Sitting of 6 August 1881

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES; CIVIL SERVICES, CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES; CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES; CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS; REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
Resolutions [August 5] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (Statutes) * [241].
Third Reading—Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Order* [220]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) * [215], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES AND ORDERS— PETITIONS—THE BRADLAUGH PETITIONS.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he wished to ask a Question of the Chairman of the Committee on Petitions (Sir Charles Forster). On the 23rd of June the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms) asked a Question of his hon. Friend whether a Petition presented in this form was one which could be accepted by the House. The Petition referred to the Bradlaugh case, and it was worded thus:—
  1108
  "Your Petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will cause the law to be obeyed and justice to be done, and forthwith allow Mr. Bradlaugh to take his seat on making a solemn Affirmation."
  His hon. Friend replied that it was true that a Petition in which those words were contained had been submitted to the Committee on Petitions, and that the majority of the Committee had determined that those words were not disrespectful to the House. And in answer to a Question which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) put to the Speaker in the same discussion, the Speaker said—
  "That with regard to whether it would be right that Petitions of that character should be in future received by the House, it was a question for the decision of the House rather than for him to decide."
  Two or three days ago he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was asked to present a number of Petitions with regard to the Brad-laugh case, and the following were the words of those Petitions:—
  "That no one of the Estates of the Realm can, or may, by itself alter or override the statute law of the Realm; that the Resolution of your honourable House of the 27th of April and 10th of May last are respectively in direct conflict with the statute law; and your Petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will immediately rescind the said illegal Resolutions."
  He presented those Petitions, and he subsequently received this intimation from the Clerk of the Committee on Petitions:—
  "The accompanying Petitions presented by you are informal, as they contain language disrespectful to the House of Commons. They will not, therefore, be submitted to the Select Committee on Public Petitions."
  Now, the question he wished to ask his hon. Friend was this—that, as the House had certainly not taken any cognizance of those Petitions, whether the Committee on Petitions had had Petitions of that nature before them, and had decided upon them in the same way as they decided the Petitions referred to by the hon. Member for Greenwich when he asked his Question?
  SIR CHARLES FORSTER SIR CHARLES FORSTER, in reply, said, he was very glad that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had asked this Question, because he found that many Petitions of a similar character had been sent back to hon. Members. His hon. Friend had correctly stated the answer which he gave in re-

  1109
  ference to the Question put to him by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms). He then stated that the Committee, in considering Petitions, were anxious to place the most liberal construction upon their language, and to give whatever doubt there might be in favour of the Petitioners. Therefore, with regard to the Petitions then alluded to, the Committee thought that in asking the House to do what was just and right, if it were disrespectful to the House, it was merely an implied disrespect, and the majority of the Committee passed these Petitions. But the Petitions to which his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle now referred went a step further, and, in direct and distinct terms, stated that the Resolutions of the House were illegal, and the Committee, as the delegates of the House, decided that they could not receive Petitions of the kind; and he might say, as bearing on the question of the conduct of the Clerk of the Committee, that they determined that after that no Petitions couched in similar terms could be brought before them. With the objectionable words erased the Committee would not be unwilling to receive the Petition.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions whether the decision of the Committee was based on the absurdity of the word "illegal" in relation to the action of the House, or of its being a distinct affront to the House? He said absurdity, because it was quite clear that no act of the House could be illegal. He should also like to ask whether it was permissible for the phrase "unconstitutional" to be applied in relation to the action of the House on the 10th of May. The question involved was not one of mere words, but one of very considerable significance. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is now entering into debate.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he begged pardon, he only wished to know what were the reasons which induced the Committee to reject these Petitions?
  SIR CHARLES FORSTER SIR CHARLES FORSTER, in reply, said, that it was quite sufficient for the Committee to determine each case as it came before them, and they were clearly of opinion that the use of the word "illegal" was decidedly disrespectful to the House.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

  NAVY—PROMOTION—LIEUTENANTS.

    OBSEEVATIONS.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he had given Notice that he would call attention to the want of a sufficient number of Ironclads for the National defence and of cruising vessels for training seamen. He would not, however, occupy the time of the House then, as the discussion of the subject might be taken on the Building Vote. But with regard to Vote 15, he desired to say—and it was more convenient to say it with the Speaker in the Chair—that he looked with great alarm and regret on the stagnation of promotion in the Royal Navy. The arrangements could give content to comparatively but a small number of officers on the war list; and he was quite sure that the numbers of captains and commanders required re-adjustment in order to give lieutenants a fair chance of rising according to merit, and not by seniority. He could give names familiar enough in the Service as instances. One officer of considerable distinction and standing, who had been mentioned in despatches for distinguished services, he could name, who, in consequence of the limited number of commanders, had never obtained that position which throughout the Service he was known to deserve. There was really no inducement, no stimulus to men, except so far as to perform their duty, to exert themselves, where promotion, which, of all things the naval officer most desired, was barred by the limited numbers on the upper list. He would not trespass further upon the time of the House; but he thought it right, on behalf of the Navy, to place on record his opinion in regard to the subject, and to request the Secretary to the Admiralty to bring this matter to the notice of the Board of Admiralty during the Recess, and the strong desire that existed in the Navy with regard to the re-adjustment of the lists of captains and commanders, so as to give more encouragement and more rapid promotion through that list

    1111
    to lieutenants, who, after all, were the backbone of the Navy.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE MAGISTRACY—ME. CLIFFORD LLOYD, R.M.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY, in rising to move—
    "That this House condemns the refusal of the Government to grant an investigation into the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, R.M., and their refusal to notice the threats alleged to have been used by him in dispersing without proclamation a peaceful meeting in Drogheda on the 1st day of January,"
    said, he was obliged to draw attention to the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd owing to the unsatisfactory answer he had received on the subject on Thursday from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. A Correspondence had taken place on the subject, and was published in the Irish papers, and two witnesses had stated that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had threatened to shoot down the people assembled at public meetings. Mr. Clifford Lloyd then came forward with a denial of the language attributed to him; and the Question he (Mr. Healy) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland on Thursday was whether, in consequence of the rumours concerning the conduct of this gentleman, the Government thought it desirable, for the purpose of maintaining something like confidence in the administration of justice, to grant an inquiry into the matter, and he got a very curt answer from the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government did not think it necessary to grant an inquiry into the facts of the case. He at once rose and gave Notice that on going into Committee of Supply to-day he would call attention to the subject; and, therefore, he was somewhat astonished that the Chief Secretary had not thought it desirable to be in his place. Briefly, the circumstances were as follows:—A Land League meeting had been fixed to be held in Drogheda on the 2nd of January; and the Government, with an acuteness that did them not too much credit, proclaimed the meeting, on the plea that it was likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and there were always bailiffs and others ever ready to give the required information. It happened that the 2nd of January was a Sunday, and on the Saturday preceding a meeting was appointed
    1112
    to be held at Dundalk. Travelling by rail to the latter place, he (Mr. Healy) was met at Drogheda station by a number of people, who suggested that as the meeting for Sunday at Drogheda was prohibited for that day, it would be a good thing to hold on Saturday. He acceded to this, and an impromptu meeting was held, therefore, in the Drogheda Market Place. It was market day; it was also a Catholic holiday, and thousands of people assembled. The Government, however, were not to be baulked. Telegrams were despatched to Dublin for a troop of dragoons, and to Dundalk for the 200 police who had been sent there to safeguard law and order during the expected meeting. Lo and behold, then, a special train was got out from Dublin at the expense of the taxpayers, into this the police were crammed, and in the middle of his address to the people at Drogheda these 200 police were seen advancing at the double. So great was the haste of these gallant defenders of law and order that great coats, knapsacks, and blankets—what the latter were carried for it was difficult to say—were flung in the mud outside the railway station, and, with bayonets fixed, the force came on at the double, a picturesque military sight. Not the slightest word had been said at the meeting likely to provoke a breach of law and order; the whole proceedings were conducted with that calmness and dignity which usually accompanied Irish meetings. The meeting was presided over by the parish priest, and other Catholic clergymen were in the break that served for a platform. There were at least half a-score of the clergy, and these at all times had been the best preservers of law and order and peace in Ireland. Thus engaged at this harmless meeting, the 200 police appeared, headed by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and whatever presence of mind a man addressing a meeting might have, the sudden advance of 200 men with swords drawn must have a disquieting effect upon a meeting. Dividing into two bodies, the armed force hemmed in the crowd, and there was nothing to do but surrender. Mr. Clifford Lloyd, then addressing the conveners of the meeting, said the gathering was illegal, and he hoped the chairman would not put him to the necessity of dispersing it; but, at the same time, he refused to show any authority for doing so. Of

    1113
    course, with, the fixed bayonets around, the meeting dispersed. Let those who enjoyed the right of public meeting in Trafalgar Square or elsewhere, and had to do with Inspector Denning and the peaceful bâtons of the London police, realize the position—the dispersal of a perfectly legal meeting by an armed force, headed by a gentleman not in uniform, who refused to show his authority. The meeting dispersed quietly; they had no weapons, but if they had, he would certainly not have been opposed to trying conclusions with the police, for the people had as good a right there as the police. He was not a believer in the "not a single drop of blood" doctrine; if the people had rights they should be prepared to enforce them. But the people, being unarmed, dispersed, and the break with the chairman and others passed on through the files of police who enfiladed the streets—it was necessary to use military terms in dealing with the operations of the Irish police—and Mr. Clifford Lloyd, for about the tenth time, declared that if they assembled again, he would disperse the meeting by force, and then he read the Riot Act. This was done when there was no more necessity for it than for the Speaker to get up and read the Riot Act in the House; and then Mr. Clifford Lloyd, in the hearing of Father Anderson, of himself, and others in the break, said—"If you assemble again I will fire on you." It was this particular allegation that he asked the Government to make the subject of inquiry. It was first brought forward in a question by the hon. Member for Drogheda, an English Gentleman, whose name was well known, with that of his brother (Mr. Whit worth), who formerly sat as Member for Newry. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been transferred to Kilmallock—perhaps because of the vigour he had displayed at Drogheda, and his conduct at Kilmallock had been very much called in question; and the hon. Member for Drogheda warned the Government that if he was not withdrawn there might be murder. He supposed the people of Kilmallock knew that Mr. Clifford Lloyd wore chain armour, and always walked about with a body guard of over a dozen police. A Scotch gentleman, a former Member of the House, Mr. Boyd Kin-near, wrote to The Daily News respecting the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and
    1114
    then the whole affair of Drogheda was brought up again, and Mr. Clifford Lloyd's regime was described as equally bad as that of the Russian "Third Section." In consequence of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's conduct in Kilmallock, he (Mr. Healy) put a question as to whether he was the same gentleman whose conduct at Drogheda he had described, and, in doing so, he stated what was within his personal knowledge, that Mr. Lloyd had threatened that if the meeting re-assembled he would fire on the people. This statement Mr. Lloyd denied in a letter which appeared in The Freeman's Journal, and this letter was followed by testimony in support of the allegation that he did use the threat in the shape of successive letters from the Rev. Mr. Kearney, the Rev. Mr. McKee, and Mr. Francis Yallery, a town councillor, who all heard the language used. Mr. Lloyd met these with another denial, and asserted that, addressing Mr. Dillon and Mr. Healy, he had said—"If you address another meeting here, I shall be forced to arrest you." It should be mentioned that at the time Mr. Lloyd so acted he was not a magistrate of the town, though The Gazette gave an ex post facto legalization of his conduct, and he was actually overriding the authority of the mayor and other magistrates of Drogheda, who had passed a resolution that there was no necessity to interfere with the meeting. This foreign Orangeman came from Monaghan, or wherever he carried on his functions, with his 200 armed men, to disperse a legal meeting by force. The Government wanted to get out of the matter and to hush it up, and that was the reason why they refused to grant the sworn inquiry asked for. There could be no doubt as to the language used by Mr. Lloyd, who had spoken as loudly and as distinctly as though he had been an Egyptian or a Turkish Pasha. He should have thought that the Government would have been only too anxious to have granted this inquiry in order to clear the character of this Governmental paragon, who was one of the Chief Secretary's pets. If Mr. Lloyd was satisfied that he was in the right in the matter, he would look upon such an inquiry as a boon. The Government, however, shrank from any investigation of the facts of the case, cast round Mr. Lloyd the veil of Governmental silence and mystery, and re-

    1115
    fused to permit any inquiry to be held into the brutal conduct of this man. He would have supposed that in the disturbed state of Ireland the Government would have been glad to probe to the bottom every particular source of grievance; but by their refusal they had virtually admitted the entire case of the dissentients. The Government could not expect the people of Kilmallock to submit to the coercion régime, or to have much respect for Mr. Clifford Lloyd, after refusing this inquiry, or that the people of Ireland would expect justice would ever be done until a magistrate was appointed who would act impartially before all classes, and whose conduct, when impugned, could be inquired into. In the circumstances, no other course was left open to the Irish Representatives than to come to that House and ask it to condemn the course which Her Majesty's Government had pursued in this matter. In conclusion, he begged to move the Resolution 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 '' this House condemns the refusal of the Government to grant an investigation into the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, R.M., and their refusal to notice the throats alleged to have been used by him in dispersing without proclamation a peaceful meeting at Drogheda on the 1st day of January,"—(Mr. Healy,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he should not have risen so early in the debate but for the natural observation of the hon. Member for Wexford that he had expected the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have been present. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had been requested to offer an apology to the House for the Chief Secretary's absence, the right hon. Gentleman being obliged to attend a Cabinet meeting, and, therefore, unable to put before the House his own views on the matter. No one could blame the hon. Member for Wexford for bringing forward this Motion with the object of clearing up what had become a point of newspaper controversy—a controversy, he was sorry to say, which had kept alive matters, but which had better
    1116
    have been allowed to die out of mind. The question was not as to Mr. Lloyd's conduct in Kilmallock, but as to a transaction which occurred seven months ago, and the principal allegation was that the magistrate lost his temper on that occasion, and used language of a violent character. Already the question had been dealt with in that House. So far back as the 24th of January a Question was asked by one of the hon. Members for Louth, and since then the matter had been closed, until it was now revived. It was a gentleman named Boyd Kinnear who revived the controversy, and there had been a general rush into the newspapers. Everybody who was familiar with the practical events of life knew that nothing was so difficult as to remember with perfect accuracy, even on the moment, the substance, much less the particulars, of what occurred, or to identify the exact words used, or even the persons who used them. A remarkable instance of this occurred in the House of Commons only yesterday. The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler) possessed a voice and a mode of expression that would be recognized by anybody who ever heard him. Yet the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who was not now in the House, but who sat in it for a considerable time, and must have been familiar with the voice of the hon. Member for the City of London, wrote a letter to his Colleague in the representation of Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) stating distinctly that he heard the hon. Member for the City of London use the words "Kick him out," which he considered so much a breach of Privilege as to ask the intervention of the House concerning it, and he added that if the House did not take the matter up he would proceed by summons against the Member for the City of London for inciting to a breach of the peace. What was the reply of the hon. Member for the City? He said—"I did not use the language at all." This was a case in which the hon. Member for Northampton, who did not sit in the House, but whose word would be trusted equally as much as that of any other hon. Member, stated what he believed to be the fact, that certain words were used by a person whose voice it was hardly possible for anyone to mistake; yet here they had an illustration of the difficulty which some

    1117
    times arose of determining what actually had taken place when different persons came to give their versions of a particular occurrence. The controversy, therefore, resolved itself into this—Mr. Lloyd stated distinctly that he did not use the language imputed to him, and highly respectable Catholic clergymen said that he did use it. There the controversy remained at present. There was no one in Ireland, much less a magistrate, who was above the law. The law was open, to everybody to appeal to. ["Oh!"] Of course, he did not expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with him, especially in a matter of this kind. Nevertheless, he would repeat it was his opinion, at all events, that nobody was above the law. It was open to anybody, when a magistrate acted illegally—and Mr. Clifford Lloyd would have acted illegally if what the hon. Member for Wexford had stated were true—of challenging that conduct through the ordinary channels of the law. The hon. Member stated—though he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) did not think he meant the House to follow him out to the full—that if the Government did not grant this inquiry no remedy was open to anybody who was illegally treated. He took issue at once on that. No one knew better than the hon. Member that the law was open to all. Therefore, the hon. Member was not correct when he said that if this inquiry was not granted no investigation could take place. To grant the inquiry asked for would be unusual and exceptional, and that was a proceeding to be discouraged. He had no hesitation in avowing that he disliked anything outside the ordinary course of the law. [Ironical cheers.] There was one and only one tribunal before which controversies of law or fact could be properly adjudicated upon, and that was a Court of Law, presided over by a Judge, who was acquainted with the law and who was unswayed by prejudice. He did not mistake the good-natured cheer from below the Gangway. But they would have been hiding their heads in the sand if they had not recognized, as the House had recognized, that exceptional legislation, to which that cheer referred, was necessary to meet exceptional circumstances. That, however, made it more necessary to depart as little as pos-
    1118
    sible from the ordinary law in ordinary cases. But what had occurred?—and about this there was no controversy. Sworn information was laid before his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland that the meeting to which the hon. Member for Wexford had referred, and which was contemplated to be held on the 2nd of January, had been convened for the purpose of denouncing an individual whose life would not have been safe if that meeting were allowed to take place. Such was the evidence upon which the Government acted. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) would ask hon. Members, when evidence of that kind was laid before the Government, affirmed by competent persons, and when careful inquiries showed there was reason to apprehend these anticipations were well founded, could the Government have acted otherwise than they had done? Suppose an information of that kind was laid before the Government, and that the Government came to the conclusion that the probability was well founded, but did not interfere; and let it further be supposed that violent scenes took place, would anyone venture to exculpate the Government from the charge that they had disregarded the peace of the country? When large bodies of men assembled, even for the most lawful purposes, it was sometimes difficult, nay, even impossible, to keep them within the bounds of peace and order.
    MR. HEALY: Has there ever been a riot in Ireland after a public meeting?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): There had not, for this reason—that the Government had never interfered—[Ironical cheers]—he would feel obliged if hon. Members would allow him to finish his sentence—the Government had not interfered except in those cases where such information as that which he had mentioned had been laid before them. The Government did not interfere with meetings unless they had evidence before them that the meeting would be attended with disturbance. On this particular occasion, as he had said, sworn information was laid before the Lord Lieutenant as to the nature and object of the meeting. Upon that sworn evidence the Lord Lieutenant issued his

    1119
    Proclamation, upon the face of which, was shown the reason of the Government interference, and the effect of which was not to make the meeting legal or illegal, but to caution the people that if they took part in a meeting of that kind they would render themselves subject to the consequences of the law. That Proclamation was accordingly widely published. He thought, as well as he could recollect, that it was torn down in many places in Drogheda; but that was beside the matter. Representations were made by those supposed to have influence in Drogheda, to the magistrates, that the meeting would not take place. Another meeting was about to take place near Dundalk, which was only a few miles distance, to which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was going, and which was not proclaimed at all. That was an instance of how carefully the Government drew the line of distinction with regard to such meetings. In consequence of the representations to which he had referred, that nothing would take place at Drogheda of a disturbing character, he believed nearly all the police and magistrates were removed from the town. The hon. Member was going down on Saturday, and the meeting was to have taken place in Drogheda on Sunday. Saturday was market day in Drogheda. The town was full with people; there were no police there, and suddenly a large meeting was convened in the very town and in the very place in which the meeting was announced to be held on the following day. It was not going too far to say that anybody would reasonably suppose that that was the meeting of the following day called by anticipation. It was not a casual meeting at all of a fortuitous concourse of people. It was convened by posters sent out, and by bellmen sent round to announce it. In that state of things a large number of people were convened on the spot where the meeting which was to have been hold the following day had been prohibited, in the very neighbourhood where danger was apprehended, and under circumstances precisely similar to those under which the meeting to be held on the following day had been prohibited. Now, it must be remembered that the position of a magistrate in Ireland at all times, and especially in these times, was a most peculiar and a most responsible one. A
    1120
    man filling that office must possess great courage combined with tact, judgment, and temper—he must act not as though he was the master of the people, which he was not, but as the servant of the law, which he was, and he must have nerve enough and knowledge enough to act upon the spur of the moment and upon his own responsibility. In the present case, it was fortunate, as it appeared, that the hon. Member who had brought this matter under the notice of the House was present at the meeting in question, because he had advised the people to disperse quietly, and they had followed his advice. He had heard with regret the hon. Member say that if the people had had weapons in their hands he should have advised them to use them. He thought, however, that the hon. Member did himself an injustice in making that statement, and that he misjudged his own disposition, because he was satisfied that the hon. Member would have thought twice before he gave the people such disastrous advice. The hon. Member was, perhaps, a little over-anxious to show that he had the courage of his opinions; but he did not believe that he would really have incited the people to bloodshed. It happened, however, fortunately, that no collision occurred between the people and the police, and that everything passed off quietly, while the legitimate object of the meeting was attained when it was adjourned to the hotel, where no ill consequences could result from holding it. It was a very different thing to hold a meeting in a building and to hold one out-of-doors, where no control could be exercised over the passions of the multitude. Mr. Lloyd, believing that this out-of-door meeting was a mere anticipation of that which had been prohibited, and that its objects were the same, and were calculated to endanger personal safety, had taken upon himself the responsibility of putting an end to it; and he must confess that, had he been in Mr. Lloyd's place on the occasion, acting on his responsibility as a conservator of the public safety, he should have felt it to be his duty to have required that meeting to disperse. Everything had, fortunately, terminated peaceably, and nothing more would have been heard of it had it not become a subject of newspaper controversy. The witty Canon (Sidney Smith)

    1121
    had said that there were three things which every man thought he could do—farm a small quantity of land, drive a gig, and write a letter to a newspaper. Unfortunately, Mr. Lloyd had thought that he could do the last, and he accordingly addressed a letter to a newspaper, which he had much better have put into the fire, as it had immediately challenged controversy. It was said that Mr. Lloyd's statement was contradicted by the statements of highly respectable Catholic clergymen. Everyone who knew anything about the matter or had any knowledge of Ireland must admit the immense and important influence which the Catholic clergy in Ireland exercised—and often exercised—in the interests of peace and order; and most certainly it would have been very wrong, on the part of Mr. Lloyd or of anybody else, to have said to a Catholic clergyman, or to any other of Her Majesty's subjects—"If you do not disperse I will shoot you down." He was glad to be able to state that Mr. Lloyd most emphatically denied that he had used such language. The hon. Member said that he had heard Mr. Lloyd use language to that effect; but even he could not bind himself to remember the exact words, while two Catholic clergymen undertook to give what they stated to be the identical words. Clergymen, however, were not more infallible in point of memory than anybody else, and it must be remembered that all parties were speaking of what occurred seven months ago, at a moment when great excitement prevailed on all sides. Under all these circumstances, he would ask the hon. Member not to press his Motion; and he asked the House not to weaken the action of justice and the arm of the law in Ireland under trying circumstances of extreme difficulty by unnecessarily casting censure upon those who were called upon to administer justice there. If any wrong had been done to individuals, the ordinary remedies which the law afforded to everyone were open to them.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that for more reasons than one he supported the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford. He agreed with the Solicitor General for Ireland that nearly seven months had elapsed since the affair occurred in Drogheda; but how many times since had Mr. Clifford Lloyd
    1122
    attempted to tyrannize over the people of Limerick County?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W.M. JOHNSON)rose to Order. He wished to know if the hon. Member should not confine himself to the terms of the Motion before the House, which had only relation to the occurrence at Drogheda.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is in Order.
    MR. O'SULLIVAN MR. O'SULLIVAN, continuing, thought he was quite right in alluding to the conduct of Mr. Lloyd, as this was a Motion asking for an investigation into the conduct of Mr. Lloyd as a Government official. Was is not a fact that this gentleman attempted to tyrannize over the people of the County Limerick on several occasions? Anyone who was acquainted with the history of 1798 must be aware that it was the action of such men as Mr. Lloyd that drove the people into revolt; and he had no doubt that if there were ten or a dozen such men scattered over Ireland they would be able to drive the people into revolt and desperation. In Kilmallock he had given both offence and annoyance to the people of that district. On one occasion he had directed the police to summon four respectable ladies who were standing in the street waiting for a lady friend, because, as he said, they had used impertinent language to the police; and the policeman who prosecuted stated that the only impertinent language they had used was that they called him "Lloyd's Pet." Of course, the summons was dismissed. Very shortly after that, Mr. Lloyd summoned a delicate old woman about 70 years of age, and sentenced her to six months' imprisonment, or to give substantial bail, for abusing another woman. When two respectable and substantial bailsmen came before him he refused to accept them; but he accepted them afterwards, after keeping that unfortunate woman a fortnight in gaol. Again, when he saw three or four respectable farmers or shopkeepers standing together in the street he sent his police to disperse them, or to take down their names, as though he were lord and master of the place for the time being. He asked the Government were they going to withhold an inquiry into the conduct of a gentleman guilty of such conduct as that? He (Mr. O'Sullivan) had seen on one occa-

    1123
    sion prisoners taken to the private residence of Mr. Lloyd, and sent to prison after the investigation made there. Though anyone might be mistaken as to words used, he could hardly be mistaken as to an actual fact like that. Why, then, had Mr. Lloyd put the Chief Secretary for Ireland in a false position by allowing him to deny that he had ever convicted men at his private residence? Again, in the case of the poor woman Coleman, it was at first said that she was only one night in prison; but it was afterwards admitted that she was in gaol for 16 nights. In point of fact, he (Mr. O'Sullivan) knew that three of the replies that had been made in that House on behalf of, and on the information of, Mr. Lloyd, by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, were not in accordance with the facts. He also knew, as a matter of fact, that he used the Coercion Act for the purpose of personal vindictiveness. He challenged the Solicitor General to show any charge against two men arrested in Kilfinane under the Coercion Act named Daniel Reardon and Francis Allen, except simply and solely that they had refused to supply cars to Mr. Lloyd and the police. He challenged him to show any charge against Andrew Mortel and Edward O'Neill, who had also been arrested, except that they collected money to pay a fine of—3 and costs which Mr. Lloyd had imposed upon two men and a married woman in his private residence. O'Neill and Mortel collected money for the purpose from the shopkeepers of the town, and went to the barracks and paid the fine and costs; and in three days afterwards a warrant was down from the Lord Lieutenant for the arrest of these two men. It was alleged that they had coerced people to subscribe the money; but he (Mr. O'Sullivan) was prepared to prove by the statement of the shopkeers who subscribed the money that they had given their subscriptions voluntarily. He got a declaration to that effect from all the subscribers, which he sent to the Chief Secretary for Ireland to show that the subscribers were not coerced in any sense of the word. He said that the tyrannical action of Mr. Lloyd was indulged in to gratify his own private vindictiveness, and not to defend or uphold the law. He thought it a very false position for a Liberal Government to occupy if they
    1124
    withheld an inquiry into the conduct of a man who had brought such discredit upon the administration of justice in Ireland.
    MR. J. COWENsaid, he was not aware that the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd was to be called in question that day, or he would have provided himself with information respecting the proceedings of that gentleman, which might have helped the House to a decision on the subject. But let them look at the matter as it was put before them by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). What was the pith of the charge? Here was a legal meeting being held in a peaceable town for a peaceable purpose, and in quite a constitutional way. The gentleman was not a magistrate of the town, nor, he believed, of the county; but he dispersed the gathering by a body of armed men, and in dispersing it used language that was calculated to rouse angry passions, if not to excite to a breach of the peace. There was no question as to the facts. The Solicitor General for Ireland, in his very temperate statement, had substantially admitted the accusation, and he had given it as his opionion that the language used was 'objectionable. Now, he (Mr. J. Cowen) wished to ask hon. Gentlemen near him how they would have acted and what they would have said if a meeting held for a like purpose under like conditions had been forcibly dispersed in any English town? He knew it was useless appealing to the Representatives of the Irish Executive in that House; and he knew, too, that appeals to the ordinary followers of the Ministry would be equally futile. But there still must be—and he knew there were—some who had not altogether forgotten the Radical principles they professed, and upon which they had been returned to that House. He asked them to make the case their own and conceive—if in any of their constituencies such action had been taken by a magistrate—what would have been their attitude to the governing authorities. He had an instinctive dislike of personal quarrels, and he regretted that this question should have to hinge in any way upon the character of an official. He dared say that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was a very honourable man, that according to his lights he was conscientious, and, like the most of them, well-meaning. But he

    1125
    had been a soldier, and he carried the practices of the barrack-yard into politics. He was a strict and unbending martinet. He ordered the people about in even sharper terms than he would have spoken to soldiers upon parade. And when they failed to comply with his orders he did not hesitate to strain the law to punish them. The Solicitor General for Ireland had said that men in authority should use their powers with tact and judgment. He quite agreed with that statement; and it was because Mr. Lloyd did not use his powers with tact and judgment that such incessant complaints were made against him. Ireland was in a disturbed and excited state. The Government had never ceased to proclaim this all the Session. The veriest tyro in administration knew that in ruling a people in such a temper reasonable allowance should be made. The law, it was true, had to be enforced. If there was no law there would be tyranny. But there were different means of enforcing the law. Sometimes it was enforced in such a way as to bring it into contempt. At other times its enforcement earned for the law and the lawmakers respect. In the North of England, during a period of excitement quite as great as now existed in Ireland, Sir Charles Napier was in command of the military forces, and he had under him, as his chief officer, the late Lord Clyde. Notwithstanding the disturbed condition of the populace, there was—through the wisdom and consideration of these judicious commanders—no collision with the authorities. This was set out with great minuteness in the lives of these two distinguished officers, and might be studied with advantage by those charged with the government of Ireland at this moment. The tact and judgment of the two men he had mentioned saved England from bloodshed and serious disorder. There were three qualities required in dealing with the Irish people. These were firmness, justice, and sympathy. The law should be firmly asserted, justice should be impartially administered, and there should be, on the part of its administrators, reasonable regard for the troubles and distress of the people. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had not shown these qualities, and other magistrates in Ireland had been equally deficient. Hence the state of chronic irri-
    1126
    tation that was kept up. He had a strong objection to make anyone a victim—even so unattractive a person as Mr. Lloyd—and he knew it was easy to make a set at a man when popular feeling was against him. But he was bound to say this—that he had been in Ireland sundry times recently, and had had some opportunity of learning the opinion entertained of Mr. Lloyd's administration. He was stating the simple fact when he said that men of all classes in the districts over which that magistrate ruled regarded him as a source of dislike and an incitement to discontent. The hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth)—who certainly had little in common with Gentlemen opposite—knew Mr. Lloyd, and declared that he was nothing short of a firebrand. And yet he was not only now in office, but he was held up as a pattern by the Irish Secretary. It was just this sort of administration that created Irish troubles. Measures devised in that House with the best intentions and conceived with the most beneficent purpose were intrusted for their execution to unsympathetic officials. And these officials fought against them and defeated them. The designs of Parliament were thus rendered inoperative. It was well to recognize the fact that in England there were political and social opinions that permeated all classes—the aristocratic, the trading, and the industrial. If you cut a line through English society you would find opinions mingling freely amongst all these social layers. In Ireland it was different. The ruling caste which constituted the upper strata held certain political, social, or religious opinions. The ordinary people held entirely opposite views. There was no intermingling of classes, and it ought to be the duty of a wise Government to bring the two sections into harmony. It was men like Mr. Clifford Lloyd who prevented that end being attained. He did not wish to do Mr. Lloyd or anyone else any injury; but if the Ministry could give him another office under more congenial conditions, he felt sure the wheels of Irish administration would revolve more smoothly.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, the Solicitor General for Ireland had admitted that if Mr. Lloyd had used the language attributed to him at Drogheda he would have acted in a most illegal and improper manner,

    1127
    and that the parties aggrieved could have gone to the ordinary tribunals for a remedy. But if the Government were not satisfied with ordinary tribunals, why should the people have to go to ordinary tribunals when the ordinary law was suspended, when the liberties of the people were taken away by informers, and the affairs of the people were put into the hands of magistrates in whom they had no confidence? Now, Mr. Lloyd was not above suspicion. On the contrary, there was a direct charge against him that he had used language which, as the Solicitor General for Ireland had said, no person should have used. Why, then, did not the Government institute an inquiry whether that language had been used? If Mr. Lloyd did use that language he was unfit to be a magistrate. He was lately sent into a district where he could have no sympathy with the people, and it was manifest that he had created the feeling of irritation which prevailed in that locality at present. His ton. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) properly observed that a dozen Clifford Lloyds would produce a revolt in Ireland. He should have no objection to see a dozen Clifford Lloyds in Ireland, because it would open the eyes of the Irish people to the character of the men placed over them, and show them that the worst enemy to Irish freedom was a Whig Government which pretended to be Liberal.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped the debate would not be continued, as the House had met on an unusual day for the purpose of making progress with the Estimates. He did not think that anyone could have given a more conciliatory answer than that given by the Solicitor General for Ireland, and he thought it would have been a very graceful act on the part of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) if he had said he did not wish to press the matter further. The debate would be duly reported in the Irish papers, and that was one reason why the Home Rule Members wished to continue it. The Solicitor General for Ireland a short time ago took objection to the Amendment on a point of Order; but the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair ruled that the hon. Member for Wexford was not technically out of Order. At first sight, the Amendment appeared to be directed only to what took place on
    1128
    the 1st of January; but a careful reading of the Amendment would show that it asked for an inquiry into the general conduct of Mr. Lloyd. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) about firmness, justice, and sympathy, he would only say, while agreeing in the necessity for firmness and justice, how on earth could Mr. Lloyd have sympathy with a people who were excited against him as the people of his district seemed to have been?
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he thought it was unfair to insinuate that Irish Members brought forward this question solely to get their speeches reported in the newspapers. [Mr. WARTON: I did not say solely.] It was a fundamental rule in that House that Grievance should come before Supply. As long as they had their Irish Friends in the House, it was natural that they should bring forward the grievances of Ireland. He thought in this instance what was at least a very strong case for inquiry had been made out. They had, first of all, had the statements of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan). In addition to them, they had the corroborative and independent testimony of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). It was a serious thing that these charges should be brought against a man in a responsible position, and it seemed to him that they ought to be inquired into. They had spent a great part of the Session in the endeavour to send a message of peace to Ireland; but there could be no message of peace that was not one of justice—that was the only foundation, of peace in any community—and there were, in his opinion, good grounds for asking whether or not justice had been done in this case. He should be glad to see the discussion brought to a close, so that the House might get into Committee; but, at the same time, he hoped the Government would agree, even at the last moment, to order an inquiry into the subject now before the House. There could be no harm in inquiry.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he happened to be connected with the district referred to in the Amendment, and he was sorry to say that the observation of the Solicitor General for Ireland that any statement made seven months after the date

    1129
    referred to could not be very reliable was more disingenuous than usual. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention that the letter of the Catholic clergyman was written the next day, when there could be no such defect of memory as he suggested. He (Mr. Callan) had interviewed the magistrates, and he was assured by them that the description of the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth) of Mr. Clifford Lloyd was correct—that he was "a political firebrand." It was, therefore, a great mistake to send this firebrand further South among inflammable material. It was said that Mr. Lloyd denied using the language but several magistrates and two Catholic clergymen affirmed that he had used the words. Why should there not be a sworn inquiry? If Mr. Lloyd escaped, the clergymen and magistrates would be covered with confusion. He thought the question would be best raised on the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary, and he hoped the Motion would not now be pressed.
    MR. REDMONDsaid, they had no reason to regret the absence of the Chief Secretary, because nothing could be in better taste than the speech of the Solicitor General for Ireland, which was in marked contrast with that they usually experienced from the Chief Secretary; but, at the same time, he did not concur in the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments. He thought, however, if speeches were delivered in a similar tone on Irish questions, there would be fewer scenes in that House. He must also express his gratification at seeing the Motion receive the support of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). As to Mr. Clifford Lloyd; he asked English Members simply to look at the performances of that person in Kilmallock and decide whether or not he was a firebrand. He believed the Coercion Act had been passed under false pretences.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is travelling beyond the Question before the House.
    MR. REDMONDsaid, he desired to allude to the Coercion Act because Mr. Clifford Lloyd was engaged in administering it, and he thought he was entitled to refer to the exceptional state of things which existed in Ireland under the Act.
    1130
    Hon. Members opposite, he was of opinion, were induced to support the Government in passing the Coercion Act by the belief that it would be worked in a careful, impartial, and just spirit. If Mr. Clifford Lloyd was allowed to administer that Act, there was no question that injustice would be perpetrated in Ireland such as hon. Gentlemen who voted in favour of the Act never anticipated. The Radical Members who brought into existence this state of affairs by the support they gave to the Government were responsible for the administration of the Act, and therefore they should insist upon the Government seeing that the reins of power were not placed in the hands of men against whom the people had, rightly or wrongly, formed the opinion that they were partial and unjust. If the Government believed the men they had appointed to work the Act were impartial and honest, let them go into the charges which had been made, and prove them to be baseless. With regard to the message of peace to Ireland, he thought it was utterly absurd for hon. Members to talk and delude the Government by making them believe that the Land Bill would be a message of peace to Ireland so long as conduct of this kind was allowed to proceed. If this conduct continued, it must be by men like Mr. Clifford Lloyd, who created disturbances instead of quelling them. The first thing the Government ought to do was to establish the principle of justice in Ireland, and re-establish the principle of liberty; and until that was done, it was entirely absurd to think that anything in the shape of a message of peace would be seen in the Land Bill, or any other measure the House might pass.
    MR. O'KELLYremarked, that the Solicitor General for Ireland recommended the people to appeal to the law if they felt aggrieved. He had some experience of appealing to the law in a case similar to this. But he found that, instead of having to deal with a magistrate upon a plain and simple issue, he had to face the British Government. He had in his hand the defence filed in the action he instituted against Mr. Harvey, R.M., for assault, and he found it was prepared by Mr. Anderson, the Crown Solicitor, and printed at the expense of the British taxpayer. Instead of replying to the

    1131
    simple question his action raised, the document contained a long political indictment, which, in fact, was substantially the same as that preferred against the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and others at the State trials in Dublin. It was, therefore, absurd to talk of appealing to the law when they had to fight the British Government. The hon. Member was proceeding to refer to a meeting at which some Orangemen appeared, when—
    MR. SPEAKER: I fail to see the connection between the matter now being discussed and the conduct of Mr. Lloyd, which is the subject of the Amendment before the House.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, he thought he was within his right and within Order in replying to the statement of the Solicitor General for Ireland that the Government never interfered with these meetings except upon sworn information. Of course, if he was passing beyond his right—
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is replying to some observations of the Solicitor General for Ireland, I have no wish to interfere.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, it was, no doubt, true that the Government never interfered with a meeting except on sworn information; but that statement, if accepted literally, would convey a very wrong impression to the House. The great point was, what steps would the Government take to examine into the validity of the sworn informations? There was a meeting to have been held in County Fermanagh a short time since, and, upon its becoming known, the magistrates of the district in which the meeting was to be held, who were also landlords and land agents, got two or three of their understrappers to get a bill printed to the Orangemen of the county, and the meeting was consequently stopped. The Orangemen had no intention of interfering with the meeting at the time of the issuing of the bill by the men who appealed to Dublin Castle to suppress the meeting. The magistrates who appealed to Dublin Castle to suppress the meeting he had referred to were aware of the origin of the placard issued to the Orangemen. They knew the men who had caused this placard to be posted, and they were perfectly well aware that there was not the slightest intention on the part of the
    1132
    Orangemen to come into collision with the people who attended the meeting; yet they walked down and absolutely dispersed the meeting by force, without the slightest justification. There was not the slightest cause to apprehend any disturbance. Now, that was one of the difficulties they had to deal with in Ireland. If the House did not interfere to prevent the Government acting upon these sworn informations until they had ascertained the accuracy of them, the right of public meeting in Ireland would be gone. He hoped the House would assent to the reasonable Motion of the hon. Member for Wexford, for he could not imagine a doubt existing in the mind of anyone that Mr. Lloyd was a dangerous, violent, and excitable man, whose presence in the South was certain to lead to mischief. As to Mr. Harvey, he was, perhaps, worse than Mr. Lloyd.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)wished to mention that Mr. Harvey was defending himself in an action for assault by the hon. Member at his own expense and through his own solicitors.
    MR. BYRNEwas of opinion that, inasmuch as these charges against Mr. Lloyd had been made and supported, the Government, if they were jealous of their reputation and the honour of their officials, should be fair and straightforward, and allow the investigation asked for by his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford to take place. The hon. Member's proposal was a very reasonable one. This was not a small matter, but a very serious affair, for Mr. Lloyd had the lives and liberties of a large number of people under his control.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked if the Solicitor General for Ireland really meant to refuse the assurance desired by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and other hon. Gentlemen?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it was not in his power to give such an. assurance; but he had distinctly pointed out the course open to hon. Gentlemen.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 18: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 359.)

  NAVY—NAVY AND DOCKYARD OFFICERS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that, though he did not wish to detain the House, he was unfortunately compelled to bring some grievances connected with the Navy before the House in that manner in consequence of the extraordinary conduct of the First Lord of the Admiralty. That noble Lord had had the unlimited pretension to refuse to receive Members of Parliament on matters connected with their constituencies. When a body of Members connected with Dockyard constituencies had wished to see him he had refused to receive them, and had therefore thrust upon them the necessity of appealing to their Constitutional privileges. He had no wish, nor had the Dockyard officials any wish, to obstruct the proceedings of the House by bringing forward their grievances, and he should not have done so but for the attitude taken by Lord Northbrook towards Members of Parliament. It might do very well in India, but it was not at all consistent with the duties of a Cabinet Minister towards the Representatives of the people. The case he wished to bring before the House was that of the old navigating officers. The old officers now found themselves completely eclipsed by a younger class of men, so that their position was becoming almost untenable, and many a good appointment to which they had hitherto looked had been taken away from them. Navigating lieutenants and staff commanders were constantly placed under the orders of officers junior to themselves, while their pay and pension were inferior to those of the newer class. Now, a commander of the new class and a lieutenant detailed for navigating duties, after 21 years' service, were entitled to a pension of £400 per annum, while staff commanders and navigating lieutenants were only entitled to £290. It was perfectly plain that if they had the power of addressing the Minister privately at his residence on these questions the House would be saved the trouble of listening to details which could be much better discussed in private than in public; and when Ministers were open to that mode of access it conduced very greatly to the quicker discharge of the Business of the House. He mentioned the matter now to call
  1134
  the attention of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, whose courtesy he was glad to say none of them could complain of, to it. He would also ask his hon. Friend a question with regard to the warrant officers. They suffered under a grievance which had been recognized, he thought, but not remedied. There was a clause in the Admiralty Regulations called the "other ships" clause, the effect of which was that while other officers in the Navy received the same pay whether they were at sea or on shore, the warrant officers were mulcted of £27 a-year when they were in harbour. Those officers had assured him that it was quite as expensive to live in places like Portsmouth and Plymouth as when they were at sea. He thought that matter ought to be brought before the House and the Secretary to the Admiralty in a manner as detailed as possible, because he believed that the increase that would be involved in the Estimates if those officers received the same treatment as others in Her Majesty's Service would be very small indeed, and it would render a very deserving set of men much more contented than they at present were. He should have said something with regard to the Royal Naval Engineers; but his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth had applied his mind to that question, and was about to bring it forward in Supply, when, perhaps, he might have the opportunity of saying a few words. He had no wish to detain the House, and had brought forward that question very reluctantly, only because of the manner in which he had been received by the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  MR. PULESTONthought this was hardly the occasion to discuss this subject, because it seemed to him it could be better brought forward when the Naval Estimates were under discussion. He joined with the last speaker in deprecating in the strongest manner the unusual course taken by Lord North-brook in refusing to receive a deputation of Members representing Dockyard constituencies. A number of Members united together, and his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver), who happened to be the spokesman on that occasion, respectfully asked for an interview with the First Lord of the Admiralty, in order to lay before him what they considered to be mat-

  1135
  ters very material to the public interest, and desirable that he should know. He, however, received a reply couched in the most curt language. The Predecessor of the present Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), replying to a request of some officials and others employed in the Dockyards, said he could not entertain any statement of the grievances of the officers at the Admiralty, but that a fair and full opportunity would be given to all parties employed in the Dockyards to ventilate their grievances on the occasion of the annual visit of the Lords of the Admiralty. This was perfectly satisfactory to all; but when the Lords' annual visitation came round these promises were set aside at once with a very curt reply, and the officials were not allowed to go near them, or to represent to them in any way their grievances, except through their superior officers. That course was naturally attended with extreme inconvenience, and must result in the discontent of men who should be encouraged in every proper and reasonable way.
  MR. MACLIVERsaid, he was very unwilling to say anything which would seem discourteous to the First Lord of the Admiralty; but he must join in the expressions employed as to the refusal of the noble Lord to receive the deputation. The Members who composed that deputation had substantial grounds for applying for an interview, and he thought the refusal to receive them was exceedingly unwise and exceedingly discourteous to the House. He hoped at any future time, when a similar application was made to the First Lord of the Admiralty, it would be met in a different spirit. At all events, they would not be deterred by such a refusal in again pressing the grievances and complaints of men in the Service who were entitled to be heard, and whose case called for a remedy.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had not given him Notice of his intention to bring this matter forward, and he could not answer the points raised in such detail as he would like. He could quite understand exception being taken to Lord North-brook's ship-building policy, and the manner in which he distributed ships among the squadrons, for those squad-
  1136
  rons were all over the world; but he was extremely surprised to hear his personal courtesy called in question. He should have said that there was no First Lord who, at greater personal inconvenience to himself, had, in the discharge of his duties, given greater satisfaction to hon. Members. He wished in some respects there were a larger House present, for he was sure that many more hon. Members would bear testimony to what he said. He should have liked to hear Lord Northbrook's account of the circumstances to which the hon. Members had referred; but he thought, so far as he could gather from the conversation, that there was an explanation to be made. He believed that the hon. Members referred to a deputation that proposed to wait upon the First Lord to represent the grievances of the Naval Engineers. He thought there was a very great deal to be said as to whether the grievances of the Engineers were a proper subject for a deputation of Members of Parliament. As the matter had appeared in some newspapers, it was a more serious thing. It was there called a deputation of the Royal Naval Engineers. Hon. Members must remember what these Engineers were, and what they claimed to be. They were commissioned officers of the Navy like post captains and commanders, and they claimed that they were not sufficiently treated as commissioned officers. As long as he was at the Admiralty, he would take care that that claim should diminish until it ceased to exist. He would ask hon. Members what they would think if deputations of lieutenants and captains in the Navy came up to London to interview Members of Parliament, and if, upon hearing them, the Members went straight to the First Lord of the Admiralty? If the same system was carried on in the Army, he would like to ask hon. Members what effect it would produce on the discipline of the Army? He was quite sure that when the naval officers began to appreciate the difference in their treatment now from what it had been they would almost be surprised that so late as 1881 they took such a course as to lay their grievances before the Admiralty. As to the warrant officers, the hon. Member must remember that the grievances of this class of officers was a recent one, and was caused by the removal of pre-

  1137
  vious grievances. The old grievance was that these officers got no more money by going to sea than by remaining on shore. On account of that they were divided into two classes, one being sent to sea while the other remained on shore, and the consequence was that those on shore became dissatisfied. It was, however, a matter which affected the public purse, and that must be taken into consideration in dealing with it. As to the navigating officers, he sympathized with them very much, because they were a class rapidly becoming extinct; but be did not believe practical grievances existed among them. The percentage of navigating officers who were employed now was very decidedly larger than that employed in recent years. As to their being put under the orders of junior officers, the hon. Member was, no doubt, well aware that it was always so. Masters were always in a different position, on shore especially and elsewhere, to what were called the executive officers of the Navy; but these grievances had appeared owing to the absorption of a number of officers of the navigating branch in the executive branch. It was, however, extremely important as far as possible that these senior officers should be kept to their own line, and should not find themselves placed behind their juniors. The conclusion at which the Admiralty had arrived on the whole was, that it was impossible to deal with this question otherwise than by dealing with each case separately. Beyond that which he had mentioned, he did not believe the navigating officers had any grievance which they had 10 or 15 years ago, except that grievance of the disappearance of their special line.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to call attention to the objectionable system adopted by the Admiralty with reference to the pensions given to widows of naval officers. In order to check the amount of the private incomes of those ladies they were required to make a declaration, and the facts so stated were made the subject of offensive inquiries. The Comptroller and Auditor General, no doubt, had pointed out that widows in one case had an income of £550, and in two or three other cases of £200 or £250 a-year of their own. But these were very rare cases, and it seemed unbecoming that the Comptroller and Auditor General should busy himself about such
  1138
  matters. He would, therefore, ask whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty could not cause a discontinuance of this inquisitorial system, which was felt to be a peculiarly painful thing to many persons?
  MR. TREVELYANstated that he would answer the hon. Member when the House was in Committee.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £877,890, Half-Pay, Reserved Half-Pay, and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, it would be convenient if the Secretary to the Admiralty would redeem the pledge he had given that he would lay before the Committee a statement as to the changes to be made in the Marine Corps. He did not know whether the scheme had been prepared; but the promise to which he referred was made in July last.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked if anything had been done with regard to pensions to the widows of seamen and marines? The question was one of vital importance, and it had been more than once promised that it should be looked into. Admiral Gambier had several times submitted to the Admiralty schemes for creating these pensions, and had pointed out that there were several sources out of which they could be granted without adding to the burdens of the country—for instance, the proceeds of seamens' effects, unclaimed pay, and prize money, and other matters. Under these heads, without doubt, money could be obtained from which the unhappy widows might be granted annuities. When anything happened like the accidents to the Atalanta and Eurydice the public came forward as soon as its attention was drawn to the circumstance, and did a great deal to support the widows of the men who were lost; but nothing was ever done by the State for the widows of men who died in the fulfilment of their duty. He had been told of a case at Portsmouth, in which the widows of two men who were drowned in rendering assistance to a vessel that was lost got nothing whatever, while

  1139
  the widows of the men belonging to that ship, owing to the amount of public sympathy that was excited, obtained by subscription a considerable amount of money.
  MR. MACLIVERsaid, he wished to call attention to the position of the Naval Engineers, whose pay, instead of being raised in accordance with the representations made to the Admiralty, had, in some cases, been reduced.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the subject upon which the hon. Member was speaking was not relevant to the Vote before the Committee, which related to half-pay and retired pay to officers of the Navy and Marines.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he thought the pay of Naval Engineers entered into the question before the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) could, of course, speak upon the question of half-pay to these officers, but not upon the full pay.
  MR. PULESTONsuggested that the hon. Member should defer his remarks until the Vote for Pay of the Navy was reached, when there would be an opportunity of fully raising the question.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFhoped the question would not be postponed.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Plymouth would be perfectly right in raising the question upon the regular Vote; but to do so now was entirely out of Order.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £847,035, Military Pensions and Allowances.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, perhaps he might be allowed to say a few words in reply to his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) on the subject of pensions to the widows of seamen and marines. In the first place, there were different methods in almost every Department of the State of dealing with the widows of public servants. In the Civil Service no pensions whatever were given; there were certain pensions in the Military Service, but none in the Naval Service. In that respect the Navy was so far worse off than the Army; but it was immeasurably better off than the great mass of Civil servants. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had brought forward the
  1140
  question of pensions to the widows of seamen and marines. With regard to that question, he begged to point out that the Admiralty would have been most willing to move in the direction indicated had they felt justified in calling upon the House of Commons to provide the enormous sum which would be necessary to provide the pensions in question. But they had not felt so justified, particularly as the seamen were the best paid class of all the fighting Services of the country. The Admiralty, however, would have been glad to establish a provident fund for the relief of the widows of seamen; but when the men were questioned on the subject, it turned out that only about 3 per cent of them were willing to contribute the amount out of their pay which would have been necessary to provide that fund.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked whether it was 3 per cent of the married men who objected?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, it was not; but 3 per cent of all the men who had been canvassed. With regard to the widows of officers, if it was found that a very small number of them gave up their pensions, it would be a matter for consideration whether the inquiry into their private means should not be given up. But if a considerable number did give up their pensions, or did not come forward to claim them at all because their incomes were large, then he thought the Admiralty would not be justified in making any change.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he believed that this inquisition into the means of the widows of naval officers did not save very much money to the State. He was rather surprised at the statement made by the Secretary to the Admiralty with regard to the 3 per cent only of seamen of the Navy who had expressed their willingness to contribute from their pay the sum necessary to establish a provident fund. Having read the Return moved for by Mr. Egerton Hubbard (late Member for Buckingham), he thought the percentage must refer only to the number of men who were willing to contribute a proportion of their pay very much in excess of what was supposed to be necessary, having regard to the various sources indicated by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). Of course, if a large sum of money was proposed to be deducted

  1141
  from their pay, both married and unmarried men were very likely to object; but he believed that a contribution was promised by a majority of those classes, which, taken with the money derivable from the sources named by his hon. Friend, would have produced the desired pensions for their widows, without any addition to the taxation of the country. Without refreshing his memory from the Return of the late hon. Member for Buckingham, he should be sorry to state categorically his opinion as to that subject; but he thought the Secretary to the Admiralty would find that the percentage to which he had alluded did not apply to what he would call the more reasonable proposals made in behalf of the widows of the seamen of the Navy.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, that the small percentage of the men alluded to by the Secretary to the Admiralty was probably due to the fact that no matured scheme had been laid before them on the part of the Admiralty. The general impression of the Service had been that if the Admiralty matured a scheme sufficient money would be available from the sources mentioned by Admiral Gambier to provide pensions, without calling upon the men to make any contribution at all, though an approved scheme would, he believed, have the support of all in the Service. One very strong reason for doing justice to the Navy in this respect was that it would contribute more than anything else to make the Service attractive, while, at the same time, dismissal would be regarded as the greatest possible punishment It would also contribute to putting a stop to desertion. Therefore, it was his opinion that from a purely selfish national standpoint alone the Admiralty could well afford to make this concession, and that it would be money well invested. In reference to the marines, he would ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he would let hon. Members see the scheme promised on a former occasion, before the Committee met again upon the Naval Estimates. In adopting that course he believed the convenience of the Committee would be very much consulted.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he believed that no clear scheme with regard to pensions for the widows of seamen and marines had ever been drawn up by the Navy. An attempt
  1142
  was made to do this at one time, but it was dropped, owing to difficulties which were found to exist. But, as he had already pointed out, Admiral Gambier had stated that the different stoppages and savings would be sufficient for the purpose of founding annuities, without further contribution. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Gentleman would look into this matter, and see whether upon thorough re-examination something could not be done. It was perfectly plain that seamen were not in the same position as civilians or soldiers, because they were constantly exposed to danger. With regard to the question of pensions to the widows of officers, he thought the present practice of calling upon these ladies to make a return of their private means was not fair. He did not see why a distinction should be drawn between the poorer widows and those who were better off; and if the practice were discontinued he believed that a very unpleasant grievance would be removed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he hoped this practice would be discontinued. His attention had been drawn to the case of a widow of a naval officer in very difficult circumstances, and one of her great troubles was the battle she had with herself every year as to how she should bring herself to sign the declaration required of her. This lady had dependent upon her two female relatives, and she stinted herself very much in order to enable them to live, and she would not be able to do this but for the pension she received on account of her husband's services. It was clear from this that the practice of requiring a declaration pressed very heavily on the minds of deserving ladies, although there might be some whose consciences were not so tender as that of the lady to whom he had alluded. Then, he had been informed of the case of another lady, whose pension had been discontinued simply because, after some years, she had had an increase in her means. It was perfectly inconceivable to him that the widow of a naval officer should be dealt with in such a manner. He trusted that this system of confidential investigation, which pressed very heavily upon the ladies in question, and was by no means useful to the Service, would be done away with.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £337,991, Civil Pensions and Allowances, agreed to,

  CIVIL SERVICES.

    CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
    (4.) £93,570, to complete the sum for the Diplomatic Services.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished for some explanation with regard to the item of £10,000 on account of Her Majesty's Mission to Persia. There was nothing estimated for last year, and the amount on the earlier Estimates was £12,000.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that nothing was included in the Estimates of last year, because there had been a long-pending dispute as to the quota to be paid by India in respect of this Mission.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he could not understand why the rent of the Minister's house at Brussels did not appear on the Estimates.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that this matter was in the hands of the Board of Works.
    MR. LEEsaid, there appeared to be a great want of regularity in regard to the appointments of chaplains. For his own part, he did not think they were required at all.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that during the last Parliament a Committee sat to consider this question, and reported in favour of the re-creation of these Consular chaplaincies.
    MR. LABOUCHEREpointed out that a Committee had also recommended that at the age of 70, Ministers should be called upon to retire. He believed the object of this was to increase the chances of promotion; but it seemed to him a foolish suggestion, and he was sorry that the Foreign Office had acted upon it. It seemed to proceed on the assumption that at the age of 70 a man must necessarily have broken down, while it was perfectly well known that at the age in question our Ministers had shown themselves able to do excellent service. The result of this hard-and-fast line being drawn would very likely be that persons would be put into positions in which they would not do the work as well as their predecessors.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Secretary of State for Foreign
    1144
    Affairs might, if he chose, disregard the rule in exceptional cases.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked what had been done under the rule instituted by Earl Granville with regard to the changing of Ministers at the end of five years? He remembered that Baron Beust was removed because his Government said he had resided so long in England that he had become more English than German, and he also knew of cases where British subjects abroad could get nothing done for them, because the Minister wished to make himself acceptable to the Power to which he was accredited rather than to his own Government. He hoped that something would be done in the matter of changing Ministers who had been a long time at their posts.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that changes had been more frequent since Earl Granville came into Office. The principle was, no doubt, a good one, though the long and valuable services of Lord Lyons at Paris and Lord Ampthill at Berlin formed important exceptions to the general rule.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked why India was called upon to pay £15,000 a-year towards the expenses of the Embassy in China? He could not see that India had any direct concern with our relations with China, which were important only to the general interest of the Empire. Surely the taxpayers of England were far better able to pay for this Embassy than the poor people of India, who, as far as he could understand, were in no way benefited by it. In looking over the list of Embassies he was astonished to find the magnitude of the salaries paid to Ministers abroad—for instance, to the Ambassador at Constantinople, £8,000; St. Petersburg, £7,800; Brussels, £4,000; Paris, £10,000; Japan, £4,000; Spain, £5,000; and Sweden, £3,000. He might live to see the day when the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was Leader of that House, and he felt sure he would then make a regular crusade against this portion of the Estimates. He could not but feel that the salaries paid to Ministers abroad were far beyond the resources of the country to afford. Moreover, in many cases, there had never been much advantage in having the offices at all, except, perhaps, when the doctrine of Civis Romanus sum gave to the English-

    1145
    man abroad the privilege of making himself a nuisance wherever he went. He thought that we had now arrived at a much healthier position in respect to foreign affairs, and that we ought, in consequence of the change that had taken place, to get rid of some of the salaries and charges which were created at a time when our foreign policy was quite different.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought that the contribution of India to the cost of the Legation in China was justified by the circumstances. The reason why the charge appeared in its present form was because India had very important and delicate interests in Persia, while the amount paid by India in connection with the Legation in China was estimated in relation to the share of Indian commerce with that country. With regard to the salaries of Ambassadors, he feared he could not hold out any hope of their being reduced. The best way of arriving at a conclusion as to whether they were too high was to compare them with the salaries paid to the Representatives of other great Powers. It had been supposed that the salaries paid to English Ministers were greater than those paid by other Powers; but subsequent examination had shown that this was not the case. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway had instanced St. Petersburg, Paris, and Constantinople, as places at which the salaries were unnecessarily large; but he could assure the Committee that it was impossible for the Ambassadors in those cities to save any money on their present allowances. He was, however, not in a position to say that our Ministers at places of less importance would not be able to do so; but, as a rule, he believed that our Ambassadors were generally out of pocket. Under the circumstances, he was not able to hold out any expectation of reduction under this head.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, as a matter of fact, Constantinople was the only city in which our Ambassadors could save any money, because he believed that there everything was paid for them. But the objection was not to the salaries at the large cities, but to those at places of minor importance—to small Courts like that of Darmstadt, where the gentleman who resided there had absolutely nothing to do, except to give a dinner Occasionally to the few English living
    1146
    there. Economy was not to be secured by reducing the salaries at the large places; but by doing away with them at these small Courts, where a Minister was unnecessary.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEpointed out that since 1870 several Missions had been altogether suppressed.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYremarked, that anyone looking at the Estimates would observe that we were represented at Dresden by a Legation, at £750 a-year; whereas at Darmstadt, a place of less importance, we paid £1,050 a-year. He was quite aware that at one time there were reasons why we should be specially represented at the latter place; but they existed no longer. He thought this was one of those little irregularities which might be corrected when a vacancy occurred at the post.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished for information from the hon. Baronet with regard to the ransom of Colonel Synge in Turkey. That gentleman, whilst travelling on his own account, had very foolishly placed himself in a position in which he ought never to have been. He was seized by brigands, and the Foreign Office were saddled with a charge of £12,000 to get him set free. Consul Blunt had been obliged to go in an undignified way to make terms with the brigands—purchasing rifles and watches for them, and handing them a draft on the bank at Salonica. The Foreign Office had demurred to this payment; but it was finally charged upon the Estimates, and it was proposed to treat it as an advance. He believed the amount was still outstanding. The Turkish Government were presumed to be liable to pay this money back, but it was doubtful whether they could do so; and he should, therefore, be glad to know what steps it was proposed to take in this matter. Did the Government intend to allow Colonel Synge to get off without paying anything; did they intend to press the claim on the Turkish Government, or did they mean to wipe off the amount as irrecoverable?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in the last resort they held the Turkish Government responsible for the repayment of the money; and he failed to see any reason why a part of the money in hand belonging to the Turkish Government should not be kept back until the ransom was paid.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsuggested, in that case, that steps should be taken to make the Foreign Office secure.
    Vote agreed to.
    (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £142,387, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Expense of the Consular Establishments Abroad, and for other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he wished to move to reduce the Vote by £1,600, the amount paid to Mr. Lascelles, as Consul and Diplomatic Agent—our Represen-tative—in Bulgaria. He did not wish to enter into a long discussion on the question, on a side issue like this; but he must say one word as to our position in Bulgaria, because one of the grounds of his objecting to the Vote was the conduct of the Prince of Bulgaria, and the opinion that was entertained in many quarters that it was improper for us to hold any diplomatic relations with him. After the war between Turkey and Russia there had been a persistent effort made by the English Government then in power to get the province of Bulgaria divided between Bulgaria East and Roumania. That division did take place, and Bulgaria was left, to all intents and purposes, not the large Bulgaria that was hoped for by the present Prime Minister, but consisting of the Northern part of the original Province. By the Treaty of Berlin it was laid down that a Constitution should be elaborated for Bulgaria. That Constitution he had seen reflected on in the newspapers as a bad Constitution. He had made himself familiar with that Constitution, and he must say he regretted that, in almost every instance, the Constitution of this country was not the same as that of Bulgaria. He had never heard of or seen a more sound and excellent Democratic Constitution than that which was given to Bulgaria.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss the question of the Constitution of Bulgaria on this Vote. He can only discuss any transaction in which Mr. Lascelles took part.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he should approach the conduct of Mr. Lascelles directly; but it was necessary for him to
    1148
    describe the circumstances in which the conduct he complained of took place. The Prince of Bulgaria was elected under this Constitution. There was a Chamber, and the Prince was under it—the sound principle adopted in the Constitution being that the Prince reigned and did not rule. One Ministry after another was formed, and the Prince became surrounded by foreign adventurers. The Prince was anxious that the Government should fall into the hands of these adventurers. At the commencement of the summer the Prince resolved to make a coup d'êtat. He announced that a plébescite would be taken, by which autocratic power was to be given to him for five years. He went through the form of gathering together a Grand National Assembly, which was to vote him this supreme power. It was one of the grossest farces ever perpetrated.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is still discussing the question of the Constitution of Bulgaria. I must again inform him that he is bound to confine himself to the question of the conduct of Mr. Lascelles.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: You will see how I come to it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must come to it, and not go into the whole question of the Government of Bulgaria.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was just coming to Mr. Lascelles. This Grand National Assembly was called together—["Order!"] He thought he was strictly in Order, as he was introducing the speech delivered by the German Consul General, as doyen of the Corps Diplomatique, of whom Mr. Lascelles was one. It would be seen directly that he had been obliged to make these preliminary remarks. The Grand National Assembly was called together at Sistova. It was surrounded by troops, in order to prevent the outraged people from turning the Prince out. The Corps Diplomatique met together for the purpose of addressing the Prince, and, under these circumstances, the doyen, or the gentleman who had been longest in the Corps Diplomatique, was in the habit of speaking in the name of all the members of the Diplomatic Body. He (Mr. Labouchere) might presume that the doyen's Address had been read over to Mr. Lascelles, and that his opinion was taken on the subject. At any rate, as Mr. Lascelles was

    1149
    at the meeting, he was reponsible for what took place. "What did take place was this. The doyen, speaking in the name of Mr. Lascelles and the others, said—
    " The Corps Diplomatique is happy to greet your Highness, through me as intermediary, on your arrival in this town.
    "The Representatives of Europe, on the eve of the meeting of the Great National Assembly, form the sincerest wish that the union between your Highness and the country may be indissolubly maintained. Your Highness, by the high destinies which have devolved upon you, constitutes, in the eyes of Europe, a guarantee of order and tranquillity, and the pledge of a happy development of Bulgaria in the path of progress."
    It must be remembered that this language was addressed to the Prince, after what he should be prepared to show—had he the opportunity of making his speech in the House instead of the Committee—was one of the most outrageous and nefarious attacks upon public liberty ever perpetrated. The Prince replied to the Corps Diplomatique as follows:—
    "Messieurs les Agents,
    "I am happy to see you in this town under the grave circumstances which have brought me here.
    "As you say, M. l' Agent, on the part of your colleagues, being in the eyes of Europe the representative and depositary of the destinies of the nation"
    —why he said so, he (Mr. Labouchere) did not know; but the Corps Diplomatique, Mr. Lascelles amongst the number, listened to it—
    "which has been confided to me, I do not doubt for an instant that my country, marching in the paths of progress opened to it, will always be able to justify the sympathies of the world, and the confidence which Europe evinces in us.
    "I am also happy that you, MM. les Agents, being in the country, have already been able yourselves to realize what is the will of the people, guided by Divine Providence, in the accomplishment of its destinies.
    "I am also happy that you, MM. les Agents, for the lively interest of which you have given me proof during this crisis, so vital for the future of the Bulgarian nation."
    So that the Prince accepted the words of the doyen as a statement of the opinion, not only of the Corps Diplomatique, but of the Powers of Europe, England included. The Prince, in reply to an Address presented to him by the Representative of England, said he would be able to justify the sympathies of the world, and the confidence which England evinced in him. Then the Prince
    1150
    said the Corps Diplomatique had been able to realize what was the will of the people "guided by Divine Providence." Why, that was rank blasphemy. Then, with Mr. Lascelles standing by, the Prince thanked him for the lively interest he had taken in him during what he (the Prince) was pleased to call "this crisis so vital for the future of the Bulgarian nation." The Prime Minister of England had, when this took place, already received the telegram from the three Ministers who had been ejected from the country—one of whom, he had read the other day, was sent to prison, released, and again incarcerated—and the President of the Ordinary National Assembly. He would call attention to the words of the telegram. They were as follows:—
    "In the hardest times for our nation we find ourselves obliged to have recourse to the generosity of the English nation, and personally to you, and most humbly to pray you to deliver the order by legality [i.e., legal order] and liberty (for which every Englishman has always been the true guardian) of our country from a foreign unrestrained and imposed militarism.
    "You know, Sir, better than everybody else, that elections for the just and true expression of the national will, when taking place under the pressure of whips, bayonets, and guns—as is the case with us at present—are simple mockery of the national will, and a most flagrant violation of liberty.
    "(Signed) Ex-Minister KARAVELOFF.
    Ex-Minister ZANCOFF.
    Ex-Minister SLAVELIKOFF.
    President of the Ordinary National Assembly, SOUENAROFF."
    The opinion he had expressed, therefore, was not only his own opinion derived from the correspondence, but it was the clear and distinct statement of the gentlemen who, up to the time of the coup d'êtat took place were supposed, and, he presumed, supposed rightly, to represent the views of the Bulgarian nation. A vote was taken in the Great National Assembly—and a unanimous vote, under the guns of the soldiery was, he believed, given in favour of the Prince. The doyen of the Corps Diplomatique, subsequently, in the presence of his colleagues, congratulated the Prince of Bulgaria upon the vote of the Assembly. He said—
    "The Corps Diplomatique hastens by my voice to present to your Highness their respectful congratulations on the occasion of the solemn vote of the Great National Assembly.
    "My colleagues and I are glad to note that the Bulgarian nation, under the present circumstances, has pronounced its opinion with the

    1151
    same unanimity as when it made choice of your Highness as the depositary of its destinies. This fresh expression of the will of the Bulgarian people is a striking proof of their feelings of confidence in and fidelity towards your Highness, and of their resolution to follow you in the path in which you will lead them to ensure the progress, welfare, and prosperity of Bulgaria."
    In his reply, his Highness thanked the Corps Diplomatique for their congratulations, and requested them to convey to their respective Governments the expression of his gratitude for the sympathy which had been shown him during the crisis. The other day, when the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was asked whether any communication had been received from Foreign Governments, asking that a united action should be taken to endorse, on the part of all Signatories of the Berlin Treaty, the action of the Prince of Bulgaria, the hon. Baronet had replied that such a communication had been received, but that Her Majesty's Government had declined to do so. He understood that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to adopt the course of armed intervention. It was desirable that Her Majesty's Government should maintain, as far as possible, the European Concert; but it must be remembered that Russia had never lost an opportunity of supporting the Prince. ["Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is discussing the question of the present condition of Bulgaria in a Committee devoted entirely to Supply. He would have been in Order in doing so before the Speaker left the Chair, but he is not in Order now.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Committee would see the difficulty he was in. He was endeavouring, in every way he could, to avoid an infringement of the Rules. However, he would merely say this, that Mr. Lascelles had thoroughly misconducted himself. There was no reason why we should have any Representative in Bulgaria; but, at any rate, if we were to have one, it should not be a gentleman who had recognized an outrageous and nefarious attack upon public liberty, and pledged Her Majesty's Government to support it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £140,787, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Expense of
    1152
    the Consular Establishments Abroad, and for other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, his hon. Friend had concluded his remarks by saying that we ought not to have any Representative in Bulgaria at all. But a Representative in a country was not intended entirely, or even chiefly, to do honour to the country to which he was sent; but he was sent principally for the protection of our own people and our own trade, and in order to give us information as to what was passing in a certain portion of the world. But he did not suppose that his hon. Friend seriously intended to leave us without a Representative in Bulgaria. Departing from that ground, it was difficult to discuss this matter, because the House was not yet in possession of the Papers which he himself had only received within the last few hours. He had laid them on the Table last night, and they would be shortly in the hands of hon. Members. He had only just received the assents of the Governments interested in the publication of the documents, and therefore the Papers were only presented yesterday. They were, technically, before the House; therefore, he could refer to them. It appeared that Mr. Lascelles had succeeded in considerably modifying the form of the Declaration which was made to the Prince of Bulgaria by the Corps Diplomatique. Mr. Lascelles wrote to Earl Granville on the 15th July—having telegraphed the substance of the despatch—as follows:—
    "A proposal had been originally made that the Corps Diplomatique should express the hope that the Great National Assembly would ratify the choice of the nation, which had been clearly expressed by the recent plébiscite; but I objected strongly to this, on the ground that I could not join in what appeared to me to he a direct interference in the internal affairs of the country, and an attempt on the part of the foreign Representatives to influence the vote of the Great National Assembly. My opinion was shared by the French and Italian Agents, and it was finally decided that the sentence to which I objected should be omitted from the speech."
    The speech was considerably modified at Mr. Lascelles' suggestion, and the most objectionable matter was taken from it. With regard to what did appear in the speech, Mr. Lascelles wrote at considerable length. He said, writing from Sistova—
    "On my arrival here on the 10th instant, I found your Lordship's telegram of the 8th in-

    1153
    stant on the subject of the Declaration which it was proposed that the Representatives of the Great Powers in Bulgaria should make on the occasion of the meeting of the Great National Assembly, and instructing me only to join in this Declaration if it should be worded as was at first proposed.
    "The German Agent, who has been to Varna for the purpose of consulting his Russian and Austrian colleagues as to the best means of carrying out their instructions, has informed me that, as it seems certain that the Great National Assembly will accept the Prince's conditions without opposition, they have decided not to make the Declaration unless a change in the disposition of the Deputies should indicate a possibility of the Prince's conditions being rejected, in which case they would address a strong Declaration to the Assembly. They thought, however, that at the reception which the Prince of Bulgaria was about to hold of the Corps Diplomatique on his arrival at Sistova, it would be advisable for M. de Thielaû, as doyen of the Corps, to make a speech, which would, to a certain extent, replace the declaration.
    "M. de Thielaû read to me the draft of the speech which he had drawn up with the approval of M. Hitrovo and M. de Burian, in which the hope was expressed that the Great National Assembly would ratify the decision of the nation as expressed by the recent plébiscite. The speech continued by assuring His Highness that the foreign Representatives, on the eve of the meeting of the Great National Assembly, formed the most sincere wishes for the maintenance of the Union between His Highness and the country, and that His Highness constituted in the eyes of Europe a guarantee of order and tranquillity, and a pledge of the development of Bulgaria in the path of progress.
    "I told M. de Thielaû that it appeared to me that the first part of the speech was a direct interference in the internal affairs of the Principality, in which I could not join. Your Lordship's instructions were precise upon that point, and although there was, no doubt, some difference between a formal declaration and a speech addressed to the Prince by the doyen of the Corps Diplomatique, the speech would evidently be published, and would be looked upon as an attempt on the part of the Agents to influence the vote of the Assembly. I had no objections to make to the concluding portions of the speech, although I should have preferred to omit all mention of the Great National Assembly.
    "At a meeting of the Agents and Consuls-General, at which all the Representatives of the Great Powers were present, with the exception of the Russian Agent, M. de Thielaû pointed out that, as he and his Russian and Austro-Hungarian colleagues had received instructions to give a very strong support to the Prince, they had thought that it would be ad. visable to take advantage of the reception of the Corps Diplomatique to give His Highness a proof of that support. He added that the speech had been prepared with the consent of M. Hitrovo, and had been approved by the Prince, and that, as His Highness intended to receive us immediately after his arrival, there would be no time to submit to him any altera-
    1154
    tions in it. He suggested that he might make those portions of the speech to which I had no objection in the name of all his colleagues, and then add that the Representatives of the three Empires had been instructed to express the hope that the Great National Assembly would accept His Highness's conditions.
    "My French and Italian colleagues joined me in objecting to this course, which Would have the effect of proving that a difference of opinion existed among the Great Powers. It was most undesirable from every point of view that this should be done, and great encouragement would be given to the Prince's opponents if it became known that the Great Powers were not agreed upon the Bulgarian Question.
    "M. de Thielaû then proposed that he and M. Hitrovo and M. de Burian, after the reception of the Corps Diplomatique, should ask for an interview with the Prince, in order to communicate their instructions to His Highness.
    "I observed that this course would equally indicate a difference of opinion among the Powers, and it was finally decided that M. de Thielaû should consult the Prince and M. de Hitrovo on their arrival, and, if they should agree to the omission of the paragraph to which I had objected, he should make a speech in the name of all the Powers."
    He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) need only quote two other despatches. In a further despatch, on the 18th July, from Varna, Mr. Lascelles said—
    "I told M. Hitrovo that I was sorry to have been obliged to object to the speech. Your Lordship's instructions were, however, so precise that it would have been impossible for me to have done otherwise. Even as it was, there were parts of the speech which had actually been delivered which I would gladly have seen altered; but, as all direct interference in the internal affairs of the country had been avoided, I thought myself justified in not separating myself from my colleagues, as it appeared to me most important that we should act together, and thus avoid all appearance of any divergence of opinion among the Great Powers on the Bulgarian Question, and I recognized the difficulty of making any further change in a speech which had been already submitted to the Prince, and to which His Highness had prepared a reply."
    Lord Granville, in his reply to this despatch, used the following words—and with these he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would conclude:—
    "As regards the speech of congratulation made by the doyen on behalf of the Diplomatic Body to the Prince of Bulgaria, after the vote of the Assembly, of which a copy is enclosed in your further Despatch, No. 114 of the 13th inst. (which has likewise been laid before Her Majesty), I have to state to you that this speech goes further in some of its expressions than Her Majesty's Government would themselves have desired; but they can understand the difficulty you would have had in separating yourself from your colleagues on such an occasion, and the more so as the Assembly had already pronounced itself in favour of the Prince's pro-

    1155
    posals, and the address could not, therefore, be considered as designed to influence their vote, or as having the same political importance as the one delivered before the meeting of the Assembly."
    MR. J. COWENsaid, it was the misfortune of Members that they had had no opportunity this Session of discussing in a regular way such subjects as the one raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton. The matter would have been much more appropriately considered on going into Supply rather than in Committee; but the complete control that the Government had taken of all the time of the House had driven Members to resort to Committee discussions, as it was the only chance they had of raising points of public interest. They were hampered by the Rules, and hence matters in dispute could not be fairly stated. They laboured under a further disadvantage, inasmuch as the Papers the Government had promised them had not yet been published, and they had to argue the subject, if not blindfold, certainly with very insufficient data. He would try to keep within the narrow line that the Orders of the House prescribed. But it was impossible, even faintly, to state the case without some reference to the general position of Eastern affairs. These were the facts—The people in Bulgaria complained, and with justice, that they had no direct influence on the government of their State—that the Turkish Pashas treated them unjustly, sometimes cruelly. They demanded their freedom from that domination. As a consequence of the War between Russia and Turkey this desire was in a sense gratified. The European States settled a Constitution for the Bulgarians, and a Prince was appointed to give effect to it. The idea was that the Bulgars—within the lines of this Constitution and under the rule of this Prince—were to govern themselves. That was the intention of the Great Powers. Certainly it was the intention of this country; for, whatever differences of opinion there might have been amongst them at the preliminary stage of the dispute, they were all agreed as to the sort of government that was to obtain as the result of the conflict. What had been the issue? The Prince had from the first conspired against the Constitution that had been put in operation at the
    1156
    commands of Europe. He had now overturned it, and established a despotism. The Bulgarian people had discovered that they did not get independence. Instead of being governed by a Turkish Pasha they were now ruled by a Russian satrap. The Prince was not only a foreigner and an adventurer himself, but his Ministers were foreigners and adventurers like him. The English Representative, by the part he took, had sanctioned this violation of the Constitution and this breaking of his oath by the Prince. This he held was a distinct interference with the internal affairs of another State, and was contrary to the settled policy of this country. It was quite true that Mr. Lascelles could not prevent the Prince's usurpation, and he was not suggesting that the Government should have taken steps to reverse it. But what he did complain of was that our Ministry should have been in such haste to endorse those high-handed proceedings, and thereby give countenance to them. Distinguished men had suffered for their precipitancy under like circumstances. Lord Russell went so far as to advise the dismissal of Lord Palmerston, who was then Foreign Minister, because he had—first in a conversation with a French Ambassador, and next in a despatch to Lord Normanby—expressed his approval of the usurpation effected by the coup d'êtat of Louis Bonaparte. If such strong measures could be taken with a man like Lord Palmerston, they were not to be prevented from censuring the course that Mr. Lascelles had taken under like conditions. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had said it was not customary to withdraw Ministers. There had been instances, however, where that was done. It would be within the remembrance of some present that our Minister at Naples was withdrawn at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) himself when the Neapolitan Government was acting in a despotic and indefensible way. There was the occasion of our withholding Ambassadorial connection with Spain, and there were numerous instances in South America—amongst them the cases of Rosas, of Mexico, and of Buenos Ayres. There was precedent enough for withdrawing a Minister from a usurping Government when we disap-

    1157
    proved of its course. It was said, further, that our Minister had succeeded in getting the Address of the Consuls modified. But, even admitting this, the modified Address was objectionable. What he wished to know from the Government was—did they, or did they not, approve of the modified Address? Did they, or did they not, sanction the course that Mr. Lascelles had taken? He was astounded at the indifference with which the unconstitutional proceedings of Prince Alexander had been viewed in this country. A few years ago the warmest possible interest was manifested in Bulgarian affairs. The cry on all hands was that the Bulgarians should be permitted to assert and establish their independence and nationality. And yet here was a Prince who, having been charged by Europe to maintain that independence and uphold that nationality, had overturned the one and trampled upon the other, and established in his own name, and, he (Mr. Cowen) regretted to say, with the approval of our Minister, what was little less than a Russian Governorship in this new State.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFdeprecated the discussion which had taken place, and declared that this attack upon Mr. Lascelles was most unfair. Whatever this gentleman had done had been condoned by Her Majesty's Government. They had acquiesced in his action, and if it had been necessary to censure anyone, it would have been much more pertinent to censure Her Majesty's Government. Between the 8th of May and the time the speech of the doyen was delivered, Mr. Lascelles secured an important alteration in it; and there could be no doubt, whatever might be said about his withdrawal, that it would be difficult to find a better man to fill the post he occupied. Things were in a dangerous state in Bulgaria, and Mr. Lascelles was most acceptable, not only to the Prince, but also to the people of the country. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to read despatches, and telegrams, and letters from ex-Ministers whom he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) believed were at the time conspiring against the Prince of Bulgaria, and who, since they had had the administration of the affairs of the country, had done an incalculable amount of injury.
    MR. LABOUCHERErose to Order. He wished to point out to the Committee that he had not been allowed to go into questions of this kind, and that he would not be allowed to reply to the hon. Gentleman.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must say I think the hon. Member for Portsmouth is travelling a little wide of the Question.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he would not pursue the question. He must say that Mr. Lascelles, instead of being reprimanded for the course he had taken, ought to be congratulated. He had done that which was advantageous to all parties concerned; and if anybody's salary ought to be stopped it would be that of some Member of the Government, and not that of Mr. Lascelles.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that unless hon. Members had something on their minds which they were prevented from bringing before the Committee he was afraid they had not much case. What he understood the hon. Baronet to say was this—that the leading principle on which Mr. Lascelles was required to act was as little interference as possible with the internal affairs of Bulgaria. Well, in spite of that, he abandoned the principle of non-interference—but it was only for the purpose of obtaining a modification of the original Address to the Prince. He interfered in the draft of the Address, and that was an abandonment of the principle of non-interference altogether. As he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) understood it, Mr. Lascelles would have interfered further if he had thought he could have done any good. What was Mr. Lascelles' position? He had a choice of two things, either to signify his disapproval of the action of the Prince and his colleagues, by having nothing to do with the Address, or to make the best of a bad bargain, and not separate himself from the rest of his colleagues. What was the logical conclusion of the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) with reference to Mr. Lascelles? Why this, that he would have wished him to go to the Prince, saying—"I protest against your whole proceedings, and I am going out of Bulgaria." The hon. Member would have had Mr. Lascelles go to the Prince, and say—"I so highly disapprove of your proceed-

    1159
    ings that I leave you and yours." Well, if he had done that, the Prince of Bulgaria might have replied—"If you want to leave my country, you are at perfect liberty to do so—it is your affair and not mine; but I object that you, as the Representative of England, should sepaate your self from the Diplomatic Body." Suppose Mr. Lascelles had gone; would anybody have taken his place? But suppose Mr. Lascelles had said to the Prince—"You have suspended the Constitution of Bulgaria." The Prince would have replied—"Not at all; I have only brought in a Peace Preservation Act." Mr. Lascelles would have said—"You have arrested a certain number of honourable gentlemen." But the reply would have been—"Not at all; I have only arrested a certain number of dissolute ruffians and village tyrants." If Mr. Lascelles had adopted the opinions of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), the Prince would have been perfectly justified in saying—"Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he should not divide the Committee on the question. They had had an opportunity of discussing the conduct of Mr. Lascelles, and of listening to the very mild defence of the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He thought they might gather from the hon. Baronet's remarks that he agreed very much with their protest. If the Government would not go so far as to withdraw altogether our Representative from Bulgaria, he trusted they would consider the desirability of withdrawing Mr. Lascelles, and of sending someone to replace him who had not compromised himself in this extraordinary way. The hon. Baronet had said that the Address could not be altered when Mr. Lascelles counselled an alteration of it, because the Prince would not have an opportunity of saying whether he permitted it. If that was a specimen of the freedom of speech in Bulgaria, he could only say—"Heaven help Bulgaria."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked what would have been the effect of adopting the policy recommended by the hon. Member? It was not certain what would have been the attitude of France; but it was probable that at least Austria, Germany, and Russia would have agreed to a strong unmodi-
    1160
    fied declaration. As it was, Mr. Lascelles detached France and Italy from their colleagues, the Representatives of Germany, Austria, and Russia, and in this way obtained a modification of the speech. The change in the speech seemed to him (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to have been a very important one. He would not go into the question touched upon by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) as to the total withdrawal of our Representative from Bulgaria. He could only say he did not think it would be to the interests of England to withdraw our Representative from such a country as Bulgaria. The hon. Member had mentioned some cases where it had been necessary to withdraw the British Representatives; but he could not say that much good was done by those withdrawals. It was desirable in our own interests to keep our Representative in Bulgaria to look after the interests of our own people. In the case referred to, Lord Palmerston had ceased to hold Office because he had taken important action in the internal affairs of a foreign State without consulting his Colleagues. The hon. Member had asked what the Government thought of the action of Mr. Lascelles; and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could only repeat that the opinion of Lord Granville would be found in the last despatch in the Papers—the despatch from which he had quoted the most important paragraph. He would repeat some lines from that despatch. Lord Granville said—
    "This speech goes further in some of its expressions than Her Majesty's Government would themselves have desired; but they can understand the difficulty you would have had in separating yourself from your colleagues on such an occasion, and the more so as the Asembly had already pronounced itself in favour of the Prince's proposals; and the Address could not, therefore, be considered as designed to influence their vote, or as having the same political importance as the one delivered before the meeting of the Assembly."
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether it would not be a good thing to appoint local merchants to the post of Vice Consul in small unimportant places? These men would have something to live on already, and their appointment might lead to economy.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to know whether there was, practically,

    1161
    any limit to the legal absence allowed to Consuls? The reason he asked this was, because he had heard many comments passed as to the absence from his post of a Consul in Egypt for 18 months or two years.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Why was he absent?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORdid not know why this gentleman had been absent so long. This, he knew, was only a solitary case; but it was an instance of an over-generous allowance of leave. It seemed to him that if this gentleman could be spared away from his post for so long, there was good ground for reducing his salary.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEdid not know who the hon. Member referred to; but if he would give him (Sir Charles W. Dilke) private information on the point, he would look into the matter. The Vice Consuls in Egypt did not hold important offices. With regard to the question put to him by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) as to the small Vice Consulates, there was no absolute rule in the Foreign Office as to whether the persons selected should be persons sent out from England or persons on the spot. The Department encouraged the appointments of persons on the spot, and a great many of the less important Consulships were held by local merchants. There were cases where foreign complications had arisen, or were likely to arise, in which it was as well to send out Consuls from England.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that in some instances the Established Church chaplains attached to the Consulates were paid by the State. There was no reason why this should be, and he thought it would be much more satisfactory if the chaplains were paid by the subscriptions of persons living in the localities. He was told that it was the rule for the State to pay the chaplains a sum equal to that subscribed; and if that system existed, he hoped his hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would take means to put an end to it. He should let it be known at the Consulates that if they wanted chaplains they should pay for them.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the practice of appointing paid chaplains was being put an end to as vacancies occurred. It was, however, difficult
    1162
    to abolish paid chaplaincies that had existed in the past.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,097, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Expenses of the Mixed Commissions established under the Treaties with Foreign Powers for suppressing the Traffic in Slaves, and of other Establishments in connection with that object, including the Muscat Subsidy."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he proposed to move the reduction of this Vote by the amount of the Muscat Subsidy, which he considered a totally unnecessary charge. The necessity for it had passed. Years ago it was considered only temporary, and yet from time to time it was proposed, and yet no ground in the world was adduced in support of it. In, however, last year, one of the Lords of the Treasury, in a letter written by him, said—
    "I take this opportunity of recommending you to remind Lord Granville that no payment should be made of the Muscat Subsidy for 1880–1 without the express sanction of Her Majesty's Treasury."
    It seemed to him that the view the Treasury took of the matter was correct, and that this subsidy should be no longer granted. It amounted to £1,800 per annum.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,297, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Expenses of the Mixed Commissions established under the Treaties with Foreign Powers for suppressing the Traffic in Slaves, and of other Establishments in connection with that object, including the Muscat Subsidy."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    MR. CROPPERwished to know whether any part of the Muscat Subsidy was charged to the revenues of India?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the payment of this subsidy had been brought about by a series of complicated circumstances. Some years ago the Indian Government agreed to the subsidy; and, subsequently, when Sir Bartle Frere went on his mission with the object of suppressing the Slave Trade, it was agreed that the subsidy should

    1163
    be continued to the Sultan of Muscat—being made jointly by India and England. So long as the Sultan of Muscat, as well as the Sultan of Zanzibar, continued to fulfil the obligations he had undertaken, it would be incumbent on the Government to pay half the subsidy. The subject was not lost sight of by the Government, and when the first opportunity to reduce the charge occurred they would avail themselves of it.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the statement of the noble Lord on this subject was distinguished by the accuracy which always characterized his answers. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), however, was sorry he had not been able to gather from the noble Lord anything to explain the departure of the Treasury from the attitude they took up in November, 1880. If this letter he had quoted from was well grounded—and it appeared to have been—the answer of the noble Lord was entirely out of accord with it, and required some explanation. He was prepared to withdraw his Motion on the understanding that the Government were considering the matter.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that before the Motion was withdrawn, he wished to deprecate the zeal with which Her Majesty's Government devoted their attention to putting down the Slave Trade in other countries, without turning their attention to the slave trade in Ireland.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (7.) £7,047, to complete the sum for Tonnage Bounties, &c. and Liberated African Department.
    (8.) £870, to complete the sum for the Suez Canal (British Directors).
    MR. MONKasked the Government if they thought it desirable to continue paying £1,400 a-year to keep Directors of the Suez Canal Company in Paris, in order to attend an occasional meeting, and to communicate occasionally with M. de Lesseps. He was aware that the late Government had fixed the remuneration; but it appeared to him that the duties of these gentlemen were such as appertained to the Embassy at Paris. He wished to know whether the matter had been considered by the present Government, and whether they thought it desirable that three Directors should be maintained at a cost of £1,400 a-year?
    1164
    He wished to know, also, what the item in the Estimates "extra receipts," which was set down at £800, really meant?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the extra receipts were, firstly, fees paid to the Directors of the Suez Canal Company; and, secondly, the interest on the shares that might be called "qualifying shares," bought by this country to enable the Directors to sit on the Board. This matter had not been now for the first time brought under his notice; and he believed that some Correspondence furnished last year showed the duties of the Directors to be important, and such as occupied a great deal of time.
    MR. MONKwisked to know whether the noble Lord would give an assurance to bring this subject of the permanent resident Directors, who were not connected with the Embassy, before the Government?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he should be most happy to consider the matter, and bring it under the notice of the Government.
    Vote agreed to.
    (9.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £20,751, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c, and for other Charges connected with the Colonies, including Expenses incurred under 'The Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1875.'"
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he objected to an item in this Vote for the Falkland Islands. Last year there was a Vote for £1,200 for Gambia in aid of the Mail Service; but that was cut out because the income exceeded the expenditure; but now a precisely similar charge, amounting to £1,000, was made in aid of the Mail Service to the Falkland Islands. Those Islands did not, however, require this aid, and it was purely a gratuity. They were progressing very remarkably, and the population, which in 1861 was 566, was now 1,600. The Revenue in l867 was £6,900; in 1876, £9,150; in 1878, £11,576. The imports had risen from £15,000, in 1865, to £38,000, in 1879; and the exports from £17,000, in 1865, to £71,340, in 1879. He doubted if there was any

    1165
    place in the world which could show the same increase in population, exports, imports, and revenue. Every year there was a surplus; and if for the same reason the grant to the Gambia was withdrawn, à fortiori this grant ought also to be withdrawn. He, therefore, begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £19,751, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c, and for other Charges connected with the Colonies, including Expenses incurred under 'The Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1875.'"—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that, owing to certain circumstances, the charges for this Mail Service had been increased, and the whole cost would be a very heavy burden upon these Islands.
    MR. COURTNEYexplained that the breakdown of a schooner, which had carried on part of the service, had necessitated arrangements which increased the cost from £800 to £1,800, and of this the Islands would pay £800.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORcould not regard the explanations as sufficient. He had shown, from official statistics, that there was no necessity whatever for this grant, seeing that the Islands had no debts and had an annually recurring surplus. The surplus this year would be considerably more than the proposed grant in aid. However, it was pretty plain that the Committee hardly cared to divide, and he would not divide upon the point.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to draw attention to the item for Heligoland. He complained of the Vote not being limited to the Governor's salary, as had been decided by the Colonial Office and the Treasury. He also wished to ask some questions respecting Natal and the Transvaal. There was an over-draft made by the British authorities in the Transvaal, some time ago, on the Standard Bank to the extent of £111,000. That, he believed, had not been repaid, and he did not know
    1166
    whether any steps had been taken to repay it. But when an officer of the Treasury was asked about it by a Select Committee, he said that, in the event of the Bank calling that sum in, he supposed it would be necessary to apply immediately to Parliament for a Vote in aid. Another answer would, he thought, cause the Boers to be rather glad of the Convention. The officer said it was hoped that it might be possible to impose taxation to the extent of £50,000 or £60,000 on the Natives, and that might prevent the necessity of applying to Parliament. The Boers had, by their heroic stand, not only saved their independence, but secured themselves from a deliberate plan by the British Treasury to tax them in order to repay the expenses which the British had chosen to incur, including this overdraft. He was glad that that expectation had been disappointed. The money would have to be paid some time or other, and he presumed it would be necessary to ask Parliament for a Vote. He wished to know what steps had been taken with regard to that matter?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHreplied, that, with respect to the Heligoland Vote, Heligoland was not in the same position as the Falkland Islands, for it had no surplus. With regard to the other matter, in consequence of the Convention with Boers, it would be necessary for the Government, this Session, to propose a Vote in aid, and then the subject of this over-draft could be discussed.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (10.) £1,105, to complete the sum for the Orange River Territory and St. Helena (Non-Effective Charges).
    (11.) £17,300, to complete the sum for Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.

    CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.
    (12.) £209,980, to complete the sum for Superannuations and Retired Allowances.
    (13.) £19,550, to complete the sum for Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.
    (14.) £17,900, to complete the sum for the Relief of Distressed British Seamen Abroad.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, some extraordinary charges upon this Vote had been allowed by the Treasury. There was a case in which a black seaman on board the Daisy committed an assault on a white seaman. The man was put in irons and ordered home. Before the arrival of the ship at New York, however, he was brought up on a writ of habeas corpus and discharged, and the expenses of those proceedings were charged to the public funds in this Vote. The case could not, however, under any circumstances, come under the head of "Distressed Seamen Abroad."
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that was an exceptional case, and would not occur again.
    MR. ARTHUR O'OONNORwas afraid that the case was not exceptional, for there were two other cases mentioned on the same page. Some seaman on board the Ocean Express at Rio Janeiro went on shore and got drunk. He was locked up, and the captain of the vessel made an allegation before the Vice Consul that the man had deserted, and so got an endorsement on the man's articles, and then proceeded to weigh anchor. But before he got away the Vice Consul learned that the man was locked up, and notified that to the captain. The captain, however, went away, and the seaman's wages now appeared on this Vote. The authorities ought to have looked after the captain, and obtained the man's wages from him. Then there was a third case, in which a seaman was described as a deserter, but whose wages were charged on this Vote.
    Vote agreed to.
    (15.) £423,000, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, England.
    (16.) £39,588, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, Scotland.
    (17.) £49,852, Friendly Societies Deficiency.
    (18.) £2,021, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked why a sum of £680 was paid to Polish refugees; and also why £1,300, under the head "Her Majesty's Charities and Bounties (Scotland)," should be voted? There was, he added, nothing so demoralizing as these charitable doles, and
    1168
    he did not understand their appearing in a Liberal Government's Estimates.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHreplied, that the grants to Polish refugees were diminishing; and the charitable doles in Scotland were fixed by Act of Parliament. Therefore, although he agreed that they were worthy of consideration, they could not be dealt with.
    MR. HEALYasked whether the Polish refugees were persons who had been in rebellion against their Sovereign?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he was unable to inform the hon. Member; but the grants were fixed in 1864.
    MR. O'KELLYinquired whether these people were connected with the Polish Committee in London?
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he could assure his hon. Friend that these people were not connected with the Polish Committee. They were the historical representatives of the Polish cause in this country, and had nothing to do with the Nihilists. Russia had no more right in Poland than England had in Ireland, and he should support the grants to these refugees.

    CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
    (19.) £19,883, to complete the sum for Temporary Commissions.
    (20.) £3,927, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Expenses.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to refer to an item of £10 in this Vote for the Duchy of Lancaster. He was sorry the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) was not present, as he would have repeated his question which he put a few days ago with regard to the property of the Duchy in the Savoy, as to which there was some unfinished arrangement between the Duchy of Lancaster and the Woods and Forests Office. Perhaps the noble Lord could answer the question.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he did not think the point could possibly arise upon this Vote.
    Vote agreed to.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it appeared a little unreasonable to proceed with the Votes of the Revenue Department—the heaviest Votes in the whole Estimates—at this hour (5.30),

    1169
    and when the House was weary with their week's labours. It was hardly fair to expect Members to enter into a discussion on such large and important Votes now; and, therefore, he hoped the noble Lord would consent to report Progress.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHpointed out that due notice had been given of these Votes. It must be borne in mind that after all they had only been at work with the Estimates two hours.
    MR. PULESTONreminded the Committee that many Members had met at great inconvenience for the purpose of transacting Business; and he hoped, therefore, that good progress would be made with the Estimates.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORadmitted that there was good reason for pressing Supply forward; but it must be remembered that the very men who were now in attendance were the very men whose labours in Parliament had been the most heavy, and the very men who were most in need of the Saturday break. Important questions were involved in the Votes of the Revenue Department; for instance, there were the questions of the out-door officers of the Customs, the grievances of the telegraph clerks, and, no doubt, much discussion would be excited upon the Post Office administration.
    MR. CHILDERSsuggested that they should take the Customs and Inland Revenue Votes, and report Progress when they came to the Post Office Votes.

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
    (21.) £757,737, to complete the sum for the Customs.
    (22.) £1,553,471, to complete the sum for the Inland Revenue.
    (23.) £407,767, to complete the sum for the Post Office Packet Service.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock till Monday next.