred to the latter Department many of the difficulties which had previously existed would gradually disappear. Until Cyprus was placed under it, the Foreign Office had no experience with regard to work of that kind; and although those who were connected with that Department were perfectly willing to continue to discharge those duties in relation to Cyprus, if it were the wish of the Government that they should do so, still they would, on the whole, prefer to be relieved of functions that were rather alien to the nature of that Office itself. His hon Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had referred to certain Ordinances of Cyprus, the first which he had mentioned being one with a very singular title. It was called an Ordinance for securing peace and order; but his hon. Friend had alluded to it as one giving a power of arbitrary exile. It was the opinion expressed in the last Parliament by many Members now on the Ministerial side of the House that this Ordinance was not justified by the circumstances of Cyprus, so far as they knew them, and the present Government retained the opinions which they expressed while in Opposition. He was able to state that the Government had instructed the present Governor of Cyprus at once to take steps for the repeal of that Ordinance, so far as it affected all but a very small class of people. They had also directed him to inquire whether he could not do without it altogether. But, as respected that Ordinance, the Government were only carrying out the resolution which was arrived at by their Predecessors. It was the intention of the late Ministry to get rid of that peace and order Ordinance, so far as Cypriotes were concerned, and to keep it for aliens only. But the present Government had also asked the Governor to report whether it was necessary to retain it even for aliens. But he came next to Ordinances as to which the Government took a wholly I different view from that held by their Predecessors, as far as they could gather

    911
    from the records. He alluded to the Sale of Land Ordinance and the Forced Labour Ordinance. His hon. Friend had described the first of those Ordinances at some length, and told them it had been summarily condemned by the correspondent of a French newspaper, who went to Cyprus, and who pointed out that the Ordinance, to some extent, conflicted with the Treaty engagements of the Ottoman Porte; at all events, it went counter to modern English and modern Turkish administration. However that might be, this country in 1867 initiated steps at the Ottoman Porte to induce it to allow subjects of all foreign Powers to hold land in the Turkish Empire. The Turkish Government did not make a general law on the subject; but it contracted Treaties with six foreign Powers enabling their subjects to hold land in Turkey. Therefore, by that Ordinance, they were involved in this strange anomaly — that in Cyprus, a portion of the Turkish Empire, the subjects of those six Powers had not a right by law to hold land. Her Majesty's Government thought that anomaly ought to cease, and they had instructed Sir Robert Biddulph completely to repeal that Ordinance. He now came to the Ordinance for forced labour. That Ordinance was modified at the wish of the late Government; hut it was always contended by those on his side of the House who had criticized its details that that modification was not sufficient, and did not really take away the objectionable character of the law. The Correspondence between Lord Salisbury and Sir Garnet Wolseley, which was contained in the Blue Book, showed that Lord Salisbury had felt the difficulty which was raised in Parliament with regard to the matter, and he insisted that the punishment for non-compliance with the demand for forced labour should take the shape of a fine on the village, and not fall on the individual. But there seemed to have been almost insuperable difficulties in working forced labour without some punishment being directed against the individual; and that being so, the modification, made at Lord Salisbury's suggestion, did not carry out his intention. The Ordinance had been to all intents and purposes an Ordinance for forced labour; and the attempt to explain it away as being a mere copy of the Ordinances in some of our
    912
    Colonies, or of the law requiring the inhabitants of London to clear away the snow in front of their houses, entirely failed. Perhaps 1,000 persons were compelled to work on the roads at less than the ordinary pay for labour. If 1s. per day, to be paid under the Ordinance, was the ordinary rate of wages in Cyprus, then the Forced Labour Ordinance could not be required at all. As a matter of fact, in a large part of the Island it was not put in operation; but the Government thought it was altogether anomalous and indefensible, and they had ordered it to be repealed. His hon. Friend had spoken as to certain other Ordinances. He said he had no doubt that besides these three Ordinances there were other Ordinances as bad. He might ask his hon. Friend to refer to the Ordinances, which he would find in the Library of that House. He thought his hon. Friend would discover that the Ordinances that were really bad had been modified or repealed. There were one or two Ordinances as to which inquiry would be made as to whether they were really necessary in the form in which they had been passed by the Council. Certain complaints had been made with regard to one Ordinance which was a very good one in intention, but which seemed to have worked harshly in practice. He meant the Ordinance with regard to the cutting of trees. It had been said that that Ordinance had been made use of to prevent persons even from pruning fruit trees, and that those who lived on mountains were unable to build even the smallest house, and that that Ordinance ought to be modified in some way. Inquiry would be made as to whether the present provisions were or were not too harsh. He did not think his hon. Friend would find much to complain of in the other Ordinances. He now came to the portion of his hon. Friend's speech in which he spoke with regard to the character of the law and to the administration of law. Some action was taken on that subject by the late Government. Her Majesty's late Advisers did consider a scheme of reform with the view of securing a uniform system of justice to all the inhabitants of the Island. It was the opinion of the Government that it was desirable that the inhabitants of the [Island should take part in all the branches of administration with-

    913
    out any distinction whatever of race or creed; and the Government would promote all steps by which that could be reached. Of course he spoke with some hesitation on that subject, because, as he had already said, it was their desire to effect a transfer of the Island to the Colonial Office before the month of October. At the same time, he had stated the general view of the Government with regard to the quality of the law and the administration of the law itself. There could be no doubt as to the grave character of the hardship of which his hon. Friend had complained, of forcing a population of which the great majority spoke Greek to make use of the English and the Turkish languages. As a matter of fact, nine-tenths of the inhabitants of the Island spoke Greek. A portion spoke both Greek and Turkish; but some four-fifths could not speak any language but Greek. It was, no doubt, a hardship that those persons should be driven to use interpreters and to pay large sums, far larger than they could properly afford, for a translation of their legal documents into Turkish or English as the case might be. But in connection with this matter it would be necessary when the Colonial Office undertook the charge of Cyprus to consider whether the time had not now come when all the Government officials ought to be able to speak the Greek language. His hon. Friend alluded to the case of the person who was charged with murder and who was tried by two different Courts. The sentence was found to be illegal, and it was by the intervention of the Foreign Office that that person was saved from punishment. As to the tithe system in Cyprus, he know that authorities throughout the East had severely condemned that system. In every part of the Turkish Empire we had British Consuls reporting year after year that one of the worst systems in that Empire was the system of the exaction of tithes. The tithe system led to the destruction of all attempts at improvement in agriculture or horticulture. Cyprus could produce fruit as good as any in the world; but the growth of fruit in Cyprus was checked by the tithe system, because the fruit had to remain on the trees until the collector of tithes arrived to ascertain the value of the crop. The tithe collectors were overworked, they could not possibly be
    914
    in all places where they were wanted; and, therefore, it commonly happened that fruit rotted on the trees. With regard to the cultivation of the vine, it was greatly hampered by the system of tithe. And, while he was unable to make any definite announcement on the subject, he would say that it would be the duty of the Government to consider that subject very carefully to ascertain what should be done to replace the tithe system by some better system. At the same time he could promise his hon. Friend that they would initiate inquiries into the tithe system even before the Island passed from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office. He might say to the House that it was not very long since the tithe system had been abolished in the Kingdom of Greece. The Tricoupi Government succeeded in completely abolishing that system throughout Greece. No man could possibly defend the Turkish tithe system. His hon. Friend who seconded the Motion spoke upon the subject of education in Cyprus and the great necessity for our taking steps to promote the system of education there. That, again, was a question of expense, so far as instruction would have to be promoted by public or local funds; and he might point out to his hon. Friend that one of the great grievances alleged by the Cypriote population was the great increase of local taxation in the Island, and the great increase in that taxation had caused much outcry against our rule. Education in Cyprus was mainly supported by emigrants from Cyprus who had become wealthy merchants in various parts of the East. The Government would consider what steps they could take to promote education in Cyprus; but they must be cautious in any steps which might be taken in the matter against bringing additional pressure to bear upon the people. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, who made this Motion, concluded his speech with very admirable remarks. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could only re-echo those remarks before the House. He hoped that we might be able to govern Cyprus in such a way that it would become a bright spot in the East and a model to the Turks as to the administration they should introduce into certain portions of Asia Minor. He believed that the changes which the Government

    915
    had announced with regard to the Ordinances would be the first steps in that direction; that under the Colonial Office there would be a better chance of ruling the population in accordance with the feelings and wishes of the majority of the people; and that, in this way, we should ultimately feel that the government of Cyprus was not unworthy of England.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that after the speech of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs he should not proceed with the Amendment of which he had given Notice to the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), his only object in putting that Amendment on the Paper having been to raise the question of transferring the government of Cyprus from the Foreign to the Colonial Office. He viewed that transfer with regret. It was, as it were, a taking possession of the Island at once, which was never contemplated by Treaty; and by acting in this fashion we might be encouraging other countries to pursue a similar course. While fully recognizing the ability with which the Colonial Office administered such of our Dependencies abroad as were now committed to its charge, he could not admit that it had a machinery sufficient for the administration of the Island of Cyprus under the very peculiar tenure by which it was held by this country at the present juncture. Unless the Island was bought out and out by Her Majesty's Government, there must be constant references from the High Commissioner to the Sublime Porte, and to the Consuls in Asia Minor, which could only be properly managed by the agency of the Foreign Office. As far as the relations between the Greeks and Turks resident in the Island were concerned in reference to the administration of justice, he agreed that they ought to be placed on a perfectly equal footing, particularly as far as the languages used in the Courts were concerned. The tithe system was undoubtedly one of the most atrocious ever devised in an European country, and the sooner it was abolished the better; but as reforms were contemplated in Turkey, he thought it would be wise to allow the reforms in Cyprus to go along hand in hand with them, and that under the direction of the Foreign Office.
    MR. LABOUCHEREwished for information as to the amount to be paid to
    916
    Turkey by ourselves in consideration of possessing the Island. It was, he believed, fixed at £115,000 per annum, this being the amount said to have been derived by Turkey from Cyprus; but they had only the word of the Turk for this, and that was an authority which he, for one, should be very sorry to accept. The population of the Island was not more than about 180,000, and it was an exceedingly poor one. Therefore, if £115,000 a-year was to be drawn from the Island for payment to the Turk on a basis laid down by the Turkish authorities, and not verified by calculation, there was very little money left with which to develop the resources of the Island.
    MR. A. BALFOURpointed out that the sum fixed upon as that to be paid by England to Turkey in consideration of the cession of Cyprus was fixed after laborious calculations between the Representatives of the two Governments, and they were bound in honour to pay it. He did not feel called upon to enter minutely into all the accusations which had been levelled against the late Administration on account of their acquisition of Cyprus; but he could not let pass a charge against that Government to the effect that such acquisition was an infringement of the public law of Europe. He could not understand the grounds on which such allegation of infringement was based, for all the facts tended to prove the contrary. With regard to the charge against the late Government of keeping the Treaty secret, he would remind those from whom that charge proceeded that almost every instrument of the kind, while negotiations were being carried on, must remain secret; and in this case the Treaty was announced not long after its conclusion. As far as the question of military police in Cyprus was concerned, he could not for a moment admit that either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution had been violated; nor could he see that any breach of international obligations had resulted from carrying out the Turkish law by English administrators. There seemed to be an impression that the Turkish law was a barbarous body of law handed down from ancient times; the fact being that it was based upon the Code Napoleon, and that down to the present the only complaint to be made was that it had

    917
    been badly administered. He could not J see how the object which the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs desiderated could be attained if Cyprus was to be peopled with English officials. The hon. Member had spoken of the advantages which would accrue if a larger measure of self-government were given to the Cypriote population. Such a system could only be carried out, not by the introduction of foreigners, however experienced in administrative duties, but by continuing the original administration of the Turks and improving it—not by making constant breaks between the old and a new order of things. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) mentioned three Ordinances which he wanted at once to be repealed. The first was that relating to forced labour, the next that relating to arbitrary exile, and the third that which prohibited the sale of land to foreigners. He had an initial criticism to make on the hon. Member's Motion, and it was this—that the description which he gave of the Ordinances in question gave rise to erroneous opinions as to what they were. The first was described as an Ordinance for the establishment of forced labour. A more accurate description of it would be this—that it afforded means for carrying out for the benefit of the community public works which in this country would be carried out solely by means of rates, but which in a poor country like Cyprus could be more conveniently constructed out of an alternative contribution of labour or of money. There was no forced labour where there was not actual physical compulsion, and there was no physical compulsion to work in Cyprus. The inhabitants had the choice of contributing to that which was for the common benefit either in labour or in money. Then, as to the Ordinance prohibiting the sale of land to foreigners, including, of course, Greeks or Englishmen, to say that it was an Ordinance to prevent such sales of land was a pure phantom of the hon. Gentleman's imagination. That accusation had been constantly made in the House and in the country. It might as well be said that people in this country were forbidden to marry. It was true that before marriage could take place certain formalities had to be gone through, and it was precisely so in respect to the sale of land to foreigners in Cyprus. Permission to
    918
    sell must be asked for; but it could not be said that the asking of permission to sell was a prohibition of the sale; and, so far as he could learn, such permission had never once been denied. Then, as to the power which was described as one of arbitrary banishment. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to forgot the checks by which its abuse would be prevented. Before any person could be banished under this Ordinance the Council had to be consulted. The Secretary of State had to be immediately informed; and if justice could be obtained neither from the Council nor the Secretary of State, there was always in the last resort a watchful Parliamentary Opposition. He, therefore, denied that the Ordinance allowed or sanctioned arbitrary banishment. There had been, in fact, no arbitrary exile of any individual; and he understood that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs considered that some such power as now existed should be continued to the Governor of the Island to prevent intrigue and agitation which would be prejudicial to our rule and to the interests of the inhabitants. The hon. Baronet said he was not prepared to take away that power; and, perhaps, he said so having considered the question of Cyprus with more information than he possessed when in Opposition, and more impartiality. The hon. Member who introduced the subject desired to see an elective Government introduced into the Island as soon as possible. He was far from saying that the time might not come when such a step could be taken with safety; but he would point out that difficulties were in the way which any Government must keep carefully in view. The countries where elective institutions were established with most advantage were not countries in which the population were divided as they were in Cyprus. There were two religions and two races in the Island, and the differences which now divided them must gradually be abolished if they hoped eventually to introduce elective institutions there with any degree of success. The first result of doing so now would be to send the Turks and the Greeks into two hostile camps, and all the evils of Party government would be aggravated by the still greater evils arising from differences of race and creed. He was quite aware that hon. Gentlemen oppo-

    919
    site had a profound belief in such institutions. They wished to establish them in Afghanistan, and, he believed, in South Africa; but he hoped they would not be carried away by their love of any particular form of government into prematurely introducing into Cyprus a system which he was certain would not conduce to the peace or prosperity of the Island, or, in the long run, advance the cause of freedom.
    MR. JACOB BRIGHTalso wished to know how the amount paid annually to the Turkish Government in reference to Cyprus had been arrived at? The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down stated that we were bound in honour to pay in respect of Cyprus the large sum of money which had been mentioned to the Turkish Government. What did that payment amount to? It was equal to 15s. per head for each man, woman, and child in the Island, and would have to be paid in addition to all local and general taxation. A sum of 15s. per head would be equal to £20,000,000 in this country; and when they considered the differences of earnings and wealth here and in Cyprus, the amount would be something like £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 levied in this country each year. If they were bound in honour so to fleece these miserable people, then they were, indeed, placed in a very melancholy position. In his opinion, the Government were bound in honour to see that the poor people of the Island were relieved from that heavy burden.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, a considerable part of the able speeches of my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder referred to the past, and expressed the opinions which they entertained on the past policy with respect to Cyprus. I do not intend to follow them in any portions of that discussion, and the only points I shall make will be in reference to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. Balfour). While I may say that I have often listened to him in this House with pleasure, I do not think that on this occasion there was a single word of that speech with which I was able to agree. But the regret with which I am filled on that account is somewhat mitigated by a reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), with whom I differ as to the Department in this country under which Cyprus should be
    920
    administered, but who I was glad to hear raising his voice, as I am bound to say he has done on several occasions before, in favour of highly liberal measures with reference to the populations of the Levant. I am compelled to enter a summary protest against the doctrines laid down by the hon. Member for Hertford, lest it should be supposed for a moment that I acquiesce in them. I will not argue them. It is not necessary to do so. It is no part of our duty, charged as we are with other obligations, to go back on this question. But I must say that I entirely differ from his observations to the effect that the Convention by which Cyprus was acquired is public law; that the secrecy in which the Convention was negotiated was analogous to the secrecy or privacy which up to a certain extent commonly obtains in diplomatic arrangements; that the French Code is to be taken as forming the general basis of the law of Cyprus; that we were compelled to administer the Island either by Turkish or English officials, as if no such thing as Cypriote Christians or Cypriote Greeks existed; and that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) misdescribed the Ordinances to which his Resolution refers. The point on which he came nearest was the Ordinance with respect to land, and there he drew an ingenious comparison between the case of the purchase of land in Cyprus and the contraction of marriage in this country. He said that as no person can contract marriage in this country without leave, so no person could purchase land in Cyprus, except Turkish or English subjects, without leave. But a good deal depends on the means you have of obtaining possession. I believe that if a person wants to be married in this country, and asks permission, he could compel those who give the permission, or go through the form of giving it, to give that permission. If they refuse, I take it that the Courts of Law could compel that permission to be given. Is that the case in Cyprus? Is there any process by which the foreigner could compel the Commissioner to permit him to purchase land? My hon. Friend (Mr. A. Balfour) says that in no case has the permission been refused. Can he tell us in how many cases it has been applied for? I am not aware that he can say that it was ever applied for. On that subject his information does not seem to

    921
    be copious. He is safe in saying it has never been refused if it has never been applied for. But the comparison with marriage in England will not hold. The parallel would hold if we had a marriage law like this—"That from and after the passing of this ordinance no person other than a subject of the Porte or of Great Britain shall be permitted to marry," with a further section saying—"Provided that it shall be lawful for the Queen, under her hand and seal, to allow, under such conditions as she may think fit, such marriage to take place." Yet that is the form of this Ordinance with respect to the purchase of land in Cyprus. There is no title to ask permission; but power is given to the supreme authority authorizing the thing to be done. It is not necessary to go fully into the question of Ordinances; they are, for all practical purposes, defunct. With regard to the instructions for which the Mover of the Motion asks, undoubtedly the introduction of elective institutions into Cyprus is a matter requiring some time and consideration. No precipitate steps can be taken. At the same time, it is to be borne in mind that an election is a thing not unknown even in Turkish institutions. It is not effective. It does not generate that sense of the value of liberty, or those habits of mind connected with liberty, which are well known to us in the West. At the same time, there is a basis in the fact that the practice of elections is to some extent familiar in Turkey, and it would be wrong in a British Government if it did not endeavour to turn to account the first commencement, those initial elements of a good system, which we find, to a certain extent, ready to our hands; and I am glad to find that the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), who has been labouring in the East among a population not altogether remote in civilization from the Cypriotes, has given his voice distinctly in favour of what may be called institutions partaking of the principle of freedom in Cyprus. The question of the payment to Turkey was hardly contemplated in the Notice of Motion, and I do not know that it can be made the subject of beneficial discussion. We found certain facts before us. The payments which have been made formed, primâ facie, a rule for us; but I am bound to say that I think that
    922
    when the British and Turkish Governments had to consider together the nature and amount of this payment they met upon very unequal terms. It was very easy for the Turkish Government to make out an extremely favourable account of the receipts to be had from the Island; very difficult for the British Government to check that amount or reduce it to its true proportions. The whole mode of the chaotic finances of Turkey made it easy for the Turks, under cover of the darkness, to set up an extravagant claim; and it may be that, without any fault on the part of the late Government, Turkey is receiving far more than she actually netted from the Island when it was under her own dominion; but I do not see that it is open to us to alter that so long as the system of annual payment is continued. Nothing could be worse than to attempt to escape the spirit of the Convention in regard to pecuniary matters. I wish to say one word on my own behalf. I am reported to have stated that this Convention was an instrument which we could not withdraw from. I believe that what I actually stated was that it was an instrument with respect to the matter of which we are not so free as we were before it was concluded. I did not say anything about withdrawing from it. I do not wish to point to a particular issue; but I merely intended to convey the idea that we must regard it as an abridgment of the freedom which, but for that, we should have enjoyed. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has gone over with great care and clearness the whole of the points embraced in the Motion, and I cannot too distinctly give my adhesion to all that fell from him. He avoided most justly all that may be called controversial matter, and I wish to follow his example, and to rest content with his statement, as I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) will rest content. But I wish to express my difference with the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), with regard to the transfer of the administration of the government of Cyprus from the Foreign to the Colonial Office. The hon. Member referred to the case of the Ionian Islands as supplying us with a warning against this transfer. He appeared to think that the case of the Ionian Islands would have been better if the administration

    923
    had remained under the Foreign Office. Upon that I observe that the case, primâ facie, of the administration of the Ionian Islands by the Foreign Department was very much stronger than the case with regard to Cyprus. The case of the Ionian Islands was that by the public law of Europe those Islands continued to constitute a separate Sovereign Independent State. They were so declared. It was a different position from that of Cyprus, where we appear as feudatories or vassals of the Sultan. But Cyprus never has in recent times occupied the position of a Sovereign and independent State. I wish to say, therefore, that the opinion of the Government of that day as to the incapacity of the Foreign Office for administration of this hind was very strong, and although the national basis of the Seven Islands—the Septinsular Republic—was separate, it was thought that its affairs would be better administered under the Colonial Department. The question as to which of the two Departments is the fittest really turns very much on a prior or independent question—namely, what is our main business in Cyprus? I will not speak of the ideas with which the acquisition or occupation of Cyprus was undertaken, but of the ideas which undoubtedly we have applied. In our view, our main business in Cyprus is the good government of the people of Cyprus. It is to study their welfare, and not only to study their welfare through the medium of that rare phenomena, a benevolent despotism, but, so far as may be prudent, in connection with the introduction of institutions of self-government. In the Colonial Office the Minister who had charge has had continually to handle and guide the relations with free government, and it has been his business continually for the last 40 or 50 years to promote the foundation and development of free institutions in different Dependencies of the Crown. Therefore, from the nature of the employment, the Colonial Office has been in close and congenial connection with every part of the business that should employ Great Britain in respect to the Island of Cyprus. I own that I am of opinion—not from any blame to those holding office in the Foreign Department, but from the characteristics of the Department upon which I have just touched—I am of opinion that had the late Government placed Cyprus under the Colonial De-
    924
    partment, much greater progress would have been made through the aptitude of that Department towards the establishment of a thoroughly satisfactory system of government in the Island. I have no doubt that the British officers there have acted honourably and conscientiously; but undoubtedly their ideas and opinions have, in some cases, been exceedingly foreign to the Constitution and predilections of this country; and I think that these are opinions and ideas that could not for a moment have lived in the atmosphere of the Colonial Office. It was by that atmosphere that the Ionian Islands were gradually brought forward to such development that, even if they had continued their connection with this country, they would have enjoyed in almost every important particular the advantages of self-government; and when they obtained what, perhaps, they would call their emancipation of this country, it was not with a view to the removal of grievances, but to give expression to their laudable and natural feelings of nationality. The prevalent use of English as the judicial language of the country, the obligation imposed upon the people of Cyprus to make their pleas in the English language, to employ interpreters, and to bear the expense of those interpreters—this had been the case under the Foreign Office; but under the Colonial Office it would have been different. They would at once have followed the case of the Ionian Islands. What was done in that case? The administration of justice was conducted in the Greek language. There are two or three Judges of Appeal who are Englishmen; but they are conversant with the Greek language, and, as Judges of the people, of course stand on an entirely different footing from that occupied by the Judges of the ordinary tribunals of the country. The hon. Member for Portsmouth referred to the case of Austria and Novi Bazar, and said that that case was analogous to our possession of Cyprus; but I never heard that Austria attempted to administer Herzegovina and Bosnia through the medium of her Foreign Office. I am not speaking of this as a charge against the late Government. I do understand the great difficulties raised by the capitulations in the Island of Cyprus, and the immediate handling of questions of that kind is congenial to the purposes and habits of

    925
    the Foreign Office; but with regard to these capitulations, whether we administer through the Foreign Office or through the Colonial Office, it is mainly on the forbearance of foreign Governments we must depend rather than on any means which the ingenuity of our lawyers may supply in profound argument adequate to the solution of the different cases that may arise. When my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) spoke with some disparagement of the advantages of the Profession, he was received with expressions which I think it better to avoid. There is no benefit in reviving old disputes. I would respectfully recommend to hon. Gentlemen on the other side the careful perusal of a most admirable volume on this subject by Sir Samuel Baker. It contains a great deal of information. The testimony of Sir Samuel Baker respecting Cyprus might be received by hon. Gentlemen opposite as that of a friendly witness. There is another authority whom I may recommend them to consult — Admiral Sir Fanshawe Martin — who is always straightforward and speaks with great gravity and candour. These are witnesses of the highest order, to whom the friends of the original occupation of Cyprus may listen without fear that they are going to do injustice to the views they are accustomed to take. I trust my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the discussion which has taken place and withdraw his Motion. We have hitherto lost no time in considering this matter. I do not know that it will be in our power to be equally expeditious in the various steps that remain to be gone through. It is far from my wish to insinuate that we could do anything the late Government would not have done, or more than they would have done. I trust what will be done will be in the same direction and with the same end. At any rate, we are able to approach the subject without prejudice. We have no expectations that would divert us from, our primary duty to the country of considering how best we can discharge our obligations to the inhabitants of Cyprus. And, on the other hand, whatever doubt there may be as to the Anglo-Turkish Convention in its inception, we cannot treat it as non-existent, or measure our ideas of its force by the degree of approval which it met
    926
    with among its promoters. It will be our duty to examine carefully every step we take in a matter which, though on a small theatre, is very complicated, hopeful of good results; but, if disappointed, still I trust my hon. Friend and the House will believe that we are perfectly in earnest in the motives which impel us to that course, and that we have a sound and true conception of the nature of the principles on which we should act.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he had no wish to prolong the discussion; but he could not allow it to close without saying a few words. The House, he thought, had no reason to regret this debate. He had nothing to complain of in the general tone adopted by the Members of the Government. He felt they had done what was wise and right in avoiding as far as possible any discussion of controverted questions as to the motives and objects of the occupation of Cyprus. They had done well in abstaining from discussions which must have been prolonged, and might have been inconvenient upon the general subject of the Anglo-Turkish Convention. He felt that the discussion, as originated by the hon. Members who brought it forward, and as continued by the Government, had been one of a practical character, having reference to the duties which the Government of this country owed to the population of Cyprus in the circumstances in which we now stood. Whether hon. Members were disposed to criticize, or to acquiesce in, the conduct of the late Government with regard to the commencement of our relations with Cyprus was a question which they need not now enter upon; it had been touched upon only very slightly. But the object which he had in rising was to say a very few words as to the difference between the position in which the Government now stood in relation to Cyprus, and the position in which the late Government stood in the beginning with regard to it, because in that position would be found an explanation of many points in which the policy of the present differed from that of the late Government. He would refer especially by way of illustration to the question of the Department under which the administration of Cyprus should be placed. He admitted there was great force in much that had fallen from the Prime

    927
    Minister and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to the advantages which the Colonial Office afforded over the Foreign Office for the administration of the British Dependencies, and that it might be found convenient and desirable at an early date to transfer the administration of Cyprus from one Department to the other. But the circumstances of the time when we became connected with Cyprus, and the peculiarity of our relations with it, rendered it absolutely necessary, for some time at all events, that the Foreign Office should be the Department principally charged with the affairs of the Island. The relations which had to be established were certainly of a very novel character. A great deal had to be arranged by the intervention of our Ambassador at the Porte. It was necessary that there should be harmony between our relations with Cyprus and our relations with the Porte through our Ambassador; and it would have been highly inconvenient that the matter should have been partly in the hands of the Colonial and partly in the hands of the Foreign Office. And then there were questions with foreign Powers which might easily have arisen, and were likely to have arisen, if in the beginning the administration of Cyprus had been handed over to a Department the very name of which would have implied a different relation from what the Government were then endeavouring to establish. It must not, therefore, be thought that he was expressing any opinion adverse to the transfer if it could properly be made. There was another point also on which a great deal could be said, and to which a similar remark applied. A great deal had been made of the Ordinance which prohibited the purchase of land. No doubt, in an ordinary state of things, such an Ordinance would be of a character not very easy to defend. But they must remember that at the time the Ordinance was passed we had not an ordinary state of things to deal with. It had been pointed out— and no persons were more conscious of it than Her Majesty's late Government— that an agreement had been entered into by which a certain annual payment was to be made by them to the Porte, which would be a very heavy tax on the resources of the Island. They had to pay out of the Revenues of the Island a sum absorbing much the largest portion
    928
    of it. They had, at the same time, to endeavour to introduce improvements into the administration; and he need not say that the introduction of improvements into the administration of a Turkish Province at once involved considerable additional expense. They were unable any longer to tolerate a system of extortion which enabled business to be carried on with small salaries to the officials. They were obliged to pay higher salaries, and in many other ways to incur additional expense, without, at the same time, putting additional burdens on the population. In these circumstances, they had to look to their resources. There was one very obvious resource. A large portion of the Island consisted of waste lands, which were good for nothing, but which, by a proper system of management, might be made conducive to the advantage of the population, and from which, at the same time, some of the necessary revenue might be raised for the Porte. But at that time the novelty of our entering into Cyprus caused a great deal of excitement in very different quarters, and there seemed to be every probability that a large number of adventurers might come into the country, purchase large tracts of land for a mere nominal price, making fortunes for themselves in that way, and materially impeding, by the claims they would set up, works which the Government would have to do. In order, therefore, to prevent any inconvenient proceedings of that kind, the Ordinance was made to meet the circumstances of the case. The Ordinance was, no doubt, inconvenient, and somewhat peculiar, and he only mentioned it as illustrative of the different position of Her Majesty's Government now from that in which the late Government found themselves. In fact, the position of the present Government reminded him of the young lady who was going to learn music, and when she was told that the first six lessons would be very difficult, she said—"Let us begin, then, at the seventh." The Government were now beginning at the seventh lesson; and many of the difficulties which the late Government experienced were no longer in their way. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had pointed out that in some respects Her Majesty's Government were only giving effect to the intentions of their Predecessors. Though

    929
    not familiar with all that was done in the Department, yet he knew the general spirit in which it was administered. He knew the desire of his noble Friend lately at the head of the Foreign Office to introduce as soon as possible into Cyprus those improvements which would make it what it ought to be—a model of administration for the Turkish Provinces. The Seconder of the Motion (Mr. II. Samuelson) twitted him with saying that that was the object we ought to set before us. Well, he always said it was an object we ought to set before us—to administer the Island in such a way that the Turkish Government might have a model they might copy. He said it was not the object with which we took the Island; but, having to administer the Island, it was an object we ought to have before us. If we had such an object, we must take care that our system did not differ so widely from the system in other parts of Turkey as to give the Porte the opportunity of saying—"Oh, your system is so widely different from that which prevails in other parts of our dominions that we cannot follow it." He believed in taking up the laws of the Turkish Empire, which were not in themselves bad, but were good in spirit; and, endeavouring to administer them in an honest and judicious manner, we should be doing good to the population of that Empire. He did not now desire to enter into any controversy, which, however, if invited, he would not shrink from. But he thought hon. Gentlemen had exercised a wise discretion in limiting the question to the best way of fulfilling obligations which, whether wisely or unwisely contracted, it was not necessary now to discuss.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that after the satisfactory statements of the Prime Minister and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs he would ask permission to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  RE-APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. RITCHIE,in moving for the reappointment of a Select Committee on this subject, said, that the original Committee was appointed last year, and, having sat the whole of the Session, and not having been able to complete the
  930
  evidence, it was re-appointed in the short Session at the beginning of this year. Its deliberations were brought to a premature conclusion, and the Committee recommended that it should be reappointed in the new Parliament. It was for that re-appointment he was now moving. The last Committee consisted of 17 Members, two of whom had lost their seats at the General Election. He proposed to complete the inquiry with the 15 Gentlemen who remained. The two Gentlemen who had lost their seats held opposite views upon the subject which the Committee were appointed to investigate, and, consequently, they might fairly be paired. The Members of the Committee would agree with him in deploring that the investigation should have to be carried on without the assistance of Mr. Sampson Lloyd and Mr. Lowthian Bell. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had a Notice upon the Paper proposing to alter the Instructions to the Committee; but he thought the hon. Member could hardly be serious in trying to obtain an alteration in the Instructions of a Committee which, practically, had to meet only for the purpose of drawing up its Report. The hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown) had also given Notice of opposition to the Committee, but did not state upon what grounds his opposition was based. Under these circumstances, he should content himself with moving, without further preface, the re-appointment of the Committee.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Her Majesty's Government have no intention of opposing the Motion. The question for us is not that of the original appointment of the Committee for the purpose of inquiry into this difficult matter, nor is it the question of the propriety of the terms of Reference to the Committee. It is rather this. The Committee was appointed by the last Parliament, and the terms of Reference were fixed by the last Parliament. A considerable number of our fellow-subjects—artizans and labourers, practically engaged in the sugar industries as their manual industry—are greatly interested in the inquiry. The Committee in the last Parliament very nearly reached the close of its investigation, and little remains to be done excepting to register certain matters of fact that still have to be supplied to the Committee in their most recent

  931
  and authentic form. Therefore, the question with us is not of instituting an inquiry de novo by the present Parliament, but whether it would be politic or satisfactory for us to intercept the course of inquiry ordered in the last Parliament, and nearly completed by it. We think it better to allow this to stand virtually as an inquiry of the last Parliament, and we shall consider the Report of the Committee as if it had been made in that Parliament; for it would be invidious and a disappointment to the hopes and expectations, fairly raised by the measures taken, if we were to attempt to intercept the hon. Member in the completion of the work he has undertaken. We shall not, however, consider ourselves bound to the policy of the appointment of the Committee, or any Report it may make. We regard the question as entirely open, and not prejudiced by the part we now take in assenting to the Motion.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee re-appointed, "to inquire into the effects produced upon the Home and Colonial Sugar Industries of this Country by the systems of taxation, drawbacks, and bounties, on the exportation of Sugar now in force in various Foreign Countries; and to report what steps, if any, it is desirable to take in order to obtain redress for any evils that may be found to exist."—Committee to consist of Mr. BOURKE, Mr. BROWN, Mr. THORNHILL, Mr. JAMES STEWART, Mr. CORBY, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR, Mr. COLLINS, Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOOG, Mr. ORR EWINR, Mr. MORLEY, Mr. ONSLOW, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. RITCHIE.—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Sugar Industries of the Session 1878–9 and 1880 referred to the Select Committee on Sugar Industries.—(Mr. Ritchie.)

MERCHANT SHIPPING.

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee on Merchant Shipping do consist of Twenty-three Members."—(Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
  MR. A. BALFOURobserved, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had given Notice that he would oppose the nomination of the Committee which the noble Lord had just moved. Unfortunately, this Motion came on a little earlier than was anticipated by his hon. and learned Friend, who was not now in his place,
  932
  and by a large number of Gentlemen who, as he (Mr. Balfour) happened to know, also objected to the constitution of the Committee. Under these circumstances, he felt bound to move that the debate be adjourned, in order to give an opportunity to those Gentlemen to express their views on a matter which could only be regarded as one of the highest importance. He did not pretend to have accurately followed the course of events which had induced his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham to object to the constitution of this Committee; but he understood that last night some discussion on a Bill took place with respect to this Committee, and that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade gave a pledge to this effect—that he would not frame this Committee on a certain principle which the Prime Minister had recently adumbrated to the House. The principle laid down by the Prime Minister was that Parties should be balanced on Committees in the same proportion as they were in that House. Now that principle, which was an altogether novel one, and which, if generally adopted, would render the impartiality of Committees open to question, appeared to have been followed in the constitution of the present Committee. This body consisted of 23 Members; 12 of these were constant and recognized supporters of the Government, two belonged to what was called the third Party in that House, and nine only were drawn from what he might call the normal and Constitutional Party of Opposition. Either, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had forgotten his pledge, or he interpreted it differently from hon. Members on the Opposition side. The principle pursued previously in the appointment of these Committees was, he (Mr. Balfour) maintained, that each Party in the House should, as nearly as possible, be equally represented. In order that full consideration should be given to this most important matter, and that hon. Members specially interested in it might have an opportunity of attending, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—{Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYreminded the hon. Member that the names of the Committee now proposed did not appear on the Paper that day for the first time, so that there could be no breach of pledge on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade such as was suggested. His only object was to obtain the services of those Members who were peculiarly conversant with the subject under discussion. As the third Party in the House did not rank among the Liberal Party, the Government had really only a majority of one in the Committee. The Prime Minister himself would be able to correct, if it was wrong, the hon. Member's definition of the principle supposed to govern the constitution of Committees under the present Government. For himself, he would only point out to the hon. Member that the question of grain cargoes was not one of a Party character; and that, therefore, complaints as to any Party inequality in the constitution of the Committee would not lie.
  MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he understood the Prime Minister last night to intimate that Committees were to be constituted with due regard to the strength of the Government. Such a principle was quite new, not only to Members who came for the first time, but to those who had previously the honour of a seat in that House. Therefore, on the ground of principle, he should certainly support the Motion for adjournment.
  MR. DILLWYNremarked that in his experience it had always been a recognized principle that the Government should have power in Committees. The Prime Minister, as he understood, did not go quite so far as that, but only claimed a fair representation upon Committees of the views of the different sections of the House. By the formation of a third Party in Parliament the old lines of Business had been changed; and if the Government constituted Committees without regard to that change they would probably find themselves in a minority. He trusted the Motion would not be persevered with, as it was unprecedented to adjourn a question at an early hour merely because certain Members did not happen to be in their places.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he would be sorry if anything were to occur to delay
  934
  the appointment of the Committee on a subject of this important character. He suggested that the present difficulty should be met by the addition to the Committee of a few Conservative names. The late Government did their best to remedy the evils which the late Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had pointed out. He thought they had been only partially successful; but, at all events, they were more successful than their Predecessors. He ventured to suggest to the Prime Minister that such names should be added to the Committee as would give the Conservatives and the Liberals equal representation upon it.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he should have thought that this was a question which it was impossible to connect with Party. He hoped the practice would not be introduced of moving adjournments because of the absence of Members between 8 and 9 o'clock. Such a practice was unknown in his Parliamentary experience, and would be productive of much inconvenience and obstruction to Public Business. As regarded the Main Question before the House, what they asked was that each Party should have the benefit of its actual position in the House when it entered upon an investigation in a Committee. A Committee was, in a certain sense, an imperium in imperio. It was an authority, although a secondary authority, in the House. The judgment of a Committee did not foreclose a question, but its decision upon a question did, up to a certain point, influence the House; and, therefore, a Committee was, in some sense, a reproduction of the House for the purpose of influencing action on public questions. The principle for which the Government contended as reasonable in itself, and as established by long usage, was that a Committee should be constituted with some regard, but not an exclusive regard, to the distribution of political opinions in the House. Committees which were to advise and guide the House ought, in some degree, though not too minutely, to be something like faithful miniatures of the House. Against this the hon. Gentleman who spoke last on the other side set up an opposite principle. It was that those whom the hon. Member called Conservatives and Liberals ought to be equal in number on every Select Committee, and that some fraction

  935
  of the Committee should be composed of Members of the third Party, because, according to the hon. Gentleman, it was to this third Party that Her Majesty's present Government owed its position. The hon. Member seemed able to bend even the stern and rigid rules of arithmetic to his own views; because the figures which he (Mr. Gladstone) possessed showed that the position of the Conservative and Liberal Parties in the present and last Parliament had been almost precisely reversed, putting aside all those Members who were supposed to belong to what was termed the third Party. In the last Parliament the Conservative Party were 108 more in number than the Liberals, and in the present Parliament the Liberals were 107 more than the Conservatives; so that if an equal representation were given to Liberals and Conservatives, the voting power would rest with the third Party which had been spoken of. What was asked in regard to Committees was not that the Government might have a majority on the Committee. It was not the Government that nominated Committees, it was the House, and it was usual that the majority of the House should be represented in some degree by the majority on the Committee. With that the Government were perfectly content, and it seemed to him that the opposite side should be content with that division of strength. At the commencement of his Parliamentary life Committees were very large, consisting of 30 or 40 Members; but in later years, when the numbers were limited, the practice had been that the majority of the House should be represented by a majority on the Committee. Such was the case in the last Parliament; and, unless he was much mistaken, such was the case at an earlier period. Although there would be a majority on Committees, he trusted they never would be extreme in pushing their rights, but would keep within limits. On these grounds he objected to the adjournment.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) had moved the adjournment of the debate on the ground that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) gave Notice early in the evening that he should oppose the nomination of this Committee, and the appointment of the Committee had come
  936
  on at a much earlier hour than there was reason to expect at the time the Notice was given. He agreed with the Prime Minister that it would be setting a bad precedent to move the adjournment simply because an hon. Member who wished to take part in the discussion happened to be absent. On the present occasion, however, his hon. Friend moved the adjournment because he had reason to think that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham wished to bring forward a personal matter, and because the question raised by the appointment of this Committee was much larger and wider than that contained in the Motion of itself. They were all agreed that this ought not to be treated as a Party question, and that the Members nominated on the Committee were unexceptionable; but they could not shut out from view the fact that there were circumstances which rendered the appointment of this Committee in a certain sense a test question, and that they were not now merely engaged in appointing a particular Committee; but that they might be held to be laying down a precedent by which the appointment of Committees all through this Parliament was to be regulated. He believed that the hon. Member for Hertford had exercised a wise discretion in asking the House to adjourn its decision of the question. He felt that in the present circumstances of the House the question was not free from difficulty, and that the difficulty was of a peculiar and, to a certain extent, novel character. For a great number of years the custom had been to nominate an uneven number of Members to serve on Select Committees, and that the majority of the Committee should be drawn from the Ministerial side of the House, and the minority, being one less than the majority, from the ranks of the Opposition. That had been the rule—the unwritten rule—in many Parliaments, and it had been observed without reference to the precise strength of the Ministerial majority, whether that majority consisted of three or of 30 Members. He thought that, on the whole, it was best that such an understanding should prevail—that those hon. Members who were specially interested in the Business of the House should suggest the names of a certain number of hon. Members from their respective sides to serve on the Committee

  937
  to be appointed. That principle had been a good guide at a time when there were only two Parties in the House; but they had now a third Party, who, by their own wish, desired to be recognised as an independent Party, and the Opposition recognized them as such. How would the Government deal with the ease of the Members forming that Party? There were on the Committee 12 Gentlemen who were all distinctively Members of the regularly recognized Liberal Party; on the other hand, there were nine Gentlemen who were Members of the recognized Conservative Opposition; and then there were two Members upon it who represented the third Party. That Party attached itself to neither side of the House, and they did not desire to be regarded as a mere appanage or sub-division of the Liberal Party; and they desired the same liberty that had always been accorded to the Conservative and Liberal Parties of having a voice in the selection of Committees. It was quite as likely that the views of the third Party upon any given question might side with the Government as that they might go against it. The Government had a majority of one, and if they sided with them the Government would then have a majority of 14 against nine, which was rather an inconvenient division. He wished to know upon what principle they were to proceed. His right hon. Friend urged that the House ought at once to make the appointment of the Committee in accordance with its views of the rights of the majority, and, no doubt, the Government would have force enough to do so, if they chose; but so extreme an exercise of the power of a majority would be distasteful to the great bulk of the Members. It seemed to him that when, in the present state of the House, a Committee had to be appointed, the Members of the Government, as representing a majority, should propose such a number of names as might be appropriate to the size of the Committee, and that the regular Opposition should nominate a certain number falling short by one of the numbers of the majority, while the third Party nominated two Members chosen from their own adherents. He thought that his hon. Friend was not only perfectly justified in moving the adjournment of this question, but that they ought to be thankful to him for
  938
  having done so in order that the question might be deliberately considered. If, however, they were forced to proceed with the nomination of the Committee, it would be on the understanding that they were not bound by the precedent, but, on the contrary, protested against it. They could not accept the principle upon which it was now proposed to act as a law or a guide for the future.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the Government proposed to follow the invariable custom of nominating from their side of the House the majority of the Committee. It did not appear from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that their right to do so had been called in question on behalf of the Opposition, or that the fact was disputed that it was usual for the majority of a Committee to be drawn from the majority of the House. Now, there were broadly 350 Members of the present House of Commons who might be recognized among the usual supporters of the Government, 240 were supporters of a homogeneous Opposition, and 60 Members, or thereabouts, constituted what by their own wish was called the third Party. If those proportions were maintained in the Committee about to be nominated, they would give 12½ Members to the supporters of the Government, 8¼ to the recognized Opposition, and 2¼ to the third Party. Thus, in claiming only 12 Members on the Committee, the majority in the House, according to its strength and power, was really giving the turn of the scale to the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition said it was not desirable that the majority in the House should push its rights to an extreme. They were not pushing them to an extreme. The right hon. Gentleman opposite contended that the Treasury Bench should invariably include among its supporters the third Party—which refused to be so included —and that they should take a bare majority for themselves and for the third Party also. The practical effect of that would be that the supporters of the Government would be in a minority upon every Committee. The mere statement of the proportion was sufficient to condemn it. The plan of nominating Committees now proposed was practically the same as that adopted by the late Government; and as to the Committee now in question, it was one which had the confidence of the House, it fairly repre-

  939
  sented its political complexion, and, at the same time, it comprised fair representatives of the great interests concerned in the matter. The Leader of the Opposition had thought fit last night to warn his followers that it was possible their motives might be unfavourably construed. That was quite possible. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that legislation as to merchant shipping should be proceeded with; but when the Government proposed even to consider such legislation, some delay, or other was interposed. When the Government proposed to appoint a Select Committee, an adjournment was moved. As all the proceedings of hon. Gentlemen opposite tended to delay that question, the country might possibly be led to infer that delay was their object.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he felt much surprised at the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken. That right hon. Gentleman, who was new to his position, had lectured the House for adopting the course which he himself notably, and many others sitting on the same side, had pursued when they were in Opposition, The right hon. Gentleman now-had certain things to do, and was anxious to gain the credit of passing' certain Bills; and, therefore, he maligned the Opposition for exercising its legitimate function of seeing that those who were in power did their duty honestly and properly. In that House there was a sacred hour, and during that hour every means were taken by Gentlemen on either side to secure the fair discussion of important questions, and expedients were resorted to in order that Members might be in their places for such discussion. He was surprised at the way in which the Prime Minister had put that matter before the House. That right hon. Gentleman had last night stated that the third Party did not belong to that—the Ministerial—side of the House. Now, he had sat many years in the House, and he ventured to say that never had a Committee been appointed in the manner this one was about to be appointed. In constituting Committees the usual course was to take one Member from this side and another from that; but now it was proposed to take 12 Members from the Ministerial side and to give them an absolute majority, including all Parties. How could they
  940
  have an impartial Committee when one side had such a preponderance, and the inquiry was to be begun with a foregone conclusion? Both sides of the House ought to be fairly represented, and equal numbers ought to be taken from both sides, with the exception of one more for the Government. If the late Government had done what was now being attempted, the present Prime Minister would have loudly inveighed against it. He now appealed to the justice and even to the generosity of the House in the matter. The course proposed could not be a satisfactory settlement of the question; and unless the Prime Minister agreed to an alteration of the proposal hon. Gentlemen on his side would protest. He had known them to sit till 3 or 4 in the morning on a question of such importance as this; and unless they got some assurance that they would be fairly treated, that might even happen again. They were a determined Party, and could not easily be coerced. They rather preferred being on that side of the House; it was a place they liked; they were far more independent; they were a united Party; and the Prime Minister knew that when they took up a question they carried it to a logical and legitimate conclusion. Let the Committee be constituted on the old lines, by which the Government should have a majority of I only, instead of, as was now sought, 12 against 9. The right hon. Gentleman opposite knew more or less how Members would vote. ["No!"] He supposed that those on the other side of the House would vote with the Government; if so, they could calculate who belonged to their Party, which made the matter much easier, and gave no pretence for altering the old custom of constituting a Committee. ["No, no!"]
  MR. COURTNEYobserved, that they were engaged on a question of the very greatest delicacy and importance, and he hoped that they would be able to discuss it with temper, with moderation, and also with due deliberation. They were considering the constitution of a Committee to which should be relegated an inquiry of a highly important character. They were also dealing with a problem that had never been considered before. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had truly said they were establishing a pre-

  941
  cedent. Bearing that in mind, although he was prepared to support the solution which Her Majesty's Government had arrived at, he thought it would not be amiss if they agreed to the proposal of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour). It could not be said that the mind of the House was now fully informed on the matter. The mode of constituting Committees to which the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had referred originated when the House was divided strictly into two Parties. That state of things had passed away, and new circum-stances required a new procedure. He believed the Government had offered a proper solution for the House, but this was the first time it had been put before the House; and being a grave question he thought another opportunity might be given before they finally decided upon it. He was fortified in that by an observation of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote), who, if he had thought a little more, would never have submitted the solution which he did submit — namely, that the Government should have one more than the number allotted to the usual Opposition, leaving to the third Party a proportion of their own. The right hon. Gentleman said the third Party might be very well content with that. Why, that made the third Party master of the Committee. He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would not adhere to that proposal. It would seriously diminish the strength of his own Party if they came into Office again.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not see why they should not have sufficient time for the consideration of this subject. During the last Parliament the matter did not arise in this way. It was true that the existence of a third Party was acknowledged in the last Parliament; but it so happened that the third Party sat with Her Majesty's Opposition, and the Opposition, being generally of the same opinion as the third Party, did not think any inequality arose in allowing the third Party to share in their portion of the representation of a Committee. It was arranged that that share should be in proportion to the numbers of that Party. But now they had an entirely different state of affairs. They had the third Party sitting on the side of those against whom they always contended in
  942
  the last Parliament, and a proposition that the third Party should have a share of representation in the composition of a Committee. He must confess that if he saw any hope of the House agreeing to the very ingenious proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) he should be inclined to support it. It would, undoubtedly, give the third Party a very great advantage in the deliberations of all Committees. It was, however, defective in principle, and he did not think the House would adopt it, so he regretted to be obliged to stand on principle, and oppose it. He thought that, although in times past it had not been the custom to take into consideration the relative numbers of the different Parties in the House, yet, under the new circumstances which undoubtedly existed, the House could not adopt any better rule than that of forming its Committees in proportion to the numbers of the different Parties. And, as for the third Party, he trusted that it would grow in number.
  MR. D. M'LARENwished to say a word on the question as it affected the general character of the House and forms of representation. According to the published lists, the majority of the Liberal Party over the Conservatives and third Party was very large. If the name of every Member were put in an urn and drawn out to form Committees, the effect would be that the Liberal Party would always have a large majority. He quite agreed, however, with what the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) had said, that although the Liberal Party might claim a much larger majority on Committees, it would not always be expedient to exercise that power; but if the present proposition were carried into effect, the result would be that the Liberal Party, with a large majority over both sections of the House combined, would always be in a minority. If the Tory Party proper had only one fewer than the Liberal Party, and if the Home Rulers had two independently, the result would be that in every Committee the Liberal side of the House would be in a minority of one, although they had a large majority of the whole House.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLcould assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that several Members below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the

  943
  House were most anxious that the nomination of this Committee should be, at any rate, discussed, and that they should be able to state before the right hon. Gentleman and the Government their views on the matter.
  MR. GLADSTONEhoped, as Notice had been given that the appointment of this particular Committee would not be accepted as ruling the general principle on which Committees were to be selected, and as it was important that the question under consideration should be proceeded with, that the House would allow the Committee to be appointed without prejudice, and take a discussion on the general question on the occasion of the appointment of another Committee.
  MR. A. BALFOUR,in explanation, wished it to be understood that he had not accused the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade of any breach of faith in reference to this matter. Probably the misunderstanding had arisen from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was not in the House when he addressed it, and a distorted account of what was said had reached him. He accepted the Prime Minister's statement that the present case was not to bind the nomination of future Committees, but felt bound to take a division. If the division was against him he should not press the question further now.
  Question put.
  The House divided: — Ayes 28; Noes 128: Majority 100. — (Div. List, No. 13.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Twenty-three," in order to insert the words "Twenty-five,"— (Mr. Norwood,) —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Twenty-three' stand part of the Question."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put.
  Resolved, That the Select Committee on Merchant Shipping do consist of Twenty-three Members.
  Committee nominated: —Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Mr. CHARLES WILSON, Mr. BAXTER, Mr. ARTHUR COHEN, Mr. FRY, Mr. BARCLAY, Mr. EDWARD JAMES REED, Sir HARCOURT JOHNSTONE, Mr.
  944
  GOURLEY, Mr. JENKINS, Mr. STEVENSON, Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. MAC IVER, Mr. BOUND, Mr. JOHN G. TALBOT, Mr. ONSLOW, Mr. BIRKBECK, Mr. CORRY, Sir EDWARD BATES, Mr. MULHOLLAND, Mr. GORST, Mr. DAWSON, and Mr. RICHARD POWER:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  In reply to Mr. A. BALFOUR,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that when the next Committee came to be appointed he would take care that an opportunity should be given to raise the question again.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONGE D'ELIRE BILL— [BILL 158.]
  (Mr. Monk, Sir Henry Jackson.)
  CONGE D'ELIRE BILL— [BILL 158.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. MONK,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to abolish the congé d'élire, and to make provision for the appointment of Archbishops and Bishops direct by Her Majesty's Letters Patent under the Great Seal. He sought, in short, to abolish a mere form which was a mockery, tending to bring religion and religious usages into ridicule. The Bill was introduced in what he considered the best and truest interests of the Church; and he maintained that the conge d'élire had been condemned by the almost unanimous voice both of the laity and the clergy of this country as a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. The Dean and Chapter were compelled, under the penalties of prœmunire, to elect the person named in the Letters Missive. It was a mockery to call that an election. In the reign of Edward VI. Bishoprics were made donative direct from the Crown. That was now the case with the Bishoprics of St. Alban's, Truro, and Liverpool. The responsibility of those appointments rested, as it ought to rest, with the Ministry of the day. They, and not the Deans and Chapters, were rightly intrusted with the important duty of selecting fit persons to fill the episcopal office. In Ireland, Bishoprics were made donative in the reign of Elizabeth, and so continued till the Disestablishment of the Irish Church. The confirmation of Bishops at Bow Church had more than once led to great scandal, when opposers were called upon to ap-

    945
    pear and make their objections, and, when they did so, were declared contumacious for not appearing. In 1848 there was a discussion on this subject in the House of Lords with reference to the appointment of Bishop Hampden. Lord Chief Justice Denman said that it would be a great improvement in the law if Bishops were appointed directly by the Crown. The present mode of election was unhesitatingly condemned by two of the most respected Members of the Episcopal Bench— Bishop Thirlwail and Bishop Phillpotts. The object of this Bill was to give effect to that suggestion. The time had arrived when it was absolutely necessary that some change should be made in this matter. On a former occasion when he introduced a similar Bill, the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot) moved an Amendment to render the congé d'élire a reality, which it was not at present; but the present Secretary of State for the Home Department had pointed out in a former debate that that was to attack one of the fundamental principles of the Reformation. This Bill followed the lines of his former measures on this subject; he brought it forward in the best interests of religion and the Church, and he hoped the House would give it a second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Monk.)
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL,in the absence of the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex (Colonel Makins), who had given Notice of an Amendment, rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. The noble Lord said there was a great similarity between the arguments used by the author of the Bill and those employed by Mr. Brad-laugh on another occasion. The hon. Member for Gloucester wished to abolish the congé d'élire, and Mr. Bradlaugh wished to abolish the Parliamentary Oath, on the ground that they were mockeries. The hon. Member could hardly like to see himself in the same rank with Mr. Bradlaugh. He was extremely sceptical of statements put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite in the interest of the Church of England. He claimed the right at least to be sceptical whether hon. Members opposite, in sup-
    946
    porting such a Bill, really had the interests of the Church of England at heart. This ancient form and practice connected with the appointment of Bishops by the Crown must be of some utility, or it would have been abolished before, when they had Liberal Governments with little Whig tendencies about them. The House ought not to be in a hurry to abolish these forms merely on such plausible grounds as had been urged in the plausible speech to which they had just listened. It would bo desirable that Her Majesty's Government should express their views on the subject. Perhaps it was a question like the Public Worship Act, as to the repeal of which he understood the Government had not made up their minds. Her Majesty's present Ministers boasted of having the cordial support of the clergy, and it would be interesting to know whether they were in favour of abolishing a form which the majority of the clergy wished to uphold. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
    An hon. MEMBER seconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that on this occasion, though, probably, not on any other during his Parliamentary career, he should be found voting in the same Lobby with the noble Lord, because the form attacked was a relic of the struggles of the English people to secure the appointment of Bishops who should represent the national interest as against that of the Papacy; for the Bishops who were appointed in the time of Edward VI., and the Irish Bishops who were appointed in the last century, both without going through the form of the congé d'élire, were by no means model Bishops. It was true it was a form; but forms often enshrined great historical principles. This form should be retained in view of a time to come when the English Church would be free of all relations with the State, and then that which was now an empty form might become a solid

    947
    reality. He, at least, should be sorry to see it got rid of. Deference to public opinion on the part of the clergy should be one of the means of checking among them disaffection to the laws of the land; and if the discipline of the clergy were in the hands of the Bishops, as that of the Bar was in the hands of the Benchers, public opinion would be strong enough to prevent any injustice being done. He hoped some day the whole Acts by which the clergy were governed would be swept away. In his opinion, the most unlucky thing to the Church was that benefices should have been treated as freeholds. 80 long as the Bishops were simply nominated by the Crown without respect or consideration whatever for the feelings of the clergy so long would there be disaffection among the clergy. He should certainly vote against the Motion.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had a little strayed from his province in dealing with so important a matter. The hon. Member had not told the House that he had taken the opinion of the responsible Advisers of the Crown on what he proposed to do; and yet, if there was any question on which the opinion of the responsible Ministers of the Crown should be taken, it was one which affected, as this did, the relations between Church and State. He might be mistaken; but he thought it was worthy of note that neither of the two Ministers who were specially responsible in matters of this kind — the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Homo Department — should be in his place. Nor did he believe that their absence could be construed as giving a support to the Bill. From what he recollected of the opinions of the Prime Minister, he should be very much surprised if the right hon. Gentleman were not to give a very strong opposition to the Motion. He believed the Prime Minister agreed with the hon. Member for South-wark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) that ancient forms had to him a great value, because they often enshrined great principles. If ever such a melancholy time came when the English Church would be freed, as the hon. Member for Southwark called it, from all connection with the State, then he should be glad to see such an ancient form preserved. He objected to the Bill, in the first place, because it was brought forward by a private Mem-
    948
    ber without the sanction of the Ministers of the Crown.
    MR. MONK: My hon. Friend forgets that I stated my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary expressed a decided opinion in favour of this measure.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTobserved, that that was at a time when the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not hold his present position; but what they wanted to know was, what was the opinion of the Home Secretary? The hon. Member for Gloucester, in introducing the Bill, relied very much on the St. Albans Act, the Truro Act, and the Bishoprics Act of 1878. It was true that with respect to these new Bishoprics no congé d'élire issued, because there was no Dean and Chapter to whom to issue it; but it was remarkable that provision was made for the revival of the congé d'élire in the future, after the foundation of the Dean and Chapter, for he found in Section 6 of the Bishoprics Act these words—
    "From and after the foundation of such Dean and Chapter a vacancy in that Bishopric shall be filled in the same manner as a vacancy in any other Bishopric in England founded in the reign of any of Her Majesty's predecessors."
    Therefore, the form which the hon. Member would repeal was recognized by the Act. Now, had a case been made out for so sweeping a change? He admitted that the present position was not satisfactory. That must be admitted by anyone having friendly feelings towards the Church of England. It could not be satisfactory to any friend of the Church that a form intended to be solemn should have something approaching to what might be called a mockery about it. But his way of treating such a matter was not the same as that of the hon. Member for Gloucester. The hon. Member for Gloucester, when he found what he called a "mockery," would do away with it. His idea, on the contrary, was to improve and amend it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had once told him that his attempt to revive the true congé d'élire was opposed to one of the cardinal settlements of the Reformation. But the improvement he would suggest was in some such form as this. The Crown might issue the congé d'élire to the Dean and Chapter, and the Dean and Chapter, if they felt any objections, might state

    949
    them; and he believed in nine eases out of ten such objections would be respectfully listened to by the responsible Advisers of the Crown. Even what the hon. Gentleman regarded as a mockery had a very good effect. It was useful that some of the most respected clergy might at least have the power to protest against what they regarded as an improper nomination. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the case of Dr. Hampden. It was true that the nomination in that case had not been withdrawn. Dr. Hampden became Bishop of Hereford; but no such appointment was made again. For the reasons he had given, because this Bill was brought forward without the advice of the Ministers of the Crown, because the form was at present not without its value, and might in future have a very great value, he could not assent to the Motion.
    MR. ARTHUR PEELsaid, that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. G. Talbot) was right in pointing out that in the new Bishoprics lately created—St. Albans, Truro, and Liverpool — there was a re-assertion, and, therefore, a reaffirmation, of the principle embodied in the Protest. He need hardly remind the House of the process which was pursued on these occasions. The hon. Gentleman said that the condition of affairs was not satisfactory. In one sense he confessed it was not satisfactory, and that was that a most solemn form was made use of by the Dean and Chapter in the election of the Bishop, which, at the time they made it, he was going to say, they must know to be a farce. The question under discussion was a part of a large and important subject, and as it interfered with the Prerogative of the Crown it was hardly competent to a private Member to bring it forward. It extended further than could be thought of at that moment—it was a part of the question of Church and State—and it should be taken up by the Government if dealt with at all. He must strongly deprecate hasty legislation on the question; and he could not, therefore, support the Bill of the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEwished to thank the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department for the temperate speech which he had delivered, and which had removed this question above the heated atmosphere in which ecclesiastical questions were gene-
    950
    rally discussed. Did the hon. Member who introduced this Bill expect to carry the olive-branch in his mouth to their distracted Church? The hon. Gentleman had striven throughout his career to be a liberal Churchman; for, though devoted to the Church, he was very devoted indeed to Liberal progress. He asked him what was there progressive in the obliteration of the last form of constitutional election in the appointment of the chief pastors of the Church? The Bill of the hon. Member would really make Bishops appointed much in the same way as Poor Law Inspectors. If it had been proposed to give more reality and life to the congé d'élire —to make it, with a few modifications, a real review of the Minister's choice—he would have done a far better thing. Personally, he (Mr. Beresford Hope) approved of the selection vesting in the Prime Minister. The real merit of Ministerial patronage was that it gave to a competent person a power of choosing the best man with a wide scope; but this power ought not to be. If a means were devised by which a mistaken nomination might be refused, that would be a most excellent reformation. But any such reform as that would be made for ever impossible by the Bill of his hon. Friend. Once they made Bishops the mere nominees of the Crown, and they made election for ever impossible in any sense. The existing methods had always been observed, except in the few troubled years of Edward VI. All the Sees, whether of older date, or of the times of Henry VIII., William IV., and Victoria, were now under the same regime, and even in the six new Sees the same principle was prospectively recognized, so that it would apply whenever Deans and Chapters were created for those Sees; and future Bishops of Truro and Liverpool would be elected in the usual manner. He was not an advocate of the supercession of the present safeguards; and, on these grounds, he trusted that his hon. Friend would be satisfied with the discussion of his scheme and would withdraw the Bill.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Bill before the House was not one to which the Government had given any especial attention, as they had already too much on their hands. But it involved very numerous, weighty, and delicate con-

    951
    siderations. He gave credit to the hon. Member who had moved the second reading of the Bill for his motives. In the minds of many the present form of electing Bishops was thought to cause scandal, and the hon. Member desired to remove that scandal and effect a practical improvement in the Church. He was not prepared to say that no improvement could be effected in ecclesiastical law in this matter, though he had no plan to propose with reference to that great matter of the form of election of Bishops. There was great force in what had been said by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. A. Peel), and his advice to the House deserved great consideration. This appeared a small matter; but it was a portion of a very large subject which had proved its greatness by the place it had occupied in the most critical periods of our history. There was nothing that lay nearer the root of the constitution of the Church established in this Realm than the manner in which its Bishops were appointed. He was bound, in fairness and honesty, to express the opinion that, while he gladly gave assent to what had been urged by the promoter of the Bill, it was not to be denied that the existence of a certain moral check—for it was no more than a moral check—upon the Prerogative of the Crown worked well rather than ill, apart altogether from the form in which that check was exercised. He thought this might be proved by history. There was one remarkable instance in the experience of the Established Church of Ireland which afforded an illustration of the operation of this principle. In the time, he thought, of Sir Robert Walpole, the Minister of the day wanted to appoint a certain Dr. Rundle to a Bishopric; but on account of doctrines which that gentleman held, his nomination to an English Bishopric was opposed in the Chapter to which it was proposed to send him. What did Sir Robert Walpole do? He abandoned his intention of appointing him to a Bishopric in England, and transferred him to Ireland, where there was no necessity for the congé d'élire, and where, consequently, he could exercise his choice with greater freedom than he could show on this side of the water. Another illustration might be found nearer to our own time, and it was in a case in which he was himself con-
    952
    cerned. He need not scruple to mention the name of the distinguished individual immediately concerned, for he believed whatever prejudice formerly existed against that distinguished individual had been completely dissipated since he was raised to the Episcopal Bench. He spoke of Dr. Temple, the Bishop of Exeter. When he (Mr. Gladstone) thought it his duty to recommend Dr. Temple to the Crown for this appointment, and Her Majesty was pleased to give effect to the recommendation, there was considerable excitement in the country on account of the accidental association of the name of certain works of Dr. Temple with other works which, rightly or wrongly, had given rise to a great deal of alarm. On that ground there was a disposition to object very strongly to the appointment. The matter was discussed amongst the gentlemen forming the Chapter of Exeter. It was rather a large Chapter, and wholly undistinguished by any colour of party, as far as opinions in the Church were concerned, and the leading members of that Chapter advised their brethren to this effect — that if there had been good and canonical grounds of objection to the doctrines of Dr. Temple, it would have been their duty to decline to elect; but there were no such grounds, and, consequently, they would do wisely in forbearing to give way to the popular outcry, and in electing that distinguished gentleman. He was elected, duly consecrated, and no more faithful, diligent, learned, or beloved Bishop had ever filled the See. Having come in contact with that institution, he (Mr. Gladstone) was by no means prepared to say that, from partial information or error, a Minister might make an appointment to which this moral obstacle might not be set up with very beneficial effect. It would tend to secure care in the selections, and its importance could not be overstated. He could not also refrain from reflecting that election and representation were one of the oldest institutions of the Christian Church. There was no greater error than to think that the Constitution of the Church, as derived from early times, was founded on an autocracy. It was, indeed, the boast of ecclesiastical historians that it was this ecclesiastical election and representation which first suggested the idea of representative political assemblies. Whe-

    953
    ther that were so or not, he knew that this principle of election was widely practised amongst Christians of all denominations. Their Nonconformist brethren, most justly and wisely, attached vital importance to it. If they took the ease of the Church of Scotland, they found that, notwithstanding the existence of Establishment, great scope was allowed, and additional scope had lately been given to this principle of election. He admitted that in the present case it had a very partial application. The old principle was election by the Church and assent by the laity. This was the sole relic of that system. If the time came and proper opportunity arose, he would rather endeavour to inquire whether they should not try to substitute for it some improved form, rather than sweep away that which was a witness of what was in itself good, and enshrined some remnants of an institution of the past. Considering how this matter was associated with one of the most high and delicate Prerogatives of the Crown—namely, the government of the Church—he thought it must be admitted that this subject was one which could hardly be touched with advantage except after full consideration by the Executive Government, and upon the responsibility of the Executive Government. He respectfully expressed the opinion that while it was an advantage that attention should have been drawn to the subject, in the hope that upon suitable opportunity some improved method of procedure might be happily suggested, yet, at the present moment, he doubted whether good would attend the prosecution of this measure, and he recommended that it should not be proceeded with.
    COLONEL MAKINS,who agreed almost entirely with everything that the Prime Minister had said, opposed the Bill, because its tendency was subversive of Church and State. There could be no doubt that in case of a conflict between a Chapter and the Crown the former must be overruled; but, nevertheless, it was important that the Church should have as potent a voice as possible in the election of her Bishops. He could conceive a Chapter facing the penalties even of a prœmunire rather than vote against their conscience for a nominee of the Crown of whom they disapproved. He had put down a
    954
    Notice of Motion for rejecting the Bill; but after what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman he did not think it necessary to detain the House at any length.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, that although the Prime Minister regarded the institution of the congé d'élire as involving a mere moral check, yet there had been wishes expressed on the other side that it might grow into a real and legal cheek. Against this last idea he distinctly objected, holding that so long as the Church of England remained established, it was necessary, as a safeguard against the dangers that might result from the wealth and position of the clergy, to have the authority of the State firmly maintained. But if this institution was to remain a germ, and never develop into a reality, then it would become nothing better than a solemn farce, for it was not the case that it gave any protection to the Church for the exclusion of a nominated Bishop, for, besides the penalties of prœmunire, resistance became useless, and, in case of refusal to elect, Letters Patent would issue as if there had been no opposition at all. Hon. Members who were so sensitive to the high tone and character of the Church should oppose a ceremonial which was only a mockery. Strong feeling had been excited lately—and he would not say unnaturally—against what was construed as the obtrusive parade of a disposition to make a farce of a solemn ceremony. But he would ask those hon. Members whether the accompaniment of this act of election with a solemn religious ceremony, while the Dean and Chapter knew they had no choice in the matter, but could only register the wishes of the Prime Minister, was not equally unreal and insincere—whether they who had shown themselves so sensitive on one point were not making themselves equally guilty of a similar desecration of a solemn ceremony on another point? He hoped the hon. Member would find support to induce him to divide, when he should certainly vote with him.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHfelt no embarrassment in stating the views he held as a Nonconformist. On the one hand it was asked, could the form be maintained which had been denounced by some as a mockery, and others as a delusion? and, on the other hand, it had been said some Churchmen wished to

    955
    maintain the form, in the hope that at some day it might be clothed with substance and reality, that at some future time there might be an actual, a real representation of the Church in the appointment of her chief pastors. But from what had been done in the case of the Irish Church, it would seem that it was vain to hope that the Church would have a representative and independent voice so long as the present relations continued with the State. As a Nonconformist, he felt he should be meeting the views of both sides if he supported the Bill of the hon. Member to get rid of a sham, and assisted those who looked forward to the times when there should be real and actual representation of the Church. He avowed the best of all feelings towards the spiritual institutions of the Church; but he should vote for the removal of a sham and empty form, and he was satisfied that in the minds of all Nonconformists and Presbyterians the only marvel was that it should have been tolerated so long.
    MR. MONKfelt it would be his duty to take the sense of the House upon the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 72; Noes 97: Majority 25.—(Div. List, No. 14.)
    "Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for three months.

MERCHANT SEAMEN (PAYMENT OF WAGES, &c.) BILL— [BILL 119.]
(Mr. Ashley, Mr. Chamberlain.)
MERCHANT SEAMEN (PAYMENT OF WAGES, &c.) BILL— [BILL 119.]

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [28th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. GORST,in moving, as an Amendment—
  "That it in the opinion, of this House the exceptional Law by which seamen are liable to arrest without warrant and imprisonment with hard labour for simple- breach of contract should be repealed,"
  956
  said, he hoped the House would not consider it inconvenient, upon the opportunity afforded by the second reading of the Bill to benefit merchant seamen, if he called their attention to the very exceptional laws affecting that class of persons, especially as those exceptional laws called for redress. Merchant seamen were subject to exceptional law, not only when they were at sea and out of the natural limits of the Kingdom, but even when on shore engaged in working beside ordinary labourers in the docks they were exposed to penalties to which no other workmen in the country were liable. They might, if they had broken a simple contract of service, be arrested, not only by the police, but by the officers, owners, or consignee of the vessel, and were, on conviction before a justice of the peace, liable to imprisonment under circumstances in which any other person would only be liable to civil process. He did not suppose that any other class of people would have submitted so long to such an injustice; and he believed that the reason why their rights had been so little considered was because they belonged to a class which did not possess any electoral powers. Had they belonged to any of the more powerful classes of the country, he was sure that the attention of Parliament would have been called to the subject, and that their grievances would have been redressed. He hoped he was not appealing in vain to the new Parliament, when he invited new Members of the House who came there with generous sentiments towards all classes in the country, before they became corrupted by the atmosphere of that House, to consider a class which had no political power and to see that that class had justice done to it. In 1875 there was a Bill for the amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act, and so convinced was the Board of Trade that the then condition of the law could not be maintained, that great modifications wore proposed in that Bill, which was considered by the House of Commons and passed through Committee, where a number of modifications were introduced, which, although they greatly ameliorated the condition of the merchant seamen, did not, in his opinion, go far enough. The Bill was then laid aside. In the following Session that Bill was passed which gave such satisfaction to the workmen throughout the country, but

  957
  from which the merchant seaman -was cruelly excluded—namely, the Master and Servant Act. An appeal had been made on this subject by the late Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) and others, and promises were held out that the case of the merchant seaman should be duly considered. But that consideration had never been given. In the following year, when the new Merchant Shipping; Bill was passed, he (Mr. Gorst) himself had moved an Amendment and received the most distinct pledge from the then Government, which was given by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the matter should receive immediate attention. The evil was recognized, a remedy was promised, and nothing remained but to carry that promise into effect, and yet nothing more had been done than to draft Bills which had been put into the pigeon holes of the Board of Trade, while the merchant seamen remained in a condition which was confessed by the Committee of 1875 to be without excuse. Of course, Her Majesty's Government had not made any pledges at present; but Members of the Government had used the strongest language on the subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), when he was out of Office, described the existing law relating to merchant seamen as by far the most severe and barbarous Criminal Code which was known in this country, and which, he believed, was unexampled in the law of any other country in the world. It was, he said, to that Criminal Code that the seamen of this country were subject; a Code under which they suffered, and at that day were suffering, the most cruel and indefensible injustice. After quoting the law, the right hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to say "they were asked to enact what he would call this piece of brutal legislation against the seamen of the country." They had already had evidence that many things which had been said by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen when in Opposition might be found inconvenient to recollect when they were in Office; but he hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Derby, who he regretted was not in the House, now that he was Secretary of State for the Home Department, would recollect the words which he used in 1875, when he sat upon the
  958
  Front Opposition Bench, and that some attempt would be made by the present Government to remedy that brutal legislation of which he had complained. His object in bringing these circumstances before the House was that he thought the present Bill, intended for the benefit of merchant seamen, was one which went in the wrong direction. The shipping interest of the country had, for many years, been the subject of legislation by the Board of Trade. The law took charge of the builders, masters, owners, and seamen of vessels at every turn; and he was told, although he had not heard the speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), that in introducing this Bill he described the seaman as a kind of foolish child, who required a nurse to attend him in every seaport, and whose every action needed the attention of the Board of Trade. Now, that seemed to him to be a wrong principle on which to legislate for the great interests of the country; and he again appealed to hon. Members who had recently come into that House, and to their principles of political economy, to assist him in vindicating a doctrine which in books was always highly praised—namely, that of "freedom of contract"—the principle of allowing grown men to make their own agreements, and to trust them to take care of their own interests. He believed if seamen were left to make their own bargains a great many instances of recklessness in connection with unseaworthy ships would disappear. An advance note was merely an instrument made by the seaman, just in the same way as an instrument might be made by a ploughman; it was a mere order to pay money on condition of the seaman going to sea. It had been found that this instrument in some cases, although not in all, gave rise to great extravagance on the part of the seaman, whoso advance note was cashed by the dealers in slops, who went by the name of "crimps," and that very often half the money was lost, and the seaman sent on board drunk and incapable of performing his duties. Now, the reason why this document had a peculiar validity which tempted a man to cash it was because the condition of going to sea could be enforced by imprisonment. That constituted the exceptional value of the advance note. The crimp said to him-

  959
  self—"lean get people to enforce this condition by having the man taken up and put in prison if he won't go to sea." Now, it appeared to him (Mr. Gorst) that instead of putting a new restriction upon the right of the seaman and shipowner to make a contract, it would be better to abolish the cruel and barbarous law which gave this document its effect. Therefore, he suggested that instead of adding one more to the already too numerous laws under which the shipping interests groaned, they should put a stop to the arbitrary imprisonment of seamen, and then the advance note system, so far as it was objectionable, would fall to the ground. There were two courses before the House—one, that which was proposed by the Secretary to the Board of Trade, that when they found a document doing harm, they should make a special law prohibiting the making of that document, a course which was against all the principles of political economy and legislation which hon. Members, before they came into that House, were accustomed to regard as sound. The other, which was embodied in his Amendment, and which was recommended by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Derby, was to get rid of the barbarous and brutal law to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded. It was a course in accordance with all the principles of political economy, because it would put a stop to exceptional class legislation, and put the seaman on the same footing as all the other working men in the country. It would also stop an evil without resorting to infringement of the principle of freedom of contract. For those reasons, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is the opinion of this House the exceptional Law by which seamen are liable to arrest without warrant and imprisonment with hard labour for simple breach of contract should be repealed,"—(Mr. Gorst,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that when a few evenings ago his hon. Friend the
  960
  Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) had moved the second reading of this Bill, and explained at length its provisions, he (Mr. Norwood) had made an appeal for the adjournment of the debate, on the ground of the lateness of the hour, and in consequence of the small number of Members present, under which circumstances it had appeared to him that a question of such importance both to the shipowner and sailor could not be fully and fairly considered. The same objection existed on the present occasion, and he found that a further difficulty had been raised by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), which raised a side issue. With many of the opinions uttered by the hon. and learned Member he could cordially agree; indeed, he had always contended that there was too much legislation of a somewhat grandmotherly character which militated against the interests of merchant shipping, and that many of the regulations were very minute and vexatious. His hon. and learned Friend had made some very broad observations as to the barbarity and extreme cruelty of the power of arresting seamen without warrant; but he had not explained the circumstances under which that power could be exercised. The great mistake made in endeavouring to legislate for merchant seamen was that persons failed to understand the exceptional character of the circumstances connected with a seafaring occupation, and the distinction which existed between the conditions of the ordinary workman and seaman, which were so different that no precise parallel could be drawn between the two. The power to arrest without warrant, to which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham objected, related solely to the non-fulfilment of contract on the part of a seaman to join his ship. The law had environed the seaman with every possible safeguard. It did not allow a seaman's contract to be made in the ordinary way; on the contrary, the captain of the ship and crew must appear before an officer at the Marine Office of the Board of Trade; the agreement was most carefully and elaborately worded; it was read over to the seaman, who undertook at a specified time to join the ship and proceed on the voyage. Now, in the case of a ship loaded with

  961
  a cargo of great value, with the passengers on board and everything ready for sea, hon. Members would see that the most extensive injury would be done to the shipowner by the non-fulfilment of that agreement on the part of the seamen to join the vessel. He had heard it said that a civil remedy would be sufficient to deal with the case; but no civil remedy could be enforced against the sailor, who had no local habitation nor property which his creditors could seize. To sue him in the County Court for default of agreement was, therefore, a simple farce. The fact was, that when they engaged seamen who, for certain reasons, anything but valid ones, did not turn up at the appointed time, except for the power given by law to arrest, which was one very rarely exercised in this country, there would be no means of enforcing the agreement. He assured hon. Members that in the case of vessels abroad, particularly in the case of British ships in the Colonies, if it were not for some such power which enabled the master to keep his crew together, it would be almost impossible for him to conduct the business of his employers. He must, therefore, protest against the denunciations of this power of arrest on the part of the hon. and learned Member opposite.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that the observations he had made, against which the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) protested, were quotations of the language of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt).
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Member had rather adopted the quotations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But he wished to state why he objected to the Bill then before the House. He had listened to the exposition of the Bill by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), who, it appeared to him, seemed to have the impression that the merchant seaman was a foolish and reckless man, incapable of taking care of himself in any respect; that he was attacked by enemies existing in every port, and that it was absolutely necessary by legislation to protect him from the earliest moment of his career. There was a clause in the Bill, which had for its object to strike at the custom of granting advance notes. He knew
  962
  of no more rational and straightforward form of contract than that of advance notes. The seaman, perhaps, came from a Southern voyage and shipped on board a vessel for a port in North America, and, in consequence, required warm clothing. Being hard up, he required an advance of money for that purpose, to obtain which the captain drew upon the owner at three days after sailing for the sum agreed upon, provided the seaman sailed in the vessel. That, of course, was a most necessary proviso, because, as he had already explained, a seaman could not be attached by civil process and the advance be otherwise lost. His hon. Friend (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) wished to persuade the House that this advance was obtained in every instance for improper purposes; that it went into the hands of people who cashed it at an enormous discount, and reaped a large benefit in consequence. But he (Mr. Norwood) had had experience of the working of the system of advance notes, having paid them by thousands, and his experience was that, as a rule, they were presented by the relatives of seamen. He protested against the description of the sailor which had been given by the hon. Gentleman, who, he believed, had been misled by the course of procedure which existed in one or two ports. He (Mr. Norwood) believed that in Liverpool the crimp was to be found, and also in Cardiff to a large extent, and in London to a lesser extent; but in the port which he represented and the North of England generally and Belfast, they did not know what a crimp was. He held that advance notes were a system of accommodation to the seaman, and one of the simplest documents possible, and he protested against that attempt to make seamen in one or two ports in the Kingdom moral and provident by an Act of Parliament interfering with the freedom of contract. He did not mean to say that the question of advance notes was a vital matter to the shipowner; but it was a very important matter to the seaman, who frequently had need of an advance of money, and he could assure the House that the regulations of that Bill would be very easily evaded. But there was a particular difficulty which would result from the doing away with this simple form of advance, and which would infallibly bring into action a most objectionable system—namely,

  963
  that the captains of our ships would be-come shopkeepers. They would say to a seaman —"I cannot give you money; hut I have everything you want on hoard, and if you come there I will fit you out." The captain would then charge an enormous price for an extremely inferior article, and at the end of the voyage a long hill would be presented to the seaman by the master of the ship. He had, on several occasions, investigated matters of that kind; cases where a seaman had died in a foreign port, and in which, instead of his relatives getting the wages due to him, they had a long bill presented to them by the captain, and received little or nothing in the shape of hard cash. Again, favouritism would be shown to the seaman who had most transactions of the kind. If the Bill were carried in its present form, he thought the Board of Trade would be doing away with an ordinary sensible contract, which, in nine cases out often, resulted in good to the seaman, and would, thereby, expose him to be plundered by the captain of the vessel. He protested against these continual endeavours on the part of the Board of Trade to interfere with the details of trade which had recommended themselves to the requirements of the times, and which attempts were generally unsatisfactory, always irritating, and rarely attained the object desired. He was rather alarmed at the policy which seemed likely to be pursued by hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, who had already brought forward more than one Bill which attacked the interests of Merchant Shipping and he began to tremble for the future, after the baigain that had passed between the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Derby and Mr. Plimsoll, who had said he could do more for the seamen by resigning his seat, than by retaining it, because the Government had it in their power to do more in one year than he could in 20 in carrying his peculiar crotchets. He had not seen that apparent contract repudiated in the speeches of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who had expressed his strong sympathy on all occasions with the sailor. He did not object to that, because he would not allow anyone to assert in that House that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had a higher
  964
  or truer interest in the sailor than he (Mr. Norwood) had. But he must say he entertained a fear that the trading interests of the country were going to be harassed by the present Government, and he protested at the outset against the principle of interfering with the details of trade. He held that the Jess they interfered with those subjects the better. He advised the light hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Cnamberlain) to follow the example of his Colleague the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), whose principle was to meddle and interfere as little as possible with the details of trade. In conclusion, he wished to say that he opposed the Bill, as the first of a series of Bills which he feared were to be directed against the freedom of trade and contract; and he would say to hon. Members who had recently taken their seats in that House for the first time, that there was no true Liberalism, but a false and bastard Liberalism, in endeavouring to restrict personal freedom, and regulate trade by Act of Parliament. It was as false a principle as the attempt to prevent a man from taking a glass of beer by Act of Parliament, because the practice was occasionally carried to excess, and he certainly objected to measures like the present Bill which interfered with an innocent form of contract, simply because humanitarians, uninformed of the facts of the case, had got the idea that some bad use was made of it, in some few instances, and that, therefore, you were to abolish it in other parts of the Kingdom where it did very good work.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was prepared to accept the advice of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), that he should follow in the steps of the senior Member for the borough which he had the honour of representing; but he would remind his hon. Friend that his objections to the Bill appeared to be grounded rather upon a fear of what the Government might do, than upon anything they had done up to the present time. It was, in short, a speech directed against the possible intentions of the Government, and which could hardly apply to the moderate little measure which they had brought before the House. He ventured to point out that the Bill and the debate had raised two issues. They had to ask themselves, in

  965
  the first place, whether the object they had in view was expedient? and, in the second place, whether that object could be attained by the method proposed? He should have said, but for the speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Hull, that there was a pretty strong agreement among men of various Parties to put an end to that abominable system of advance notes. It was not one Commission, or one body only, which had reported against that system. There was, in 1873, a most important Commission presided over by the Duke of Somerset, who was not the sort of man to lose sight of practical considerations from any desire of "grandmotherly legislation." That Commission came to the unanimous conclusion that the system of advance notes ought to be abolished, and the statements contained in their Report were so strong and concise that he would venture to read an extract, which ran as follows: —
  "The evidence before us leads us to the conclusion that the system of advance notes is one great obstacle to the amelioration of the condition of merchant seamen. All the witnesses whom we have examined admit that the system is most pernicious, but it is defended on the ground that without this advance the sailor could not pay for his lodging on shore or procure the clothes requisite for him when he joins a ship. In practice it seems that the advance note is handed over to the lodging-housekeeper, not usually in exchange for cash, but in discharge of debts which the sailor has been induced to incur….. After careful consideration of the numerous evils attending this mode of pre-payment we recommend that advance notes should be declared illegal….. We feel, however, convinced that unless this mischievous mode of payment be discontinued, the seamen will never be raised from their servile dependence on crimps and taught to rely on their own industry and intelligence."
  That was a state of things very different from what appeared to exist in the town of Hull, as described by the hon. Member who had just spoken. Again, in 1878, a Committee of that House had been appointed to consider a Bill affecting the condition of merchant seamen, and before that Committee a good deal of evidence upon the subject of advance notes had been given. He found that Mr. Williamson, a large shipowner of Liverpool, gave evidence to this effect. Speaking not only for himself, but also as the representative of shipowners in Liverpool, he said the association of the latter at that port was anxious to have the system of ad-
  966
  vance notes discontinued and made positively illegal, and he added that at the largest meeting of shipowners held in the town it was resolved that the notes ought to be rendered illegal, and that their abolition would only cause temporary inconvenience, while it would tend to make the reckless and dissipated seamen more provident and keep him out of the hands of crimps. Again, at the meeting of the central committee of the united body of shipowners, held in London in 1876, a resolution was passed that they would offer no opposition to the abolition of advance notes. He could also farther quote from the evidence of many other witnesses, all of whom were unanimous that advance notes were the primary cause of the demoralization of the British seaman. As a result of these recommendations, the Government had introduced a clause into the present Bill for rendering advance notes absolutely illegal. The hon. Member for Hull, however, had declared the advance note to be the purest and most innocent of documents. He noticed the objections raised to this Bill came chiefly from Hull, where the evils described did not seem to exist to the same extent as in some other ports; but he did not think that the shipowners of Hull interfered for the purpose of standing in the way of what was admitted to be an immense improvement in all other parts of the country. The evidence from Hull went to show that a seaman, when about to join his ship, was generally destitute and required clothes, which he could not get without this advance note, and that if he must have an advance of money, that was the best way to give it. But it had been put before the Committee by many witnesses that whatever the object of obtaining the note might be, the sailor did not obtain clothes in exchange for it. Mr. Tully himself admitted in cross-examination, "either that the sailor got nothing at all, or only the most miserable slops." Another witness said that "the money did not go in clothes or necessities, but that it was spent in debauchery." It was also admitted that the least rate of discount charged upon these notes was 10 per cent, and several witnesses stated that it went as high as 60 or 70 percent; while one gentleman, an outfitter, stated that he charged 7½ per cent discount, and required the rest of the advance

  967
  note to be taken out in clothes—a transaction the unfairness of which the House would readily understand. There could he no doubt that, by means of these advance notes, the crimps did cheat the sailor in a most abominable way. He confessed that he was unable to see why the fitting-out of the sailor could not be better secured by an advance in cash made by the shipowner or master at the time the man joined the ship; indeed, he was convinced that the difficulty could be surmounted in some way or other. It had been objected that the abolition of advance notes would lead to the masters of vessels becoming purveyors of clothes. But that was the case at the present time, when almost every master of a ship had a slop-chest, from which the sailors got what they required in the way of clothes. With regard to the argument about freedom of contract, in connection with which new Members of the House had been invited to preserve the pristine purity of their political economy, he (Mr. Chamberlain) thought it could not be maintained in face of the fact that freedom of contract had already been interfered with by the Legislature when the interest of any particular class seemed to demand it. It had been held that a bill of exchange was ipso facto invalid where no material consideration was given. Again, freedom of contract had been interfered with when it was refused to railway companies to contract themselves out of liabilities to their passengers. That was also notably the case with the truck s\-stem which formerly existed in the mining districts and which had been abolished. The hon. Member for Hull appeared to be afraid that the Government was entering upon a course of interference with the trade of the country; but, with regard to this particular measure, he (Mr. Chamberlain) pointed out that it was a legacy which had been received from their Predecessors, and the clause which they asked the House to accept would have been brought forward by the late Government, so that he felt tolerably assured of the support of hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. With regard to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), he was of opinion that, after the alteration which it had undergone, it was totally irrele-
  968
  vant and could not be moved on the present Bill. The exceptional law to which the Amendment referred ought and should be considered, and early next Session, although he could not pledge himself to accept the words on the Paper, a Bill should be introduced for dealing with the whole subject. He ventured to think that the law in its present condition could not be defended. Some remarks had been made in the course of the present debate as to the language employed on this subject by his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on a previous occasion. He (Mr. Chamberlain) did not know why it should be suggested that his right hon and learned Friend was inclined at that moment in any way to go back from what he had said, and he ventured to assure the hon. and learned Member for Chatham that his right hon. and learned Friend would adhere to every word which he had uttered in reference to this matter, and that the Government hoped to carry out in Office the principles that they had expressed in Opposition. The hon and learned Gentleman said he hoped that might be the case, but that he had been waiting in hope. Well, he had not been waiting long. The Government had not been in Office many weeks, and did he expect that all the pledges they had given could be at once fulfilled? Now, in order that the hon. and learned Gentleman might make his Amendment relevant to the scope and purpose of the Bill, it was absolutely necessary that be should retain the second portion of it, which was to this effect —"That such repeal would render unnecessary the exceptional legislation to restrict the power of seamen to make contracts." He (Mr. Chamberlain) held that it was entirely in contradiction to the evidence given before the Select Committee of which' the hon. and learned Gentleman was a Member. He found that the witnesses all agreed that even if the power of imprisonment possessed by employers were taken away, the crimp would still find occupation amongst the seamen. They would probably require even higher interest than at present; and what the condition of seamen would be reduced to under those circumstances, seeing that 60 or 70 per cent was required now, he left the House to imagine. What was said before the Committee

  969
  was, that the crimp would still advance money and trust to getting the seaman drunk and then getting him on board ship. Under those circumstances he thought the House might fairly allow the Government to make this preliminary improvement, and leave them the time they asked the House to give for the consideration of a greater and more complicated subject, with the certainty that in the course of the next Session they would propose some measure to deal with it. He would add that the subject of discipline and the punishment and penalties for breaches of contract was a matter of exceeding difficulty. It had been carefully considered before the Committee in 1875; but the Bill which was proposed to deal with it, and which had the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman, still left the anomaly very much where it was before, and would practically have created a new offence under the name of fraud. It would have constituted the offence of receiving these advance notes and not afterwards joining the ship, and for that offence it would have indicted the penalty of six weeks' imprisonment.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he had never supported any proposal of that kind; it was a proposal made by the Committee, but hud not received his support.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he could only say that was the scheme propounded.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that he had objected to the Bill that had been proposed by the Board of Trade.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was sorry for having misrepresented the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman upon that subject, and, of course, he dropped that matter as far as he was concerned; but it remained the fact, that the late Government did propose to deal with the matter in a way which was thoroughly unsatisfactory. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) had also introduced a Bill proposing to deal with the same subject; but that, again, would leave the law in an exceptional and anomalous position. It was, of course, not possible, in that short Session, to deal with such a matter; and he hoped he might confidently ask the House to accept the great good which was now offered the seamen, in the hope that it would not only greatly ameliorate
  970
  his condition, elevate his character, and teach him thrift and providence, but also that it would be, at all events, one step towards the abolition of that exceptional and anomalous legislation which they must all deplore.
  MR. SPEAKER: My attention has been called to the form of the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and it appears to me that the Amendment is not strictly relevant to the subject of the Bill; and cannot, therefore, be put.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he did not know whether he might now put the Amendment in the form in which he gave Notice of it, for the purpose of enabling the House to continue the discussion?
  MR. SPEAKER: That can only be done by the leave of the House.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, at that hour of the night he would not attempt to follow the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade through his various remarks on the subject of advance notes. All he would say was, that although he believed every man acquainted with the subject was fully of opinion that the worst possible consequences arose from the system of advance notes, they had it from the highest authority that it was almost impossible to do away with them, He must express his regret at the answer of the President of the Board of Trade to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), because it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman had virtually undertaken on the part of the Government to adopt his Motion. Now, he thought that would be a source of great regret to almost everyone who had carefully considered the question. His hon. and learned Friend had told them that the laws relating to seamen which gave the power of arrest without warrant were exceptional; but he entirely ignored the fact that the whole case of the seaman was exceptional, and that there was no affinity whatever between the position of the labourer and the position of the seaman. The labourer was always forthcoming in the event of his being guilty of a breach of contract; but the seaman, under those circumstances, was not to be found, and therefore the idea of taking out a warrant trying to take up a man who had no home and no local

  971
  residence was an impossibility which, he thought, could hardly have suggested itself to the mind of his hon. and learned Friend. But he (Mr. Bentinek) further asserted that the law, as it then stood, was the best law which could be made for the seaman himself; because, what happened? The seaman, having signed articles, got into had company, became the worse for liquor, and was not forthcoming when he ought to join his ship. Surely, then, the best thing that could happen to that man, was to hand him on board directly anyone could get hold of him. He thought anyone who was able to take a practical view of the question would endorse his view of it; and, without going any farther into the subject, he hoped they should not hear from the Government a repetition of the assurance which just fell from the President of the Board of Trade, that he was prepared to endorse the views of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) on the abolition of the right of arrest.
  MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he asked the indulgence of the House, as a new Member, while he made a few remarks on a subject with which he, as a shipowner, had some acquaintance. He had considered this important though short Bill, and could estimate to some extent the evils it proposed to deal with and the remedies which it offered. The provisions were short, and mainly two. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) had waxed eloquent on what appeared to him to be the lesser of the two evils which the Bill proposed to remedy. The major difficulty was, he (Mr. Williamson) thought, the fact that so many men got the rating A.B. without having undergone the proper training to qualify themselves for that description. That, in his opinion, was one of the greatest evils that the Mercantile Marine of their country suffered from. The next evil was undoubtedly the demoralization caused by the crimp system, and by the desertion of seamen abroad. In supporting the Bill, which he did most heartily, he did so chiefly because of the provisions relating to the training of seamen. It would be within the recollection of hon. Members, especially those connected with the shipping interest, that in 1854 the compulsory apprenticeship system ceased, and that because of the utilitarian, but perhaps not very patriotic, senti-
  972
  ments which then pervaded the shipping interest of the country, Parliament failed to substitute any measure of training and preparation to take the place of the apprenticeship system. Now, that state of things was sought to be remedied by Clause 5 of the Bill, which provided that seamen should not be entitled to the rating of A.B. unless they had served for four years. They all knew that at the present untrained men, perfectly unskilled in seamanship, were put on board vessels, and after one or two voyages got the rating of A.B. from careless captains, on one pretence or another, and possibly by forged certificates. They knew that a very large proportion of the men in their Mercantile Marine were untrained seamen, and that the largest proportion of their best trained seamen were Scandinavians. That was a grave evil, which this provision of the Bill would thoroughly remedy. He need not enter into the second branch of the subject, which had been exhaustively dealt with by previous speakers; but it was a fact that when men had a very small balance of wages due to them they were more ready to desert their ships, than if they had to receive four or five months' wages which would have been forfeited by desertion. When men on arrival at a foreign port knew that they had very little money to draw they were easily persuaded by crimps to leave their vessels in search of higher wages, and consequently great harm resulted from the present system. He thought that the experiment of stopping the advance note might well be tried, though he regarded it as the least important part of the Bill. Something had been said about "grandmotherly legislation," and about the infringement of freedom of contract; but he would point out that Governments in all times and ages had interfered with the habits and arrangements of the people, and Mr. Leckie said, with regard to legislation on the drink traffic, that—
  "Those measures formed a striking example of the manner in which legislation, if not overstrained or ill-timed, could improve the morals of the people."
  He hoped no effort would be made to prevent the speedy passage of that measure through the House, and that it would not be delayed by being referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, he would take that opportunity of saying that, so far from the Bill before the House being likely to damage the Government in the eyes of the country it would, in his opinion, have the contrary effect. No one more than he admired the heroic conduct of the late Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) in his work for the emancipation of the British seaman; but he looked upon the provisions of that Bill as likely to produce far greater results of a moral kind in the interests of the seaman than any other that had been put forward by him. Besides the evidence referred to by the President of the Board of Trade, evidence had been given that the advance note had not been used for the welfare or interest of seamen, but in giving, in some cases, 80 per cent interest, for the purpose of gratifying the very grossest passions. But they had heard from the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) that he did not wish for any "grandmotherly legislation" in regard to those matters; but, on the other hand, he (Mr. Macdonald) trusted that, once for all, they should get rid of any grand fatherly care with respect to advance notes, that had been the means of steeping the seaman in the lowest possible condition which could be conceived. There had been a time when, in every mining district in England, there was a truck-shop, which stood in the same relation to the miner as the advance note stood in relation to the seaman. The same objections had been raised against the abolition of the truck system as were now urged against the abolition of advance notes. It was said the miner could not live without a truck-shop; they were bound to supply his wants; they were bound to minister to him, because he was an unfortunate creature and could not take care of himself. But the moment the truck system ceased thrift and providence began among their mining population, and in those districts where the truck-shop was formerly to be found they had in its place co-operative stores. He thanked the Government for bringing in the Bill, and trusted they would take care to proceed with it promptly, and not be misled by wheedling on the one hand, nor "grand fatherly" care of advance notes on the other, in their endeavour to raise the seaman to the position which he ought long ago to have occupied. His present position
  974
  was a scandal on their boasted civilization.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade the course he proposed to pursue with regard to the Bill which stood next to that now under consideration? His noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) had introduced a Bill almost identical with that now proposed, with the addition of two clauses, about which they did not then ask any opinion, He suggested that the Bill of his noble Friend should be read a second time, and then that the opinion of the Government and the House should be taken on the two clauses.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, they certainly did not intend to take the Committee that week. He thought that the two clauses referred to should be moved in Committee as an addition to the Bill,
  MR. BURTsaid, he should like to join in expressing his satisfaction that the Government had taken an early opportunity of introducing this measure, with which he entirely agreed; and as a Member of the Committee of 1878, he could testify that whatever differences of opinion there might have been on the part of witnesses on other points, the almost unanimous opinion on the part of shipowners, captains, and others was against the advance note system. He would remind the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), in reference to one of his remarks, that if seamen possessed votes they would very seldom have opportunities of using them, and that had their condition been of a different kind the inequality complained of would have been removed before that time.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (FRODSHM, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Land Drainage Act, 1861," relating to Frodsham and Helsby Improvements, situated in the parish of Frodsham, in the county of Chester, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR PEEL and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
TOOK THE OATH—Several Lords.
Sat First in Parliament —The Earl Lines (Duke of Roxburghe), after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS — First Heading — Prayer Book Amendment*(7a); Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland)*(76).
Second Reading —Settled Land (60); Limitation of Actions* (61); Conveyancing and Law of Property* (62); Solicitors Remuneration* (63).

SETTLED LAND BILL—(No. 60.)
(The Earl Cairns.)
SETTLED LAND BILL—(No. 60.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª"—(The Earl Cairns.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: When the Bills which my noble and learned Friend is now introducing were before your Lordships in the last Session of Parliament, it may be recollected I was of opinion that the two principal Bilk relating to settled lands and to the law of conveyancing and real property would effect material and substantial improvements in the law as it at present stands. Having expressed that opinion, I now in no way recede from it. But the Government consider that it will be their duty during the interval between the present and next Session to consider deliberately and maturely various branches of the law relating to land and real property, to some branches only of which these Bills have reference; and they think there might be some inconvenience if they were to take any definite part at present with respect to these Bills, which might, perhaps, afterwards be found to clash, in a manner which it may not be possible at this time accurately to foresee, with other changes to be hereafter proposed. Underthesecircumstances, the course I propose to take is certainly not to throw any obstacle in the way of the passing of these Bills through your Lordships' House in the form which my noble and learned Friend may think best; but the Government reserve to themselves the freest action as to the course which they may pursue with respect to these measures if they should go down to the other House of Parliament.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, he was very glad to find that his noble and learned Friend

  885
  on the Woolsack, on a further examination of these Bills, did not see reason to recede from the favourable opinion he had expressed of them when they were introduced in the last Parliament. He owned, however, that, in the circumstances, he could not help regretting the statement of his noble and learned Friend that no assistance need be expected from the Government in passing the Bills into law. It was quite true that the Bills dealt with only a part of the whole question of land in this country; but as what was contained in them had met with, as far as he could observe, unanimous approval, he could not see why they should not become law, even though Her Majesty's Government intended at a future time to go into the whole of the Land Laws. He was afraid, from what his noble and learned Friend had said, that not only would these Bills not become law this Session; but that in a future Session proposals would be made the effect of which would be to endanger, if not prevent, their passing into law. All he could do was to ask their Lordships to give their assent, and then the Bills would go down to the House of Commons. As to the steps which might be taken there, he could not, of course, anticipate. It would be for that House to say whether they would press upon the Government the desirability of passing the Bills into law in the present Session. As he explained the provisions of all four Bills in the last Parliament, he would confine himself on the present occasion to moving the second reading, and saying that he proposed to take the Committee on each of them next Thursday week.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, that in Committee he should propose that so much of the Bill as related to a tenant for life making improvements out of his own funds should be made retrospective, and to take effect, if desired, during the life of such limited owner.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHbelieved that, if the principles of the noble and learned Earl's Bills had met with that unanimous approval of which the noble and learned Earl had spoken, it was because they had never been carefully considered. If the Bill now before their Lordships ever became law, it would be an absolute destruction to all settlement of land. It gave power to the tenant for life to convey absolutely, without interference by any party, the
  886
  freehold estate of which he had the life interest. There were certain safeguards in the measure, but none which would prevent that. In this Bill the present, Government had a measure of Radicalism which they could not exceed.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole Souse on Thursday the 10 th instant.
  On the Motion of Earl CAIRNS, the Limitation of Actions Bill, the Conveyancing and Law of Property Bill, and the Solicitors Remuneration Bill were also severally read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 10th instant.

ARMY (INDIA)—LIEUTENANT REID, 51ST REGIMENT

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD WAVENEYasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the details of the death of Lieutenant Thurlow of the 51st Regiment have been correctly reported in the public Press; and whether it is proposed to recommend that any special mark of Her Majesty's favour be conferred upon his surviving comrade, Lieutenant Reid, of the same regiment? The noble Lord called the attention of the House to the gallant character of the feat of arms that appeared on the record. It appeared that the two young soldiers, of barely one year's service, who were with the Forces in Afghanistan— Lieutenant Thurlow and Lieutenant Reid, of the 51st Regiment—were on the high road, about three miles distant from the post to which they were attached, when they were suddenly attacked by a body of hill men, numbering from 30 to 40, and Lieutenant Thurlow was killed, two bullets entering his head and neck. The pony of Lieutenant Reid bolted with its rider; but as soon as that officer could master the animal he returned to the body of his dead comrade, shot one of the hill men, and was again attacked, one bullet tearing away his sleeve and part of his jersey. Perceiving that nothing more could be done for his comrade. Lieutenant Reid rode back to the post, arriving in time to bring out a detachment by which the body of the deceased officer was recovered and saved from further mutilation. He did not suppose for one moment that the noble conduct of Lieutenant Reid had escaped the notice of

  887
  the military authorities; but he desired that it should be rewarded with some special mark of Her Majesty's favour that would add honour to the young officer's professional career.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY,in reply, said, that the noble Lord had given a substantially accurate account of the circumstances of Lieutenaut Thurlow's death, and of the behaviour of Lieutenant Reid on that occasion. There was no doubt that Lieutenant Reid behaved most admirably, and displayed that cool gallantry and presence of mind which, fortunately, British officers generally exhibited in times of emergency and difficulty. The account of the incident was forwarded by the Commander-in-Chief in India to the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief; but, although mention was made in the despatches of the gallant conduct of Lieutenant Reid, no special recommendation was inserted: and, under those circumstances, the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief did not consider that any particular mark of Her Majesty's favour was called for. Still, there was no doubt that Lieutenant Reid behaved in a most gallant manner, under most trying circumstances.

PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND) ACT—GRANTS IN AID.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMasked Her Majesty's Government, What grant the Lords of Her Majesty's Treasury would make under the Piers and Harbours (Ireland) Act towards meeting the large contributions from local and other sources already announced? The noble Earl said, that in the year 1846—the year of the great Irish Famine—Parliament granted the sum of £50,000 for fishery piers and harbours in Ireland, and in the following year, 1847, a further grant of 40,000 was made; but in the year 1866 a Bill was passed through Parliament by which there was no charge made upon the Consolidated Fund for the purpose, it being provided that grants towards piers and harbours in Ireland should be placed in future in the Estimates. During the period from 1846 to the present time the sum of £125,000 odd had been granted for piers and harbours in Ireland; and, deducting from that amount the two grants that were made during the years 1846–7, which came to £90,000, there had only
  888
  been some £35,000 odd expended during that period, which amounted to about £1,100 a-year. It was generally believed that the grants towards Irish piers and harbours had been at the rate of £5,000 a-year; but he hoped he had shown their Lordships that that was an error. Parliament, of late years, had accepted the sum of £5,000 a-year as the fair share of Ireland for grants towards piers and harbours. That sum certainly ought to be a fair proportion for Ireland, taking into consideration the sums granted to England and Scotland. But he wished to remind their Lordships that these were exceptional times; and he hoped he should hear from Her Majesty's Government that the precedents established in 1846 and 1847 might be followed now as generously as they were then. The part of the country in which he resided was, unfortunately, in the scheduled districts—namely, the county of Donegal; and, indeed, he might say the whole of the West Coast of Ireland was a scheduled district. Speaking of the efforts made in his own district towards subscribing the one-fourth required by Parliament before a grant was made, he could only say that they had put their shoulders to the wheel. For one pier in his neighbourhood they had raised the sum of £800, and, to the great joy of their hearts, the Canadian Relief Committee had supplemented that sum by a grant of £500. That; put them in possession of a sum of £1,300 for a fishery pier. The pier had been approved of by the Fishery Inspectors. For another pier, also in his neighbourhood, they had been able to raise, from voluntary contributions, the sum of £1,000; and he might tell their Lordships that these voluntary contributions had been contributed to, not only by landlords who had not received their rents, but also by tenants who had not paid their rents. He would not trouble their Lordships further than to express a hope that the Government would make a grant of, say, £100,000, so as to assist those who were not able to assist themselves.
  EARL SPENCER: In answer to the Question of the noble Earl opposite, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government, in view of the present distressed state of Ireland, have determined to forestall the grant which is usually made towards piers and harbours in Ireland, and it is intended to bring in a Bill to

  889
  advance £30,000 for that object. The noble Earl said that for the last 30 years the grant for piers had been £1,100 a-year; but I think I may say, without fear of contradiction, that for the last few years the average payments made for piers has been about £5,000 a-year. The grant of £30,000 is intended to meet one which has been made by Canada for the same object. It is the intention of the Government to bring in the Bill as early as possible.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he had heard with great satisfaction the announcement just made by his noble Friend, for no better employment of public money than this was possible. No doubt, the distress in Ireland would continue for the next few months, and the proposed expenditure would, during that period, be the means of relieving much distress. The construction of piers and harbours was a work in which the Government might most properly assist, and especially so as in some districts the inhabitants had no possibility of gathering a livlihood from the sea without having the assistance of these works. Looking at the generous contributions which had been sent over from the Dominion of Canada, the response which Her Majesty's Government had made was no more than would be dictated by a generous spirit. There was one point which he hoped would not be forgotten in the Bill which the Government had decided upon introducing, and that was the insertion of stringent regulations to insure that when the money had been expended the piers and harbours would not be allowed to get out of repair, as after 1846–7 the works were not attended to, with what result was pretty well known.

INLAND NAVIGATION (IRELAND)— THE NORTHERN SYSTEM.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM,who mentioned that in some parts of Ireland canals competed very successfully with railways, asked Her Majesty's Government, What steps they intend to take with respect to that part of the Report of the Committee (21st June, 1878) on the Board of Works, Ireland, which has reference to the Northern system of navigation, especially the Ulster Canal? At present, Parliament voted £1,200 annually towards the maintenance of the Ulster Canal, while their receipts were only £30 a-year. This was in itself very
  890
  unsatisfactory; but, what was worse, the Canal, after all this expenditure, was of no benefit to the district, owing to an insufficient supply of water at the summit level. With a sufficient supply of water the Canal would yield such receipts as would provide for its maintenance.
  EARL SPENCERremarked, that the Report referred to by the noble Earl was presented two years ago, and it did not appear that Her Majesty's late Government took any steps to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. At the present moment there was such a pressure of Business that the Irish Government, to whom the matter belonged, had not had time to turn their attention to the subject. The question was one which had his strong individual sympathy. When in Ireland he looked into it more than once, and he was aware of the difficulties which surrounded it, and of the great desirability of giving some satisfactory solution to it. He could only assure the noble Earl that the Government would carefully consider the recommendations of the Committee, and he hoped that they would shortly arrive at some definite conclusion.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHwas anxious to explain away some misconception which appeared to exist in the mind of the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council. The subject was one which the late Government in Ireland had fully considered, and had determined to inquire fully into the matter; but some difficulty arose as to whether the Commission to be appointed should be a Royal Commission or a Lord Lieutenant's Commission, and the matter was under consideration when the change of Government took place.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he should have stated that the late Government had come to no decision on the question.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, it was quite true that no decision was arrived at.

  PRAYER BOOK AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Book of Common Prayer —Was presented by The Lord EBURY; read 1a. (No. 75.)

  LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the establishment of Local Courts of Bankruptcy in Ireland—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 76.)
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.