Sitting of 11 March 1881

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Herring
Brand (Scotland), nominated.
PRIVATE BILL—(by Order)—Second Reading—Edmonton Local Board.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Inclosure Provisional Order (Langbar Moor)* [111]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Beamsley Moor)* [112].
Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (Godalming, &c.)* [88].
Third Reading—Peace Preservation (Ireland)* [105], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  EDMONTON LOCAL BOARD BILL. (By Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    SIR HENRY TYLER SIR HENRY TYLER moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months. He remarked that, in rising to oppose the second reading, he was quite aware that he was taking an exceptional course; but he was induced to do so in consequence of the exceptional character of the Bill. It was entirely without precedent for a Bill of this sort to be presented to the House. The object of the measure was to divide the local board district into two local board districts. Now, the Local Board District of Edmonton was comparatively a small district, comprising, in round numbers, about 7,500 acres; and it was proposed by the present Bill to separate the west end of the district, containing something like 3,500 acres, from the eastern part, which contained about 4,000 acres. The population of the western part was about 7,000, while that of the eastern part was about 14,000. There was every reason why the proposed division should not take place, and he was not acquainted with one valid reason in favour of it. The drainage ran from the higher ground in the western part of the district to the lower ground in the eastern part; and the proposed separation would, in point of fact, involve a line of division cutting right across the entire area. Then, again, there was the question of the roads and of the lighting and other matters, all of which would be very much interfered with by a separation. The main road from London ran through Edmonton, in the eastern part of the district. He was sorry to say that in reality the Bill bore the nature of a Home Rule movement; and he was sure the House would sympathize, at the present time, with any Board which was subjected to anything of that kind. The Home Rulers in ate west were endeavouring to separate from the general district, and in doing so they had also, he regretted to say, re-
    798
    sorted to the objectionable practice, adopted mainly in another country, of sending threatening letters. They had even gone so far as to subject the members of the Local Board to a threatening letter of a most improper character, in which the threat was directly made of saddling upon individual members the whole cost of the proceedings in the event of failure. As regarded the feeling of the Local Board itself, he might say that the Board was composed of 12 members, and of these 12 members 10 had signed a Petition against the Bill which he (Sir Henry Tyler) had had the honour to present to the House. In point of fact, there was only one member of the Local Board in favour of the Bill. The remaining member, not wishing to go with either party, had declined to sign the Petition against the Bill. These were the facts of the case, and he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir Henry Tyler.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURopposed the Amendment on the ground that it involved a change in the mode in which the House had hitherto been content to conduct its Private Bill legislation. They were asked to come to a decision upon the local affairs of a certain district with regard to which they were entirely ignorant, and upon which, with the exception of the statement which had just been made by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Henry Tyler), they had no information which would enable them to come to a decision. But if it were necessary to adduce an argument in favour of referring the Bill to a Select Committee, it would be sufficient to refer to the very last statement made by his hon. and gallant Friend in regard to the Local Board of Edmonton, who, although they had had the management of the affairs of the locality and were thoroughly acquainted with the whole matter, appeared to have been unable to arrive at an agreement. He saw the late President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Sclater-Booth) in the House, and also the present Secretary to the Local Government Board

    799
    (Mr. Hibbert). Probably they would be able to bear testimony whether the Local Government Board approved of the arrangements contemplated by the Bill. Hitherto it had been the practice of the House to confide all inquiries of this nature to a Select Committee, who had full power delegated to them by the House for ascertaining the truth of the allegations made by the promoters of a Private Bill. He never remembered a more unreasonable request than that now made by his hon. and gallant Friend since he (General Sir George Balfour) had been a Member of the House of Commons; and he felt satisfied that if his hon. and gallant Friend had only been in the House as long as he (General Sir George Balfour) had, he would have abstained from this mode of opposing the progress of a Private Bill. If a similar course were adopted in other cases, the whole of the Public Business of the House would be obstructed and paralyzed, and they would have imposed upon them the consideration of another kind of Business altogether new to them. Under these circumstances, he entreated the House not to agree to the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend. If his hon. and gallant Friend had anything to say against the Bill, let him go before the Select Committee. He hoped the House would reject the Amendment.
    MR. LEWISalso regretted the course which had been taken by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir Henry Tyler). It seemed to him that the course taken by his hon. and gallant Friend was one that was full of objection. In the first place, his hon. and gallant Friend had not stated to the House what he (Mr. Lewis) was bound to state—namely, that his hon. and gallant Friend was one of the parties actually engaged in opposing the Bill, and that he was one of the majority of the Local Board who had signed the Petition against the measure, and who were now seeking to stifle the minority. Being also a Member of the House of Commons, his hon. Friend had taken advantage of his position in order to endeavour by a side wind to secure the rejection of the Bill. Time dispute which the House was asked to settle at 10 minutes past 4, with the Public Business waiting to commence at half-past 4, was a simple dispute whether the parish of Edmonton should be divided into two
    800
    parts, one part healthy and the other unhealthy: one part poor and weak, and the other rich and powerful. And they were asked to settle these small parochial disputes without having the slightest opportunity of taking evidence. Notwithstanding that the state of Public Business had been declared to be urgent, they were asked to launch into a discussion which, if it had any merits at all, would require a considerable amount of evidence in order to confute the statements made by his hon. and gallant Friend, and they would not have got through the debate by half-past 5 if they were seriously disposed to do justice to it. During the whole of his Parliamentary experience he had never heard a more inopportune or unjust proposal. The House was actually asked to reject the Bill at the instigation of one of the parties concerned in it, because he happened at the time to be a Member of Parliament. He did not believe that the House for a moment would be prepared to listen to the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: Of course, in the position which I hold, I have nothing to do with the merits of the Bill before the House. All that I have to do is, as far as I am able, to tell the House if there is primâ facie evidence that the Bill ought to go before a Committee. I believe that there has already been an official investigation by the Local Government Board into the facts of the matter. The Local Government Board have reported that the two districts of Edmonton are different, and that the sanitary condition of the district, even as recently as 1880, was extremely unsatisfactory. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Sclater-Booth) is in his place, and that my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Hibbert) is also present. They will, doubtless, give their view of the matter; and I will simply say that, as far as I have been able to judge, after hearing the promoters and opponents of the Bill, I think there is a very fair case to go before a Committee, and that there is no cause for the House to interfere and prevent the usual course of a Select Committee examining into the merits of the question.
    MR. HIBBERTremarked, that if ever there was a case which ought to go before a Committee of Inquiry, this was one. He had risen, however, not so much for

    801
    the purpose of saying that, as of calling attention to a paper issued by the opponents of the Bill, and to a statement contained in it in regard to the Local Government Board. It was alleged that the question had been twice inquired into by the Local Government Board, and that the Board, which was fully competent to deal with the subject, had not recommended a separation. Now, that was a very misleading statement. The reason why the Local Government Board had not recommended separation was that there was no legal power for them to do so. The Local Government Board had on two occasions held an inquiry; and, on the last occasion, on an objection being raised, it was found that the Local Government Board, in this particular instance, had no power to interfere. The way in which the separation of a Local Board district was made was this—In the first place, it was the locality was divided into one or more districts, and placed under a rural sanitary authority. But in this case there was no rural sanitary authority in which to merge the Local Board of Edmonton, and the Local Government Board found it quite impossible to deal with the question. They certainly would have dealt with it on its merits if they had been able to do so; but not having been able, they were of opinion that it was a very proper case to go before a Committee.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwould not detain the House, but he thought it right to corroborate the statement made by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hibbert), having been familiar with the matter when it first came under the notice of the Local Government Board. He certainly thought that it was quite a proper case to go before a Committee.
    SIR HENRY TYLERsaid, he was not afraid of the Bill going before a Committee; but he had been anxious to save the parties concerned the time and expense that would be occupied in giving evidence before a Committee. As, however, there seemed to be a feeling on both sides of the House against his proposition, he would withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

NOTICE OF MOTION.
  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—MR. BRADLAUGH.
  MR. GORSTgave Notice that at half-past 4 o'clock on Monday next he would move that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Northampton in the room of Charles Bradlaugh, Esquire, who, since his election for the said Borough, has voted as a Member of the House of Commons in the said House, and has sat during a debate after the Speaker had been chosen, without having made and subscribed the oath by Law appointed.
QUESTIONS.

  HIGHWAY ACTS—PARISH HIGHWAYS.
  MR. DUNDASasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Local Government Board is in possession of any statistics which enable him to state the average cost per mile of the maintenance of parish highways not included in highway districts, further or more accurately than it is stated in the Fourth Report of the Local Government Board, page 254; and, whether any instance has come under the notice of the Local Government Board in which a county which has adopted the Highway Acts, 1862 and 1866, has afterwards reverted to the old system?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, at present the Board have not any complete statistics showing the average cost per mile of the parish highways not in highway districts. The Highway Returns, however, for the past year, which are now in course of preparation for presentation, will, for the first time, not only show the cost of maintenance, but the mileage of these roads in each parish, and thus indicate the information required. With respect to the second Question I may say that two cases have come under the notice of the Board, in which counties, after adopting the Highway Acts of 1862 and 1864, have afterwards reverted to the old system—namely, Stafford and Norfolk; but the adoption, in each instance, had extended only to a single district.

  NAVY—WARRANT OFFICERS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Her Majesty's Government have taken into consideration the case of Warrant Officers in Her Majesty's Navy; and whether it is intended, with a view to improve their position, to abolish the so-called "other ships Clause?"
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Admiralty considered the case of the warrant officers in November last. It is not proposed to make any alteration in their position.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—FERMOY DISTRICT, CO. CORK.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, owing to a recent death of a magistrate in the Fermoy district, county Cork, a vacancy now exists in the magistracy there; whether in that district, out of twelve magistrates, all except one are Protestants; and, whether, in view of the recent assurances which have been given by the Government, he can state that, if a Memorial be sent to the Lord Chancellor urging a suitable nomination, a Catholic will have the preference?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, I really do not see how I can be expected to answer Questions such as this. I have no special means of knowing whether or not a magistrate has recently died in the Fermoy district, nor can I tell the religion of individual magistrates there or elsewhere. With regard to the final paragraph of the Question, I cannot undertake to say what view the Lord Chancellor of Ireland may take on any particular Memorial; but I may repeat what has already been stated in the House, and what I know to be a fact—namely, that the Lord Chancellor is very anxious to remedy all just grounds of dissatisfaction that may exist with regard to magisterial appointments in Ireland.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—THE BRIBERY COMMISSIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the delay which has occurred in some of the Bribery Commissions, and the consequent grave apprehension that some of
  804
  the few most guilty people who might have been prosecuted will escape, is not in some degree due to the fact that all the Commissioners are gentlemen in practice at the bar, and that some of the Commissions were adjourned at the busiest legal season after the Long Vacation; and, whether on such occasions these evils might not be obviated by employing retired Indian and Colonial judges, and other qualified persons, who have not an active legal practice?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Sir, I will first say I do not share with my hon. Friend his grave apprehensions that any offenders will escape in consequence of the delay in the presentation of the Reports to Parliament. I must also say I think the gentlemen who acted as Commissioners have brought to bear a great deal of industry in preparing their Reports. I think the fact is that there has been a little miscalculation on their part as to the extent to which their labours would be carried. One set of Commissioners had to schedule some 3,000 voters, every one of whom had to be examined. It is not unreasonable to suppose that some delay would occur. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether the evil might not be obviated by employing retired Indian and Colonial Judges and other qualified persons. When I ventured to suggest the names to the House of Commons for their approval, I thought I ought to obtain gentlemen of considerable vigour and practical knowledge. It did not occur to me that I could find such qualities in retired Indian Judges; but if it ever falls to my lot to appoint Commissioners again—which I hope it will not—I will consult my hon. Friend as to whether he knows any retired Indian Judge who possesses these qualities.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman be so good as to answer the latter part of the Question—whether, in fact, some of these Commissions were adjourned during the busiest legal season, in consequence of the Commissioners having a large practice at the Bar?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I am not aware of the extent to which adjournments took place; but no adjournments could take place for more than one week without the consent of my right hon. Friend the Home

  805
  Secretary, and I believe that permission was never granted without a very careful consideration of the grounds on which the application was made.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—SER GEANT-MAJORS.
  MR. LITTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is proposed to place Volunteer serjeant majors of a Militia Staff attached to Brigade Depâts in the same position as regards pay, rations, and pension, as serjeant majors of the Line; and, if not, whether he will consider the propriety of doing so?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; it is not intended to place these Volunteer sergeant-majors in the same position as sergeant-majors of the Line.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT— STANDARD WEIGHTS.
  MR. GREERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in consequence of the 3½ lb. weight being one of great convenience to many traders, being an aliquot part of the 7 lb. weight, and all other standard weights upwards, he will take into consideration the desirableness of legalising such weight in addition to present standard weights?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, there are two objections to the suggestion of the hon. Member. The first is that the multiplication of standards throws considerable expense on the local authorities; and the second is that the provision of a new standard weight so like to the existing 4 lb. weight would be the cause of inconvenience, and possibly of fraud. In these circumstances, I shall not be able to comply with the request unless there is a very general demand for such a weight. As a matter of fact, I have only had three applications for it during the last 12 months.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT, 1870—LORD BESSEOROUGH'S COMMISSION.
  COLONEL TAYLORasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the second portion of the evidence taken before Lord Bessborough's Commission will be delivered to Members, that already published being quite incomplete without the rebutting evidence?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the second portion of the evidence is now in the printer's hands in Dublin, and the printer states that it will be ready for delivery within three weeks from the issue of the order to print. That order will be immediately issued.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE MILITARY COMMAND.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can explain to the House what are the respective positions of Major General Newdigate and Sir Evelyn Wood, according to the terms of the "London Gazette" of the 4th and 8th instant, by which it would appear that Sir Evelyn Wood became a local major general on the 28th of February last, whilst Major General Newdigate, although a major general, is only to be appointed a local brigadier general on the 30th instant; whether, under such circumstances, Major General Newdigate is only to receive the pay and allowances of a brigadier general, whilst Sir Evelyn Wood, his supposed junior in rank, receives the allowances of a major general; and, further, what is the reason that the gallant officers, including Sir F. Roberts, recently appointed to commands in South Africa, and now on their way to the Cape, are only to receive pay and allowances from the 30th March?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for calling my attention to the language of The Gazette with reference to these appointments, which, I fear, has only the conservative merit of being in accordance with precedent. In point of fact, General Newidgate is a Major General of 1877, and Sir Evelyn Wood is a Colonel of 1874, with Major General's local rank in Natal and the Transvaal of 1881. It is assumed that they will both be in command of brigades under Sir Frederick Roberts, and that is the meaning of The Gazette notice about Major General Newdigate. As to pay, the case is the reverse of what the noble Lord supposes. General Newdigate, as a Major General, would receive the pay and allowances of that rank, while Sir Evelyn Wood would only be entitled to those of a Brigadier. I have, however, under the circumstances of the case, thought myself justified in authorizing Sir Evelyn

  807
  Wood to receive the pay and allowances of a Major General. I find also that it has been customary to date commands such as the present from the probable date of arrival of the officers in their commands; but they receive pay and allowances from the date of embarkation. I will consider whether Gazette notices might not be in future a little more consistent with the real facts; but I need not say that they are not submitted to me personally.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSATAAL— THE ARMISTICE.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the first communications, as to an armistice or terms of peace, which took place between the Boers and the Commander of the British Forces, after the death of Sir G. Colley, whether they were with reference to previous negotiations or to new proposals, and whether they were due to the initiative of the British Commander or of Her Majesty's Government, proceeded from the Boer leaders or any one on their behalf, or from the British Commander or any one on his behalf; and, whether bases of peace have been agreed on; and, if so, if he can state what those bases are?
  MR. GLADSTONE: As regards the first portion of this Question—namely, that which refers to the armistice—I think the hon. Gentleman already understands that I have no further communication to make with respect to the action of Her Majesty's Government. But the hon. Member inquires what has been clone by the British Commander on the spot. There I can again only give the hon. Member all the information we possess, though it is but slight. Sir Evelyn Wood has not sent to us any detailed account of the manner in which the armistice came about; but he communicated to us directly its conclusion. However, we have a telegram from him that I was not in possession of when I first answered a Question on the subject. It is dated March 5, and I believe the telegram in which he announced the conclusion of the armistice was sent on the following day. In a telegram of March 5 are the following words:—
  "Joubert asks how far I will co-operate in Brand's proposition. I have offered to meet him to-morrow near Laing's Nek."
  808
  The hon. Gentleman will see that this does not state totidem verbis or categorically the origin of the armistice. It is a matter of construction, and each of us is free to arrive at his own conclusion upon it. The construction I put upon it is this—that the origin of the proposal came neither from the British nor from the Boer Commander, but that President Brand, the President of the Orange Free State, was the suggestor of the armistice, that upon that suggestion Mr. Joubert took the first opportunity of making overtures to Sir Evelyn Wood by asking "how far he would co-operate" with President Brand's proposal, and that upon receiving that overture General Wood took the step that I have mentioned to the House, and which Her Majesty's Government approve. That is the best construction I can put upon the telegram, and I must leave others to form their own opinion upon it. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I may say that the names of the Commissioners are under the consideration of the Government; but no Commissioners have as yet been actually appointed. I need hardly add, therefore, that all the rumours in circulation, whether they come from the Cape or are of home manufacture, are altogether premature and groundless.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: As this matter is one in which a good deal of interest is taken, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to telegraph to Sir Evelyn Wood for an authentic and exact account of what has occurred?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will my right hon. Friend kindly tell us whether the Government will lay any Papers on the Table before the Supplementary Estimate comes on for discussion?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I may say, with regard to that Question, that we should be placed in a position of difficulty, for it would be very difficult for us to define in the telegrams that passed what could be published throwing light upon the policy of the Government without prejudice to the public interest at a time so critical as this. With regard to Sir Evelyn Wood, the truth is that we have been extremely unwilling, knowing his very heavy responsibilities, to ask him any merely retrospective questions; and I am bound to say that up to the present time, although the

  809
  House was justly and naturally jealous of what might have been the conduct of the Executive Government, I have never seen that there was any urgent necessity for calling upon Sir Evelyn Wood, in the circumstances in which he stands, to give a minute account of all that took place. I will consider the matter, and either we shall do what has been suggested by the right hon. Baronet, or, if not, I will state to the House on Monday next why we cannot do so.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any communications passed between President Brand and the Government; and, if so, whether he will lay the telegrams upon the Table?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My impression is that the communications between President Brand and the Government have not been very recent; but, of course, it is difficult to speak from memory. I doubt whether they can advantageously be separated from the rest of the Papers.

  WELLINGTON COLLEGE—THE ANNUAL REPORT.
  CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is intended, and, if so, on what date, to present to Parliament the annual Report on the affairs of Wellington College, in accordance with the strong recommendation of the Royal Commission, whose Report was published last August?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the Education Department has no relation with, or control over, Wellington College; but I am informed by the Governors that a general meeting is to be held on the 16th instant, when the question will be considered whether the annual Report shall be laid before Parliament.

  AFGHANISTAN—CANDAHAR.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Secretary of State for India, What arrangements have been made for appointing a permanent Government at Candahar, now that it has been announced that our troops are on the eve of being withdrawn; and if he could state to the House the nature of these arrangements?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am extremely anxious to give the
  810
  House, as soon as I am able, any information upon this subject which can be given with advantage to the Public Service. I have every reason to hope that the progress of the arrangements is satisfactory; but I must remind the House that the Government of India have in this case, as they had last year when the arrangements were made prior to the withdrawal of the troops from Cabul, a very difficult and very delicate task. I have no hesitation in saying that any premature disclosure of the arrangements under consideration immediately prior to the withdrawal of troops from Cabul would have had a tendency to prevent the satisfactory arrangements then made. I cannot take upon myself the responsibility at this moment of stating what is going on—what steps the Government of India are taking; and I think it is extremely likely that such a premature announcement would have very inconvenient consequences.

  FISHERIES—THE EAST COAST FISHERIES—DEPREDATIONS OF FOREIGNERS—EMPLOYMENT OF A GUNBOAT.
  COLONEL BARNEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he is aware that within the last week four English boats have had their nets cut by foreign trawlers, off Lowestoft, using the scythe-bladed grapnel, and that the fishermen have suffered heavy losses in consequence; and, whether he will inform the House what instructions have been given to H.M.S. "Rose" with the view of stopping these depredations?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I am very sorry to hear of the circumstance named by the hon. and gallant Member, and the more so because the Admiralty has no power to interfere outside the three-mile limit. Representations have been made to Her Majesty's Minister at Brussels, since these vessels appear to be of Belgian nationality, and the matter is now in the hands of the Foreign Office.

  STATE OF IRELAND—SHERIFF'S SALE FOR RENT.
  THE O'DONOGHUEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been

  811
  called to a sheriff's sale at the suit of Lord Kenmare for rent due, wherein the sheriff has declined to sell the stock and cattle of the tenant, Patrick Whetstone, at his request, although adequate to meet the execution and upon the premises, but has notified that he will sell the tenant's interest in the holding, whereby his family will be evicted; and, whether the Government approve the action of the sheriff?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, my attention has been called to the subject of the Question of the hon. Member. The hon. Member asked me further whether I approved of the conduct of the sheriff. I must really repeat what I have had occasion to say once or twice before, that it is not unreasonable that some time should be allowed before the answer is given. The hon. Member must be aware that it is next to impossible for me to obtain the information for him before the Question is put to me. If he will kindly allow a little time to intervene in future I should be much obliged to him.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: I will put it down for Monday.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I cannot undertake to get the information by Monday.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— THE ARMISTICE.
  MR. S. LEIGHTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, after the defeat at Langs Nek, the proposals for an armistice or for negotiatiations came from the English or the Boer side?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, I very much regret that it is entirely out of my power to add anything to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He has given every tittle of information which I possess.
  MR. S. LEIGHTONobserved, that the Question answered by the Prime Minister referred to what had passed after the death of Sir George Colley; while the Question he now asked related to events following the defeat at Laing's Nek.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: I must make the same answer. The whole story has already been given to the House by the Prime Minister.

  PARLIAMENT—CONDITION OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. BAXTERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, seeing that notwithstanding the new rules and declarations of urgency, the usual and necessary business of this House has been practically stopped, and the national safety thereby imperilled, Her Majesty's Government intend to propose such measures as will effectually put an end to the obstruction, and at the same time vindicate the dignity and restore the deliberative and legislative power of Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the language used by my right hon. Friend in this Question is very strong, no doubt; but though I might take exception to that clause in which it is stated that the national safety has been imperilled, it is the fact that extremely important matters of national interest have been impeded and delayed. I must confess, however, that I do not think the expression goes far beyond the mark. On the contrary, a Question of this kind tends to rouse the general mind of the House to the fact that the House is involved in very serious difficulties, such as are unexampled in my recollection, though that extends over a long time, and such as are unexampled, I think, in previous history. At the same time, I am sorry to say that we do not intend—that is to say, we do not at present intend—to propose measures for effectually putting an end to the evils which exist, and for this reason, which I am sure my right hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate, that any measures which are to establish a satisfactory general system for the future must go to the consideration of matters quite distinct from simple repression, however necessary and useful repression may be within its own limits, and that such measures must necessarily be themselves subjects of a good deal of consideration, not only by the Government—for the Government have given a good deal of consideration to such measures already—but by the House itself, and consequently their first aspect would be to make a new demand on the time of the House, and new demands of that kind we are not able to make any provision for whatever. We are, to use a homely expression, at present in a condition of living from hand-to-mouth, so

  813
  far as regards time and the transaction of Business; and when in a few minutes I come to make the statement I have promised to the House in regard to Public Business, my right hon. Friend will see how very great are the difficulties even in making and devising expedients to meet the absolute exigencies of the moment, and discharging those duties which we have no choice or option whatever as to the time of bringing them forward.

  SCOTLAND—THE SASINE OFFICE, EDINBURGH.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the scheme for the improved remuneration of the Commisioned Clerks in the Office of Sasines in Edinburgh has yet been adjusted; and, whether it will take effect from the beginning of the next financial year? He would not have troubled the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate on the subject if the Civil Service Estimates had not been laid on the Table without any provision for that Vote.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)said, he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would put his Question any day next week, and he should then endeavour to give it a definite answer. He had not yet been able to obtain the information that was asked.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—EXPOSURE OF OFFICERS.
  MR. GABBETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the large proportion of officers killed recently in South Africa was owing, in a largo degree, to the peculiarity of their dress as distinct from that worn by the men, the officers wearing blue patrol jackets in several regiments, the men of which wore red, while in the Highland regiments the officers wore red shell jackets and the men white; and, whether the comparatively small loss of officers in the Rifle battalions may not be accounted for by the fact of their wearing a similar uniform to the men serving under them?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that there are no reasons for supposing that in any regiments the officers wore blue patrol
  814
  jackets while the men wore red, nor that in the Highland regiments the officers wore red shell jackets and the men white. The regulations require that officers and men on service shall wear uniform of the same colour. With regard to the last part of the Question, my hon. Friend is in error in assuming that the Rifle battalion suffered a comparatively small loss in officers, the facts being that in the action on the Ingogo, the only action in which the 3rd battalion of the 60th Rifles were hotly engaged, that battalion lost 1 officer to 22 men killed and wounded, which is a larger proportion than the 58th and 92nd lost in either of the other two engagements; the 58th at Laing's Nek losing 1 officer to 34 men, and at Majuba 1 to 25; and the 92nd at Majuba lost 1 officer to 32 men.

  THE GEOGRAPHICAL CONGRESS— VENICE.
  CAPTAIN AYLMER, asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If this Country will be represented at the Geographical Congress to be held at Venice in September; and, if so, if he can state who will be its representatives?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Some arrangement will probably be made for the representation of this country at the Congress; but no appointment has as yet been made, and the matter is still under consideration.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT—ARREST OF MICHAEL BOYTON.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary a Question of which I have not had an opportunity of giving him private Notice. It is, Whether there is any truth in the reports in the morning papers to the effect that the United States Minister in England had made representations to Her Majesty's Government with respect to the case of Michael Boyton, who has been arrested in Ireland within the past few days under the Coercion Bill; if he will inform the House of the nature of that communication, and the reply of Her Majesty's Government thereto?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: My hon. Friend must be aware that that is a Question which should rather be addressed to the Foreign Office than to me,

  815
  and it is one of which Notice should have been given.

  THE LORENCO MARQUES TREATY— CESSION OF PORTUGUESE TERRITORY.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is the slightest foundation for the statement which had appeared in several of the newspapers to the effect that under the Lorenço Marques Treaty a portion of Portuguese territory bad been ceded to Great Britain?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; there is not the slightest foundation for the statement in question.

  THAMES RIVER BILL.
  MR. RITCHIEasked, Whether the President of the Board of Trade was of the same opinion now as to the bringing on of this Bill as he was last night?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Last night I said I hoped I might be able to bring on the Bill on Tuesday. That hope is now very much diminished.
  MR. RITCHIE: Are we to accept this answer as the Notice that the right hon. Gentleman promised to give us, or the reverse?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman has had Notice for a long while that the Bill would be brought on on Tuesday. All I can say now is that I will bring it forward on Tuesday if possible.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he really must press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer whether it was to come on or not.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I do net wish to anticipate the statement of the Prime Minister; but I now understand from him that it will be impossible to bring it on upon Tuesday next.

PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS—SUPPLY—RESOLUTION OF URGENCY.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I wish to ask the kind attention of the House for a few minutes, while I endeavour to redeem the pledge I gave last night to make a statement with regard to the prospective course of Public Business. I avoided making a statement before, because such a statement must have been
  816
  more or less hypothetical so long as we in no degree saw our way with respect to the fortune of certain measures of necessity in regard to Ireland, with which this House has been occupied from the opening of the Session. I now assume that to-night, beyond doubt, the Irish Arms Bill will pass this House, and therefore we have to make provisions for the future; but the future for which we have to provide is very difficult and embarrassing. The demands upon the time of the House, necessitated by Irish Bills, have placed us in a position from which Her Majesty's Government think it is quite impossible for us to escape without sacrifice; and the only question is by what course we can make the sacrifice the smallest, and the attainment of the necessary object the surest. Now, Sir, the main subjects we have before us may be summed up in the general description of Votes in Supply and the Ways and Means Bill which must follow the Votes in Supply, and which must absolutely become law not later than the 30th of this month, unless the law is to be broken by failing to make the necessary payment required for the Public Service within the financial year. Over and above these Votes in Supply, I may mention that there are some extraneous circumstances which greatly increase the pressure. One of them is that a Motion of Want of Confidence has been given Notice of on the other side of the House with regard to Candahar, the discussion of which, I am afraid, we cannot confine to a single night, and for which, at the same time, we feel it our duty to make the very earliest provision in our power; and if the House should accede to the proposal we have to make, I should venture to hope that, at any rate, by Thursday week we should be able to place a day at the command of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope). Besides that, we think it a matter of absolute necessity that the House should have some power of addressing itself to the general legitimate Business of the Session, particularly when we recollect the extreme importance, and, I will add, though not in a technical sense, the urgency with respect to the question of land tenure in Ireland. We feel bound, in endeavouring to lay before the House a programme of Business, to include within our plans such elements as will

  817
  enable the House, at any rate, after Easter—for most of our time until Easter is nearly disposed of—to apply itself sedulously and effectively to legislative work. I have a right to notice here a Notice of Motion given this very night with respect to the seat for Northampton, which raises a question of Privilege not likely to be got easily rid of, if we may judge from what occurred last year, and which, therefore, increases the pressure under which I make the present statement to the House. But I wish it to be clearly understood that what I have now to say about Business does not, in the least degree, contemplate what is called Obstruction. The provisions which we think necessary to expedite Supply are not framed on the supposition that Obstruction to Supply is intended. But they are framed not only upon the supposition, but the knowledge that when proposals for Supply are made, hon. Gentlemen have large opportunities of making preliminary Motions which they are perfectly entitled to make, and which we have no right whatever to consider obstructive Motions. The neccessity for which we feel liable to the House is a necessity of giving special expedition to our proceedings in order to secure to the House reasonable time for discussing those Votes which, on the part of the Government, we have to submit in Supply. These Votes are partly for the Supplementary Services of 1880–81. every one of which must be disposed of by Monday week. They include subjects which are of grave difficulty, with regard to which we think it our first duty not only to make provision against breaking the law, but to invite the House to make such arrangementss as will enable hon. Members to have reasonable opportunities for discussing those Votes, and the conduct of the Government in connection with them. Now, Sir, there are, I am sorry to say, not fewer than 50—I think rather more—Supplementary Votes for Services of various kinds. Among them a certain number must lead to more or less discussion. There may be others we do not anticipate; but amongst those likely to lead to discussion I might say that one is the question of Votes relating to Ireland. There will be Votes in connection with Ireland which may tend to raise again discussion upon the relief of Irish distress. There will be a Vote with regard to the Con-
  818
  stabulary of Ireland for supplementary expenditure, and a Vote for legal expenses in Ireland which will place before the House the subject of the recent trial in Dublin. Then there is the Vote for the Stationery and Printing Office, which, unhappily, though in no way through the fault of the gentleman at the head of the establishment, requires a large further subvention, and with respect to which the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon), one of the last Members of this House who could be connected with the idea of Obstruction, has given Notice of his intention of raising a discussion. Then there are several points of interest and novelty in connection with the Law Charges in England, particularly in regard to steps which have been taken, I believe not entirely in consonance with usage, for providing Judges whose sentences are under appeal with counsel to defend those sentences at the expense of the public. There are many other questions affecting the Civil Service; but there are two which I think it necessary to mention in particular. One of them is that there must be Supplementary Votes for the Military and Naval expenditure connected with the Transvaal; another is that we think it our duty no longer to delay stating to the House our decision on a matter which was greatly pressed upon us last year, with regard to which we are under a positive pledge, which is to lay before the House the proposal we intend to make for giving a subvention to India at the charge of the British Exchequer in relation to a portion of the expenditure for the late Afghan War. I may say, Sir—because, although a Paper has been laid on the Table of the House and will be printed to-morrow, the House will not gather from that the exact nature of the proposal—that our proposal will be to make a total contribution of £5,000,000 towards the very large expenditure India has been called upon to bear, and we shall propose to give it partly in the shape of a remission of the debt of £2,000,000 which has been contracted on behalf of India, subject to repayments from her, and partly in the shape of a series of annual grants in Ways and Means. This is the last of the Votes that relate to the Service of the years 1880–81. We, then, shall require to provide for a portion of the Service for 1881–82. It will be necessary to have the Vote of the

  819
  men for the Army, and likewise Vote 1 for the pay of the Army. It will be necessary, of course, to give time for the statements connected with the Votes we shall have to bring forward for the Navy; but it will be necessary to take Vote 1 for the Navy. It will also be our duty to submit Votes on Account for a considerable time for the Civil Service and the Revenue Estimates of the year 1881–82. Perhaps hon. Members may say—"Why not take Votes on Account for the Army and Navy?" That practice, so far as I am aware, has not been resorted to, except in connection with political circumstances of a character which rendered it impossible to have a proper discussion of the Army and Navy Estimates. The only four instances known to me occurred in circumstances totally different from those of the present year, and we are not at all disposed to establish a precedent in circumstances such as those which now subsist for Votes on Account of the Army and the Navy. We think that such a course would greatly diminish the control of Parliament over the Expenditure. With regard to Votes I have last named for the Service of 1881–82, the conditions of time are not precisely the same as those of the Votes for the Service of 1880–81. It will be necessary to get through the Army and Navy Votes absolutely not later than the 23rd, if we do not get them by the 21st. I need hardly to remind the House that the difference between the 23rd and the 21st is no difference at all so far as regards the ordinary control of the Government over the time of the House, because both the 22nd and the 23rd are days at the disposal of private Members. Then I have to bear in mind that between the time named and the present there is a certain amount of margin, which may be made available for Votes on Account for the Civil Service of 1881–82; but it cannot be made available unless we have a further lengthened postponement of the discussion about Candahar. It cannot be made available by the Government, because the days do not belong to us. It is absolutely necessary, therefore, for us to make a further demand, in the form which appears to us most convenient for all parties, upon the time of the House, in order to get through the necessary Business without involving what we think most serious evils. There is the evil of breaking the
  820
  law, which is totally intolerable. There is the evil of having to break that old and wise Rule of the House, that it will not, in any circumstances, take any more than one stage of any Money Bill in one day. There is another evil which I should think almost absolutely intolerable—that of being reduced to such a position that the propositions of the Government for Supply, depending upon the taxation of the country, should require to be put from the Chair, without the power of discussion. All these evils are, in our opinion, intolerable, and we have to consider by what proposition we can avoid those evils, and secure—not barriers against Obstruction; we have not taken it into view; we have been thinking only of the legitimate rights of Members—but full opportunities, without the sacrifice of private time, for the performance of the duty of Members to criticize the proposals of the Government in Supply. That being so, it will be my duty to give Notice to-day to move upon Monday that the state of Public Business is urgent with reference to Votes in Supply. I say nothing at present with regard to the Ways and Means Bill, which will have to follow, as that is not commonly made a subject of extraneous general discussion, and we would hope that no necessity will arise with regard to it. But the passing of that Bill within a limited time is a matter of absolute necessity in order to legalize the issues for the Services of the year, and to keep the finances of the country from falling into confusion. My duty, therefore, will be, at half-past 4 o'clock on Monday, to declare that the Votes in Committee of Supply for the Service of the year 1879–80 for the several Supplementary and other Estimates for the Service of the year 1880–81, Votes A and 1 for the Army and Navy, and Votes on account for the Civil Service and Revenue Departments Services for 1881–82, now before the House are urgent, and it is of importance that the same be proceeded with without delay; and it will be my duty then to move, in conformity with that declaration, that the state of Public Business is urgent, and to move that, unless the House shall otherwise order, Committee of Supply shall have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion from day to day until the Votes declared urgent shall have been disposed of.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It is not my wish certainly to do anything so irregular as to provoke a discussion on the statement which we have just heard, which undoubtedly is one of a very serious, and I may say of a somewhat alarming character. I wish, however, to put a Question to the Prime Minister, to which, I confess, I should like a clear answer. The right hon. Gentleman, in indicating what were the rocks to be avoided in the course the Government may have to take in order to get the Business which they propose to have done accomplished in the time mentioned as the third of the dangers which he was particularly anxious to avoid what he described as the very serious evil that propositions of the Government for imposing burdens on the people should be put from the Chair without discussion. In that I think we all agree, and at the moment when those words were used I imagine that most hon. Gentlemen must have thought that it was not the intention of the Government to propose urgency for Supply. I must say, though we have been most anxious to support the Government in what has hitherto been done, yet, with regard to the proposal of urgency for Supply, it is a matter which requires the very gravest consideration. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what is the precise point of distinction between that which we ought to avoid and that which he is about to propose we should undertake to do. It seems to me, however important it may be that we should adhere to the Rule by which the House does not take two stages of a Money Bill on the same day, or other Rules of that kind, that the questions which may arise under urgency in Supply are more important. I do not know whether I shall be going too far if I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us at what period he contemplates making his Financial Statement—whether before Easter or after?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the last Question, I have not been able to come to any positive conclusion, because it connects itself with another subject more important and of a wider scope, but perhaps of less urgency in regard to the particular day—namely, the question of the Irish Land Bill. But I will give as early an intimation of the day as I can. I hope it may be
  822
  before Easter, and it will be convenient to the Public Service that it should be before Easter. I am also under the supposition that the House, after its long and severe labours, would wish to have the Easter Recess prolonged to a reasonable length. If it was necessary to put the other Question to me, I must have been obscure in my statement. The purpose the Government have in view—what they think of primary importance—is to provide for the fulfilment of the law, and to avoid evils worse than any such inconvenience as I now propose to the House. Their purpose is to secure reasonable liberty of discussion upon all those Votes in Supply. I hope I have made it clear to the House that the 21st is the last day for the Votes for the Services of 1880–1. More licence may be taken as to some other Votes of very small amount, which, however, must be dealt with in the intervening day after the 21st.
  MR. DILLWYN: Sir, I confess I quite agree with the right hon. Baronet opposite that the statement we have just heard from the Prime Minister is one of a very serious and very alarming character. It is the more serious and more alarming because the Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that there is palpable danger, and that the Public Business does require urgency. ["Order!"] But, at the same time, I am disappointed at the statement of the Prime Minister in this respect—that while I fully agree that urgency must be voted, and that we must still go forth in the dangerous and unconstitutional course on which we have embarked, yet, at the same time, I very much regret that the Prime Minister has shown us that there is such a category of work to be done that we must have some——
  MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that there is no Motion before the House. If the hon. Member wishes to put a Question, no doubt the Prime Minister will answer him.
  MR. DILLWYN: I beg pardon of the House. I thought that as the occasion was one on which we were asked to forego one of our most valuable privileges, that I might be allowed to say a few words. However, I will confine myself to asking the Prime Minister whether, instead of moving these repeated Urgency Resolutions, it would

  823
  not be desirable to give us an opportunity of seeing whether an alteration of our permanent Rules might not conduce to the shortening and to a more practical mode of carrying on the Business of this House?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I should like, with the permission of the House, to put a Question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Perhaps the noble Lord will permit me first to say, in answer to my hon. Friend, that I feel the pressure of the hon. Member's observation as strongly as he does himself; and it is a very serious matter for the Government to consider—to watch for the first opportunity of considering—whether, for the good of the House, we can submit plans of a permanent character, to meet the difficulties.
  MR. GORST: Am I to understand the Prime Minister to say that he is going to propose a Vote on Account, and to propose that that Vote on Account be taken under the Rule of Urgency? Will he state to the House for how long a period he proposes to take the Vote on Account?
  MR. PARNELL: May I ask whether, in the event of the Prime Minister obtaining "urgency" for Committee of Supply, he will be in a position to introduce the Land Bill, and move its first reading before Easter?
  MR. ONSLOWremarked that the Prime Minister, in his statement, had spoken of a contribution of £5,000,000 towards the cost of the Afghan War. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that Vote could not be postponed until after Monday week, as he had given Notice that it would not be taken next Monday.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; because, in our opinion, Parliament would wish not to throw over from the current year the inception, if I may so call it, of the plan, if Parliament should think fit to adopt it. If so, in order to bring it within the current year, it is absolutely necessary that we should have the Vote on Monday week. [An hon. MEMBER: To avoid a breach of the law.] Yes; to avoid a breach of the law. Of course, it is in the same category with the Supplementary Estimates. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham has asked for what period we propose to take a Vote on Account. I have stated to the House that we think it necessary, in the
  824
  present condition of affairs, to endeavour to secure a time for the House when it shall be free for a certain period from the demand for Supply, and on that account we propose to take a Vote on Account, which must absolutely be had—we propose to take a Vote on Account which will last to Whitsuntide, and that will be for three months. With regard to the hon. Member for the City of Cork, I am not able to answer his question positively at this moment, because I will tell him this—that Her Majesty's Government do not think—of course, they must impose a reasonable interval between their introduction of the Land Bill and the second reading—they do not think it would be for the public interest at all that they should introduce their Land Bill, and then allow it to remain a very long time as their proposal without any definitive judgment of the House. Therefore, the course proposed to be taken on this Bill will, in some degree, be dependent upon what we can find it possible to do with regard to bringing on the second reading.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I would like to put a question to you, Sir, on a point of Order. You are aware that when the Prime Minister makes his Motion on Monday there will be no opportunity of debating it. I would like to ask whether, if the Prime Minister's Motion to vote Public Business urgent is carried, the Rules which you have already laid down, and under which we have so long acted, would apply, as they stand, to procedure in Committee of Supply, because there is a very general understanding, and I am not sure whether you have not already stated to the House, that these Rules are not applicable to the Committee of Supply. It is of the last importance to the House, in order that hon. Members may be able to give their votes on Monday, that we should be acquainted with the procedure which it will be in your absolute power to lay down, otherwise they will be voting in the dark, and unable to decide as to the merits of the Prime Minister's proposal. I beg to submit to you, Sir, whether it will be in your power, either at present or later in the evening, to state whether all of the existing Urgency Rules would apply, or whether none of them would apply, or if some of them will apply; and, if so, what Rules those will be?
  MR. SPEAKER: Should the Committee of Supply be made urgent, it will be my duty to lay down Rules applicable to such Committee. I may inform the House that, in view of the House voting urgency, I have prepared Rules which I will lay on the Table to-day, and which will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Are we to understand, Sir, that these Rules to which you have just referred will be all that will be laid down, and that in no case will it be in your power to frame additional Rules for the Committee of Supply?
  MR. SPEAKER: If I were to reply to the Question of the right hon. Baronet in the affirmative I should be limiting the power the House has placed in my hands.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Perhaps I might ask you, Sir, with all respect and deference, whether it is in your power to frame Rules for Urgency in Committee of Supply before Supply has been voted to be urgent?
  MR. SPEAKER: No doubt, under the Resolution passed by the House in February last, these powers are conferred upon me.
  MR. RYLANDSunderstood the Prime Minister to say that in Committee of Supply there would be ample opportunity given of discussing the Votes; and he begged to ask whether, in the event of the pressing Votes occupying discussion up to the 21st of this month, it would not be the fact that any Votes remaining and coming under urgency would be taken without any discussion?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There are no Urgency Rules at present applicable to Supply, and consequently the Rule which provides in certain cases in Committee of Supply that Votes shall be put without discussion has no application.
  MR. CALLANasked the Prime Minister whether he could give any definite assurance to the Irish Members and the House that if urgency for Supply was voted on Monday, and the Business facilitated, he would introduce the Irish Land Bill before the House rose for the Easter Recess?
  MR. GLADSTONE: After the detail of subjects that I have given the House to be considered in Supply, and after I have reminded the House that a Vote
  826
  of no confidence remains on the Paper, and certainly ought to be dealt with at the moment we have any freedom of choice at all as to the progress of Business, I think the House will see that it will be more prudent on my part to reserve every answer about any further proceedings whatever until we can a little see our way in regard to the course of Business.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he understood the Prime Minister to intimate that he would make a demand on the days now at the disposal of the private Members. He wished to know whether, if private Members consented to surrender their days, the right hon. Gentleman would give to private Members future facilities for bringing forward their proposals? If the right hon. Gentleman answered in the negative, he would feel bound to avail himself of every Form of the House, on behalf of those whom he represented, to defeat the proposal of the Government.
  MR. PARNELLasked whether the House was to understand that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, a Vote of Want of Confidence in Her Majesty's Government should take precedence of the introduction of the Irish Land Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in accordance with invariable Parliamentary usage and sound principle, whenever a Vote of Want of Confidence has been proposed with the evident support of a considerable section of this House, and as representing their views and opinions, that no legislative Business of a character not connected with the immediate demands of the moment should interfere with the discussion of that Vote. This has been a rule of the last half century, and I must say that I think it would be a most dangerous departure, not only from precedent but from principle, if we were to depart from it.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: May I trouble the right hon. Gentleman with one more Question? May I ask him if there is any Irish Land Bill actually prepared at all?
  MR. GLADSTONE: If Ministers are to be called upon to make statements to the House, the Questions addressed to them ought to be framed with some regard to those relations of mutual self-respect which ought to exist between one Member of the House and another. I must therefore decline to give any

  827
  answer whatever to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, or to any similar Question he may think fit to put to me. In answer to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), I may say that I have the most sincere sympathy with hon. Members amid the tremendous inconvenience to which they have been subjected, and that within the bounds of reason the Government will do anything they can to accommodate them. But an absolute pledge in this respect is impossible, as he will, I am sure, see, because the improvement in the manufacture of modern times does not extend to the manufacture of new days. Unless that were in our power we could not undertake to give such a pledge.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURinquired whether, as a question of Privilege, the Motion of which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had given Notice for Monday, in reference to the Writ for Northampton, would have precedence of all other Notices?
  MR. CALLANasked whether, in the event of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill passing the House that night, the Speaker would on Monday declare the state of Public Business no longer urgent in time to allow of a discussion taking place upon the Motion of which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had given Notice?
  MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), I have to say that the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), with reference to the Writ for Northampton, would, as a question of Privilege, have precedence of all other Motions on that day.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister when the Financial Statement of the Government would be made?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not able to give information on that subject. I have stated that I will give the information as soon as it is in our power.
  MR. GIBSON: Sir, I wish to repeat the Question put by the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Callan). Will you, Sir, declare the present state of Business no longer urgent before the Motion of the Prime, Minister comes on?
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, it was also very essential the House should
  828
  know whether the Rules the Speaker intended to lay on the Table that night were to supersede the other Rules referring to urgency, or whether the new Rules that would be laid on the Table would be supplementary to those at present existing?
  MR. PARNELLsaid, before the Speaker answered these Questions, he also wished to ask one. The Prime Minister had stated that he desired, in proposing urgency, that each Vote in Supply should be fairly discussed; but he wished to know, if urgency was declared, whether there would be anything to prevent the Speaker, if he thought right, from framing Rules giving the Chairman of Committees power to close the debate on any particular Vote in Supply at any particular time, or giving power to the Government to move a Resolution that at a certain hour of the night Votes in Supply should be put without further discussion?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already stated that I propose to lay on the Table of the House in the course of this day's Sitting Rules with reference to Committee of Supply, when Supply is declared to be urgent; and if the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) will be so good as to wait until to-morrow morning he will see what is the substance of the Rules which I propose to make.
  MR. GIBSONagain called the Speaker's attention to the Question of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan).
  MR. SPEAKER: Supposing the third reading of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill be carried this evening, I propose to declare that the state of Public Business is no longer urgent.
  MR. HEALYinquired whether the Government would give facilities for the discussion of a Vote of Want of Confidence in connection with the affairs of the Transvaal?
  MR. MACIVERsuggested that if the Government would postpone the evacuation of Candahar, the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) might correspondingly postpone his Motion of Want of Confidence. The Government would thus be enabled, always supposing they had any Bill prepared, and that they really wished to bring one in, to place their Irish land proposal before the House before Easter.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 105.]
  (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 105.]

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
    MR. PARNELL, in rising to move that the Bill be read a third time that day six month's, said, the Government had allowed themselves to be driven into a policy of coercion towards Ireland, and in forgetfulness of all the traditions which had generally been assigned to their Party, forgetfulness of all their policy and pledges in regard to Ireland, they had allowed themselves to carry out the policy of their Predecessors, and to become the tools of the landlord interest in Ireland. He thought the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant might advantageously change his title, and adopt the one of Chief Agent for the Collection of Rents throughout the country. It seemed to him that one of the results of the right hon. Gentleman's 12 months' tenure of Office was to make him suppose that his chief duties were to facilitate the collection of the rack rents of the Irish landlords. That seemed to be the whole object and aim of his ambition. He regretted that a Liberal Government should not have found something more worthy of itself than that policy of coercion. He regretted that it should have succeeded in dragging the Radical Party in the House of Commons after it; that it should have succeeded in inducing such men as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) to lend their powerful voices to the coercion of Ireland, and to retreat from words which they had spoken as to coercion in the country. The thing was now nearly done, and he supposed it was useless to regret it. They in Ireland would have to face the coercive measure of the Government the best way they could. He believed Ireland would emerge victorious from the strife. It was impossible, in the present times of the electric tele-
    830
    graph and steam communication, to coerce the public opinion of a whole country. They had not only Irish opinion to deal with, but they had a much more powerful opinion in America, which the Home Secretary had striven to represent as the opinion of conspirators and desperadoes—an opinion consisting of 16,000,000 of persons, and an opinion superior to our own. The Irish people in America had had the advantage of the free school system in the country; they had benefited by the educational institutions which were denied to the people of Ireland; and nothing struck him more during his recent visit to America than the superior position of the Irish people there. He referred to that matter because the Home Secretary desired to mislead the House with regard to the Irish people in America. He made a great mistake if he thought they were people who desired assassination, or adopted violent means in carrying out the aims and objects of the Land League. Nothing gave him more surprise and pleasure than to find how intimately in thought and feeling the young men of the second generation, descended from Irish parents in America, sympathized with the Irish Question at home. Everywhere through the United States he met them as barristers, medical men, merchants, leading men in manufactories, employers of labour, and everywhere he found the intelligent opinion of the Irish people in America was in sympathy with the aims and objects of the Land League in their struggle to free their country from the present system. If the Home Secretary thought he could mislead the people of England, by leading them to suppose that the 16,000,000 of Irish people in America were desperadoes, incendiaries, and assassins, he never made a greater mistake in his life. They had had resolutions of sympathy passed for them by almost every Legislature in America, in most instances without opposition. All the State Legislatures, on the arrest of Mr. Davitt, hastened to express their sympathy for him and for his sufferings. Some years ago, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster delivered a speech, shortly before the passage of the Land Bill, which would explain his regret better than any words he could use. That right hon. Gentleman said—

    831
    "I entirely disagree with those who, when any crisis or disturbance arises, say you must first of all preserve order. You must put down all this disloyalty, disobedience to the law, and assert the authority of the Government, and then you must remedy the grievance generally. After having asserted the supremacy of the law the grievances are forgotten, and there is no consideration for them. This has been done in Ireland for 200 years, and nothing has been done except under the influence of terror."
    The Land League had kept within the law and within Constitutional lines. If they had not done so, probably they would have had the right hon. Gentleman for their defender, who would have recognized in them an important engine for the directing of public opinion, and for compelling legislative remedies, since nothing was ever done in Ireland except under the influence of terror. They did not adopt dangerous agencies. They did not blow up any great gaols in the Metropolis, which, according to the Prime Minister, was such a necessary factor to bring the Irish Question within the region of practical politics. They did not murder a policeman in the execution of his duty at Manchester. They did not do any of the acts which were necessary in the past to direct attention to the necessity of redressing Irish grievances. They simply confined themselves to the holding of great public meetings, which were perfectly useless when held on the other side of the water, to effect any reform for Ireland, and the consequence was they found that they were wrong. They found their local agents cast into prison in every direction because they did not violate the law, and they did not adopt any of the means which they were taught were necessary to procure legislation. By this they were taught that Constitutional agitation was no use in Ireland, and that the only way in which attention could be directed to the redress of Irish grievances was by forcible violence and unconstitutional means. He believed, however, that the Irish people would still continue to keep within the law, and that they would not commit themselves by wreaking the "wild justice of revenge." The Land League was too well organized to be destroyed by the arrest of a few dozen, or a few hundreds, or even thousands of the people. The result of the present experiment would be to show the Government that they never made a greater mistake than when they attempted to use the worn-out weapon of
    832
    coercion for the purpose of destroying the proper and Constitutional expression of public opinion in Ireland. The people were now well organized, and would not allow themselves to be drawn outside the limits of Constitutional agitation. There might be occasional assassinations during the three months of the height of the agitation. In the months of September and October assassination entirely ceased. Just at the commencement of the organization there were one or two frightful murders in Ireland—the murders of Mr. Boyd and Lord Mountmorres, for instance—but after the League had shown the people the power and strength of the organization murders entirely ceased. There was no more assassination until the Coercion Bill was introduced, and then the shooting again commenced. He feared there might be a revival of those outrages throughout the country, for landlords would undoubtedly be encouraged by the Bill to eject their tenants in very largo numbers. The Bill gave to the landlords a greater power of applying oppression, because it was by little petty influences which could be brought to bear on tenants that the landlords had maintained the old ascendancy which the Land League were doing so much to break down. Under the Peace Preservation Bill no tenant could have a gun to protect his crops against the ravages of birds and hares and rabbits, unless he went on his knees to his landlord and begged a letter that would get him a certificate from a stipendiary magistrate. The price of a gun would be subserviency, the maintenance of a cringing attitude towards the territorial class. The Bill would do more to humble and subdue the spirit of the people of England than anything else. Nothing would be more irritating or more productive of crime, because it would affect an immense proportion of the people far greater than the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Furthermore, it would be used as an engine of tyranny and spite. He had a letter from a commercial traveller the other day going the West and South of Ireland, in which the writer said that during the Fenian times, when he was a shopboy in an extensive establishment in the city of Limerick, the police, with arms, were in the habit of visiting the place and compelling the young men of

    833
    the shop to turn out their boxes for the purpose of proving that they did not contain arms and ammunition. The boys displayed their little kits upon the floor, and, the search having been made, the police would go away. The writer of the letter said he had always been an intense anti-Briton ever since, and that, he thought, had done a great deal to spread a national feeling throughout the customers and others with whom he came in contact. He felt certain, too, that three or four young men who were subjected to the same indignity had also become Fenians and haters of English rule. In conclusion, the hon. Member moved that the Bill should be read a third time on that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. Member for the City of Cork had drawn their attention to the sympathy which had been shown by certain classes in the United States with the people of Ireland, and the hon. Member seemed much to prefer the institutions and policy of the United States to those of this country. He was not at all satisfied with the wide toleration and extreme leniency which Parliament had extended, notwithstanding great provocation, to Ireland and the Irish. The House, however, remembered well how America had dealt with rebellion within her own territories. The symptoms of coming strife were long neglected, until they culminated in actual civil war, and a vast amount of bloodshed. He put it to the hon. Member for the City of Cork whether or not he would like the House to adopt the method of the United States in their treatment of rebellion in Ireland. He must congratulate the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends on one circumstance. They had not merely brought coercive laws on Ireland, but they had induced the House of Commons to introduce into and to submit to coercion in its own proceedings. He (Mr. Newdegate) regretted that this coercion, as applied in that House, was so lenient, that as yet it did not appear to have any deterrent effect. He was afraid, that the wide
    834
    toleration and the leniency which had been shown in the treatment of Ireland and its Representatives had been entirely misplaced.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, they had now reached the last chapter of the events which for eight or nine weary weeks had distracted, and worried, and coerced the House of Commons. The last scene of the last act was drawing to a close; but before the curtain dropped he should like to offer one or two comments on the Bill, and also one or two complimentary remarks to those who had been not only the originators of, but the chief actors in, the drama—he meant Her Majesty's Government. They had a right to be complimented by any Member of the House on the extreme boldness with which they had not only taken but had actually eagerly rushed at characters which a little time ago they swore by all their gods they would not touch—and on the thoroughness and completeness, he would not say shamelessness, for that would not be complimentary, with which they had done their work, and on the ability with which they had assumed from time to time the various postures and disguises which were necessary for the success of the piece. The Chief Secretary had performed to perfection the rôle of the heavy father—with the rod in his hand and the tear in his eye, constrained by a stern necessity—namely, the retention of Office—to punish, but longing, ever longing, to burst into rhapsodies of paternal and tender emotion. The Home Secretary had filled with marked ability the more unattractive part of the heartless Lothario—stamping upon and denouncing and repudiating as criminal, almost as incestuous, those young Irish affections which he and his Colleagues not so long ago sacrificed so much of character to woo and win. He rejoiced to think that, owing to the masterly manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had conducted this Bill, the ever-widening circle of the popularity—he might almost say the adoration—with which he was regarded there would overflow the walls of that House, and penetrate into every cottage home of every Irish peasant. Now, as to the Bill itself, which was at last before the House in its finished state, in it, as in the Protection Bill, all precedent had been disregarded, and all Constitutional

    835
    precautions had been utterly despised and kicked aside. The Lord Lieutenant was invested with the most uncontrolled and absolute power, and the only consolation offered to those who viewed with uneasiness this unparalleled suspension of Constitutional rights was that they were invited to rely on the nobility, wisdom, and sense of responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant, assisted by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. While talking of Ministerial responsibility he would like to inquire of the Government what this Ministerial responsibility was, and how it was to be realized? When the Government last year decided not to renew the Peace Preservation Act, they reiterated that they were quite crushed with the responsibility that they had taken upon them. But what happened? The Home Secretary got up the other night and gaily told the House, without a word as to this Ministerial responsibility, that the non-renewal of the Act was an experiment which the Government had not been justified in making, and an experiment which he admitted had been a hideous failure. It was not surprising, therefore, that he objected to the attempt to raise again this phantom of Ministerial responsibility. As a matter of fact, there was absolutely no Ministerial responsibility. The Irish Government, with those two Acts, were perfectly irresponsible and perfectly absolute. The Irish Government would administer those Acts precisely in the same manner in which similar Acts had been administered before; and the House must not be deluded into the idea that it would have any control over the Irish Government, either now or subsequently. He had voted for the Bill; but it was necessary to destroy the humbug of this heavy Ministerial responsibility of which they had heard so much. Under the Act of 1847 the powers of the Lord Lieutenant were carefully limited and defined—indeed, so limited, that the Law Officers of the Crown were at times almost afraid to put them in force; but under this Bill there was absolutely nothing connected with the possession of and search for arms which the Lord Lieutenant could not do. For instance, he could utterly disorganize and dislocate the trade of the large ports of Ireland by his regulations with respect to the search for arms. He did not say that the Lord Lieutenant would
    836
    do that but he had the power to do it, and the only security they had that he would not do it was the Chief Secretary's nobility of mind. He wished to point out to the House the magnificent spirit of justice which pervaded the Bill. Not only did Her Majesty's Government abolish trial by jury for five years with respect to offences under it—he did not find fault with that, he was only pointing it out—but they had to observe this remarkable feature in the Bill, that the poacher who concealed a gun for the purpose of killing a rabbit was to be subjected to the same amount of imprisonment as the Fenian who imported arms and dynamite for the purpose, possibly, of killing great numbers of people. If the Tory Party had been in power, and had proposed such an unlimited Bill as this, no matter what the necessity had been, they would have been met by a united and remorseless Liberal opposition. With this Bill in his hand, and with the recollection of the Coercion Bill in his mind, he might be allowed to point out to the Irish Members the "rich and rare" rewards which had been showered upon them in return for the ardent and generous efforts they made for the success of Liberal candidates at the General Election, and in return for the many speeches which had been made by night and by day by Irish Representatives to the Irish masses in the English cities and towns whom Her Majesty's Government had seduced, corrupted, and betrayed. Instead of an extremely mild Peace Preservation Act which was only in force in eight or nine counties of Ireland, they had the Habeas Corpus Act suspended all over the country; they had trains arriving every hour at the Dublin terminus from North, South, and West, with cargoes of mauvais sujets—they had an unlimited Arms Act, which would be applied to the entire country. But they had more than this—the Irish Members had a promise of a Land Bill which was coming, like Christmas. The junior Member for Leeds (Mr. H. Gladstone), speaking the other night at a hole-and-corner meeting of the Liberal Club in Ealing, informed his audience that the Bill was in progress; and then with something of the ingenuousness and, perhaps, the indiscretion of youth, he added that nobody could imagine what a difficult question it was. That was the harvest

    837
    which Ireland had reaped from the most enlightened and God-granted Government this country had ever seen. That Bill was now passing away from them, and with it all that liberty-destroying machinery of urgency, clôtures, coups d'état, and Dictatorships, never, he hoped, to return again. [Cries of "Monday!"] They would now be told they ought to turn their attention to remedial legislation. Well, he would make no remark on that beyond this, that remedial measures planted under the shelter of coercion and watered and nourished by the suspension of the Constitution must in their nature be poor and sickly plants of foreign origin, foredoomed to perish almost before they commenced to grow. That Bill, the extraordinary crisis in Ireland, the extraordinary condition of the House of Commons, the best ever elected, that awful failure of Liberal hopes, was a conspicuous illustration of what was termed the irony of fate. It was on their capacity to grant to Ireland the same freedom that England enjoyed, on their capacity to grant the Irish overflowing prosperity, that the Liberals relied to gain for themselves immortal credit to scatter the Tories to the winds, and to secure for themselves permanent power. The Chief Secretary went to Ireland in April last, bearing with him the hopes, and the prayers, and blessings of an enthusiastic and victorious Party. He gave them all to understand that he was to become an emancipator greater even than O'Connell; and within 12 months of taking Office he had been compelled to come to Parliament for powers more stringent and more oppressive than were ever granted to or demanded by Lord Castlereagh, the Duke of Wellington, or Lord Grey. He wished the Chief Secretary joy of these beautiful Bills; but he might tell the right hon. Gentleman that he had acquired by them the undying dislike and distrust of the Irish people. He was grateful to the House for having allowed him to make these few remarks to "point a moral and adorn a tale," and for having given him the opportunity of delivering to this measure what the House might permit him to term a parting kick. While he had never denied that some extreme measure or other, owing to the conduct of the Government, and them alone, was only too necessary for Ireland at the
    838
    present moment, and while he had always admitted that as to the nature and extent of that measure Her Majesty's Government, who were the culprits, must be the sole and only judges, he still recollected with unqualified satisfaction that coercion was a double-edged weapon which had before now fatally wounded those Administrations who had been compelled by their own folly to resort to it; and beset as the Government was on every side with difficulties and entanglements, all of their own manufacture, he made no doubt whatever that the blighting contempt of the present would wither, and the sure condemnation of the future overwhelm, the authors of this deplorable legislation.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the House seems to have come to the very sensible determination not to have a protracted debate at this stage of the Bill. ["No, no!"] I will tell you why I arrive at that conclusion. It is because I have observed that at the end of a long and tedious drama of a tragic character we generally have what is called the "after piece," which consists of a screaming farce. I shall not, however, occupy much time in replying to the observations of the noble Lord, because it is difficult to treat him as a serious politician whose remarks require argument. It is very difficult to understand, and has been so for the last few months, to which of the four Parties in the State the noble Lord belongs. He once belonged to his own, the Fourth Party; but he has managed by his conduct during the discussion of this Bill to dissolve that minute Party, and his feats, in that respect, only afford a fresh illustration of the doctrine of the infinite divisibility of matter. The noble Lord has delivered a studied oration, and in it he has given what he has called the last kick to the measure which all last autumn and all last winter he has been imperiously demanding at the hands of the Government. I do not know whether among the faithless one faithful may be found. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) is about to venture, for the first time in the course of these debates, to support the Leader of the Fourth Party; but the Fourth Party having disappeared into space, we who have sat here night after night have seen the noble Lord conspicuously taking the part of con-

    839
    fidential adviser to the Third Party. ["No, no!"] I say "Yes." I do not think there has been one single instance in which measures have been taken for using every Form of the House to prevent the progress of this Bill when the noble Lord was not in intimate communion with the Third Party and its principal actor. That does not surprise me, for I remember that even in the responsible position of Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a year or two ago, the noble Lord astonished all Dublin by delivering a speech in favour of Home Rule——
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg pardon. I never was Private Secretary to the late Lord Lieutenant.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, at all events, the noble Lord stood in confidential relations to the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who was a Member, at that time, of an Administration which brought in one of those horrible Coercion Bills of which this is almost an exact copy. I presume it was to the unfortunate fact that the late Administration introduced such a measure, which was administered by the late Lord Lieutenant, the father of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, that put an end, not to a "God-granted" Administration, but to an Administration from which the noble Lord has delivered us. It is unnecessary, for the reasons I have stated, to deal seriously with the noble Lord. At other times, if we had a little more leisure, I might have descanted at more length on his erratic conduct, and on the extraordinary amusement which he always affords the House; but I do not think the noble Lord's political opinions have that consistency which demand the serious attention of the House of Commons. I turn now to a more serious matter, the Bill which the Government asks the House to read a third time, and I shall not feel justified in trespassing upon the attention of the House at any great length. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) made, as was natural he should make, a solemn protest against the passing of this measure. But what is it he has told us? He has told us that this Bill is founded upon a deliberate falsification of facts. Now, that is a very grave charge, but I do not think the hon. Member has laid any foundation for an allegation of that character. No doubt,
    840
    he takes a different view of the facts from Her Majesty's Government. He says that on this so-called deliberate falsification of facts we have founded a measure that was totally unnecessary; and then he taunts not only the Government, but the Liberal Members and the Liberal Party, with being accessories to this legislation. I would ask the hon. Member whether he can really deny that the Government have received in this matter the support both of the Liberals in this House and of the Liberals throughout the country?
    MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: Throughout the country? What country?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, I should say the country at large, with the exception of that portion of the country which hon. Members who object to this Bill represent.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: The country called Ireland?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: With respect to Ireland, it is a circumstance worthy of remark that in no single division against this Bill on any stage of it has one moiety of the Representatives of Ireland voted against the measure. If all Ireland were against the Bill, would you not have all the Representatives of Ireland voting in opposition to it?
    MR. PARNELL: The franchise, the franchise!
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, we have also been asked how it is that the Radical Party supported this Bill. I will answer that they have supported the Bill, no doubt with immense reluctance, but they have supported it because they were convinced of its necessity. Do you believe that in a country with a free Press and telegraphic and other means of communication, you can, by deliberate falsification, so mislead the Liberal Party in England and in the House of Commons that, after two months of protracted and continuous discussion, all the efforts of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends to present their own view of the case should have only the effect of causing the Liberal Party, instead of coming more and more near to them, to depart more and more from them? What is the meaning of the solidity of the Liberal Party on this question? It is because the more this matter has been discussed and investigated the more it has become absolutely apparent to everyone that the Go-

    841
    vernment were justified in the course they have taken. The hon. Member for the City of Cork says there is an Irish nation in America. That is true; but I would venture to say that American opinion is not as unanimous in the hon. Member's favour as he supposes. Look in the most powerful and influential journals of the United States, and you will find an almost unanimous condemnation of the hon. Member's course. [Mr. PARNELL: Only in New York.] I see a little of the American papers. I have before me a copy of The Irish World, of which the hon. Member for the City of Cork knows something, and through which comes the largest contributions from America to the Irish Land League. He who pays the piper has a right to call the tune, as the largest subscriber to a religious society laid down the doctrine. As a specimen of the contributions which appear in this paper I will quote one which begins—"I append the report of a scene in the House of 600 scoundrels." That is ourselves.
    MR. PARNELL: Is not that quotation made from a letter from London?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes; and I have no doubt the hon. Member for the City of Cork can give me the real name of the writer. Well, the writer goes on—
    "What can we do? Plenty of good work. The high seas are open to us, and covered with British merchant ships freighted with rich booty. There is our objective point."
    This is the sort of language that is used, and that there is a letter written from London shows the intercommunication which exists. I dare say I could supply the name of the gentleman who signs himself "Transatlantic." ["Name!"] No; hon. Members know it perfectly well. Of course, the writer is delighted at our difficulties with the Boers and Zulus, and he proceeds to say—
    "The Boers are fighting the battle of Ireland, although they do not know it. May success attend them. I urge my countrymen to drill, and learn military drill night and day, Sunday and holiday, in the hut and on the hilltop."
    Referring next to a speech of Mr. Davitt, in which he said that there were 500 Land Leagues, the writer in The Irish World says that—
    "If there were 500 or 600 men on an average in each branch, that would give Ireland 250,000 fighting men."
    842
    These quotations sufficiently show what are the common objects of the Land League in America and in Ireland. Could any civilized Government submit to have such objects openly avowed and promoted? The hon. Member for the City of Cork challenged me the other night when I spoke of the connection between the Land League and Fenianism. The hon. Member said that for himself he had the greatest respect for many Fenians who believed in the separation of Ireland from England by physical force. That is not exactly the language which I think we have a right to expect that a subject of the Queen should use in speaking of a conspiracy to overthrow the Crown.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: He spoke of respect for the individuals.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Am I right or wrong in saying that this Land League organization is really Fenian and Fenian in its character? I say exactly what I believe about the matter. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member stated, that the Fenian organization endeavoured in former times to attack the English Government by open force; but, having found that that course could not be successful, it is my firm conviction that exactly the same object has been, and is being, prosecuted by other and more indirect methods. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) said that the Land League had three objects in view—first, to paralyze the Government; secondly, to obstruct Parliament; and thirdly, to supersede the action of the law. But if they had accomplished these objects, they would have done all that the Fenian organization contemplated—they would have overthrown the Constitution as much as if they had attacked it successfully by open force. Now, as to the Land League movement, where did it come from? The hon. Member for the City of Cork blamed me for using the word "convict." I do not wish to use harsh language; but if a man is convicted of a crime, can he be spoken of as an innocent person? A man convicted of Fenianism is a convict, and the originators and organizers of the Land League are Fenian convicts. Does anyone deny that Michael Davitt was the original founder of the organization or that he was a Fenian? Does anyone suppose that he ever abandoned those opinions or those objects? Therefore, in organizing this attack upon

    843
    society he was pursuing the same objects, although it was under a changed name. The hon. Member for the City of Cork has never denied that there are a great number of Fenians connected with the Land League in America. The hon. Member cannot deny it. Then, what do I find? Why, that John Devoy, a Fenian convict, is an active agent of the Land League in America, and so is Red-path, who came over to Ireland last year. He used the most undisguised and unmitigated Fenian language in America, and while in Ireland he was a most energetic member of the Land League. When we find the Fenians and the Land League in such close connection what conclusion must we arrive at? Knowing these things as I do, I produced evidence of the facts. The hon. Member for the City of Cork might have disavowed and disowned the connection between those movements, but he has not done so.
    MR. PARNELL: In my last speech I said there was neither an open nor a secret connection between the Fenian organizations and the Land League; but that money had undoubtedly been sent by some Fenians in America as individuals, but not as members of the Land League.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, Sir, I think that the distinction drawn by the hon. Member is a somewhat fine one. They were Fenians, but they assisted the Land League as individuals. What, however, I want to hear is a disavowal on the part of the hon. Member of any connection with the Fenian conspiracy in America, and I regret that it has not been made. Why has it not been made? Why, the fact is such a disavowal of that conspiracy would stop the supplies. I have waited to hear an open disavowal from members of the Land League that they have no connection with Fenianism in America. Then I am told I have spoken of absent men. Well, it is difficult to avoid speaking of absent men when they do not choose to be present in their places. I speak of the hon. Member for Tipperary. I have no right to say that he has any connection with the Fenian organization. I do not know it, and I cannot prove it; but his language in Ireland was precisely that which was used by the Fenian organization. We have been told that the Land League is a vigorous movement for Constitutional purposes. If
    844
    that were so, I should strongly condemn any man or any Government that would interfere with it. But is that so? When we see men seeking the support of arms to assist their purposes, and find members of the Land League in communicacation with Communism in Paris and Fenianism in America, then, I say, the maxim applies—"Noscitur ex sociis." Can anyone be blind to these facts? I did not intend to detain the House so long; but when the hon. Member asks us why it was that the Liberal Party came to the conclusion that these measures were necessary, and necessary, too, to press them forward through the House of Commons by means which I regret as much as any man can do, I say it was because they were convinced that the state of things in Ireland was not for the welfare of the country, and I may add because the Liberal Party never has had, and never will have, anything in common either with Communism or with Fenianism.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, it had been over and over again denied that there was any connection with Fenianism, which worked in secret, and the Land League, which worked openly in the light of day. It was by its printed programme that the Land League should be judged. They had heard that individual Fenians had sent funds to the Land League; but what lesson had the Land League taught those men? It asked them to give their aid, not to a secret society, but to an open and a Constitutional agitation, and they had been successful in obtaining for that Constitutional agitation monetary and other assistance. These men had been called revolutionists. Well, it was known that a high and distinguished personage in this Kingdom was in social relations and close friendship with M. Gambetta, who overthrew a Throne; but would that fact justify anyone in saying that that distinguished personage had, therefore, changed his ideas in reference to the Monarchy in this country? The men referred to by the right hon. Gentleman were called convicts; but were the convicts who were confined in Neapolitan dungeons forgotten because they were convicts? They were called rebels, agitators, and assassins; but did hon. Members recollect the welcome that was accorded in this country to Kossuth, Garibaldi, and Mazzini? As to the Bill, there was, he contended, no necessity for it, seeing that during the months

    845
    of October and November the cases of firing in Ireland had decreased; and that in nine counties, including Carlow, Dublin, Queen's County, Wicklow, Down, and others, with nearly 1,500,000 of inhabitants, not a single instance of even a pop-gun having been fired in violation of the law had been reported—and yet authority had been given to the Lord Lieutenant to suspend the Constitution in all those counties. They might just as well pass a similar Bill to apply to Yorkshire and Middlesex. It had been said, indeed, that the Irish people should avoid agitation; but experience had shown that it was only by means of agitation that concessions were wrung from the English Parliament. He believed that agitation had been the real source of their power. They had learnt many lessons from it; but the position which they had assumed there and elsewhere had been forced upon them. He was not a member of the Land League. He was asked to join its ranks; but he found that he could not give the time from his business, and, therefore, did not. He was not, in consequence, "Boycotted," or terrorized over to join it. He had read their proceedings and their printed programme, and those were the documents by which they were to be bound. It was traducing their policy to connect them with Fenianism, and, if anything would, it would drive him to become a member. If the waters in Ireland were disturbed, it was owing to the action of the English Government; and it was now the duty of those who occupied the Treasury Bench to bring forward a measure to calm them in the shape of a Land Bill, which would relieve the Irish people from the condition of wretchedness to which they had for so long a time been obliged to submit. He hoped such a measure would be introduced at the earliest possible moment, so that the Irish Representatives might have to tell their constituents—which they could not now do—that something else than coercion was in store for them at the hands of the English Parliament.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that the speech of the Home Secretary was the speech of an able advocate, but not the speech of a statesman. Great numbers of the men associated to the Land League were the most determined opponents of Fenianism. In ignoring that fact, the right hon. Gentleman had not been quite
    846
    fair. At the same time, he could not help admiring the ability with which the right hon. Gentleman selected every point and fact which could tell in favour of the side which he took. The Government went to the people of Ireland with their hands full of measures. There was the Peace Preservation Bill and the Coercion Bill, for both of which "urgency" was voted; but there could be no urgency for the Land Bill, which now began to recede day by day from their view. He predicted that the feelings of bitterness and exasperation which these Coercion Bills would excite in the hearts of all men of Irish blood all over the world would exist for generations to come. The English nation and the British House of Commons would not have heard the last of this business when the third reading of this Bill was passed. He held a letter in his hand, written by an Irish landlord to a tenant. If it was not a threatening letter, he did not know what was one. It was as follows:—
    "O'Dowd—I wish you to explain what you mean by writing in public newspapers stating that my tenants are rack-rented. If it is possible by any means, I will visit you with punishment for such a statement."
    That showed the kind of feeling which existed, and which would produce mischief. He could not, however, look upon the measures of the Government with unmitigated dislike, for they would have the good effect of bringing home to all Irishmen the conviction that they must never expect to obtain liberty or justice from the House of Commons.
    MR. BYRNEcharged the Home Secretary with having bolstered up a weak case with irrelevant subjects, such as Communism and Fenianism.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. BYRNE, continuing, said, he should offer the Bill his most uncompromising opposition. He was surprised that the Bill should have been so drawn as to apply to women and children. It appeared to him that the Government had thought too lightly of the result which such a Bill would have on the people of Ireland; and he was afraid, unless the Government extended to the people of Ireland that justice which they had a right to expect, the Bill would not make them as good citizens as he could

    847
    wish them to be. It was not coercive legislation, but remedial legislation, to which he looked for an amelioration of the condition of the people of Ireland. He maintained that the general tone of the American Press was strongly favourable to the principles of the Land League, which also were supported by Protestants and Catholics alike, and had now the hearty recognition of the general body of the American people. It was the League that had promoted that combination of sections of the Irish people; and he should wish to ask the Home Secretary whether he thought it likely that when the Irish race in Ireland, in America, and in Australia were united, it would be possible to continue in Ireland a system of government which was productive of many evils to its people?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORremarked, that if the hon. Members with whom he acted had been accused of being abettors of assassination, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was charged by a portion of the Irish Press with the same crime. It was not unfair, perhaps, to conclude that the accusation was as unfounded in the one case as in the other. On the 4th of May, 1867, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster presented to that House a Petition with reference to the Fenian organization, in which it was stated that there was a legitimate ground for the chronic discontent of which Fenianism was the expression, and that, therefore, there was a palliation for the errors of the Fenians. There was a good deal of dispute about that Petition; but, undeterred by the clamour with which he was assailed, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Bright) presented it, and it was received in spite of the opposition of many Tory Members. On a question of political ethics, he preferred the judgment then expressed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to that of the present Home Secretary. The Home Secretary had repeatedly gone out of his way to charge the Land League with being connected with Fenianism; but the right hon. Gentleman had made a still more serious charge—namely, that not only was the Irish Land League associated with Fenianism, but it was also associated with some of the worst and most criminal proceedings in which some members of that organization were said to have been engaged. Those accusations had been unwarrantably made,
    848
    and he hoped that on re-consideration the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw them. How did the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that the Land League in America was joined by many of the most eminent and most respectable men in America? Was he prepared to cast on the highest citizens of a Power with which we were on the most friendly relations the slur that they were the abettors and fellow-conspirators of the most atrocious criminals perhaps ever connected with a political organization? It could be shown from newspaper correspondence that the Land League in America had 300,000 members before the arrest of Mr. Michael Davitt, that the number of its adherents had been largely swelled since the news of that arrest was received, and that in its ranks were included men of all nationalities and of all religious creeds. Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Orangemen were in sympathy with the Land League in the United States; and were those persons on that account to be held up by the Home Secretary as being responsible for the acts of an. atrocious incendiary and a revolutionary organization? When the Coercion Act of 1875 was under discussion in the House, the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary spoke strongly in favour of giving to accused persons the right of appealing to juries to settle the question of their guilt or innocence; but since that time the position of the right hon. Gentleman was changed, and he now held very different language when he had become a Minister of State. He hoped the mere passage from one side of the House to the other did not produce an entire change in the political principles of any Member of that House, and that the right hon. Gentleman was something better than a mere holder of Office. If he was right in his hope, he might add to it the further expression of a desire that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the assurance that the Land League, both in Ireland and the United States of America and Australia, would, in the event of a just Land Bill being introduced by Her Majesty's Government, so utilize the large funds that had been entrusted to them as to make the Irish tenants owners of lands on which they lived. There was not a cabin in Ireland which had not a heart beating for it across the Atlantic wave—a son or a daughter—who, out of his or

    849
    her savings, subscribed something to every Irish national movement. These would be ready to sacrifice almost any comfort if the Government, by their Bill, gave them an opportunity to make their father independent. On the other hand, if the Government remedy was so mild as its measures of repression were severe, every penny of their savings would go to some enterprise which he regarded with dread and abhorrence, and that was the keeping up of the desperate strife between class and class in Ireland. The Government had these two alternatives before it. Which would it choose?
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYcomplimented the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the skill, moderation, and good feeling with which he had, upon the whole, discharged a very difficult task. The Irish Members expected nothing from the right hon. Gentleman; he had made no professions of sympathy, or protestations of sturdy, rugged honesty; they were not disappointed in him. But as Shakespeare had been more than once quoted in the course of the discussions on the present Bill, he might give an illustration from King Lear of the kind of statesman for whom Irishmen from their recent experiences were not any longer disposed to entertain a feeling of much confidence—
    "This is some fellow,
    Who, having been praised for bluntness, doth affect
    A saucy roughness; and constrains the garb Quite from his nature: He cannot flatter, he!—
    An honest mind and plain,—he must speak truth:
    An they will take it, so; if not, he's plain. These kind of knaves I know, which in this plainness
    Harbour more craft, and more corrupter ends,
    Than twenty silly ducking observants
    That stretch their duties nicely."
    Such a man they knew in that House—it was certainly not the Home Secretary—and in such a man the people of Ireland would never again put the slightest confidence. The Home Secretary had told them a great deal about a Mr. Redpath. Who was this Mr. Redpath? He was neither an American, nor an Irishman, but an Englishman—a member of the
    850
    Cobden Club. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, he believed, was a member of that Club, and was also a member of the Reform Club, which once gave a grand banquet to Garibaldi—a man who was in alliance with all kinds of secret conspirators and revolutionary designs. Nothing could be more unjust, unfair, and even absurd, than the attempt of the Home Secretary to hold the hon. Member for Cork City and his Colleagues responsible for the doings and sayings of every stranger and alien who happened to have made some contribution to the Land League or to have spoken on its platforms. Having referred so frequently to Mr. Devoy and Mr. Redpath the Home Secretary should, in candour, have told them that it was not those gentlemen alone who came upon public platforms in America and supported the doctrines of the hon. Member for Cork City. The right hon. Gentleman had doubtless heard of such distinguished men as Mr. Tilden, Colonel Higginson, and the great American orator, Mr. Wendell Phillips; and would it not have been more candid for him to have told them that men of that class were in sympathy and co-operation with the hon. Member for Cork? As to this measure itself, it had now passed almost beyond the range of criticism. It must be left to its work. He did not believe it would serve any good purpose whatever. No weapons would be taken by this Bill from the hands of those who wished to use them feloniously The Irish Members had said all they had to say with regard to this Bill; and he could only express a hope that the remedial legislation of the Government, when it was finished, if it ever were to be finished, might close this melancholy controversy and lead to something of a brighter spirit and brighter expectation than they had lately had in that House. But he wished to call the attention of English Members to the sacrifices they had made to pass these worthless Coercion Bills. They had sacrificed, in the course of a few weeks, ancient Constitutional rights and liberties—some of the dearest traditions of the English people. Some of their oldest and most cherished privileges they had recklessly and wantonly thrown away to effect this petty purpose, and had dragged down the English Parliament as far below the ordinary level of Continental Assemblies as some few

    851
    weeks ago it had proudly towered above them. Those steps they could never retrace. The right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues wore no longer masters of the situation. They had given the mastery into the hands of the Leaders of the Opposition. The Government must obey the Conservatives; every time they wanted urgency they must make some concession to the Opposition, and that Party would drive a hard bargain. It was true that Ministers claimed despotic power over that Assembly, and seemed to think that they were not bound to pay any attention to hon. Members from Ireland—not to show them even the ordinary courtesies and decencies of debate. He was himself able to illustrate that by his own experience. When, in the course of the evening, he put a most proper and reasonable Question for an Irish Member to ask—when he asked whether the Government's boasted remedial legislation was complete or not—he was turned upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in the language of furious emotion—he might say of hysterical passion—and dealt with as if he were unworthy of the courtesy or decency of an answer. That was the sort of treatment that the Government thought they had power and security sufficient to enable them to give with impunity to hon. Members of the House; but he warned them that they were mistaken. He reminded the Government that they had made new masters for themselves as well as for the Irish Members, and now the lords of every crisis were the large minority who sat in Opposition, and who would have to be bought and bribed for every concession they made to the Ministerial demands for urgency and speedy legislation.
    MR. REDMONDcontended that the existence of measures of this kind afforded a complete condemnation of English rule in Ireland, and their history was full of humiliation for England and English Members. They had seen a great Party pledged to a policy of redress—a Party who were the friends and champions of freedom all over the world, after all their professions, having recourse to the degrading weapon of despotism. By the measures which the Government had forced through the House they had succeeded in establishing a reign of terror in Ireland. Already, by the new powers with which the Exe-
    852
    cutive had been invested, the gaols of the country were being filled with men against whom no evidence of wrongdoing had been adduced. There existed in Ireland a despotism which could not be found in any Constitutionally governed country in the world, and he could not but conclude that it was the deliberate intention of the Government to-day, as history proved it was the deliberate intention of English Governments in the past, to drive the people of Ireland into acts of violence and bloodshed. The charge of cowardice which the Home Secretary had preferred against absent Irish Members reminded him that there was a strong resemblance between the right hon. Gentleman and the swaggering Shakesperian braggart, "Pistol," who, while always charging others with cowardice, was himself at heart the veriest coward. ["Order!"] The passing of this Bill was attended with one consolation; it exposed the sham of Constitutionalism in Ireland. Representative government, as far as that country was concerned, was a mockery; and the Irish people, while bearing their share, and more than their share, of the burdens which the State imposed, were not permitted to enjoy the rights and the privileges of citizenship. The day might come when the hate with which the Government were filling the breasts of the Irish people might be a source of danger to England in her hour of peril. Another result of these debates had been to show in their true colours those men who had been sent to this House to protect the liberties of the Irish people, but had basely betrayed them. A further result had been to strip the Whigs of the hypocritical guise they were so fond of assuming as friends of liberty. His primary object in that House would ever be to endeavour to overthrow the government, or, rather, misgovernment, of his country by this Parliament; and with that object in view he was not inclined to altogether regret the passing of these coercive measures, for their effect would be to intensify the hatred with which the Irish people regarded foreign rule, and to strengthen their resolve never to rest satisfied until every vestige of British interference in purely Irish affairs was swept away.
    MR. LEAMYurged that the Irish people were altogether in error in placing any reliance on the so-called Liberal Government, and that those who so placed

    853
    reliance had no right to hope for a single hour of happiness, prosperity or freedom. He was extremely sorry that the Home Secretary had not acceded to the proposition that the operation of the Bill should be limited to a period of three years instead of five years, thereby leaving the measure more severe than the Act of 1875, which was the work of a Conservative Government. The assertion of the Home Secretary that this Bill would not interfere with a man who sought lawful ends by lawful means was obviously incorrect, as the most peaceful citizen might be stopped on suspicion, taken to the police barracks, and searched for arms. He did not think very much of the Home Secretary's boasted concessions, and remarked that the proviso for the storing and returning of arms was contained in the Act of 1847. [SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: But not paying for them.] He (Mr. Leamy) only hoped a considerable price would be paid, considering that the purchase would be compulsory. However, he was very much afraid that a great spirit of irritation would be caused by the Bill, and he hoped the Government would take care to limit its operation to as few counties as possible.
    MR. MACDONALDrose to give what the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) called a parting kick to this Bill. He did so, however, with feelings entirely different from those which actuated the noble Lord. He hoped his Friends on the opposite side below the Gangway would not allow themselves to be deceived by the language of the noble Lord. The noble Lord's parting kick was the kick of a loving parent rather than that of an enemy who desired to see the Bill mutilated or injured in any way. The noble Lord's principles and the principles of his Party were in harmony with coercion. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite said "No;" but he ventured to affirm that the principles of the government of Ireland by the Conservative Party had been bullet and bayonet, coercion on coercion, cruelty on cruelty, and iniquity on iniquity. He felt humiliated that a Liberal Government should have stolen the Bill, taken it from the hands of the Tories, put it on the Table in their own name, and then have got the smiling chaff and banter of the noble Lord for having performed their duty well. He regretted that his hon. Friends
    854
    opposite had not taken his advice, and they would now have the Land Bill introduced, or they would have convicted the Government of insincerity and of trifling with a great question that required to be dealt with at the first moment. He objected to this Bill because, like the last, he thought it would only exasperate the Irish people and tend to create a stronger aversion than ever to English rule in Ireland. He regretted that instead of coercive legislation the Land Bill had not been introduced at the assembling of Parliament, for if it had been they would have given peace to Ireland instead of prospective unhappiness and misery.
    MR. GILLthanked the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) for the speech he had just made, but took exception to the amendment that the Irish Members, by their conduct in Parliament, had delayed the introduction of the Land Bill. But he believed they had not delayed the Land Bill a single day, and he believed it would not be laid before the House a day sooner if the Irish Members had not taken the course which honour and necessity compelled them to adopt. Less than three weeks ago The Times newspaper, which was the leading organ of public opinion in this country, stated that the Land Bill was not yet ready; but three or four days ago the same journal stated that, but for obstruction, the Bill would have been introduced in the middle of January. Now, if it was not ready three weeks ago, how was it possible it could have been introduced in the middle of January? This Bill was quite as objectionable, if not more so, than the Coercion Bill. It proposed greater punishment for mere trivial offences than the Coercion Bill did. By that Bill a man charged with inciting to the commission of outrages would be imprisoned comfortably for not more than 18 months; by this Bill a man found in the possibly innocent possession of firearms would be confined far more rigorously, though for a shorter period. Every opportunity would be taken to put the Act in force. Under its provisions any district could be proclaimed under the Bill without the slightest difficulty. The county of Westmeath, for instance, in which outrages had been singularly infrequent, had been proclaimed in consequence of a single murder. Surely an isolated outrage of that kind should not be made

    855
    a reason for insulting 78,000 people, especially when the causes which led to it might be found to be other than agrarian, and to be of long standing. It proved the eagerness of the Government to test the efficacy of their measures. The Home Secretary had alleged over and over again that the agitation in Ireland was promoted only by Fenianism. The Irish Law Officers, who were in their places, knew that on the occasion of the late State trials the entire people subscribed for the defence of the traversers, and that amongst those who sent in subscriptions were 10 or 12 of the Catholic Bishops of Ireland. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman for a moment say that an agitation with which the hierarchy of Ireland sympathized could be of the diabolical character which he described. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the Bill was not opposed by the majority of the Irish Members; but that was not the fault of the constituencies, but of the Members who had broken the pledges they made to work with the active Irish Party. He believed that these Coercion Bills, instead of uniting the people of Ireland and conciliating them to English rule, would prove the greatest incentives that could be devised to the Irish people to struggle for the restoration of their native Parliament, without which, as the present Government taught them, they could have no beneficial legislation.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, nothing could be more unfounded than the charge of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), that the Conservative Party had always ruled Ireland with the gun, the bullet, and the bayonet. When the hon. Member made that statement, he must have forgotten the facts and merely relied upon his imagination. The hon. Member said that these measures would have been unnecessary if a Land Bill had been brought in at the beginning of the Session; but he (Captain Aylmer) could not believe that any person who had looked into the facts of the case would say that the Land Question was the main one in this agitation. It had only been used by the organizers of the Land League to hide the real purposes of the League. Those purposes were the disintegration of the Empire and the overthrow of the authority of the Queen. The League made laws for themselves, thus usurping the prerogative of Par-
    856
    liament; and they enforced these laws in Courts of their own devising, thus usurping the prerogative of the Sovereign; and, by so doing, in his opinion, were guilty of direct treason. If these Bills would not make the people less treasonable they would make them less warlike, because under their operations the weapons would be taken out of their hands. He could not but think that any Member of the House who aided the members of the Land League in their efforts would be among the worst enemies of the British Constitution.
    Mr. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, that as the curtain was about to fall upon the progress of this Bill through the House of Commons, he wished to say a few words upon it in its aspect as a complement to the Act for the suspension of the Constitution in Ireland. If the Government had brought in a Bill to prevent the carrying of revolvers, and made it applicable to the Three Countries, he would have supported it; but this Bill applied only to Ireland, and would deprive the Irish farmer of his fowling-piece, which might be considered an agricultural implement. What had happened before under Arms Acts might happen again. On the 18th of this month it would be just seven years since he made his first speech in the House of Commons, and on that occasion he called attention to the case of a poor old woman who kept a marine store in the town of Clonmel, who was taken up and brought before the magistrates because the police found amidst a heap of rusty iron one piece which had been the trigger of a horse pistol. He had already told the House of the amateur player who was taken up because he carried a sword or dirk while playing the part of Douglas. Again, the son of an Irish Baronet, who was now a Member of the House, returning home in the Vacation from his English University, was placed under arrest for carrying a fowling-piece over his father's estate, and every Irish Member was familiar with the Shinrone, county Tipperary, case, in which Sub-Constable Harker, with one of his sergeants, concocted with a wretched hireling a plot to place a gun in the thatch of a farmer's house, and to scatter Ribbon documents in another house, and, that being done, they proceeded and made several arrests of innocent people. The Government, on the application of the parish priest, ordered an investigation,

    857
    which resulted in the dismissal and punishment of the guilty parties, as, no doubt, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would punish those who abused the powers given by the Act. These accidents were likely to happen under the exceptional powers about to be conferred on the constabulary. It would have been a different thing if the Bill had been brought in for only two or three years. He supposed, however, they knew their own book—they knew their own Land Bill. They mistrusted their own policy, and refused to believe the efficacy of their measures. If there were any earnestness or truth in the Cabinet, they would show the House that they had a Land Bill which was capable of healing up the sores and wounds of Ireland. But the fact that the present Bill was to last for five years indicated that the Government had little confidence in the effect of the Land Bill they were to bring forward. They had learnt nothing from the previous failures of coercive legislation. In spite of the Stanley Arms Act of 1831, the agitation against tithes increased in Ireland. The description given of the condition of the country showed that it stood far more in need of severe measures than at present; but, although the magistrates recommended the renewal of the Insurrection Acts, the Government refused to renew them. On the Motion of Sir Henry Parnell the question was referred to a Committee, who reported that, without any departure from the principles of the Constitution, measures could be adopted to improve the state of things in Ireland. This was at the time of the Chief Secretaryship of Mr. Drummond, who once personally and alone quelled a riot from the power he had acquired over the people through refusing to consent to coercive legislation. The Home Secretary had endeavoured to prove a complicity on the part of men of the Land League with other persons whose conduct he had held up to approbrium; but did not Napoleon III. bring home to the Liberal Party complicity in an assassination plot? [Cries of "No, no!" and "Order!"] Well, he was sorry he had said that; he had no intention of going so far. Still, it was a fact that a Member of the then Liberal Government was so far compromised that he had to quit the Treasury Bench. Such being the case, it was unfair on the part of hon.
    858
    Gentlemen opposite to suggest that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was plotting in Paris. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary seemed very much afraid of Mr. Redpath; but Mr. Redpath was not a member of the Land League, but was, as a matter of fact, a co-member with the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the Cobden Club. He confessed that it was a relief that to-night the debates on these coercion measures would be over. On Monday the troubles of the British House of Commons would begin. Before Business that day they had a taste of the Nemesis at hand. To accomplish this frightful blunder of legislation they had, as a Party and a Government, harmed and wrecked interests which ought to be dear to Englishmen, and, in their blindness and terror, broken down safeguards which, for many a year, they would endeavour in vain to recover. Let them not blame the Irish Members. All that was noble in Englishmen warranted him in saying that if England were an appanage of Germany or France, and the Government of that country wished to impose a Bill of that kind upon England, every man of them would have surpassed in resisting it what the Irish Members were blamed for doing. He could measure what they would do by what their fathers had done when their liberties were in peril. The resistance which Irish Members offered to the Bill was strong, because they felt it would be ineffectual for putting an end to crime, but most mischievous in putting down honest opinion in Ireland. Let not Englishmen hug the delusion to their souls that, having forced Irish Members to defend their country with the gag in their mouths, they themselves would easily get rid of the gag. There was no Government that had tasted despotic power which did not love its convenience and facilities. Any man could govern with a state of seige, whether in Italy, in Ireland, or the House of Commons. He who used to be plain Mr. Speaker had been turned into the august Cæsar of the House. That example would grow, and would be followed in after years. In order to make the motives and conduct of the Irish Members misunderstood, the English people had been told that they had stood in the way of beneficial measures, not only for Ireland, but

    859
    for England. ["Hear, hear!"] But there never had been a Bill for the benefit of the English people which his countrymen had not been ready to sit from morning till night to promote. Not theirs was the choice which had put English legislation behind, and Irish legislation in the front. Why, then, blame them for defending their own country? They had simply done their duty. The last words he would say on this measure would be to remind that House and the English people, between whom and the Irish Members he hoped there would be no quarrel, that on three occasions they had to endure obloquy, reproach, and scorn as Obstructionists. The first of those occasions was in resisting the annexation of the Transvaal, and there was not an Englishman now who would not wish that the Irish Obstructionists, as they were called, had, in that resistance, been successful. The second was in resisting the application of the lash in the Army, and the third was in resisting that Bill. It would be for him for ever a pride that he took some part on those three occasions. Time had brought vindication of the resistance to the annexation of the Transvaal, time had brought victory in the matter of the lash, and time would bring triumph in the resistance to coercion.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he agreed with one remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan)—that the prevailing feeling in the House was one of relief that they were coming to the end of these debates. There was also a strong feeling that it would be a bad thing for anyone to prolong them, and he was not going to do so by more than a few words. Much had been said against the Bill—almost as mach as could be said; and the arguments against it had been met by the advocates of the measure. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who had kindly and efficiently done his (Mr. W. E. Forster's) work, had left him nothing to add in defence of the action of the Government with regard to this Bill. But it would not be according to usage if the Bill were to pass from the House without a word from the Minister who was most responsible for the government of Ireland. Much had been said in the debates, and as often as possible by hon. Members opposite—he did not mean to
    860
    say it by way of blame, but hon. Members seemed to put off the actual question and to amuse the House by personal allusions and supposed inconsistencies in the action of his right hon. Friends and, perhaps, himself, in Opposition and in Office. He always wondered that the time of the House should have been taken up in inveighing against that inconsistency when there was apparently a far greater inconsistency against which to declaim—that of a Government which that time last year thought it could do without an Arms Bill, and yet was now engaged in endeavouring to pass one through the House. It was, however, most reluctantly and to their great disappointment that the Government had come to the decision in the matter at which they had arrived. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), in the speech which he made at the beginning of the evening, was so far carried away by his wish to amuse the House as to say that the Government alone were responsible for what occurred in Ireland last year. He did not suppose, however, that anybody but the noble Lord would say that, and no other Member, he imagined, thought so. The Government, no doubt, did hope last year that they would be able to do without not only the Bill which had just passed into law, but without the present Bill also. But, as he had said, they had been disappointed. Repeated advice had been given to the people of Ireland to arm themselves, and to anyone responsible for the good government of the country that advice did not seem to be calculated to lead to the preservation of order or obedience to the law. Besides, there was the additional fact that many of the Irish people had followed the advice thus given. Foolish young men and persons who were easily led away began to arm themselves all over the country. The Government could not be blind to the fact that quantities of arms were being brought into Ireland and were getting into the hands of those persons, and in some cases of persons whose intentions were bad, to an extent to endanger the peace of the respectable and law-abiding people around them. There was another consideration which, he might observe, hind exercised a more powerful effect on his own mind than almost any other, and that was that, in the state of excitement

    861
    which prevailed, the possession of arms might lead to disturbance, and, consequently, the police and the military, in making the law obeyed, might be driven to use the power placed in their hands to shoot the people down. That apprehension that there might be a great loss of life it was which, more than anything else, reluctantly brought conviction to his mind, and compelled him to advocate this year what he had refused last year to propose. Two or three alterations had, he might add, been madein the Bill which rendered it a measure of a less stringent character than when it was first introduced. Instead of its being at the option of the prosecutor to take the case before the Superior Courts, and have a possible punishment of a year inflicted, it must be taken before a magistrate, while the possible punishment would not be more than three months. Again, the power of searching the person was taken away, and replaced by the power to arrest. There was, he might add, one provision in the Bill against which much complaint had been made, and that was that the period of its duration was fixed for five years. He, however, hoped that it would not be found necessary to put it in force in the whole of Ireland at any time, and that long before the expiration of the five years the Government would be enabled to treat Ireland in a different manner. The experience of the present Session showed, at the same time, that such long debates on similar measures were as much as possible to be avoided. In 1875 the state of things was different. None would deny that as regarded agrarian disturbances the state of Ireland was a great deal worse now than it was in 1875. The House had then also to deal with an Irish Party which was differently conducted. He did not wish to say anything offensive to hon. Gentlemen opposite; but when the late Mr. Butt found that the House of Commons, having heard the arguments on a question, had made up its mind to take a certain course, he ceased to resist and to hinder the course of Public Business. Nor did he believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite would find that the course which they had adopted this Session was in the long run the best. No doubt, it was their right and duty to state the arguments against a measure to which they objected; but it was the very essence of a Representa-
    862
    tive Assembly that when the majority had clearly made up its mind on a question opposition to its will should speedily cease. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last had said that a Nemesis would visit the House because of the course which it had taken with regard to the Bill, and the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) contended that the Government were exercising over the House an absolute and despotic power. But what, he would ask, had the Government and the majority of the House by whom it had been supported done? They had merely endeavoured to free the House from the absolute and despotic power of a small minority. There was an end to representative government if, by making use of the Rules of Debate instituted for the purpose of enabling a question to be reasonably discussed, a minority could prevent a majority from doing what, after a full hearing, it thought ought to be done. It was, no doubt, much to be regretted that, for the first time in the history of the House, it had been found necessary to curtail freedom of discussion in order to give the House control over its own deliberations. But for that, he maintained, neither the Government, nor those who supported them, were to blame, and he was sure the country would be of that opinion. He was perfectly certain that on a question affecting the immediate government of the country, and the preservation of law and order, when a large majority in Parliament was convinced that a certain course ought to be taken, they could not allow—and they would have been the laughing-stock of the world if they had allowed—their object to be defeated, and the country to be misgoverned owing to the Rules of the House being made use of for a perfectly different purpose to that for which they were established. Now they had come to the end of that chapter of protective legislation, as he called it, but coercive legislation, as hon. Gentlemen opposite called it, and this Bill and the Bill that had boon passed had now to be carried out, and he did not expect hon. Members opposite to give him credit for any good intention in carrying them out. Sufficient proof had been given in the course of those debates that he had no right to form any such expectation. He should not, however, object—if that

    863
    was the time to do it—even in their present excitement, to appeal from hon. Gentlemen opposite to the people of Ireland. For he had watched that agitation with great care and attention, and he had observed one or two facts with regard to it. Different persons, some of them friends of his own, who had been at some of the largest of the public meetings held in Ireland, had all told him that there was an extraordinary absence of enthusiasm at those meetings; that, to judge by what was called enthusiasm at an English meeting, it did not exist; that there was, indeed, curiosity, interest, and a hope among some of the people present that some good might result from the agitation; but that there really was no strong enthusiasm. Then, again, the persons who went to those meetings never heard the other side of the question. Hon. Members were able to address them, they read the papers which took their own side; and his own belief was that if a real reform of the Land Laws was introduced, and if they found out that the Government, notwithstanding all the reproaches cast upon them by hon. Members opposite, were determined to remove their real grievances, the attacks which had been made upon the Government would very speedily be forgotten. He had noticed throughout all the opposition to that Bill, and to that desperate attack, as it was called, on the liberties of Ireland, that a small minority of the Irish Representatives had appeared in the House and continued their protest. Did anybody believe that, if there was an overpowering feeling in Ireland, if there was a real outburst of the public opinion such as they had in former days seen in England and also in Ireland, hon. Members from Ireland—he was not speaking of those who agreed with the Government, nor even of those who sat below the Gangway on the Ministerial side—would, so many of them, have been absent from the House? If, he said, there was an overpowering feeling among their constituents, why had those hon. Gentlemen not been in their places? He was sure that he could venture to appeal with confidence from hon. Members below the Gangway opposite to their constituents. [An hon. Member: Try!] He did not make any appeal to those hon. Gentlemen; but he did wish to make one to hon. Mem-
    864
    bers on the Ministerial side, and also, if he might be permitted to do so, to many Members of the Opposition. Much had been spoken in those debates, by hon. Members advocating, as they said, the interests of the people of Ireland, which must have been grating, unpleasant, and sometimes almost offensive to those who had thought it their duty to support the Government, and especially to Liberal Members. He hoped that they would, every one of them, forget it; he hoped that they would regard those remarks as though they had never been made. Above all, he trusted that they would not let their determination to do justice to the people of Ireland to be in the slightest degree influenced by any recollection of any words they had heard. After all, they must remember the past history of the Irish people; they must remember what even now was the suffering of many among them; they must remember, also, their great virtues. His experience of the last few months had not been an altogether pleasant experience of the Irish character. But in one or two matters he had even a higher opinion of the people than he had before. Their strong domestic affection, their love of their homes, the willingness of the poor to help the poor, the remembrance on the part of the men who had gone to a far distant country to earn their living, of those whom they had left behind—all that had been more brought home to him than it was ever before. And there was one part of their character which, although it made the hard task of any man who had to do with their government more difficult, yet also gave cause for hope if they could but reach their hearts, and that was their loyalty to one another—oven when wrong, even when engaged in a crusade against the Government, and in what must be considered atrocious attempts against law and order. Above all, it must be borne in mind that the English and the Irish people were united together, and must live together, and must, therefore, do justice to one another. He was perfectly sure that what had happened in that House would have no effect; but that the Liberal Party—aye, and the Conservative Party—would be determined to do their duty to Ireland.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, that as he had not taken any part in these debates, he asked for the kind indulgence of the

    865
    House. He had heard his noble Friend near him (Lord Randolph Churchill) and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in their brilliant duel. His noble Friend, who had throughout supported the Bill, said that he wished, before it left the House, to give it a parting kick. He had no wish to give the Bill such a kick. But the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had told them that these measures were only introductory to a real reform in the Land Laws; that Irish grievances were to be removed—that this country had determined to be just to Ireland. He thought, therefore, that the time was opportune for asking the House whether that perpetual alternation of coercive or, as it was sometimes called, protective legislation and of remedial measures, so called, had been successful. That course had not proved successful in the past, and would not be so in the future. He would ask whether any country or people could be governed on principles of that kind? They had had coercion followed by concession, and concession exacted by lawlessness. No country, no nursery, could be governed on such principles. He had with great reluctance supported the coercive measures of the Government. Every Member of that House must feel a like reluctance, as they must all desire to see Ireland free, prosperous, and contented. But there was no doubt of the absolute necessity for such measures. The only question had been raised whether they ought not to have been brought in earlier. He was bound to say that it was very questionable if the Government would have been as successful in carrying such measures at an earlier period. There would have been a large number of their supporters who would have sharply criticized them. [Cries of "Divide!"] He had not spoken on that subject before, and he would appeal to the tolerance of Liberal Members—of which they had not seen much—to allow a person who had not before spoken to say a few words. How had the Government been met? They had been met in such a way that the House was compelled to surrender many of its liberties to the Speaker and to the Government. He hoped that the powers so given would be wisely used. But they had been told that remedial should have preceded coercive legislation. By that argument
    866
    the Home Rule Members had shown a strange illogical inconsistency. They had endeavoured to refute the figures of the Government, and to prove that there was no lawlessness in Ireland, and in the same breath boasted that the law of the Land League had superseded the law of the land. It was absurd to deny that the Queen was not in Ireland in all causes and over all persons supreme. He gave his support to the Bill undeterred by all the warnings of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, undeterred by any fallacious appeals to liberty, or by the parrot cry that "force was no remedy." There were times in the history of nations when force was a remedy, and the only remedy. It had been stated that there had been 48 Coercive Acts applied to Ireland, of which he believed 33 came from Liberal Governments. And, on the whole, they had been effective. He believed it would be much more true to say that concession was not conciliation, than to say force was no remedy. As he had pointed out, coercion had as naturally followed concession as the fruit followed the seed. He believed the root of the evil lay in the Land Act of 1870, which laid down the false principle that the tenant had a possessory right in the soil; and when that right was once given by legislation, what was more natural than that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the Land League should ask them to proceed further in the same direction? He repeated that this coercive legislation proceeded necessarily from measures of remedial legislation founded on false principles. He trusted that any legislation which might be attempted in regard to the Land Question would be founded on sound principles, and principles of justice; but if not, they might rest assured that it would in its turn, having laid ground for a new agitation, again lead to coercive measures. The only way to benefit the Irish people was to tell them the truth, that so far from having been oppressed in the matter of land legislation by the Parliament of this country, they were, at the present moment, the most favoured tenantry in any part of the civilized world. [Ironical cheers.] He asked those who gave ironical cheers to disprove his statement if they could. If, instead of telling the Irish that they had grievances, they were told that laws had been passed more

    867
    favourable to them than to any tenantry in Europe and America, and that those laws must be obeyed, they would become again a peaceful people, capital would again flow into Ireland, and it would become prosperous and contented. But to bring that about the two Front Benches should agree to take the same course; they should cease to make Ireland, as it had hitherto been, the battlefield of Party, and should not, by remedial measures or otherwise, scramble for the Irish vote. If they pursued the course which had hitherto been adopted—first concession and then coercion—to be followed again by concession leading to fresh coercion, the end would be certain—that end which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for the City of Cork—namely, separation and the disruption of the Empire.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 255; Noes 36: Majority 219.—(Div. List, No. 152.)
    Main Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 250; Noes 28: Majority 222.—(Div. List, No. 153.)
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill do pass."
    The House divided:—Ayes 236; Noes 26: Majority 210.—(Div. List, No. 154.)

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

ANCIENT MONUMENTS.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, on rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should take steps to provide for the protection of Ancient Monuments,"
  said, that the House, having in previous Sessions devoted so much time to a Bill providing for the preservation of ancient monuments, and having often assented to the principle, and more than once to the details, of the Bill, it might be natural to suppose that those interested in the subject would re-introduce the measure which the House had so often sanctioned. He would not, how-
  868
  never, occupy many minutes in explaining why it was inadvisable to do so. It was true that the House, by increasing majorities, had passed the second reading, and that though, no doubt, there were differences of opinion on details, so far, at least, as the last House of Commons were concerned, there were few Members who did not approve the general principles of the Bill; still, there remained a few, though but a very few, staunch' opponents; and he need not remind the House that Mondays and Thursdays were Government days, and on Tuesdays and Fridays Notices of Motion came before Bills, so that practically, under the half-past 12 Rule, Wednesday was the only day on which a private Member could bring a Bill before the House. Wednesdays were balloted for at the commencement of the Session, and at once occupied—every one, for instance, being now bespoken up to the middle of July; so that, even if lie had been lucky enough to secure a Wednesday for the second reading, he would have had scarcely any chance of obtaining an opportunity of bringing it up for Committee, Report, and third reading. The fact was that, under the present system, private Members had hardly a chance of carrying a Bill to which there was any opposition, even of a single Member. Under these circumstances, he felt that, as the opinion of the House had been so often expressed, he might fairly call upon Her Majesty's Government to take up the question; and he ventured to ask the House to assent to the present Motion, not in any spirit of criticism on the Government, but to strengthen their hands. On previous occasions he had given numerous instances of cases in which ancient monuments had been destroyed. Many of our most interesting monuments had been altogether destroyed; and there was hardly one which was not more or less mutilated. It was said that they should stand by and leave them to the protection of public opinion. But that had been tried; and it must be remembered that if the growing education of the country tended to enlarge the number of those who took an interest in these monuments, on the other hand, it also weakened the superstitious feelings—though, indeed, he hardly liked to call them superstitious in the ordinary sense—to which many of them were mainly

  869
  indebted for their preservation. These feelings had been so strong that even as lately as the year 1859 a farmer in the Island of Anglesey, near the Tynwald, was said to have offered up a heifer as a burnt sacrifice to appease the spirit of the deceased for having allowed a chambered tumulus to be opened—probably the last example of a burnt sacrifice in civilized Europe. At a recent meeting the Council of the Society of Antiquaries passed a resolution with reference to this point that—
  "Again and again have the anniversary addresses from the Presidential Chair given utterance to the hope that these precious remains of antiquity might be rescued from the injury and destruction by which their value is constantly being impaired and their number irretrievably diminished."
  Without troubling the House by reading a complete list, he would mention the following among the more important monuments which had recently been greatly mutilated or wholly destroyed:—The earthworks at Dorchester, the Roman Camp on Hod Hill, Banbury Camp, a stone circle near Lulworth, a dolmen near Portesham, a dolmen on Lytton Down, a dolmen on West Compton Down; Cæsar's Camp at Wimbledon, a dolmen near Maiden Newton, a Camp on Shenborough Hill, comb Camp, Charlton Abbots Camp, Bagendon Camp, Rod-borough Hill Camp, Bourton-on-the-Water, the Green Ditches, Hibdown Camp, the Toots near Oldbury, Blaize Castle, Beachley Green earthworks, the Ogham Stone at Clonmacnoise, one of, he believed, only three cases in which Ogham characters were accompanied by a corresponding inscription in Roman letters; the Rath of Kilbannon, the ruins on Holy Island, in Loch Derg; the fine Menhir, known as Le Quesnel, in Jersey; a portion, he believed the last visible piece, of Roman wall at Cirencester, had recently been destroyed in order that the materials might be used to inclose a field. Mr. Clark, than whom there was no higher authority on such a subject, assured us that though—
  "The traces of a camp are not so easily swept away as those of a barrow, nevertheless most of those known to have existed in the lower and more highly cultivated lands are gone, or remain in their names only."
  He was continually receiving pathetic or indignant letters from persons lamenting the destruction of some vener-
  870
  able monument in their own locality. Only a few days ago a cutting was sent him from a local newspaper, regretting the removal of the last remains of Sandwich Castle, associated with Shakespeare's King John, which was being removed for agricultural purposes. England was, he believed, almost if not quite the only civilized nation in Europe which entirely neglected its national antiquities. Denmark, long ago, purchased a considerable number of the more remarkable examples; Holland had done the same. In Italy, any monument that was in danger could be taken by the State. France had a National Monuments Commission. His suggestion was that a Commission should be appointed, and that if the owner of any important ancient monument wished to destroy it, he should be required, before doing so, to offer it to the nation at a fair price. As long as the owner left the monument intact it would remain in his charge and custody—the Commissioner would have no right of interference. Now, as these monuments wanted no repairs, but only required to be left alone, it seemed to him that the Commission would not be expensive or laborious, and that one Commission, on which Scotland and Ireland would be well represented, would be sufficient. Even if they purchased a good many monuments the expense would still be trifling and the labour small. In some cases it might, perhaps, be desirable to place a fence round the monument; in a few cases, such as some of the sculptured stones, it might be well to put up a simple shelter, as, for instance, at Sueno's Stone, near Forres. In all this, however, there would be no difficulty; no interference whatever with property. The Bill contained no new principle. If land was required for a railroad, for waterworks, for other public purposes, we never hesitated to take it, of course at a fair valuation. But it was not proposed to go so far even as this. Owners were not compelled or asked to sell, unless they wished to destroy. If they valued a monument the case could not arise. So far from interfering with the rights of property, it was actually sought to protect them. There was a case on record in which the occupier of a farm wished to destroy a very interesting monument in order to build a barn with the stones. The landlord objected to this; but if it had not

  871
  happened that the tenant had omitted to pay his rent he could not have interfered, and the monument would have been destroyed under the very eyes of its owner. Indeed, the tendencies of such a measure were wholly conservative. A Bill which rested on a feeling of respect and reverence for the past and for the memorials of the dead must surely commend itself to the instincts as well as to the heart of the hon. Members opposite, and had, indeed, always received from them a warm and cordial support. We took an enlightened interest in the monuments of other countries. When it was supposed that some danger threatened St. Mark's, in Venice, we were up in arms; when the Turkish Government proposed to demolish the walls of Constantinople, the English Ambassador interfered to protect them. Hundreds, nay, thousands, of pounds had been spent on the monuments of Egypt and Assyria, and yet we neglected our own. In one of the recent Reports on Cyprus it was mentioned as a striking instance of maladministration that when any stones were required for building they were taken from the roads. Surely, if we did not do it at home, we should regard it as even a more conclusive proof of barbarism that we should suffer most ancient and interesting monuments to be broken up for such purposes. For why had our monuments been sacrificed? It had not been for any national benefit; they had not been required in any important emergency; they had interfered with no great engineering works; the land they occupied was seldom of much value. It was not necessary to deny that there were cases in which the claims of science, of sentiment, must give way to exigencies of modern life: in which the welfare of the living must override the claims of the dead. But such cases were very rare. Numbers of these monuments had been destroyed for the most paltry and trivial reasons. The earthworks had been carted away to servo as manure; the stones had been broken up to mend roads: some had been destroyed out of sheer ignorance or the mere spirit of mischief. In the striking words of Mr. Myers, even in some cases it had happenned that our "Occupation roads are mended with the immemorial altars of an unknown God." In conclusion, he hoped he would be allowed to say a
  872
  word in regard to the Amendment which his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had placed upon the Paper. That Amendment proposed that Her Majesty's Government should confer upon the local authorities the necessary powers to provide for the protection of ancient monuments; but he hoped that his hon. Friend would not press it, as it was desirable that the hands of the Government should be left perfectly free to deal with the matter as they thought best. He would not trespass further upon the time of the House. He was grateful to the House for having allowed him the opportunity, at that late hour, of bringing the subject forward. The present state of things was unworthy of a great Empire, and had, over and over again, been condemned by the House. He begged to move the Resolution, and he hoped that it would be accepted by Her Majesty's Government and by the House.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should take steps to provide for the protection of Ancient Monuments,"—(Sir John Lubbock,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London contained two points which I am entirely unable to reconcile one with the other. The first was that he desired to leave the hands of Her Majesty's Government perfectly free, and the second was that he begged another hon. Member not to move an Amendment, because it would interfere with the passing of this Resolution. But my hon. Friend cannot suppose for a moment that if he passed his Resolution he would leave the hands of Her Majesty's Government perfectly free. On the contrary, he would bind them to propose a plan on a subject with respect to which they feel great interest, but with respect to which it is impossible for them to propose a scheme that would meet with the acceptance of the House. We have most of us viewed with great interest and sympathy the efforts made by the hon. Member to dispose of this subject

  873
  by way of legislation; but my hon. Friend, it appears, is beginning to despair of success in these efforts, that is, to frame a plan to which he could obtain the acceptance of the House. If he thinks he can frame such a plan we shall be most happy to see him go forward with his labours, and, if circumstances permit, assist him in their prosecution. But if he abandons his labours, the reason of that must be that he finds it impossible to obtain the consent of Parliament, notwithstanding it has shown an interest in the subject, to any scheme he has devised. The declaration of my hon. Friend is that when he finds himself unable to obtain the consent of Parliament to his plans, he will throw himself into the hands of the Government, who have no plan which they are in a position to recommend to the House. That cannot be supposed to be making real progress with the subject. To make no progress when it is desirable that progress should be made is truly a bad thing; but there is another thing worse, and that is to seem to make progress when, in reality, you are making no progress. Perhaps my hon. Friend will say to the Government—"Do you mean to say you can do nothing?" I do not mean to say that, because it would be adopting an extreme proposition on the other side. If any plan can be submitted to us by my hon. Friend, or by others who have given the subject adequate consideration, we shall receive it with respect and examine it with interest, and we shall be very glad indeed if we can found a proposition upon it. But my hon. Friend will see that it would be an absolute breach of duty on our part to go beyond an engagement of that kind, when we are totally unable to see whether it would be in our power to frame a project or not. My hon. Friend, I am sure, does not want us to take a leap in the dark. He can see his way in the matter, and if he can give the Government such information as will enable them to see their way also, they will be very glad to follow him. But, situated as we are, overcharged many times with duties and engagements of which we are only able to discharge a small portion satisfactorily, it would be a very unworthy part for us to take with. respect to the question, to deal in promises when we have no opportunity of giving attention to the subject. I should like to
  874
  have the opportunity of considering very fully the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley. It appears to me there is undoubtedly much to say in its favour, while there may be much to be said against it; but the proposal is one on which I am not prepared to pledge myself. I tender the assurance I have given to the hon. Baronet frankly; and I trust, under the circumstances of the case, he will not expect us to assent to this Motion.
  MR. E. STANHOPEcould not understand to what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister objected in the proposal of the hon. Baronet. The Motion had been brought forward, and embodied in a Bill, year after year. The Bill had been year after year amended, and at last a conclusion had been arrived at which had been accepted as reasonable, and which ought not to be dismissed in a cursory manner. He could only say, if five or six years was not sufficient time for consideration, it was difficult to know how much time the Government wanted. He did not, in the least, wish to misinterpret the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but he understood him to say that the Government were not in a position to make up their mind upon this important question. At any rate, it appeared to him that the subject was not so difficult that if the Government tried they could make up their mind upon it. It was a question to which many of them attached great importance, and he certainly thought that in one way or another the ancient monuments of the country ought to be preserved. He did not think this should be done by interfering with the rights of landowners; on the contrary, he thought they ought most jealously to preserve the rights of every landowner with respect to his property. But he certainly protested against the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, that the House was not in a position, after so many years, to deal with the subject. His hon. Friend was quite right in pressing the present, or any other Government, to endeavour to arrive at some conclusion as to the manner in which our ancient monuments should be preserved, and if he went to a division he should certainly vote with him.
  MR. RYLANDSdoubted whether there was a general consensus of opinion as to the best means of preserving

  875
  ancient monuments. He had ventured to put upon the Paper an Amendment which, if the Government had been disposed to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for the University of London, he should have pressed on the attention of the House. If they were to preserve ancient monuments at all he thought the House must be careful not to throw upon the over-burdened central authority the duty of attending to this matter in all parts of the Kingdom; and when the hon. Baronet said there should be a National Commission to purchase ancient monuments and throw the cost upon the National Exchequer, he (Mr. Rylands) replied that the proposed system was most objectionable, and one which would certainly lead to considerable expenditure. He contended that the local authorities, who would know the value of the ancient monuments in their district, and who had power to raise rates for local purposes, should have the necessary powers given to them. His hon. Friend thought that public opinion had deteriorated with regard to the preservation of ancient monuments; but this he utterly denied, so far as monuments were concerned which it was desirable to preserve. After the statement of the Prime Minister he did not think it necessary to move his Amendment; but he trusted, if the Government did take this matter into their consideration they would consider how far any steps to be taken with regard to the preservation of ancient monuments should be left to the local authorities. If his hon. Friend thought fit to introduce a Bill, the House would have, at any rate, an opportunity of discussing his plan, and no doubt in Committee a satisfactory conclusion of the matter would be arrived at. But having been in the House on former occasions when the hon. Member brought forward this subject, he ventured to say that there was a great difference of opinion with regard to it amongst hon. Members; certainly there was not an unanimous feeling in favour of the plan proposed by him. It was, therefore, hardly fair to say that the House had expressed itself in such a manner as to justify the hon. Member in calling upon Her Majesty's Government to proceed with it.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDtrusted the House would support the Resolution of his hon. Friend opposite. A Bill on this
  876
  subject had already passed the House, and would have gone up to the other House had it not been too late in the Session. The Government had therefore full information upon the question, which was by no means a new one. It had been discussed over and over again; but a private Member had no chance of passing a Bill, certainly not in the evil days upon which the House had fallen; his only chance was to look to the Government to accept the principle of his Bill and work out its details. The hon. Baronet had accepted in the most friendly way the Amendments that had been put forward from all quarters; and therefore those whose Amendments had been accepted felt bound to support him. He could not understand why the Government should not accept the responsibility of working out the principle which had been sanctioned by the House.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSthought the hon. Baronet had, by anticipation, disposed of the arguments of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in favour of local authorities dealing with the preservation of ancient monuments. The fact was, their preservation had never been, and never would, be matter of care to Beards of Guardians. It was only those who knew how important it was to retain the continuity of a country's history, who would take the best means to that end by preserving its ancient monuments. There were many places in the country in which that House would do well to preserve existing monuments. He remembered that in his own county a man destroyed a Roman Camp for the purpose of growing potatoes on the land. Although, however, the camp was destroyed, he was glad to say the man did not get the potatoes. Again, in the case of one of the most perfect ancient villas in the country which contained a Roman pavement, the roof placed over it by the owner had fallen into disrepair, and the pavement had been destroyed. There were also many monuments in Wales and Ireland which threw great light upon the historical condition of those countries, and those in Ireland were of much philological interest in connection with the most instructive and important language to be found amongst ancient dialects. There was in the neighbourhood of St. Albans a monument which had been described with extreme accuracy by a chronicle of the time, and

  877
  from which it was supposed that the body of a saint had been disinterred. A local antiquary, however, who had been able to identify the tumulus as part of a British burying ground, found that it contained the body of an unclothed savage. He hoped the Government would consider the very important facts which had been brought forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London. He believed there was nothing of more practical value to those who interested themselves in the history of the country than the preservation of its ancient monuments. Those which existed in the different parts of the United Kingdom had only been imperfectly studied; and our knowledge of most important periods in our history would be lost, unless some precautions were taken for their preservation. If Stonehenge had been in the neighbourhood of a road, it would have been absorbed by the road long ago. Many monuments in Oxford had been destroyed in that way. He did not pretend to say that the Government was not very fully absorbed in Business which had been regrettably postponed, and he did not think that they would be unwilling to consider the question of these important monuments, which were a great portion of our national history; but there wore very many of those relics—especially in those parts of England inhabited by descendants of ancient races—which required constant care and were of great value.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, the Irish people had often been accused of lacking the refinement which other nations enjoyed; but the ancient monuments were evidences of their taste and culture in the past. Was it possible that the Government would say that it should be in the power of any person, unappreciative of those monuments, to destroy them; and that they would not make penal the destruction of those monuments, which illustrated the history of the country? They had been told a good deal about the rights of property; but these monuments were not the property of any particular individual; and he thought that if the Government could not maintain and restore them, at least they could prevent the demolition of those monuments which was daily taking place.
  MR. COCHRAN-PATRICKwished to direct the attention of the House
  878
  to a remarkable contrast which existed between the way in which we in this country treated our recorded history and our unrecorded history. He believed no country in the world had taken greater care of its written records, or done more to place them within the reach of every historical student; but while that was so, he believed that no country in Europe, except, perhaps, Spain, had done less to preserve the remains and relics of pre-historic ages, which were all the records we could have of a very considerable portion of the history of these Islands. There were two reasons for adopting the mode of treatment with regard to historical monuments which prevailed in some other countries. The first argument was in favour of the course he wished to suggest, which was the appointment of a Royal Commission to put on permanent record all the historical monuments of this country, as had been done by Denmark. Somewhere about 1807 the Government of Denmark did what the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) proposed last year. They placed under the protection of the law certain historical monuments in that country. The practical result was that after the lapse of about 40 years that plan was found to be a failure; the monuments which were placed under the protection of the law were not so well taken care of as those not under that protection. In 1849 the Government of Denmark placed the whole management of their historical monuments under the care of a Director and Inspectors. That plan was tried for some years, and was also found unsatisfactory; and in 1873 the Government of Denmark adopted the method which he now wished to suggest. They appointed a small Commission to divide the country into districts, and to preserve on paper the record of all that remained of the monuments of prehistoric ages. The Historical Manuscripts Commission in this country was an analogous case. He was sure that of all the Commissions which had done good service to this country, there was none to which historical students owed more than they did to that. But it would be within the recollection of the House that when the Commission was first appointed very considerable, and not unnatural, jealousy

  879
  was felt as to what might be supposed to be an interference with the rights of private property, in searching records, and in making the necessary investigations. What had been the practical result? Instead of that feeling existing, he believed that the Royal Commissioners had now more applications from private individuals to examine their charters than they could deal with; and he believed that the result which the hon. Baronet and other hon. Members wished to see, by the bringing forward of this Motion for the preservation of historical monuments, would be, to a great extent, indirectly achieved by the appointment of some such Commission as the one which had already dealt so well with historical manuscripts. He hoped the Government would reconsider the position they had taken up, and would not oppose the most reasonable and proper Motion of the hon. Baronet.
  MR. J. W. PEASErose to recall the House to the actual question before it. The hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Cochran-Patrick), and the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers), had discussed the question rather of the value of the ancient monuments, and the need of taking care of them, than the actual position of the question before the House. There seemed to be but one sentiment in the House as to the value of these monuments, which were daily increasing in value as records of the past and objects of historical interest; but the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) having got his Bill so far as the second reading in "another place," now seemed to be utterly discouraged, and to wish to have the responsibility he had so well borne taken off his own shoulders and thrown on the shoulders of the Government, as the Prime Minister put it. And then came the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), who asked why the Government would not take the responsibility. The hon. Member was a Member of the Government which gave very little assistance to the hon. Baronet. There were many important national questions before the House, without the Government taking up this matter, which came before the House in an awkward manner, on the Motion to leave the Chair. Was the House, in the midst of all the Business that the Government had
  880
  brought before it—and especially that important measure with regard to Ireland, for which many hon. Members had been waiting for two months—to say that whatever turned up, or whatever it had in hand, and however important the exigencies of the State, the Government must take up this question and bring in a Bill; and also, besides bringing in a Bill, provide the money for taking care of these monuments? He deprecated the idea that the Government must pledge themselves to bring in a Bill now for the protection of these monuments. The Prime Minister had certainly gone as far as any Minister could go when he expressed his sympathy with the hon. Baronet and his interest in the monuments; and he thought his hon. Friend might be quite sure that that sympathy would be made practical on the first opportunity. He therefore would suggest that his hon. Friend should proceed in his old way of bringing in his own Bill, relying on the support of the Government; and he trusted the Bill would receive a third reading in "another place" instead of only a second reading.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONthought the hon. Member who had just spoken had been answered by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. All that the hon. Baronet asked the Government to do was to take cognizance of the matter, and to deal with it, not now, but at some convenient time. This was not a new question; it had been before the House for many years, and, he believed, it had had the sympathy of both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) said be objected to the Motion, because its purpose was centralization, and that it was a matter which ought to be dealt with by local authorities. He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had great confidence in local authorities in all matters relating to paving and lighting, but not in regard to matters of history or taste. Let them consider these monuments for a moment; let them take, for instance, Stonehenge, or Adrian's Wall. Who would wish to see any of those disturbed? Who would wish to see Stonehenge removed, in order to allow a railway through that part of the country, or the stones of Adrian's Wall removed by some enterprizing speculator for building purposes? Who would not demur to such destruction of an ancient

  881
  relic? These monuments were the landmarks of history; they illustrated past ages, they showed the state and progress of civilization, and were the links between ancient and modern times. It should be the pride of every Englishman and every Irishman and every Scotchman to preserve the monuments of his country. They were national monuments, and were among the glories of the nation; and he thought that the Government should take charge of them, and not allow them to be demolished.
  EARL PERCYpointed out that the resistance which he and some who acted with him in this matter in the last Parliament offered against the measure of the hon. Baronet was justified, in spite of the large majority they always found against them. On the present occasion those who previously opposed the measure of the hon. Baronet had not said one word; and when he had had a fair field for his own Resolution, it turned out that his own Government was unwilling to support him, and that the hon. Member for Burnley, who for many years had supported the hon. Baronet's Bill for throwing upon Imperial rates the maintenance of ancient monuments, now found himself entirely wrong. There was so much diversity of opinion as to what should be done, and as to the objects which ought to be embraced in an effort of this kind, that the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) thought that it ought to be extended even to the works of Nature. He could only say that he was as anxious to see the ancient monuments of the country saved from destruction as anyone in the House. The subject on which he differed with some was as to the means which should be employed to preserve them.
  MR. WARTONhoped the hon. Baronet would allow him to express the sympathy he felt for him—the sympathy he felt for one who had so persistently and so good-naturedly brought forward this subject year after year. At last the hon. Baronet sat "like Patience on a monument, smiling at Grief"—the grief to which his Motion always, inevitably, came. He must, again, express his sympathy with the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, inasmuch as he could not understand the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. He (Mr. Warton) had been unable him-
  882
  self to understand that language; he had been unable to understand the real motive which animated the Prime Minister—it was obscure as that of the ancient monuments themselves. He would only say that, sympathizing as he did with the hon. Baronet's perseverance, he could not agree with his Motion. He had seen the cloven hoof peeping out in the speech of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson). He was a sentimentalist, and would preserve ancient monuments, if they could do it consistently with the preservation of the rights of property. The hon. Member for Carlow announced the doctrine that all property belonged to the State; and it was because of that principle, now timidly put forward, but soon to be boldly advanced, that he objected to the Motion.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, that unless the Government could give them some more definite promise to deal with this question he should certainly support the hon. Baronet. The subject, to his mind, was one of the greatest possible interest to all classes of the country; and he was sure that all must agree in the necessity for the preservation of these ancient monuments that still remained to us. He understood that the Prime Minister's argument was not so much against the application of Government powers to protect the monuments, as showing the inconvenience of being called upon to exercise their powers at the present moment. But the Government would not be obliged to bring in a Bill immediately to carry out the object of the hon. Baronet if the Resolution were agreed to. If they would give a promise that they would, on as early a day as possible, take steps to prevent any further destruction of these monuments, it would meet with hon. Members' views and give general satisfaction. As for the argument of the hon. Member for Burnley, to his (Mr. Broadhurst's) mind, it was a good joke. Surely the hon. Member did not seriously ask the House to relegate to local vestries the protection of the ancient monuments of the country. The hon. Member apparently objected to this statement of the case; but what did his speech mean if not that? The hon. Member had asked them to make local bodies responsible for the preservation of these monuments. Would the hon.

  883
  Member leave the protection of Westminster Abbey in the hands of the Westminster Vestry? What would become of the building if left in such hands? Why, it would probably, ere long, be turned into a butcher's shop. He trusted the hon. Member would assure them he was only joking when he asked the House to commit these great interests into the hands of local bodies. On the other hand, he hoped they would receive an assurance from the Government that they would do something in this matter.
  MR. HERBERTsaid, that at that late hour of the night it was not his intention to detain the House more than a moment; but being, like the noble Lord (Earl Percy) one who had opposed the hon. Baronet's Bill, he should like to say a few words. The noble Lord had tendered his forgiveness to the hon. Baronet for several remarks he had made in a little volume he published not long ago, and he (Mr. Herbert) was ready to tender his; but, at the same time, he could go farther than the noble Lord, for he was prepared to support the Resolution. He had always opposed the Bill; but this Resolution was a very different thing. It did not pledge anybody to do anything; it was a mere abstract sentiment that ancient monuments should be preserved. No member of the present or late Government could disagree with it, for they all agreed that ancient monuments should be preserved, the only question they fought about being the method of preserving them. He could not help thinking that the hon. Baronet had been hardly treated, and had a right to feel disappointed at the manner in which the Prime Minister had acted towards him. Year after year he had brought forward the subject; and all he now got in return from the right hon. Gentleman was a few words to say that the Resolution was only brought forward now to make a show of making progress with the subject. The hon. Baronet had been making a "show"—a promise, an appearance—of progress for five or six years; and it was hard on him, after the indomitable energy and pluck he had shown, that he should be thrown on one side the moment he found his own Party in power.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKwished to say a word in explanation, because the
  884
  general impression seemed to be that it would be necessary for the Government to bring in a Bill if the Motion were passed. He would point out that a great deal could be done in the way of preserving ancient monuments without bringing in a Bill at all.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes; Noes 79: Majority 23.—(Div. List, No. 155.)
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should take steps to provide for the protection of Ancient Monuments.
  Supply Committee upon Monday next.

MOTIONS.
  HERRING BRAND (SCOTLAND).

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and. Question proposed,
    "That Mr. BAXTER, Mr. BIRKBECK, Mr. BLAKE, Mr. DONALD CAMERON be nominated Members of the said Committee."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Robert Duff be one other Member of the said Committee."
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he wished to object to the name of Mr. Baxter.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is too late. All the names have been agreed to down to that of Mr. Robert Duff.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURwould object, then, to the name of Mr. Duff. His reason for taking this course was not that he was in any way prepared to maintain that the Gentlemen nominated were not perfectly competent to fulfil the duties it was proposed to confer upon them. His objection was of a more general character. He found that it was proposed to nominate upon this Committee nine Gentlemen from the other side of the House who were Liberals, while the remaining six were drawn from that (the Opposition) side of the House, and were Conservatives. It would be perceived, therefore, that there was a large preponderance of Liberal names over those of Conservatives. It would be recollected by hon.

    885
    Members that last Session an attempt was made to alter the traditional constitution of Committees by giving an undue preponderance to one political Party in the House. The attempt was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and it was resisted by the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition. Finally, it was agreed that no steps of that kind should be taken until full opportunity had been given to the House to discuss the question. That being so, he observed with some surprise that the traditional distribution of Members, as between the two Parties, had been departed from in the case of the present Committee. Since he gave Notice of opposition to the nomination of this particular Committee, it had been pointed out that there would be considerable difficulty, in the case of a small and non-political Committee, in invariably adhering to the old arrangement. That difficulty arose, principally, from the fact that in addition to the two Parties—Liberal and Conservative—there now existed a third Party, which did not in any way obey the traditional organization of the other two. He might say at once that he had no objection, in the case of small and non-political Committees, to a distribution such as that which was contained in the proposal now before the House. All he required was, that instead of the arrangement being made upon some tacit agreement between the Whips outside the knowledge of the House, there should be some formal and explicit statement made by the Government, to the effect that there should be a preponderance of Members from the Government side of the House only in those Committees which dealt with comparatively insignificant subjects, and subjects respecting which there was no Party controversy. The appointment of such a Committee should be no precedent, in any way, in the formation of a larger Committee which might have to deal with important public questions. If he could obtain any assurance of that kind from any Member of Her Majesty's Government, he would withdraw his objection; but, in order to afford an opportunity for such an assurance to be given, he begged now to object to the name of Mr. Robert Duff.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONPerhaps the House will allow me to say a word or two upon the objection which
    886
    has been raised by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour). It is quite true, as stated by the hon. Member, that my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government did last year suggest that there should be a certain amount of change in the mode in which Committees have hitherto been constituted; but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has stated the nature of the change quite accurately. I do not think the change which my right hon. Friend suggested was that Committees should be appointed in any way in accordance with the proportions of the supporters and opponents of the Government; but what took place was this:—My right hon. Friend stated, on behalf of the Government, that, in their opinion, the change which has taken place in the constitution of Parties in this House required some change in the mode of nominating Committees, in order to secure the continuance of that which has always hitherto been the practice—namely, that the Government of the day, possessing the confidence of the majority of Members of the House, should have, on all important Committees, a majority of the Party supporting themselves. In the present state of the House, when the House is not divided, as in former times, into two Parties, but into three or four Parties, that can only be accomplished by some change in the old arrangement; and all my right hon. Friend said last year was that it would be necessary to consider the subject, and to secure that while the different political Parties of which the House was constituted were recognized, the majority of the Members appointed upon all important Committees should be selected from among the usual supporters of Her Majesty's Government. For instance, it is proposed, as in this instance, that a Committee should consist of 15 Members, that eight of them should be supporters of the Government—I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in suggesting that nine of the Members proposed on the present Committee are supporters of the Government. The proportion is, I think, eight Members from among the supporters of the Government; six selected from among the regular Opposition, and one hon. Member chosen from below the Gangway on the other side of the House. It does not appear to me that the claim made by

    887
    the Government is an unreasonable one, and really the question is not raised on the composition or appointment of this Committee, which has no political character at all. My noble Friend (Lord Richard Grosvenor) and hon. Gentlemen opposite, in order to prevent any unnecessary inconvenience or any obstruction to Public Business, have arrived at an understanding that in regard to the nomination of Committees of this description, which do not concern any political questions at all, the observance of the ordinary Rule should not be insisted upon. Of course, the case would be different when we come to appoint an important Committee. I can quite understand the view of the hon. Member that any understanding made privately, without the knowledge of the House, should be recognized inside the House. But in regard to the appointment of the present Committee I believe there is no particular principle at stake, and that the question which the hon. Member desires to raise is not in any degree involved.
    MR. E. STANHOPEwas not disposed to quarrel with the proposition laid down by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India. But the noble Lord talked of the fact that there were now three political Parties in the House instead of two as formerly, and said that it made a change in the mode of nominating Committees necessary. But he wished to ask the noble Lord if there were not also three Parties in the House during the existence of the late Government? Nevertheless, the late Government invariably observed the Rule of only nominating an exact majority of the Members of a Committee from among their own supporters. What he now understood the noble Lord to suggest was that upon every important Committee there should be a majority of Liberals over Conservatives and Home Rulers combined. It was not worth while to argue the matter in reference to the appointment of the present Committee, in which there was no political principle involved; but on that side of the House they would content themselves for the present with protesting against the adoption of any Rule upon the subject without regular Notice, so that the question might undergo full discussion. Therefore, the nomination of the Committee as now proposed would not be
    888
    objected to, on the understanding that the Government were not seeking to lay down any precedent, and that they would agree not to raise the question of principle without affording an opportunity for a full and thorough discussion of any novel feature they desired to introduce. The noble Lord intimated that in regard to this Committee an understanding had already been come to between the Whips on the two sides of the House. If that were so he hind nothing to say on the subject. All he desired was that the Government should adhere to the suggestion made last Session, that no fundamental change should be proposed in the constitution or mode of appointing Committees without affording full opportunity for discussing the novel proposition. Upon that understanding, he had no doubt that his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would withdraw the objection he had made.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHhad no wish to continue the discussion. He only wished to say that it was the desire of the Government to keep up the old proportions in regard to the composition of Committees—namely, that a majority—and a majority only of each Committee—should be selected from among the usual supporters of the Government.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Remaining names agreed to.
    Lord ELCHO, Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Mr. ANDREW GRANT, Admiral Sir JOHN HAY, Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Mr. HERMON, Mr. MARJORIBANKS, Sir HERBERT MAXWELL, Mr. PENDER, and. Mr. WILLIAMSON nominated other Members of the said Committee:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records:—Five to be the quorum.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS (URGENCY).
  MR. SPEAKERaddressed the House as follows:—I desire to lay upon the Table certain Additional Rules, framed by me, in pursuance of the Resolution of the House of the 3rd February, for the regulation of the Business of the House, while the state of Public Business is urgent. They are designed to facilitate the consideration of the Supplies required for the public service, and I trust that they may be found effectual for that purpose.

  ADDITIONAL RULES FRAMED BY MR. SPEAKER, FOR THE REGULATION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE, WHILE THE STATE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS IS URGENT.
  11th March, 1881.
  Committees of Supply and Ways and Means.
  1. That when certain Votes in Committees of Supply and Ways and Means have been declared urgent, and such Committees have precedence, by any Standing Order, or by any Resolution of the House, agreed to upon a Motion made, after Notice, by a Minister of the Crown, put forthwith, and decided by a majority of three to one; on the Order of the Day being read for either of the said Committees, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith leave the Chair, without putting any Question; and the House shall thereupon resolve itself into such Committee.
  2. That, in lieu of the customary forms of procedure in the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means, when certain Votes have been declared urgent, the general rules of the House concerning the proposal of Questions and Amendments be observed in such Committees.
  3. That while any Vote, declared urgent, is before the Committee, Questions confined to matters of fact, in relation to such Vote, may be answered by a Minister, in charge of the Estimates, without affecting his right to speak generally to the Question before the Committee.
  4. That if it shall appear to the Chairman, during any Debate, when certain Votes have been declared urgent, to be the general sense of the Committee, that the Question be now put, he may so inform the Committee; and on a Motion being made "That the Question be now put," the Chairman shall forthwith put such Question; and if the
  890
  same be decided in the affirmative, by a majority of three to one, the Question previously under Debate shall be forthwith put from the Chair.
  Ordered, That the said Rules be printed. [No. 73.]
  MR. SPEAKERfurther stated, That the House having passed the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill, it becomes my duty to declare, in pursuance of the Resolution of the House of the 3rd February, that the state of Public Business is no longer urgent.

  INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (LANGBAR MOOR) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the regulation of certain lands known as Langbar Moor, situate in the township of Nesfield-with-Langbar, in the parish of Ilsley, in the county of York, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 111.]

  INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (BEAMSLEY MOOR) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the regulation of certain lands known as Beamsley Moor, situate in the township of Beamsleys Both, in the parish of Skipton, in the county of York, in pursuance of the Report of the Inclosure Commissioners of England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 112.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—THE ARMISTICE—REPORT OF INTERCEPTION OF SUPPLIES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whe-

  777
  ther the Government had received any confirmation of the report that the supplies for the beleaguered garrisons in the Transvaal had been intercepted by the Boers?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: No, my Lords, we have no information whatever on the subject.
  EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, the news received this morning from South Africa, and the statement made last night by the Prime Minister in the other House of Parliament, are of so important a nature that I felt it would be my imperative duty to give Notice to my noble Friend the Secretary of State fur the Colonies of further Questions with reference to these matters. My Lords, the information which has been vouchsafed to both Houses of Parliament ever since the commencement of these negotiations has been of so unsatisfactory and meagre a character that we are not in a position to understand clearly what has taken place; but I think I may very shortly state what we do understand to have been the course of these negotiations. We were informed that, previous to the disaster which took place at Majuba Hill, a communication had been made to the leaders of the Boers, to which the leaders of the Boers gave no reply. The late Sir George Colley appears, while waiting for that reply, to have commenced his attack upon Majuba Hill. Certainly that course would seem to be one that required seine explanation. Whether it was authorized by Her Majesty's Government or not we have not been told. What we have been told is that, after the lamented death of that General, Her Majesty's Government, feeling a desire to understand how far the negotiations had proceeded, instructed Sir Evelyn Wood to go to the front—not, as I understand, to repair the disaster to our arms, or to vindicate the authority of Her Majesty in Natal, but to ascertain what was the position of the negotiations with a view to an armistice or to peace. Sir Evelyn Wood appears to have negotiated and signed an armistice; and, if we can believe the accounts which we have received, he did so, not under any fresh authority from Her Majesty's Government, but in pursuance of instructions which had previously been sent to Sir George Colley, and which Sir Evelyn Wood seems to have inherited. My Lords, I think it has considerable signi-
  778
  ficance, because it appears to show the instructions which were given to Sir George Colley when he was entrenched in his camp, when re-inforcements were expected to reach him from day to day, and when we might have hoped for a successful termination to the military proceedings—that these instructions were considered to apply equally to a state of things which existed after the disaster at Majuba Hill. However that may be, an armistice was signed, and we have heard nothing further from the Government on the subject until last night, when the Prime Minister was asked a Question in the other House; and in the course of his reply he made use of the following words:—
  "At the time when Her Majesty was advised to sanction the delivery of that Speech (the Queen's Speech) we were under the impression, winch I think was correct, that our first duty, on the occurrence of the rising in the Transvaal, was to place the local authority of the Queen and the military acting under Her Majesty in South Africa in a condition to deal with the emergency. We were at that time actively engaged in that duty; and until it had been fulfilled we did not consider the opportunity had arisen for our endeavouring to bring about a settlement of affairs in the Transvaal. We do consider that in existing circumstances such an opportunity has arisen, so far, at least, as to make it our duty and worth our while to have the circumstances carefully tested, with a view to ascertain what may be the result."
  My Lords, I do not clearly understand the latter part of the sentence; I do not know how you are to test what may be the result of those circumstances; but the earlier part of the sentence is clear enough. It amounts to this—that Her Majesty's Government do now consider that existing circumstances have made a change in the position of affairs. I may be permitted to quote the words which Her Majesty was advised to use in Her Gracious Speech from the Throne—
  "A rising in the Transvaal has recently imposed upon me the duty of taking military measures with a view to the prompt vindication of my authority; and has of necessity set aside for the time any plan for securing to the European settlers that full control over their own local affairs, without prejudice to the interests of the natives, which I had been desirous to confer."
  Therefore, at the time of the meeting of Parliament, Her Majesty felt it her duty to take military measures with a view to the prompt vindication of her authority. We are now told that circum-

  779
  stances have occurred which appear to have changed the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on that point. My Lords, we shall all be anxious to receive from the noble Earl any information which he is willing to give as to what those circumstances are. So far as we know, they consist in a series of unfortunate defeats, culminating in the disaster at Majuba Hill, since which time an armistice has been signed—we are not told at whose instigation, and we have no further information on the point; but, no doubt, the noble Earl will elucidate it. The second point on which I should be glad to have some information is with reference to a telegram published in The Times of this morning, which states—
  "That the Home Government proposed to follow up the armistice by appointing Sir Hercules Robinson, Sir John de Villiers, and Sir Evelyn Wood as British Commissioners, to meet a similar commission of the Boers, thus conceding to the latter sovereign rights."
  My Lords, this also is a statement of very great importance; but I am bound to admit that, coming as it does from the correspondent of a newspaper, it does not bear the same authority, and may not perhaps be regarded by your Lordships with the same anxiety, as any utterance of the Prime Minister's. But I may point out that the gentlemen who are stated to be members of this Commission include the High Commissioner in South Africa and the Commander of the Forces. Therefore, I imagine we shall hot overrate the importance of that intelligence if we believe they are not appointed solely with the view to the prolongation of the armistice, but that they have instructions with reference to the conclusion of terms of peace; and, more than that, that they are empowered by Her Majesty's Government to treat with the leaders of the Boers. The leaders of the Boers in this movement are in the position not only of rebels against Her Majesty's authority, but they are invaders. They are at this moment encamped on the soil of our territory—of our undisputed territory. Under these circumstances, that a Commission should be appointed consisting of such men as those mentioned is a statement which we have a right to expect some explanation of from Her Majesty's Government. Those are the two points on which I think I
  780
  have a right to ask for some definite information. I hope the noble Earl will acquit me of any desire to——
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: What are the two points?
  EARL CADOGAN: Whether he will kindly explain the meaning of the Prime Minister when he stated that circumstances which existed at the time when Her Majesty delivered Her Gracious Speech no longer exist, or have been modified; and, secondly, whether the Commission mentioned in The Times has been appointed; and, if so, with what objects?, I should add, my Lords, that I will give no opinion myself upon questions of policy. I am not even pressing Her Majesty's Government to say anything as to their views or intentions as to the future. I ask a Question upon plain matters of fact which have occurred during the last ten days, and of which we have received intelligence only to-day. I do not believe that it will be of any real advantage to the Government that any further reticence should be used. On the contrary, I believe it would be advantageous to the Government that these matters should be fully understood. There is undoubtedly at this moment a strong feeling of anxiety in the public mind with regard to the course of events in South Africa. I trust, therefore, that I shall be forgiven for having directed your Lordships' attention to the points on which I have touched.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I hope the Government will not be accused of undue reticence if we are not able to state facts which have not yet occurred, because with the anxiety which my noble Friend shows almost from hour to hour I am not able to keep pace.
  EARL CADOGAN: I beg to state that it is several days since I put a Question to the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: What I mean to say is that it is utterly impossible to conduct the affairs of Government at all if, before a decision is taken upon particular points, and if because there is a rumour in the newspapers the Government is expected, not only to give full information as to what has taken place, but to state their intentions as to what is about to take place.
  EARL CADOGAN: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Earl; but I must

  781
  remind him that my Question had reference to a statement made by the Prime Minister last night.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Earl refers to Commissioners who certainly were not mentioned by Mr. Gladstone last night. The fact of the matter is that the appointment of Commissioners, as Mr. Gladstone stated, is under the consideration of the Government. I am perfectly ready to admit that the Government have the intention to appoint a Commission; but they have not yet decided upon the names of the Commissioners, much less upon their instructions. Therefore, I cannot give my noble Friend the information upon that point which he desires. With regard to the other matter to which my noble Friend referred, he seemed to think that there is some mystery in this matter of the armistice. As far as I know, the circumstances are these. The first point to which I need refer is that a communication was received from Mr. Kruger on behalf of the Boers. It was addressed in the form of a letter to Sir George Colley, who telegraphed the purport of it to us. We desired him to send an answer to Mr. Kruger, and to fix a reasonable time within which that answer could be received. There has been some obscurity as to the exact proceedings of Sir George Colley, and we have not been able to clear it up in consequence of his death. There has been extreme difficulty in getting at the precise facts; but I believe they are as follow:—Sir George Colley fixed 48 hours, but did not receive an answer within that time. He, therefore, I conclude, considered himself free from any obligation to wait longer, and so made the attack upon Majuba Hill. After that attack, a letter was received from Mr. Bok, who acts as Secretary to the Boer leaders, addressed to Sir George Colley, which was opened by Sir Evelyn Wood. That letter, as I understand, informed Sir Evelyn Wood that an answer to the communication sent to Mr. Kruger could not be despatched for a certain time, owing to Mr. Kruger being at some distance. Therefore, as far as I can gather—for I cannot absolutely vouch for the accuracy of the facts—Sir George Colley did not take any offensive steps until after the expiration of the period which he had fixed. I believe, in point of fact, that
  782
  a considerably longer period than 48 hours elapsed. I believe that Sir George Colley acted with perfect straightforwardness in the matter. Mr. Bok, therefore, had told Sir George Colley—which information reached Sir Evelyn Wood, Sir George Colley being dead—that there would be an answer from Mr. Kruger to the communication which had been sent to him. No, I must correct myself. As far as I know, Mr. Bok did not explicitly state whether an answer was coming or not from Mr. Kruger; but, in order that there should be no misunderstanding, I desired Sir Evelyn Wood to inquire whether an answer was coming, and he accordingly made that inquiry. Now, with regard to the armistice, Sir George Colley's instructions were that if he received a favourable answer to the communication sent to Mr. Kruger, he might agree to a suspension of hostilities. That was the instruction given to Sir George Colley. No instructions on this point were ever given to Sir Evelyn Wood, who sent us a telegram saying he had concluded an armistice, and telling us what the terms of that armistice were. I think I read to the House the exact terms the other day, and I suppose I read the passage in which he says that in order to give Mr. Kruger time to reply he had concluded the armistice. That, I believe, is the entire history of the matter. I am not able to say whether Sir Evelyn Wood said to the Boers, Will you agree to an armistice?" or whether the Boers said to him, "Will you agree to an armistice?" But there is a telegram which mentions that Mr. Kruger had asked whether Sir Evelyn Wood would be opposed to a proposal of that kind, which seems to indicate that the suggestion must have come from Mr. Joubert, in order to give time for the expected answer to be sent by Mr. Kruger. Therefore, it appears that the object of Sir Evelyn Wood in concluding the armistice was to give time for receiving that answer. We approved of Sir Evelyn Wood having concluded the armistice. In whatever mode this proposal originated, it is quite clear that when Sir Evelyn Wood made this armistice he acted upon his own judgment, which told him it would be a wise proceeding. Now, I think I have answered my noble Friend as explicitly as I can. I will refer again to the point as to the Commissioners, in order that there may

  783
  be no misunderstanding. Mr. Gladstone said that the appointment of a Commission was under consideration. The appointment of Commissioners was suggested by the Boers on their own motion. Those Commissioners have not been named, nor have their instructions been decided upon.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It cannot be wondered at that, considering the anxiety of the country generally and that which we feel ourselves, we should give expression to our feelings with respect to the proceedings of the Government. If any justification for the question of my noble Friend was required it would be afforded by the fact that we have obtained from the noble Earl a considerable amount of very important information which we never had before. I think, however, on reflection, that the noble Earl will see, when he considers it, that he has not really answered the points to which my noble Friend directed his attention. According to the tenour of events which come to our ears, and according to the answer attributed to Mr. Gladstone last night, there seems to have been a sharp turn in the policy of the Government. If that turn has taken place in consequence of certain circumstances which have occurred, we are anxious to know what those circumstances are. In Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne we heard that the authority of the Crown was first to be vindicated, and when the first duty of vindicating that authority was discharged the question of creating a system of local self-government would be considered. But now we hear that communications are being made to the Boers to ascertain what their terms are. After a certain delay was granted within which an answer was to be returned, and that delay was exceeded, the Government are so anxious for peace that they have applied for, and obtained, an armistice, and now have actually resolved to name Commissioners, on the suggestion of the Boers, to meet other Commissioners, named by the Boers, to consider those very matters which, according to the Queen's Speech, were not to be considered until the supremacy of Her Majesty was established. I do not, at this time, wish to discuss the general policy of the Government. I think it would be premature to do so; but I hold that it is calculated to create grave anxiety in the
  784
  public mind if it appears that they had no defined and consistent course of policy, and that a sharp turn of their policy takes place directly after our arms have suffered a damaging and conspicuous defeat. My Lords, the policy of the Peace Society is one which I do not approve. I know that a great deal may be said for it—a great deal may be said for all doctrines which are held by any considerable body of men. There is a great deal to be said for the opposite policy, and there is a great deal also to be said for the policy which Her Majesty's Government first resolved on to vindicate the authority of the Crown before entering into any discussion of the terms to be granted to those in arms; but the policy for which nothing can be said is the policy of maintaining a martial and bellicose tone until you have suffered a very dangerous and damaging defeat, and then to ask for an armistice, and propose a Commission to discuss the terms of peace. After the defeat has not been wiped out, to propose that Commissioners should meet to discuss terms of peace with those who are rebels to the Queen, who are at this moment invaders of the territory of the Queen, to do that, and to do it after a defeat, is what a nation might do at its last gasp. It is what might have been done after the surrender of York Town; but it is not a course of proceeding which we can look on our Government doing without great anxiety and fear of a considerable loss of reputation among other nations. I wish the Government, after having given this appearance of pursuing a policy which is discreditable to us, would abandon the reticence which they have hitherto observed, and give us ground for believing that they are still resolved to maintain the policy which they announced in the Speech from the Throne; that they are still resolved to vindicate the authority of the Crown before entering on plans for self-government; and that the circumstances which, apparently, in Mr. Gladstone's view, had altered in that respect, were alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman under a mistake.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I feel much tempted to point out that the course which would have been in accordance with the Rules of this House is not exactly the course which has been adopted by the noble Earl (Earl Ca-

  785
  dogan). At half-past 3 o'clock he sent a Notice to my noble Friend of a private character, and conveyed in very indefinite language. A quarter of an hour before the House met my noble Friend received more definite Notice of what the Question was going to be. Then my noble Friend makes a statement of some length, in which he says that he will not enter into questions of a political character but simply ask a Question, and then he enters into a statement of facts, and thus takes a course which, I must say, is very likely to cause a debate. I am quite certain that nobody who has just heard the noble Marquess will think that he can boast of great reticence in the expression of an opinion on the policy of the Government. He has just now made two statements which are not in accordance with the facts of the case. Then, having followed that course, he proceeds to a denunciation of the policy of the Government. I am not going, on an irregular occasion like this, into a discussion of the question of policy; but I will just say that the noble Marquess has been misinformed on two important points. One of his statements is that we went to the Boers to ask them for their terms, and the other is that we changed our policy after the disaster which we all deplore. It is not the case. We had overtures made to us by the Boers, and we sent them the answer before we knew, or could have known, of the disaster which had taken place.

ARMY REGULATIONS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended, under the proposed regulations for increasing the number of field officers in each regiment of the Line, that such regulations should have a retrospective effect with regard to those officers who have been compulsory retired under the existing system; and to what extent? The Secretary of State for War had announced his intention of altering the battalion organization of the Army. The present establishment of a double battalion was 2 lieutenant-colonels, 4 majors, 20 captains, and 34 subalterns. The proposed establishment was 4 lieutenant-colonels, 8 majors, 12 captains, and 30 subalterns.
  786
  He did not wish to open up the question of battalion organization; but would only remark that Lord Airey's Committee, the Adjutant General, and Sir Garnet Wolseley, had all expressed themselves in favour of the existing organization; whilst Sir Lintorn Simmons and others advocated a change to the 4-company organization. No doubt, one of the advantages of the Secretary of State's plan was that it would check compulsory retirements—a system which drove out of the Army officers in the very prime of life. But such questions as battalion organization should be settled on the advice of the most competent military authorities, and not according to considerations of pay and promotion. No doubt in the end it might work well, as of 1,000 officers 516 instead of 216 would attain the rank of major. But for the present, as two captains would have to be absorbed in every regiment, the promotion of the subalterns would come to a dead-lock. As these captains, if 40 years of age, were in three years to be brought back to their regiments, voluntary retirement could not be relied upon, and the openings in the Staff would be few and far between. He wished to know whether any calculation had been made as to whether the flow of promotion would be the same as Lord Cardwell had undertaken it should be after the abolition of purchase?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in reply, said, that the noble Viscount complained that the inducements now offered to officers were not sufficient to induce them to retire voluntarily. Under the purchase system the inducements were that an officer could receive back again the money paid for his commission. At the present time he paid nothing; but after 12 years' service he could, if he chose to go, receive £1,200; after 15 years' service, £1,600; and after 18 years' service, £2,000. He thought these inducements quite as great as those which existed under the purchase system in the rank of captain or lieutenant. According to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War in "another place," 581 out of 1,000 officers would be retired before they could reach the rank of major. This calculation was based on the slowest rate of promotion, the death rate only being taken into consideration. He saw no reason why voluntary

  787
  retirement should not be as frequent under the present as under the purchase system, with this exception—that the prospects of an officer might in certain respects be better now than then; and it is obvious that the number of officers who would be compulsorily retired must be diminished by those who retired voluntarily. During the past seven years they had been passing through a transition state, and it was difficult to place figures before the House of a trustworthy character. The effect of the changes proposed by the War Secretary would be so far retrospective that any non-purchase captain who has been, or may be, retired compulsorily before the 1st of July would be allowed, subject to the approval of the Commander-in-Chief, to join the list of unattached majors on half-pay. The officers placed on that list would have the chance, though not the assurance, of employment, either regimental or on the Staff, but not necessarily in the regiment they had left. This privilege would not belong to officers who had sold their commissions, or who had commuted their pensions. Under the new rules promotion among subalterns would be somewhat retarded; but they would ultimately have a better chance of continued career to the highest rank in the Army. He had that day laid on the Table of the House a Memorandum, showing the effect of all the changes which they proposed to make with regard to this and other questions connected with Army Organization.

AFGHANISTAN—CANDAHAR

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNrose to call the attention of the House (1.) To the following extract from the enclosure to be found on page 20 of the Blue Book [C.-27761 Afghanistan (1881), No. 1:—
  "Monday, 15 March. In the afternoon the General received the principal Mullas and Kowanins of the city and surrounding villages in Durbar. They were twenty-nine in number, and had come in consequence of Sir Donald Stewart's late letter to the Sirdar, to inform him that they had all taken an oath on the Koran to the effect that they would at once deliver up to justice any individual whom they might hear of that was an ill-wisher to the British Government, and intending to do mischief to the troops here in garrison."
  After the General had heard their statement, he informed them that
  788
  "There was no chance of Kandahar again falling under the authority of a supreme ruler in Kabul. Kandahar would for the future stand by itself, and the moment the Sirdar should inform Sir Donald Stewart that he considered his power sufficiently consolidated to take charge of the city the General would be quite prepared to make it over to him;"
  and (2.) To an extract of a Memorandum by Sir John Lawrence, dated Calcutta, 25th November 1868; and also to move for a Return of the number of men invalided from the effects of the Peshawar fever and cholera in the Peshawar Valley from 1862 to 1878. He begged with great deference to submit—first, strategical and political proofs that England's and India's most important interests and rights as well as those of our national good faith required the military occupation of Candahar. Secondly, the military occupation of Candahar maintained and secured the great political advantages obtained by the successful campaigns of 1879–80–81. Before going further, it would be apposite to state to their Lordships that he was instructed, when commanding in India, by the Supreme Government, to submit a Report to them of the best means of defending the Peshawar Valley and the Trans-Indus Frontier against an attack from the Khyber and North West Passes; and Sir Neville Chamberlain, in order to assist him in doing so, was requested to accompany him along the Frontier to give him the valuable information he possessed on the subject. He would fail in his duty to their Lordships and the country were he to withhold the information thus obtained respecting a State interest on which, he believed, depended our rights and interests in India, Central Asia, and the Eastern Question. It was also apposite to that subject to say that Party tactics and false delicacy had made that as well as the Eastern a vexed question, by keeping out of sight Russia, whom the records of history and of every Foreign Office in the civilized world proved to have been the principal actor for nearly two centuries in the great drama, the scene which began at first in a little port, Archangel, but now extended from the Mediterranean to the China Sea. In mentioning Russia in that short address, he only did so under the influence of that truth without which no difference, national or private, could be satisfactorily settled. No one more than he

  789
  admired the patriotic and devoted feeling which the Russian people displayed in the years 1855–7 in the defence of their country; and no one could have seen without admiration the discipline and steadfast courage of the Russian Army in re-constructing their shattered works at Sebastopol under fire. But he did not sympathize with their Eastern diplomacy. He returned from that digression to the advantages gained in the late campaign in Afghanistan. They were, first, the disappearance of the danger which had always threatened the North-West Frontier of India, and, therefore, India herself. He had so fully explained that danger on former occasions to their Lordships that it would be waste of time now to enlarge upon it. He would briefly observe that the danger was the union of Sunni Mussulmans and fanatical Afghanistan, the most powerful military State—including Persia and Central Asia—from the east of the Caspian to the China Sea, with the Sunni Mussulman and warlike tribes of the Suleiman ranges, whose difficult and almost inaccessible country was a formidable strategical bulwark for Afghanistan against India, defensive and offensive, and dominating our Trans-Indus Border. Those tribes were so hostile that the Government of India were compelled to keep on a war footing a corps of Jezailchees (Militia) called the Punjaub Frontier Force, garrisoning a line of forts along the whole Frontier to protect the Trans-Indus and Punjaub from their devastations. The danger of that union was exemplified in 1857, when Dost Mahomed, under fanatical influences, was on the point of unfurling the green flag and summoning the Mussulman Border Tribes—numbering some 150,000 men—to march with his army on Delhi to rescue Islam, besieged and endangered there. It was only on the evening before Dost Mahomed marched that his son, Azim Khan, a friend of the English alliance, dissuaded him from his purpose. The belief was universal that if he had fallen like an avalanche on Delhi with the Border Tribes, numbering some 150,000 fighting men, it would have caused a rising of the Hindoo and Mussulman populations; and England must have retreated, at least for a time, on the sea, India being for a while at least lost. If such was the danger of the combination of Af-
  790
  ghanistan with the Mussulman Tribes of the North-West, how much greater would not have been the crisis if Russia had sided in 1857 with Afghanistan as she did in 1878. But the danger of a combined attack on India by Russia with Afghan troops and the tribes vanished when the Afghan Army was routed. Shere Ali eloped with the Treasury, and Herat returned to its independence, while Candahar was occupied by British troops. Afghanistan, dismembered, lapsed into insignificance. Here he must do an act of justice to Her Majesty's late Government. Profiting by their knowledge of Russian policy in 1838 as regards Central Asia, and the evidence of the sacrifices which that Power had made in persuading the young Shah of Persia, in disregard of so many promises, to besiege Herat and to detach the then Ameer of Afghanistan secretly from his alliance with us, which was the cause of war between India and Afghanistan, and followed by the terrible English disasters in the Khyber Pass and the capture of Cabul—with all that before their eyes, he said that the Government of India could not have done otherwise than act on that warning of which the Russian Mission in 1878 was an unmistakable reminder. It was impossible to imagine that anybody with the slightest instincts of statesmanship or respect for facts could, after such warnings, wish to restore Afghanistan to its former united position. A glance at Lord, then Sir John, Lawrence's able Memorandum of the 25th of November, 1868, would convince that person of its impossibility. He now came to the second advantage gained by England. Shere Ali's defection had upset the balance of power guaranteed by England and Russia, who, according to Count Nesselrode, were the guardians of the destinies of Asia; but the occupation of Candahar restored that equipoise, and who would not prefer Candahar, a strong military and strategical position, and acknowledged as such by Napoleon and Russia, to the utter unreliability of an alliance with Afghanistan, of whose utter unreliability Lord Napier and Sir John Lawrence had in their able and unanswerable Minutes given such convincing proofs? But if Candahar were evacuated, how was the balance of power in Asia to be maintained? Nothing was made more clear by the Russian and Afghan

  791
  Correspondence than that Shere Ali, who was more the victim of his fears than of his bad intentions, was induced by Russia to abandon his engagement with the British Government, and that the excuse of Russia—that she did so because she thought war was imminent with England—was only another of many proofs of the value which Russia had always placed upon substituting Russian for British influence in Afghanistan. He would now consider the third advantage gained in the late campaigns, which was the protection of another and greater balance of power, of which Constantinople was the pivot—with the Dardanelles and the Mediterranean to the West and the Bosphorus and the Black Sea to the East—from a diversion against England in India in resisting a move of Russia against Constantinople. Here was another strategical and political advantage to England gained by the fall of Shore Ali and his Kingdom; and nothing would so much prevent the realization of such a diversion in Afghanistan as the presence of an English force at Candahar, which gave us action on the Herat and Merv line if driven to war, a direction in which Russia was advancing with rapid strides by the construction of a Central Asian railway from Fort Michael towards Merv. The fourth and last advantage was the great political and strategical exchange of a dangerously unhealthy military station and outwork of our North-Western Frontier at Peshawur for a healthy and very strategical outpost at Candahar. Candahar was as healthy as the Valley of Peshawur was the reverse, with its dangerous fevers and constant ravages of cholera, which not only rendered regiments unfit for duty, but would cause their prostration if they took the field, although the force in the Peshawur Valley was supposed to be always ready for service, as it was frequently called upon to assist the Frontier Force in resisting the invasions of the tribes. Besides, Peshawur was a cramped and bad strategical position, dominated by mountains to the front and on both flanks, which masked the movements of an enemy, and enabled them to make feints and unexpected attacks in other quarters. Candahar was a fortress constructed on obsolete principles; but there was a very strong position on a commanding height on the
  792
  River Arghandab, about a mile distant, which, if fortified and supported by detached redoubts on low hills round it, would, in the opinion of competent judges, become nearly impregnable. The position of Candahar was in itself very strategical—a cheval across the Afghan high road from Herat to Cabul, and having action on both. Besides, it was a fresh base of operations on the dangerous obstacles on the other sides of the Suleiman ranges, and placed them and their warlike and lawless inhabitants in the position of being between two fires. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would regard as binding the promise which was given that Candahar should never come under the authority of a supreme Ruler in Cabul. The best authority he ever had for the sanctity of engagements was the late Duke of Wellington, who said there was no interest like the interest of keeping your word.
  Moved for—
  "A Return of the number of men invalided from the effects of the Peshawur fever and cholera in the Peshawur Valley from 1862 to 1878."—(The Lord Strathnairn.)
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDthought their Lordships would agree with him in thinking it was a pity that the noble and gallant Lord, whose distinguished services entitled him to be heard on questions of this kind, had not delivered his speech a week ago, when it would have been listened to with the greatest attention and interest by a larger House than was now present. He hoped the noble and gallant Lord would not think him wanting in respect, which he most unfeignedly felt for him both in his private and public capacity, if he did not follow him throughout the speech with which he had prefaced his Motion. The noble and gallant Lord seemed rather to complain that the promise which was made by Sir Donald Stewart on behalf of Her Majesty's Government as to Candahar not coming under the authority of a supreme Ruler in Cabul was not kept; but he (Viscount Enfield) thought that upon a fair consideration of the facts of the case, the noble and gallant Lord would be of opinion, and he hoped their Lordships would agree, that no promise had been violated as far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned. He should be the last person

  793
  to say that any promise made by an English Minister or General should not be observed; but it would be a dangerous doctrine to lay down that statements made by a General Officer, not fully conversant, perhaps, with all the political difficulties of the situation, should be binding upon all future Administrations. The promise made by Sir Donald Stewart had been faithfully kept. If the noble and gallant Lord had read the concluding words of the despatch, it would have been seen that before the Government redeemed their promise the people of Candahar must keep theirs. At the end of the despatch it was stated that the General, after the Durbar, dismissed the assembly, and told them that the policy inaugurated by him would certainly be continued as long as the people remained loyal to the Sirdars and the Government. Accordingly, the British Government had kept its promise at Cabul and other parts of the country; but what did the people of Candahar do? In the first place, as they knew, there had been a revolt; and, in the second place, after the Maiwand disaster, those very persons who had taken the oath of allegiance to the British Government behaved so badly that the General commanding had to turn them out of the city. This question had been ably and exhaustively dealt with in the debate of last week, and he did not feel justified in trespassing on their Lordships' time in going over the same ground. With regard to the retention of Candahar, Her Majesty's Government thought that, on this question, the military opinions were divided, the financial difficulties considerable, and the commercial advantages very doubtful, as was also the political morality, if he might say so without incurring the censure of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury). Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government did not think it right or expedient to retain Candahar; but they were making such arrangements as to leave Candahar and the district under competent government. As to the Return moved for, its preparation by the Indian Government would entail much time and considerable expense; and, therefore, he hoped the noble and gallant Lord would not press for it.
  LORD WAVENEYthought attention should be called to the subject of the
  794
  abandonment of Candahar at every step and every stage. Heedless of Russia, China, or any other Power, they should remain at Candahar, put down their foot, and state their determination to retain it, and not depart from the policy of Clive, Cornwallis, and Wellesley. The policy of making other people do our work in Afghanistan was a mistake, as was also that of making that country a buttress between ourselves and. Russia in Asia.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION—BATTALIONS ABROAD.

  ADDRESS FOR RETURNS.
  VISCOUNT BURYrose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, What will be the number of battalions abroad beyond the normal number contemplated by the localization scheme when the intended re-inforcement of six regiments has been despatched to South Africa; and to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Return (similar to No. 70 of 1879) of all non-commissioned officers and privates of each battalion under orders for or sent to South Africa since the 1st of January of the present year, as they embarked, showing ages, length of service, and number who have not completed their drill and musketry instruction; also similar Returns of all drafts to complete other battalions than those sent from home stations; also number drawn to complete for service for other than their own brigades in tabular form similar to that of the above-named Return."
  It was essential that this information should be laid before the House to enable their Lordships to consider Mr. Childers' proposal to modify Lord Cardwell's scheme, which was drawn up without regard to our small wars, of which there had been no fewer than 35 during the last 40 years. At the General Election, complaint was made of the reticence of the late Government, and it had been promised that when the present Government came into Office we were to live in the light of publicity. He trusted, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would not refuse to give any information on this subject which would not be of service to the enemy.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Return (similar to No. 70 of

  795
  1879) of all non-commissioned officers and privates of each battalion under orders for or sent to South Africa since the 1st of January of the present year, as they embarked, showing ages, length of service, and number who have not completed their drill and musketry instruction; also similar Return of all drafts to complete other battalions than those sent from home stations; also number drawn to complete for service from other than their own brigades, in tabular form similar to that of the above-named Return.—(The Viscount Bury.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYassured their Lordships that there was every desire on the part of the Government to give the fullest possible information as regarded the new re-organization scheme and the general state of the Army at present. But when he said that, he should also express a hope that the noble Lord would not press for the Returns, which it would be contrary to public policy to produce, in face of the war in which we were now engaged. The Boers had all the details of our movements from day to day sent to them, and he could not see how the information which the Returns would supply could be kept from them. In saying this he must also be allowed to remark that it was not without surprise that he heard the noble Lord, who had held an important and responsible position in a former Government, put such a Question. He could not understand why the Government, in satisfying the perhaps laudable curiosity of the noble Lord, should also gratify the less innocent curiosity of the Boer leaders, who would, without doubt, like to have information as to the strength and equipment of the forces sent out to South Africa. He was anxious, however, to give broadly some information which would be satisfactory to their Lordships. The number of battalions abroad beyond the normal number contemplated by the localization scheme when the intended re-inforcement of six regiments had been despatched to South Africa was fixed at 10, and since the 1st of January an order had been issued that no soldiers should be allowed to embark who had not been two years in the Army. All regiments and drafts sent abroad had been drawn either from the linked battalions, the depôts, or volunteers; and of these, except in a few cases, no soldier had been allowed to pass who had not completed two years' musketry instruction. With regard to Viscount Cardwell's scheme, it was too much forgotten sometimes that that
  796
  scheme had been subjected to a very considerable strain within the last few years, and that it had, to a considerable extent, borne the strain without any addition to the establishment. Having given this explanation, he could only repeat that in the view of Her Majesty's Government it would not be consistent with the public interest to enter into further detail, or to grant the Returns for which the noble Viscount asked.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKwould advise his noble Friend not to persist in his Motion for the Returns, inasmuch as he had been told that to grant them would be contrary to public policy, although the figures for which his noble Friend asked were practically to be found in Blue Books which had been already laid before Parliament, and arguments deduced from them might fairly be used in any future discussion.
  After a few remarks from the Earl of NORTHBROOK in defence of Viscount Cardwell's scheme,
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, of course, he would not press the Motion for the Returns after what had been said.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.