Sitting of 15 August 1882

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Halifax Borough, v. John Dyson Hutchinson, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS—Resolution [August 14] reported.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Withdrawn—Channel Tunnel Railway; South Eastern Railway (Channel Tunnel)*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [August 14]reported—Fishery Board (Scotland) [Salaries and Expenses]*.
Second Reading — Cathedral Statutes [232] [House counted out].
Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).
Committee — Report — Considered as amended—Third Reading — Ancient Monuments [263]; Fishery Board (Scotland) [240], and passed.
considered as amended—Third Reading—Married Women's Property [191]; Citation Amendment (Scotland) [267], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  REGENT'S CANAL, CITY, AND DOCKS RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
    Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
    MR. MONKsaid, that this was a Bill of so important a nature, that when it came before the House for a second reading, it was decided to take the unusual course with regard to it of sending it to a Committee of nine Members, instead of a Committee of four. When, after a most exhaustive inquiry by the Committee, it came down to the House in an amended form, strong objections were taken to it, and the third reading was only passed upon a division, in which 74 Members voted in the minority. The Bill had since been in "another place," where it was considered and evidence taken; and, after an inquiry which extended over 16 days, it now came back again to the House of Commons for the consideration of the Lords Amendments, and, upon examining it, he found that it was a totally different Bill from the one which had originally received the sanc-

    1809
    tion of the House of Commons, so many Amendments having been inserted in it by the House of Lords. The Amendments themselves occupied no less than 85 closely printed pages, and if it was, as he presumed it was, the duty of the Clerk at the Table to read all the Amendments, and for the Speaker to put them separately to the House, it would take at least two hours to dispose of them, without in any way attempting to consider them; and this, too, on one of the last days of the Session. He hoped that his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees was present, although he did not at the moment see the right hon. Gentleman in his place. But if the right hon. Gentleman was absent, at any rate the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) was present, and would probably be able to give explanations, although the matter was one which came more immediately under the Department presided over by the Chairman of Committees. He was glad to see that his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees had now taken his seat. He wished to ask his right hon. Friend if it was at all right or natural that Amendments extending over 85 pages should be considered by the House of Commons on one of the very last days of the Session? It was utterly impossible even for hon. Members to read through them; and what he desired to put to his right hon. Friend was this. Ought not the Bill, coming back as it did with such a considerable body of Amendments as those which had been introduced by the House of Lords, to be referred to the same Select Committee which originally considered the Bill, and which reported to the House some five or six weeks ago? It was utterly impossible, and he would not presume to take up the time of the House by attempting even, to go through the Amendments. He would not deny that many of the Amendments were improvements of the Bill; but, passing that by, he came to the main features of the Bill; and he asked whether it was right that a measure, amended and altered to so considerable an extent as this Bill had been, the object of which was to take over one of the principal water communications of the country, and to place that water communication in the hands of a speculative Railway Company which had just been formed
    1810
    for the purpose of purchasing it, should receive the sanction of the House of Commons at the extreme fag-end of the Session? When he presumed to bring the case of the Regent's Canal under the attention of the House, on the third reading of the Bill, at that time the Select Committee on Railways and Canals, which had been sitting for two years in that House, had not made its Report. Since then the Report of the Select Committee had been presented, and he would venture to state to the House what the nature of the recommendations of the Committee, in reference to the connection between Railways and Canals, was. The Report of the Committee, which was presided over by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), was as follows:—
    "Serious complaints have been made by traders and Canal Companies against Railway Companies in respect to the working of Canals owned by them, or of which they control the navigation. Cases have been adduced where Railway Companies, having acquired possession or control of a Canal, have ceased to work it, or allowed it to fall into disrepair, or charged excessive tolls, especially in the case of through rates, and that, inconsequence, traffic is diverted to the Railways, where higher rates are exacted, to the injury of traders and the public generally. Tour Committee are of opinion that these complaints are not unfounded."
    Well, what were the recommendations the Committee made?—
    "A Railway Company owning or controlling a Canal may think it profitable to lose the revenue of the Canal, in the expectation of deriving a greater revenue from the Railway, to which it is a competitor, and where the Canal forms part of a through competing route, it is obviously its interest, as a general rule, to discourage through traffic."
    The Committee wind up as follows:—
    "Your Committee are, therefore, of opinion that it is impolitic that Railway Companies should have the control, either directly or indirectly, of Canal navigation; and that where Canals are already under the control of Railway Companies, Parliament should endeavour to insure their use to the fullest possible extent."
    And yet, in the teeth of this recommendation of the Committee, which had been sitting for two years, and had most carefully considered the subject, the House was now asked, at the end of the Session, to allow a newly-formed Railway Company to acquire possession of the Regent's Canal. He thought the House would agree with him that that would be a most improper proceeding; and he

    1811
    would appeal to his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees whether it was right that these Amendments, which the House had barely had time to look through, and which it was impossible they could properly consider, should be hurried through almost on the last day of the Session? He would ask his right hon. Friend whether it was not possible to refer the Bill back to the same Committee which had already considered the measure, or to another Select Committee when the House re-assembled on the 24th of October? He believed that such a course would be perfectly in consonance with the intimation conveyed by the Prime Minister as to the character of the Business they would be called upon to transact when the House reassembled after the adjournment. He understood his right hon. Friend to say that he did not intend to interfere at all with private legislation; but he did not accurately gather whether the right hon. Gentleman referred only to Bills introduced by private Members, or whether he referred to Private Bill legislation. He would, however, put it to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Chairman of Committees whether there was not a very strong case for referring these 85 pages of Amendments to the same Select Committee which considered the Bill when it was first introduced, or to another Select Committee to consider the measure in its altered form, and inform the House whether it was right that it should pass into law or not? He should not propose, at the present moment, to move the rejection of the Bill. He had no desire to take that extreme course; but he was certainly of opinion that it was most desirable the Bill should be re considered by a Select Committee, and reported upon at a later period of the Session.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman make no Motion?
    MR. MONK: No, Sir; I do not make any Motion.
    MR. SPEAKER: Then the Question I have to put to the House is that the Lords Amendments be taken into consideration.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, that, before his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees answered the appeal of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), he should like to say a few words upon the subject. He should be
    1812
    very sorry to countenance any hurried or hasty legislation upon important questions of this kind; but really he had listened with surprise to the speech of his hon. Friend, who was not only an old Member of the House, but a Member well acquainted with the Forms of the House; nevertheless, his hon. Friend had failed altogether to dig out of this large mass of additional clauses and extended clauses a single ground, as far as he (Mr. W. M. Torrens) could gather, or the slightest substantial reason why the House on this occasion should depart from its usual course. He would remind the Speaker that from that Chair he had twice already in the course of the present Session called upon the House to record its opinion in regard to the objections of his hon. Friend. When the Bill was before the House for a second reading, on the 2nd of March, his hon. Friend objected altogether to its being allowed to proceed, and upon an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. A. Peel) the measure was discussed for an hour or more. At the end of that time the House divided, and, by a majority of 5 to 1, declared that the Bill ought to be allowed to go on. He (Mr. W. M. Torrens) on that occasion made a proposal of a special nature—namely, that the Bill should be referred to a Hybrid Committee, and he had the honour to be supported in that proposition by Her Majesty's Government. The House deliberately affirmed the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) that the Bill should be referred to a Hybrid Committee, and a Hybrid Committee was accordingly appointed. That Committee sat for 17 days to consider the Preamble of the Bill, and examined 75 witnesses. No fewer than 10,000 questions were put to the witnesses, and at the end of the evidence the Committee decided that the Preamble had been proved. After that the Committee proceeded to consider and discuss the clauses, and some more days were occupied in the consideration. In the end the Bill came back again to the House, and after the Report of the Committee was agreed to, it was submitted for a third reading. What happened then? The late opponents of the measure, who had stoutly resisted its progress, upon the ground of jealousy of the Railway interest, objected to the

    1813
    third reading of the Bill. Another debate took place, and another division, when, by a majority of 4 to 1, the House decided that the Bill ought to be read a third time. It could not, therefore, be said that the merits of the Bill in every essential particular had not been thoroughly discussed. The measure then went up to the other House. What took place there? The Chairman there—he (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had no delicacy in stating what was notoriously the fact—the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords (the Earl of Redesdale), seeing the importance of the Bill, hesitated to appoint a Committee to inquire into it until he could secure the nomination upon it of noble Lords who were well acquainted with such matters. Some delay occurred in consequence; but, eventually, Earl Beauchamp was appointed Chairman, with four other Members of the House of Lords to act with him, one of them being a noble Lord (Lord Derwent) well known to hon. Members as a former Representative of Scarborough in that House. The Select Committee of their Lordships spent a whole week of working days in inquiring into the matter, and discussing the merits of the Bill de novo, and at the end of that time the Committee, without a division, decided in favour of the Preamble of the Bill. They then proceeded to discuss the clauses which had been fully considered by the Commons Committee. They introduced a variety of new clauses, and amended many of the existing clauses. He held in his hand the Amendments inserted by their Lordships, and he challenged his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), or any other hon. Member, to point out any new matter introduced by the House of Lords which was not in the direction of securing the advantage of the general public. He ventured to say that any hon. Member, looking at the Amendments with impartiality and without prejudice, would see that they were extremely developing clauses, expanding in certain particulars, in the interests of the public, the clauses passed by the House of Commons, and introducing others which were rather protective than otherwise of the Canal as against the Railway interest. One of the allegations made by those who took the same view of the question as his hon. Friend the Member
    1814
    for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) was that the transfer of the Canal to a Railway Company would result in the shutting up of the Canal and the removal of all competition, so that the whole of the traffic would in future fall into the hands of the Railway Company. The object of some of the Amendments introduced by the House of Lords was to prevent the possibility of such a condition of things; and he would put the question plainly and candidly to every hon. Member who had considered the Amendments inserted by the Lords, whether they did not effect a great improvement of the Bill as it originally stood? The Lords Committee, in his opinion, had fully carried out, he contended, the principles and intentions of the House of Commons when that House passed, by such an overwhelming majority, the second reading of the Bill. Among other things, the Committee of the House of Lords required the promoters of the Bill—of whom he wished the House clearly to understand that he was not one—to widen the Canal. In point of fact, they had placed upon them the obligation of increasing the width of the Canal from 35 feet to 40 feet. They had also inserted in the Bill a clause which he would venture to say was unexampled in the whole history of Private Bill legislation—namely, a clause giving power to the Canal Company to come in after the Railway was made, and be in the position of being able to buy the Railway if they were not satisfied with the arrangements made. He would put it to the House whether, without destruction of class interests or locality, it would be a light matter to throw out this Bill at the eleventh hour, and after the labours of the Select Committee which had been sitting upstairs during a considerable period of the Session to improve the facilities to enable the working classes to obtain dwellings out of town? His right hon. Friend—who was not at that moment present—the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was Chairman of the Artizans' Dwellings Committee, and if the right hon. Gentleman had been present he would doubtless have borne testimony to the accuracy of what he (Mr. W. M. Torrens) was about to say. After a careful investigation which had extended over two Sessions, the Committee had agreed to a Resolution that everything

    1815
    that had hitherto been done, or could be done, either by the Bill of the late Home Secretary or in any other way, to provide healthy and comfortable dwellings in the Metropolis for the working classes, would be insufficient unless Parliament was able by some means to increase the facilities of exit into the suburban districts. Now, he ventured to say that that was entirely a railway question. It was not a class question; but a question of the health and respectability and the good order of this great Metropolis. After long consideration, the Committee upstairs had recommended in the strongest terms that encouragement should be given to every scheme which would afford facilities for the working classes in living out of town, and they were anxiously looking around to see what would best aid the running of cheap trains to bring people in and take them out of town. Surely, then, the House of Commons would not at this eleventh hour throw out a Bill which afforded these advantages in a hitherto unexampled manner. The Bill, as it now stood, provided, for the first time, that a working man and his family, before 7 o'clock in the morning and after 6 o'clock in the evening, should have the privilege of travelling four miles for 1d., six miles for 1½d., and eight miles for 2d. Was this a moment at which the House, at the last moment, should be asked to reject a measure which made be great a concession to the working classes, who were panting for better and more healthy dwellings? What was the House asked to do? Were they to constitute themselves a Court of Appeal upon the details of every Private Bill, how was the private legislation of the House to be conducted? He trusted that the House would ratify the wise improvements which had been introduced into the Bill, and he believed that the advantages conceded by the promoters of the Bill should not be passed by and ignored except for more weighty reasons than had been adduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk).
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) desires that the Lords Amendments should be submitted to the same Committee which considered the Bill when before the House of Commons. Now, I do not say there is no precedent for such a
    1816
    course; but it is a very unusual one to take, and the nature of these Amendments does not appear to me to be such as to require any further examination by a Committee of this House. No doubt, the Amendments inserted by the Lords are exceedingly bulky; but they mainly consist of clauses for the protection of private rights, the rights of the Crown, of various Railways and Canals, and of the Victoria Docks. All the other Amendments are in the interests of the public. One of them requires the width of the Canal to be increased from 35 feet to 40 feet, another has reference to the running of cheap trains, and there are others of a minor character, but all of them introduced in the interests of the public. Therefore, although the Amendments are bulky, they are not of a nature to require reexamination by a Select Committee of this House, as they are mainly in the interests of the public; and I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with pointing out the great care the Lords, as well as the House of Commons, have taken in considering and amending the provisions of the Bill, and will allow the Bill to be proceeded with without further delay. It would be a great injustice to the promotors of the Bill, if, after the lengthened examination the measure has received from both Houses of Parliament, they should now lose the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendments considered and agreed to. [Special Entries.]

  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAILWAY BILL (by Order).
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: It will be in the recollection of the House that the Government have pledged themselves to lay Papers on the Table upon this subject, and that they would at a later stage make a recommendation to the House as to the course it ought to take with respect to these Bills. I have this day presented to the House the Papers in question. They are very voluminous, and they will be found to contain a full history of the Channel Tunnel project, commencing from 1867, and including the communications which have passed

  1817
  between the English and the French Governments, the evidence taken by a Departmental Committee appointed at the instance of the Board of Trade, and the Report of the evidence of the Scientific Committee, appointed by the Secretary of State for War, to inquire into the practicability of rendering a tunnel, if constructed, absolutely useless to an enemy in case of war. It also contains the Reports of the Surveyor General of Ordnance, the Adjutant General, and His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief. Another set of Papers will be presented, containing all the Correspondence between the Submarine Railway Company and the Board of Trade, with respect to the experimental borings carried out by the Company, the further progress of which has now been prohibited by the Board of Trade. The Government have carefully considered all these Papers, and, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, they have come distinctly to the conclusion that they cannot advise that the two Bills now before the House should, at all events in their present form, be allowed to proceed any further; and, consequently, I propose to move that both of the Orders now on the Paper should be discharged. The Government have also come to the conclusion that it will be their duty, early next Session, to propose a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the whole matter, and to this Committee they propose to refer all the Correspondence on the subject. I beg to move that the Order in the case of the Channel Tunnel Bill be discharged.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, he only desired to say one word. He was very glad indeed, and he congratulated the House and the Government, that the Government had come to something like a conclusion upon this question at last. They were told that all the Papers had been laid on the Table, and he should like to ask whether certain letters were included. In 1872 there was a letter written by the Board of Trade to one of the other Departments of the Government, which letter was revised by the present Prime Minister. That letter, he believed, by some error on the part
  1818
  of the late lamented Lord Frederick Cavendish, was mislaid; but he (Sir Edward Watkin) knew that there had been such a letter in existence; and it contained the views of the Liberal Government of that day, and of the present Prime Minister. He should like to ask whether it was included in the Correspondence to be produced, as showing what the opinion of a Liberal Ministry was in that day as to the question of a Channel Tunnel? There was another letter, which at present was in private hands, but which seemed to him to be a public document, and ought to be in the possession of the Board of Trade. It was a letter written by the late Lord Derby to the late Lord Beaconsfield, and handed by Lord Beaconsfield to the late Baron Lionel de Rothschild. In that letter the late Lord Derby stated his views of the Channel Tunnel project. The noble Lord believed that the carrying out of the project would be attended with very great advantages, although probably with some disadvantages; and, while it was doubtful whether it ought to be assisted by the State, it ought not to be discouraged by the Government; and, further, that the scare and alarm about the invasion of the country, through the Tunnel, was idle and weak, and ought not to be considered for a moment. In regard to that letter, he (Sir Edward Watkin) had seen it, and it had been seen, at all events, by one of the officials connected with the Board of Trade—Mr. Calcraft—and he had no doubt that Mr. Calcraft communicated the nature of its contents to the President of the Board of Trade, and the fact that such a letter was in existence. He was sure that the hon. Member opposite would agree with him that this was an important declaration of opinion by a man who really deserved to be called a statesman—the late Lord Derby—to another man whose predictions in a different line of statesmanship were now being very rapidly verified. For the information of the country this letter ought to be published with the other Correspondence. With regard to the general question, he thought it was to some extent to be regretted that the Government had not made up their minds somewhat sooner. Private persons had been put to considerable expense in the matter, and had been very greatly

  1819
  harassed by the President of the Board of Trade. If the right hon. Gentleman had been gratified by harassing them, all he could say was that the individuals in question had borne it with the greatest possible equanimity and with some consolation in knowing that they had proved that they were engaged in a very great experiment, and they were satisfied with having made it. They only regretted that the Board of Trade did not permit them to prove it to a still greater extent, in the interests of what they believed, rightly or wrongly, to be one of the greatest works of the kind that any country, in this or any other time, had ever attempted. They were quite satisfied with what they had accomplished; but, in the meantime, he would certainly make an appeal to the Prime Minister, that now the Government had practically approved the principle of the construction of a Tunnel by allowing the two Houses to appoint a Joint Committee to consider the circumstances, the Government should no longer vexatiously delay or obstruct that which was simply a scientific experiment—the obstruction of an experiment without any benefit to anybody. If there was any benefit in obstruction it would be for the Government to state what it was. He maintained that the experiment involved no encroachment on the rights of the Crown. The Company had offered over and over again to place the whole of the rights they possessed in the hands of the Government for the Board of Trade to do what they pleased with them, and the President of the Board of Trade had no excuse for acting in a manner that was unusual and arbitrary towards men who, at their own risk and expense, had been endeavouring to solve so important a problem and in carrying out a work which had received the undoubted approval of the Prime Minister, who, if he were present, would not deny what he had practically said—"Do not talk to me about traffic; only show me that it can be done." The proposal to build a Tunnel had received the support and sanction of the late Prince Consort—one of the most sagacious men of our time—of the late Earl of Derby, of the Earl of Beaconsfield, the Earl of Clarendon, and Mr. Cobden. It was, therefore, a scheme which could not be dismissed lightly, and he was glad that the Government had at length arrived
  1820
  at some conclusion in regard to it. In conclusion, he hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would give an assurance that all the letters on the subject would be laid before the House, and that the scheme would no longer be the subject of useless, factious, and vexatious opposition, which could do no good whatever, but would merely irritate individuals, and sow in their breasts a rankling sense of injustice.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, it was pretty well known that legal proceedings had been commenced against the Channel Tunnel Company, and he thought it would be satisfactory to the House if the right hon. Gentleman, before the discussion closed, availed himself of the opportunity of stating what, so far, had been the result of those legal proceedings. He wished to know whether an injunction had been issued to restrain the further prosecution of the work, or whether the experimental borings were still going on? He knew that the matter had been under the consideration of the Court; and if the Court had pronounced an opinion upon it, it might go far towards disposing of the question raised by the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House — namely, the oppression to which the Company the hon. Member represented had been subjected. He took it that if there had been any oppression on the part of the Crown the Court would have expressed an opinion upon the attitude which had been taken by the Government against the Company. A statement as to what had actually taken place, and of the result of the legal proceedings, would, he thought, be satisfactory to hon. Members, and place them in possession of valuable information.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he could not but think that there was some ground for the complaint which had been made by the hon. Baronet who represented the Channel Tunnel Scheme (Sir Edward Watkin), that the Company had been unduly interfered with in carrying out what, on the whole, was a valuable experiment. So far as the experiment had gone at present, he really did not see why the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should not allow the borings to be continued, if necessary, for some miles further, as an experiment merely. It would be quite as easy to put a stop to the Channel

  1821
  Tunnel when it had advanced 10 miles under the sea, as when it had advanced only 100 yards; and if some engagement were given by the Company under which the Channel Tunnel Company could be permitted to continue their borings, but which would in no way confer on them any rights in regard to the future, or interfere with any subsequent action on the part of Her Majesty's Government, he did not see why the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) should not be permitted to carry his experiment some miles further. The works, it must be remembered, would be carried on at the expense of the hon. Baronet's Company and at the expense of those who had confidence in the result of the experiment. If such permission could be given the cause of Science would doubtless be advanced, and there could be nothing whatever done that was injurious to the safety of the country, because, as he had already said, after the Channel Tunnel had been driven under the sea for five or six miles it would be just as easy for the Government to destroy it, if it was considered necessary to destroy it, as it was to stop it now. If the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) would really give a guarantee that the Channel Tunnel Company only wanted permission for experimental purposes, and that no claim would be made against the Government for damages if the scheme were hereafter knocked on the head, in the interests of Science the necessary permission might be given. Such a course would certainly put an end to all idea of a grievance on the part of the Company. He threw out the suggestion for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and if there were no practical objection to it, he hoped it might be accepted.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: In answer to the question addressed to me by the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), I have to say with regard to one of the letters to which he referred, that it appears to have been a private letter from the late Lord Derby to Lord Beaconsfield, and, as such, it consequently cannot properly find a place in this Correspondence; but as regards all the public documents, we have included every shred and scrap of correspondence we have been able to find. Amongst other documents, there will
  1822
  be found the papers and communications to which, I imagine, the hon. Baronet refers. But perhaps, to insure greater accuracy, I may state what the papers will be. In July, 1873, this question was raised by the Board of Trade, who informed the Foreign Office that, while opposing any monopoly, it would gladly see any improvement carried out in the communication between England and the Continent by means of a Channel Tunnel, and it would therefore be satisfactory to hear that the British railway system was likely to be connected with the European system by means of a Tunnel between France and England. The Board of Trade then presumed that Her Majesty's Government would not be inclined to offer any objection to a concession being granted to the promoters of the Channel Tunnel Company on the usual terms upon which they were granted to public Companies in France, provided there was no reason to fear that a monopoly would be secured. These views were forwarded to the British Ambassador in Paris, in order that he might listen to any representations that might be made to him. A note was attached to the letter by the late Lord Frederick Cavendish, stating that the draft was in exact accord with the wishes of Mr. Gladstone. All I need add to the communications, which will appear in the Papers, is that it is certainly rather a singular thing that throughout the Correspondence at this time there appears to have been no idea whatever that the formation of a Tunnel under the Channel could raise any question of National security. That question, however, was raised when the present Bills were brought before the House, and it was a question of such importance that it was evident it was quite impossible that the Government could allow the Bills to proceed until a decision should have been arrived at with regard to it. The delay which followed, and of which the hon. Baronet complained, was a delay that was inseparable from the inquiries which the Government thought it necessary to make. As soon as they received the Report of the Scientific Committee appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, it was referred to the military authorities, and again, as soon as we received the Report of the military authorities, the Government at once

  1823
  arrived at the decision which I have officially made known to the House. The hon. Baronet has said a good deal about what he is pleased to call the harassing action of the President of the Board of Trade. The hon. Baronet has always endeavoured, although I think entirely without success, to separate me in my personal and individual capacity from the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in the matter. I may observe that the action which I have taken on behalf of the Government has not been of a personal character, and I disclaim all personal feeling in connection with this matter. The hon. Baronet, in describing the action of the Board of Trade as harassing, has, however, omitted to refer to circumstances which I have on various occasions explained to the House, but with which, I am afraid, I must trouble the House again. The facts of the case are briefly these. We found that the experimental boring was being carried through the foreshore, and we claim the foreshore on the part of the Crown. We admit, however, that this is a question which will have to be decided by a Court of Law, and the hon. Baronet may be able to adduce evidence entitled to consideration. As we considered that there was not the slightest possible doubt as to the rights of the Crown when once the foreshore had been passed, and the territorial limits reached, we did not think it necessary to stop the works as long as they did not reach beyond the foreshore; but we gave the hon. Baronet full notice that, whenever he should reach the three miles territorial limit, we reserved to ourselves the right of taking such steps as we might think advisable; and when we found, from the plans submitted to us, that he had nearly approached to this limit, we gave him notice that the works must be discontinued. What did the hon. Baronet do? He gave me a personal assurance by letter that the works should be stopped, and that the wishes of the Board of Trade would be complied with. But, in spite of that assurance, I afterwards discovered, when at last I was enabled under an order of the Court to make a full inspection of the works, that they had been carried on for a distance of 600 yards beyond the limit at which the hon. Baronet had pledged himself that they should stop. I think the hon. Baronet, under these circumstances, has very
  1824
  little reason to come to this House and complain of the harassing action of the Board of Trade. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gregory) has asked me to state what is the present position of the matter. We had, in the first place, to go to the Court to obtain an order for inspection, the inspection which we had been constantly promised having been again and again evaded without sufficient reason by the hon. Baronet and the Company he represented. We accordingly obtained an order from the Court, and an interim injunction pending the settlement of the questions affecting the rights of the Crown to the solum under the three-mile territorial limit. I caused an inspection to be made in compliance with this order, and the result was that which I have stated. After what had passed, I felt I could not place the slightest confidence in the assurances I had received, and accordingly I determined to have periodical inspections of the works in order to see whether they would be stopped, at all events, at this 600 yards' limit; and I found, on the occasion of the last inspection, that, in defiance of the order of the Court, the works had been carried a distance of 70 yards further. Under the circumstances, further application will be made to the Court on Wednesday next. It would not be right for me to say anything more on that point pending the decision of the Court. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) has suggested that these works might be carried on to some further extent; but, as the continuance of the experiment on the terms proposed by the hon. Member would be a question of confidence, I must say that, for myself, I should very much distrust any experiment which would be made by parties who have dealt with the Government in the way the hon. Baronet has dealt with us; and I certainly think it is better, in the interests of the Crown, of the public, and also in the interests of the shareholders, that no further expense should be incurred by a continuance of the works at present, until the question whether the tunnel shall be made or not has been finally decided by Parliament.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, that, with, the indulgence of the House, he might, perhaps, be permitted to make a remark upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had not fairly and justly repre-

  1825
  sented the state of the case. He would ask hon. Members to read the Papers about to be laid before the House, and then to judge between the right hon. Gentleman and himself. With regard to the proceedings which the Board of Trade had taken, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to show what good to anybody could arise from the course which he had adopted. The right hon. Gentleman knew very well that, over and over again, the control of the works below the sea water-level had been offered to be placed in his hands; and it was his own fault if, at this moment, the Government had not the control of everything below low water mark.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was of opinion that, whenever a question of National safety was involved, it was the duty of the House to support Her Majesty's Government in any action they took. It was, therefore, their duty to support the President of the Board of Trade in arresting these experimental works until the great National question had been solved. He felt very strongly the force of the last observations made by the President of the Board of Trade—that it was especially unfair to the shareholders of the Channel Tunnel Company to allow them to spend another shilling upon the works until it was finally settled whether or not it might be necessary hereafter to arrest the progress of the works. Personally, he did not profess to have any particular knowledge upon the subject; but he was quite ready to believe that it might hereafter turn out to be a very grave National question, and when such important interests were at stake the more absolute the action of the Government was the more consistent it would be with their duty.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he thought the Government were allowing themselves to be frightened by a mere bogey, and that there was not the slightest danger to the safety of England in permitting the construction of these experimental works, even if a war with France were to break out, because the works could readily be stopped, and even destroyed, unless there were reason to fear that already some concealed tunnel from the French shore existed which might be suddenly opened. If that were so, there might be some reason for all this indig-
  1826
  nation; but, knowing the incorruptibility of a Liberal Government, and the influences which specially actuated a Government that prided itself on not being founded upon the traditions of an old aristocracy, but a Government interested in the development of commercial relations, and ready to lend the full force of its power in support of the Egyptian bondholders, or of any other National speculation, he thought that all this indignation was wasted. He regretted to see so much feeling displayed from the Treasury Bench in putting down a scientific enterprize which had already proved its practicability; and he was afraid that the interests of another Company, of which one of the Government Whips was the Chairman, had something to do with the matter.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE (SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT)—FEMALE CLERKS.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is his intention to entrust the whole of the work of the Savings Bank Department to female clerks; what steps he proposes to take to compensate the existing male staff for the inevitable injury they must sustain by the abolition of their establishment; and, whether the cost of such compensation would not outweigh the slight economy alleged to be effected by the employment of female labour?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that there is no intention of dispensing with the services of those who are now employed on the male establishment of the Post Office Savings Bank; and, therefore, no question of compensation arises.

  PERU—MURDER OF MR. ROSE.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has taken steps to discover and bring to justice the murderers of Mr. James Taylor Pose, assassinated in Peru on 26th July 1881; and, if so, whether those steps have been attended with success?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The murder of Mr. James Taylor Rose has occupied the attention of Her Majesty's Minister at Lima for some time past; but, owing to that part of the country where Mr. Rose was assassinated being entirely in the hands of guerillas, no successful result has as yet been arrived at. The matter, however, is still engaging the attention of the Legation at Lima.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—POSTMASTERS AT BALLYFARNON, CO. ROSCOMMON, AND CLEGGAN, CO. GALWAY.
  MR. O'DONNELL (for Mr. SEXTON)asked the Postmaster General, Whether he has come to any decision in the case of the Ballyfarnon (county Roscommon) post office; whether he is aware that the postmaster at Cleggan, county Galway, has been fined by the local bench for an assault on a man who came on business to the post office, and that the postmistress at Cleggan has been fined by the local bench for an assault on a woman, Mrs. Molony, who came on business to the post office; whether it was proved that the postmistress had, without authority, opened a letter addressed to Mrs. Molony, and abstracted a cheque from it; whether he will cause the postmistress to be prosecuted for theft, and will dismiss the postmaster and postmistress; whether he is aware that in numerous cases in Connemara, as, for example, at Kingstown and Errislanin, county Galway, the post offices are established in proselytizing schools, and directed by paid officials of proselytizing societies; and, whether he will disconnect the business of the post office from places and persons repugnant to the bulk of the population?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, he had answered two parts of the Question already. As he had already stated, arrangements were being made, with regard to the postmaster of Ballyfarnon, to separate the post office entirely from the business he is carrying on. With regard to the post office of Cleggan, the postmaster and his wife had both been warned, and if ever again there was any cause of complaint, the post office would be placed in other hands. With regard to the last part of the Question, although he had asked for it, he had not yet
  1828
  obtained information; but as soon as he obtained it he would write to the hon. Member on the subject.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—BALLY-SHANNON BOARD OF FISHERY CONSERVATORS.
  MR. O'DONNELL (for Mr. SEXTON)asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it be a fact that the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries lately audited the accounts of the Ballyshannon Board of Fishery Conservators, and found a large deficit existing; if they made any report and remonstrance to the Board on the subject; and, if so, whether he would lay a copy of their report upon the Table; if it be a fact that a good deal of the money thus found deficient was received by the clerk of the Board from many poor persons, in the shape of licence duty for fishing for salmon; if, notwithstanding the report of the Inspectors, the said Board have taken no steps to correct these abuses, or to compel the clerk to refund the money; and, as the Law requires that all money collected this year is to be handed over to the Board to be elected next October, whether he will direct the Inspectors of Fisheries to enforce this provision of the Law; and, whether he will bring in a Bill to empower the Inspectors to dismiss clerks who have acted in such a manner as the clerk of the Ballyshannon Board has done?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, the facts are as stated in the first three inquiries in this Question, and if the hon. Member moves for the Report there will be no objection to letting him have it. As to the fourth query, the Inspectors of Fisheries, on the 21st of July last, sent to the members of the Ballyshannon Board of Conservators a copy of their Report, and requested their immediate attention to it, and that a special meeting of the Board should be at once convened to consider the state of the books and accounts of the district; but no such meeting has, so far as I can ascertain, yet been held. Care will be taken to see that the provisions of the law which require the outgoing Board to hand over the funds to the new Board (which will be selected in October) shall be enforced. The hon. Member will see that it is impossible at this stage of the Session to take the steps suggested in the last part of the Question.

  EJECTMENTS (IRELAND)—THE LISSONURE ESTATE.
  MR. MOLLOY (for Mr. HEALY)asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, on the Lissonure Estate, county Tipperary, ejectment notices were served upon Christmas Eve on four tenants of the Endowed School Commissioners; whether the Irish Secretary and the Lord Chancellor are ex officio members of the Endowed School Board; and, if, therefore, the Chief Secretary will cause proceedings to be stayed until the tenants can obtain the benefit of the Arrears Bill, so as to enable these tenants to obtain the benefits of its provisions?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, there was a combination against rent on this estate, and ejectments were, therefore, brought against four of the tenants, and decrees obtained. The Chief Secretary and the Lord Chancellor are two official members of the Board; but, as such, cannot, of course, overrule the action of the Board as a collective body. The ejectment decrees do not appear, as far as I can ascertain, to have been executed, and if the tenants make use of their opportunity the advantages of the Arrears Bill are still open to them.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARMS LICENCE.
  MR. MOLLOY (for Mr. HEALY)asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a refusal by the resident magistrates at Cork police office to grant a licence to Mr. John Sullivan because he was an ex-suspect; whether he has any control over the action of the resident magistrates; and, whether he approves of their decision?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, the two Resident Magistrates by whom this arms licence was refused inquired carefully into the application, and refused it in the exercise of the discretion which the law vests in them, and which the Chief Secretary has no legal authority to review.

  SUEZ CANAL—THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL—M. DE LESSEPS.
  MR. BUXTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
  1830
  What position M. de Lesseps holds with regard to the Administrative Council of the Suez Canal; three members of which Council are representatives of Her Majesty's Government; and, whether M. de Lesseps, while in Egypt, controls, or is controlled by, the Council of the Suez Canal?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: M. de Lesseps is President of the Council of Administration of the Suez Canal Company, and has been annually re-elected to that post by the Council under the powers given to them by the Statutes. I have no reason to suppose that M. de Lesseps' position, in reference to the Council, is different in Egypt from that which he occupies in Paris. No special power appears to be conferred upon the President by the Statutes, except that he has a casting vote in case of equality of voting by the Council.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—THE WRECK OF THE "MOSEL."
  MR. DILLWYNasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, on the occasion of the wreck of the North German Lloyd Mail Steamer "Mosel," when that vessel went ashore in a fog close to the Lizard Lighthouse, the fog signal of that station was in operation; and, whether the officers of the "Mosel" heard it?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, that the fog horn was in operation when the Mosel struck; but he did not know whether the officers of the vessel heard the signals.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—PROCLAMATION OF EMATRIS, CO. MONAGHAN.
  MR. O'DONNELL (for Mr. SEXTON)asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he can assign any reason for the proclamation of the parish of Ematris, county Monaghan, under the Crime Prevention Act; whether it is true that no grave offence, either agrarian or other, has been committed in that parish for a very considerable period; and, whether it can be alleged that there is any "apprehension of crime and outrage," with reference to the parish of Ematris?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, the only answer I can make to this

  1831
  Question is that the Executive in Ireland had sufficient grounds in their possession for proclaiming this district.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—POLICE STATION AT MULLAGHMORE.
  MR. O'DONNELL (for Mr. SEXTON)asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to discontinue the special police station established at Mullaghmore, in the county of Sligo, last October; whether the great majority of the occupiers in that district were, within the last two years, dependent on benevolence for the barest necessaries of life; whether any grave offence has been committed in the district since the establishment of the special police station, or for a considerable time before, and whether the condition of the district has not been uniformly peaceable; and, whether, under all the circumstances, the Government propose to charge any part of the cost of the special police station on the occupiers of the district?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, this protection post must be continued at present for individual safety; but I am in hopes that His Excellency will shortly be able to order its discontinuance. The district is admittedly poor, and at present this police post is not charged upon it; whether that state of things shall continue must depend on the state of the district.

  ARMY (INDIA)—CONDUCTOR BENNETT.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he is aware that a Warrant Officer of the Indian Army, Conductor J. J. Bennett, of the Bengal Ordnance Department, was recommended by three general officers, in consequence of services rendered during the Afghan War, to receive an honorary Commission as Deputy Assistant Commissary, and whether that distinction has been refused to him; and, if so, why; whether there are any instances of a Warrant Officer similarly recommended being refused the honorary Commission; and, whether he will consider the case of Conductor Bennett, and lay upon the Table a Copy of any correspondence which has taken place with reference to his case?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that there was no Correspondence affecting Conductor Bennett except a letter from himself urging his claims to the award of a commission as honorary lieutenant. That request would not, however, be complied with in the absence of any recommendations in his favour from the proper military authorities in India. It did not appear necessary to him that the India Office should take any further steps in the matter.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—ALLEGED DISCONTENT—THE LORD LIEUTENANT'S CIRCULAR.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the circular communication, made under the direction of the Lord Lieutenant on the 6th instant by the Inspector General to the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and which has been read to the House, was supplemented by any simultaneous, prior, or subsequent intimation, either directly to the men, or privately through their officers, calculated to lead them to believe that the Government was willing to inquire into their claims on the cessation of the movement which had commenced?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, the information which has been furnished to me is as follows:—The Circular which has been read to the House was not at any time supplemented by any such intimation as is suggested in the Question prior to the date upon which His Excellency was informed that the agitation had ceased.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—THE ENCLOSURE IN REGENT'S PARK.
  MR. D. GRANTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any deed or document exists by which the lessees under the Crown, of the houses which face the enclosure in Regent's Park, have any special rights over the enclosure itself; and, whether the Law Officers of the Crown have expressed any legal opinion as to the rights or powers of the lessees to exclude the public from the use of the enclosure?
  MR. COURTNEY: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, I have to say that there are no covenants in the leases of

  1833
  Crown property in the Regent's Park which bind the Crown to keep the enclosure in question as a private garden. But it will be obvious to my hon. Friend that lessees may have rights which are not represented by covenants in their leases. Viewing the importance and difficulty of the question, I have directed a case to be prepared for the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS) — SUPPLY OF RUSSIAN CATTLE—PRECAUTIONS AGAINST RINDERPEST.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the statement in a letter in the "Times" of August 14th, and written by Mr. George Fleming, F.R.C.V.S. is correct, that 300 head of Russian cattle had been sent from Odessa to Limasol for the use of the Troops in Cyprus and in Egypt; and, considering the terrible character of the rinderpest, and that it usually, if not invariably, follows the free import of Russian cattle, steps are being or will be taken to prevent so great a calamity to Cyprus and to Egypt as the introduction of that fatal disease?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that since 1878 all supplies of beef for the troops in Cyprus have come from Odessa. The arrangements for this purpose were made in the time of the late Government, and great care has been taken to prevent any ill-results such as the introduction of rinderpest. The measures adopted for this purpose have been completely successful, and I have no doubt will continue to be so.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—THE MILITARY CONVENTION WITH TURKEY.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Military Convention between the English and Turkish Governments has yet been concluded; and, if so, what are its terms?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir.

  POST OFFICE (SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT)—PROMOTIONS.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Postmaster General, What means are usually taken by the Controller of the Savings Bank
  1834
  Department to secure the fittest men for promotion; and, whether the safeguards against favouritism recommended by the Committee of Inquiry into the state of that Department in March 1875 are still in existence; if not, on what grounds the practice of consulting the principal clerks was abandoned in the case of the promotions announced on Tuesday last?
  Mr. FAWCETT,in reply, said, that the responsibility for the recent promotions in the Post Office Savings Bank rested entirely with himself. He had spared no pains to obtain information as to the merits of those qualified for promotion, and he believed that those who had been promoted were those who were best entitled to promotion.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CONTEMPT OF COURT—"THE QUEEN v. HYNES."
  MR. O'DONNELLasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the accounts of the conduct of the jury in the recent murder case of the Queen v. Hynes, while at the Imperial Hotel previous to the verdict, which have appeared in the "Freeman" and the "Evening Standard" of Monday; and, whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, this matter occurred after I left Dublin. My attention has been called to it, and very effective steps are in contemplation in reference to it.

  EGYPTIAN LOANS, 1862 & 1864.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state the particulars and items of the amount of £10,539,545, mentioned in Sir Stephen Cave's Report (Blue Book 1425, of 1876, page 8) as having been spent in "extraordinary expenses, some of questionable utility, and others under pressure of interested parties;" and, if he can inform Parliament who these "interested parties" above-mentioned were?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I must give the hon. Member the same answer which I returned to a Question he asked me yesterday—namely, that it is not advisable that Her Majesty's Government should make statements in regard to matters on which they have no infor-

  1835
  mation that is not in the possession of this House and the public.

  PARLIAMENT — PUBLIC BUSINESS — BALLOT ACT CONTINUANCE AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. CRAIGasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reintroduce the Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment Bill next Session; and, if so, whether he will meet what is believed to be a very general desire on the part of electors, by extending the application of the Bill to elections for Local Boards and Town Improvement Commissioners?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: In reply to the hon. Member, I may state that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reintroduce this Bill next Session. It is impossible to apply the present form of ballot to elections at which there is plural voting.

  EGYPT—RIGHT OF VOTING THE BUDGET.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, as the right of the Egyptian people to vote its own Budget has been stated by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to be a matter still pending, steps will now be taken to ascertain from the de facto Egyptian military authorities if they will not at once lay down their arms on the English Government undertaking to allow them the constitutional rights which they demanded in January last?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in answering this Question, I cannot speak in better terms than those which have been already used. My hon. Friend himself says in his Question that the right of the Egyptian people to vote its own Budget has been stated by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to be still pending. The truth is that it is very difficult to raise in a naked or abstract form the right of the Egyptian people to vote their own Budget, and this for several reasons. My hon. Friend knows very well that the Egyptian people are the population of a Province of a particular Empire, and are subject, in the first place, to the immediate rule of their own local Ruler; in the second place, they have obligations arising out of matters connecting them with foreign
  1836
  countries, which rest upon rights long incorporated with the institutions of Egypt; and, lastly, with the Sovereignty of the Sultan of Turkey. All that has been said by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary or by myself is this—that as we have always approached this question, so we always shall, with the desire for the promotion and the development of institutions in Egypt which shall give to that country, with due regard to international and other existing rights, the full benefits, so far as we can secure them, of local self-government. It would be idle to speak of our obligations to the Egyptian military authorities, because those authorities, I must say, so far as I have been able to perceive, have only made use of the questions which arise from the rights of the Egyptian people as a pretext. They have been aware of our position with respect to the promotion of freedom and good government in Egypt, and I do not think that we have any question that can be addressed to them at the present moment except the question whether they will lay down their arms, which is a point of fact which it is not for me, but the proper authority, to determine.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—CETEWAYO, EX-KING OF ZULULAND—PROBABLE RESTORATION.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDwished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he could inform the House whether Her Majesty's Government had come to any decision to restore the ex-King Cetewayo to Zululand; and, if so, what means it was proposed to adopt to prevent civil war and to secure the appointed Chiefs in the rights secured to them by Sir Garnet Wolseley's settlement?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY,in reply, said: Her Majesty's Government have determined to consider the possibility of making arrangements for the partial restoration of Cetewayo to Zululand, with proper safeguards and conditions. Some portion of the country, to be hereafter defined, will be reserved in order to meet obligations towards those of the appointed Chiefs and people who may not be willing to return under Cetewayo's rule. A British Resident will be maintained in Zululand, and Cetewayo will be required to enter into engagements similar to those by which the 13

  1837
  appointed Chiefs are now bound, which specially include a prohibition to revive in any form the military system formerly prevailing. No portion of Zululand will be annexed to British territory. I may add that a communication to the effect of the foregoing was made this morning to Cetewayo by the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

  CRIMINAL LAW—JUVENILE DEPRAVITY.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the evidence taken before a Committee of the House of Lords to the effect that juvenile vice is increasing to an "appalling extent" in England and especially in London; whether the attention of the Government has also been called to the fact that the unchecked sale of cheap publications of an immoral nature, and even of cheap manuals professing to give instruction in immoral practices, has been carried on to a large extent, especially in London; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the influence which the wholesale dissemination of cheap tracts and pamphlets, through the agency very often of young boys and girls in the streets, have had, and are calculated to have, upon the "appalling" increase of juvenile depravity described before the Committee of the House of Lords?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that he was very sensible of the gravity of the evils to which the hon. Member referred, and he hoped that in the next Session of Parliament something might be done on the basis of the very valuable Report of the House of Lords. With reference to that part of the question referring to the employment of children in the streets, he believed that that was one of the greatest sources of evil that could be imagined. He was very glad to hear that in many large towns in England measures had been taken to restrain that species of employment, and he hoped that something more would be done in that direction.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND) — CONTEMPT OF COURT—"THE QUEEN v. HYNES."
  MR. CALLANsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman
  1838
  the Attorney General for Ireland a Question of which he had given him private Notice, and would conclude with a Motion. ["Oh, oh!"] He heard the Prime Minister say "Oh, oh!" and thought the right hon. Gentleman could not be aware of the nature of the Question, for if he had, he (Mr. Callan) had no doubt he would have exercised that natural restraint which was so becoming in so eminent an Official. His (Mr. Callan's) attention had been drawn to The Daily News, a Radical paper, and a supporter of the Government, and in it he read that yesterday in the Commission Court, Dublin, attention was drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to certain articles that had appeared in The Freeman's Journal; and Mr. Justice Lawson said he was glad to hear that statement, and hoped the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland would be directed to the outrageous article, which was published for the purpose of prejudicing and defeating the administration of justice in the Court, and which he had read with feelings of horror and indignation. It would appear only natural that anything published in The Freeman's Journal should excite the horror of Mr. Justice Lawson, when it was remembered that that eminent Whig Judge was appointed by the Party now in power, and was the pet of the Prime Minister. Since that Court first sat, there were two articles which were published in The Freeman's Journal of August 11th and 12th; and he (Mr. Callan) must state the reason why these articles were written, and call upon the Attorney General for Ireland here to justify the course of procedure in that Court. He gave the right hon. and learned Gentleman private Notice, and he said he would explain and answer the Question across the floor of the House. That was the way he (Mr. Callan) preferred to have an answer coming from the Irish Executive for many reasons. He found in The Freeman's Journal of August 11th this statement of fact:—On the swearing of the jury, the following were ordered to stand by—namely, 20 gentlemen, and these 20 gentlemen were Roman Catholics, each and every one, and amongst them he (Mr. Callan) had a half-dozen of private friends. ["Hear, hear!"] Probably the Radical who said "Hear,

  1839
  hear!" considered that a sufficient justification that they were his friends. He accepted it as a testimony for the Radicals. The prisoner only challenged six; and what did The Freeman's Journal say to that challenge? It said—
  "The Crown exercised their right to challenge on a wholesale scale, and no less than 19 persons, some of them amongst our most respected citizens, were ordered to stand aside."
  That was the comment it made upon it. That was one of the arguments which had struck Mr. Justice Lawson when he read the articles with feelings of "horror." The second article stated that another prisoner was tried the following day, when 11 jurymen were objected to by the prisoner, and 26 by the Crown. All of the 26 were Roman Catholics, and this was the other comment of The Freeman's Journal, and which that eminent Judge, promoted by the present Government, stated created such feelings of "horror" in his mind—
  "We are unwilling to credit the rumour that the Crown have resolved that juries exclusively, or almost exclusively, Protestant shall determine in some cases the liberty, and in others the lives, of the prisoners on trial at Green Street, yet colour is lent to the reports by the fact that yesterday, in the capital case—just as on the previous day in the White boy case—Catholic gentlemen, of admitted respectability and position, were ordered to stand aside when they took the book to be sworn. To the gentlemen in question no stereotyped 'trade' objection can be made; and the inference, therefore, is that they were shoved aside from their duties as jurors simply because they are Catholics. The Attorney General was present and ordered them to 'stand aside,' and if he could advance any tangible reason for so doing we should be quite content. If this is true, an odious, and, it was hoped, obsolete practice has been renewed; and the course taken, as unnecessary as it is injudicious, must naturally cause indignation and resentment in Catholic circles. The notion that such men as Edward Lenehan, of Castle Street; William Dennehy, of John Street, and others whom we could mention, should not be trusted to find a true verdict, according to evidence, in country cases brought to Dublin for trial, which is the simple and only inference, is offensive in the extreme."
  He (Mr. Callan) had known Edward Lenehan for upwards of 20 years. He was an extensive leather merchant in Dublin—a man of great wealth and high position, who had never interfered actively about the Land League, but who had always devoted himself to his duties; and to ask such a man to "stand aside" required, and necessi-
  1840
  tated, very considerable justification. There could by no possibility be any other reason but that he was a Roman Catholic. The same must be said of William Dennehy. To say that these men and others would not conscientiously return a true verdict was indefensible in the extreme. The article proceeded—
  "The representatives of the Crown would not venture to make such a declaration; yet the names of the gentlemen specified appear in the published list of the rejected. The matter is one that calls for inquiry and explanation."
  These were the comments which has startled Mr. Justice Lawson, the pet of the Prime Minister, and who was shocked with horror. The article continued—
  "For the present, we will only express our regret that the representative of the Crown should deem it necessary and expedient to 'Boycott' Catholic special jurors of the city and county of Dublin."
  Again, they caused horror in the tender breast of Mr. Justice Lawson. Mr. Hugh Vaughan, a gentleman of independent means, was also objected to because he was a Catholic, and that at the instance of a Liberal Government and a Liberal Prime Minister, whose creed was that no man could owe Civil allegiance to the Crown and be a Catholic. What had occurred was, in his (Mr. Callan's) opinion, not only invidious, but insulting, and ought to be resented. All the jurors ordered to stand aside were most respectable men. One of them hunted with the Ward Union, and owned a number of hunters, one of which was always at his (Mr. Callan's) service whenever he visited Ireland in the winter, and the animal invariably managed to keep him well to the front, although he rode 14st. 10lb. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is really trifling with the House. If an hon. Gentleman thinks it right to put a Question he is entitled to do so; and if he thinks it right further to interrupt the Business of the House by moving the adjournment, he is also within his limits. But he must confine himself to the Question.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he had intended that his observations should be to the Question, and he was pointing out that with regard to these trials, in one case 26 gentlemen, and in another 20, were ordered to stand aside simply because

  1841
  they were Roman Catholics. In deference, however, to the Chair, he would cut short his observations. He must call the attention of the House to the fact that not a single Protestant was ordered to stand aside. There was also Peter Aungiers, who for 50 years had been one of the principal salesmen in Dublin, and other men, each of whom could buy out the whole jury, lock, stock, and barrel, as far as their worldly position went. Such proceedings were a disgrace to the English administration of justice; and it was necessary that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland should explain the proceedings. To give him the opportunity of doing that, he (Mr. Callan) would move the adjournment of the House, as the whole business appeared disgraceful and discreditable to the present century.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that, considering the very great importance of the Question asked by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), he should have much pleasure in seconding the Motion, with the view of raising the subject to which he had referred, and giving the Government an opportunity of satisfactorily explaining this matter. Primâ facie he had revealed a state of facts which was grave in the extreme. The Government had a new Coercion Act for Ireland of exceptional severity. One of the provisions of that Act provided for the trial of offences by special jurors; and there was another, providing for a change of venue, by which cases could be brought to Dublin from all parts of Ireland, presumably because there was there a class of jurors of higher culture and responsibility; and yet the facts brought before the House by the hon. Member for Louth showed that in the very first trials under the new Act—trials of great importance, and in respect of agrarian crime of great seriousness—the Government did not proceed with any regard to law or equity, for they found that man after man—all of them most respectable Catholics, and some of them bearing the most respectable names appearing on the special jury lists of Ireland—were ordered to stand aside; and, finally, the Crown so managed the matter that not a Catholic juror was called upon to serve; but that in a Catholic city—the metropolis of a Catholic country—every one of the Catholic prisoners
  1842
  was tried by Protestant juries. If he (Mr. O'Donnell) were a Protestant, he should certainly protest in the strongest manner possible at his co-religionists being thus picked out. The action of the Government in thus ostracizing the Catholics was doubly inexcusable; because they found that, under that Act, where the Special Jury Act failed, there still remained trial by the Judges. He trusted that some explanation would be given in order to remove the bad impression created in the minds of the people; for if it was a fact that the Government were about to try men for their lives by juries from which all men professing the same religion, and the religion of the Irish people, were excluded, then the universal opinion must be that they were being put to death, not by any system of justice, but by a system of judicial assassination.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Callan.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, I think I shall best consult the dignity of justice and the time of the House, and certainly the dignity of the distinguished Office which I hold, by not entering into any vindication of my action before a tribunal other than that before which that action took place. Therefore, it is not my intention to do so; but it is my intention, so long as I hold the Office of Attorney General for Ireland, to take care, by the honest exercise of every power with which I may be invested by special Act of Parliament or otherwise, by the discretion of the law, that crimes shall no longer go unpunished in Ireland; and no matter what may be stated in this House or out of it, I, at all events, will not shrink from discharging my duties; and I expect that, whilst I am the official head of the administration of the law in Ireland, I may depend upon and be seconded in this respect by those acting under my orders. I was present when the two trials referred to took place, and personally gave directions; but the paper in which these articles were published may probably have something more to say of the case after to-morrow is over. Therefore, I shall say nothing about The Freeman's Journal; but the House will credit me when I state, if I carefully

  1843
  abstain from answering what I have no information about, that I did not ask what was the religion of a single person called to serve on those juries. The Crown Solicitor acting under me, I know of my own knowledge, is a very conscientious Catholic. The only instance in which I intervened personally in Court with reference to the juries was in the case of a gentleman, with whom I am personally acquainted, and who appealed to me not to call upon him to serve in a capital case, he having conscientious scruples against returning any verdict involving the sentence of death. [Mr. CALLAN: Name.] No; in open Court I shall not give any name whatever. Independent counsel got up and appealed to the Judge to excuse, I think, four or five jurors, whom they named, on different grounds which they stated; and on legal objections I stated that, to save time, for time is of great importance to the public, I would on my own responsibility yield to their wishes, and those gentlemen accordingly were ordered to stand on one side. Two or three other gentlemen connected with the Press appealed to me not to be allowed to serve, and I at once acceded to their request, and allowed them also to stand on one side. I myself was perfectly ignorant of the religious opinions of every person trying the cases, and this, I am sure, the House will give me credit for when I assure them that the religious element during the trials alluded to was never present to my mind the whole time, and did not appear, except in those articles which were published in this paper in order to inflame public opinion against the administration of justice.
  MR. CALLAN: There were 46 Catholics objected to, and not a single Protestant.
  MR. DALYsaid, the manner in which these prosecutions had been managed had created the greatest distrust in the mind of every Catholic in Ireland—persons who viewed crime with as much horror and as great an abhorrence as one possibly could do. They felt that justice would not be done, and that they were not to have fair play. He had hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would have afforded some explanation, some reason for this extraordinary action. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had no knowledge
  1844
  of the religion of the persons ordered to stand aside; but it was a fact that, in his (Mr. Daly's) own city of Cork, 41 Catholics were ordered to stand aside, and it was also a fact that upon the jury lists there were marks against Catholic names. Thus it came that Catholic prisoners were to be tried with a great and powerful Government arraigned against them, and without even the sympathy of their co-religionists. Such proceedings did not give fair play, and he should be untrue to his own convictions if he did not state that the conduct of these particular trials had done much to destroy public confidence in the administration of justice. To order such men as had been mentioned to "stand aside" was to brand them in the eyes of the public by proclaiming that in the eyes of the Crown and the Attorney General for Ireland they were not to be believed upon their oath to be capable of rendering fair and impartial verdicts. If the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) had done nothing else, he would have done good in calling attention to a subject which required careful consideration at the hands of the Government.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 2; Noes 88: Majority 86.—(Div. List, No. 333.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL [Lords].— [BILL 191.]
  (Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL [Lords].— [BILL 191.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he rose to move the following New Clause:—
    (Power to husband to apply to court for settlement of wife's property.)
    "Where there is no settlement of a wife's property the husband may apply at any time to the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in England or Ireland, according as such property is in England or Ireland, where such property amounts to or exceeds the sum of five hundred pounds, or to a county court in England, or to the chairman of a civil bill court in Ireland respectively, where such property is under that sum, for a settlement of the same; and it shall be lawful for the court to direct a settlement to be made upon such terms and such trusts for the benefit of the husband and wife and their children, or any of them, with such powers and provisions, and upon such conditions, including a condition for a contribution

    1845
    by or a settlement on the part of the husband as the court shall think fit, and the court may order and direct the execution of such settlement by all proper parties, and may give and enforce such directions as may be necessary for vesting in the trustees of such settlement any property which may be made subject to the same."
    New Clause (Power to husband to apply to court for settlement of wife's property,)—(Mr. Gregory,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he could not accept the clause. The principle of the Bill was to put the wife on an equal footing with respect to her property as the husband; and if the proposed clause was inserted they ought also to insert a clause giving power to the wife to apply to the Court for a settlement of the husband's property. As no one would propose to do that he could not accept the clause.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause 1 (Married woman to be capable of holding property and of contracting as a feme sole).
    On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendment made, in page 1, line 11, after "shall," by inserting "in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Property of a woman married after the Act to be held by her as a feme sole).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 11, to leave out the words "a married woman," and insert the words "every woman who marries after the commencement of this Act,"—(Mr. Warton,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that the hon. and learned Member had raised the same point on a former occasion. As he had failed at that time to convince the hon. and learned Member that the Amendment was objectionable, he did not suppose that he could convince him now; and he, therefore, should not repeat his argument.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 6; Noes 79: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 334.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 6 (As to stock, &c. to which a married woman is entitled).
    On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendments made, in page 3, line 3, by leaving out from "interests," to "industrial," in line 4, and inserting "of or in any Corporation, Company, or Public Body, Municipal, Commercial, or otherwise, or of or in any; "and in line 21, by leaving out "Company," and inserting "Corporation, Company, Public Body."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 7 (As to stock, &c. to be transferred, &c. to a married woman).
    On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendment made, in page 3, line 27, by leaving out from "interests," to "which," in line 28, and inserting "of or in any such Corporation, Company, Public Body, or Society as aforesaid."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Investments in joint names of married women and others).
    On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendment made, in page 4, line 7, by leaving out from "interests," to "respectively," and inserting "of or in any such Corporation, Company, Public Body, or Society as aforesaid."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 9 (As to stock, &c. standing in the joint names of a married woman and others).
    On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendment made, in page 4, line 25, by leaving out "in any such Company," and inserting "of or in any such Corporation, Company, Public Body."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Fraudulent investments with money of husband).
    On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendments made, in page 4, line 31, by leaving out the second "of," and inserting "in;" and in line 33, by leaving out "incorporated or joint stock Company," and inserting "Corporation, Company, or Public Body, Municipal, Commercial, or otherwise."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 11 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 17 (Questions between husband and wife as to property to be decided in a summary way).
    On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendments made, in page 7, line 38, by leaving out "Company," and inserting "Corporation, Company, Public Body;" and in page 8, line 40, by leaving out "Company," and inserting "Corporation, Company, Public Body."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 18 (Married woman as an executrix or trustee).
    On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendment made, in page 8, line 41, by leaving out "in any Company," and inserting "of or in any such Corporation, Company, Public Body."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL [Lords].
  (Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL [Lords].

    [BILL 263.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he trusted this was the last time when the venerable words "Ancient Monuments Bill" would be in the Paper. He congratulated his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) on his great success, won by such perseverance and such tact. For years he had fought by the side of his hon. Friend. There had been a great deal of misunderstanding about his hon. Friend sand the present Bill. He thought the most ridiculous of all arguments raised against it was that it was a destructive measure, whereas it was absolutely the most conservative measure ever brought before Parliament. It would preserve monuments of immense value from the effects of the wilful ignorance and selfishness of those who ought to be their guardians, and create the most beneficent of entails. The Bill had made its way slowly, but surely, and he was certain that when it was put in the Statute Book it would be hailed with satisfaction.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Power to appoint Commissioners of Works guardians of ancient monuments).
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had to move a purely formal Amendment at the end of this clause, which, through inadvertence, had not been placed upon the Paper. The clause provided that the expressions "maintain" and "maintenance" should include acts necessary for repairing a monument or protecting it from decay or injury; and he proposed to add, at the end of the clause, a further provision that the cost of maintenance should be provided by Parliament, subject to the approval of the Treasury.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of Clause to add the words "The cost of maintenance shall, subject to the approval of Her Majesty's Treasury, be paid from moneys to be provided by Parliament."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Power of Commissioners to purchase ancient monuments) agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Power to give, devise, or bequeath ancient monuments to the Commissioners) agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Duty of Commissioners to cause ancient monuments to be inspected).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he should have several Amendments to propose, which were rendered necessary in consequence of the decision which had been come to by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government to rest the responsibility upon the Treasury rather than the Commissioners of Works. He proposed to bring up these Amendments when the clauses of the Bill had been gone through, in the shape of a new clause in substitution of Clause 5.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause struck out.
    Clause 6 (Penalty for injury to ancient monuments) agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Recovery of penalties) agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Description of Commissioners of Works, and law as to disposition in their favour).
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREmoved, in line 7, to leave out "England," and insert "Great Britain." The object was to define that the expression "the Commissioners of Works" should mean the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings in Great Britain, and the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 7, leave out "England," and insert "Great Britain."—[Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
    Question, "That the word 'England' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Words inserted.
    On the Motion of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Amendment made, in lines 8 and 9, by leaving out "as respects Scotland the Board of Trustees for Manufactures in Scotland;" in line 12, by leaving out from "England" to "Scotland" in line 13, both inclusive, and inserting "Great Britain;" and at the end of the Clause, by inserting, as a separate paragraph—
    "In the case of an ancient monument in Scotland, a duplicate of any report made by any inspector under this Act to the Commissioners of Works shall he forwarded to the Board of Trustees for Manufactures in Scotland, and it shall be the duty of the Commissioners of Works, in relation to any such monument, to take into consideration any representations which may be made to them by the said Board of Trustees for Manufactures."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Description of owners for purposes of Act).
    On the Motion of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Amendment made, in page 4, line 22, by inserting—
    "And where the owner of any land, being the site of an ancient monument, is a tenant for life or in tail, or heir of entail in possession in Scotland, having a power of sale over such land, either under the terms of a will or settlement or under an Act of Parliament, any deed executed by such owner in respect of the land, being such site as aforesaid, of which he is so tenant for life or in tail, shall bind every
    1850
    succeeding owner of any estate or interest in the land."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Definitions) agreed to.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREmoved a new clause in substitution of Clause 5, vesting the appointment of an Inspector of Ancient Monuments in the Lords of the Treasury instead of the Commissioners of Works.
    Clause read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKbegged to move, in page 4, after Clause 9, to add the following Clause:—
    (Additions to Schedule by Order in Council.)
    "Her Majesty may from time to time, by Order in Council, declare that any monument of a like character to the monuments described in the Schedule hereto, shall be deemed to be an ancient monument to which this Act applies, and there upon this Act shall apply to such monument in the same manner in all respects as if it had been described in the Schedule hereto. An Order in Council under this Section shall not come into force until it has lain for forty days before both Houses of Parliament during the Session of Parliament."
    The Schedule was taken from the Act which his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) had alluded to. The Schedule, however, though carefully prepared, was never regarded as complete, and he believed it was generally conceded that there ought to be power given by the Bill to enable the authorities to deal with other monuments than those specified in the Schedule. He understood that Her Majesty's Government were good enough to accept the clause.
    New Clause (Addition to Schedule by Order in Council,)—(Sir John Lubbock,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he quite approved of the clause, and should be glad to add it to the Bill. The clause, however, as it stood, applied only to monuments of "a like character" to the monuments described in the Schedule; and, of course, it might be desirable hereafter to make provision for the preservation of monuments of a more recent date. At present it would only refer to the

    1851
    monuments mentioned in the Bill; and if the principle was hereafter to be extended, perhaps it would be better that it should form the subject of fresh legislation.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that, by a clause which had already been passed, they had provided that the ancient monuments to which the Act applied should be the monuments specified in the Schedule; and at the end of Clause 10 they had the Schedule referred to. It was now proposed to make additions to the Schedule, and he apprehended that it would be irregular to do that without altering Clause 10.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Member was mistaken. The clause now proposed seemed to him perfectly regular.
    MR. WARTONwould appeal to the Chairman, as a point of Order, whether the clause ought not to follow Clause 10 instead of Clause 9?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the clause was quite regular as proposed; but if the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) consented to propose its insertion after Clause 10 he could do so.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he would defer to the opinion of the Government upon the matter.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREremarked that Clause 10 was simply a definition clause, and the clause now before the Committee would more properly come in after Clause 9.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    Schedule.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had given Notice of an Amendment, but was not in his place to propose it. He would, therefore, move the Amendment of which his hon. Friend had given Notice—namely, to include in the Schedule the stone known as "Cross Macduff, Fifeshire." At the same time, while making that Motion, he confessed that, although he had been born and bred in Fifeshire, he knew nothing about the Cross Macduff; but although that was so, he thought it would be hard that Fifeshire should not have her ancient monuments preserved.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, after line 14, add, "The stone known as Cross Macduff, Fifeshire."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the only objection he had to the Amendment was that the description contained in it was insufficient. It contained no definition of the parish.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was sorry that he was unacquainted with the parish in which Cross Macduff was situated; and, under the circumstances, he would not press the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKmoved, in the Schedule, page 7, line 8, insert—
    "The earthern and stone inclosure known as Grianan of Aileach, Donegal County, Burt parish, West Innishowen barony."
    He moved the Amendment in the absence of the hon. Member for the County of Donegal (Mr. Lea).
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREhoped he was not asking too much when he requested the House to read the Bill a third time.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," — (Mr. Shaw Lefevre,) — put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  CITATION AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords.]— [BILL 267.]
  (The Lord Advocate.)
  CITATION AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords.]— [BILL 267.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the Bill stated it was to come into operation on the 1st October, 1882. When the Bill was in Committee, a suggestion was made that its operation should be to some extent delayed, because it might operate with a certain degree of hardship upon a very merito-

    1853
    rious class of persons—namely, the messengers-at-arms and other officers—whose emoluments would be curtailed materially by the Bill. He did not then see his way to assent to the proposal; but it had since been represented to him that some of these officers were under arrangements of some duration with assistants and otherwise, and it might be a hardship if the Bill were brought into operation immediately. He would therefore ask leave to substitute the 1st January, 1883, for the 1st October, 1882. The Amendment would be proposed on Clause 2.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    MR. WARTONsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be considered that day three months. He felt bound to protest against the manner in which this Bill—the object of which was to deprive many highly respectable persons in Scotland of part of their income—had been forced through Parliament. It had not even been heard of until yesterday week. It had been almost smuggled through the House of Lords, and it came upon the people of Scotland with very great surprise. The Bill had been brought into this House in such a form that the Lord Advocate had found it necessary to set down no less than 34 Amendments. He thought it the most disgraceful specimen of hasty legislation which had happened during the Session. The persons affected by the Bill were the Queen's messengers, whose office was one of great antiquity, dating from the 14th century. On a person being appointed to the office, he had to find security for £500, and to pay £20 in fees, and had also to pay an annual fee of 17 s. 8d. It was now proposed to substitute law agents, which might, perhaps, have the effect of cheapening justice, but would cause great injustice. He very much doubted whether the ends of justice would be attained by the proposed change; for, whereas summonses were now served by the Queen's messenger, who was an independent person, the service might in future be intrusted to the clerk of the plaintiff's solicitor, or might be made by registered letter—modes of service which might open the door to fraud and collusion. He held in his hand a letter from one of the most respectable solicitors in
    1854
    Glasgow (Mr. Murray), who had written to the Lord Advocate on the subject of this Bill. It was not the messengers alone who complained of this Bill, but the Legal Profession in Scotland. The Faculty in Glasgow had not been consulted, and all those solicitors who had been consulted were opposed to the Bill. Mr. Murray, in his letter, pointed out the frauds which might be committed should the Bill pass, by means of dishonest law agents acting in concert. He granted that in some cases the service of citations by these messengers might, perhaps, be a little more expensive than the system proposed; but that was no reason for their abolition. The service of citation by post would be less secure, for he held in his hand no fewer than 99 registered letters which had never reached the persons for whom they were intended. All the respectable solicitors were against this Bill. If it passed, these officers would be impoverished to the extent of two-thirds of their income, and they would have no compensation. Moreover, an opportunity would be afforded to dishonest persons to trump up charges against their innocent neighbours. If the change was so very urgent, why had they not heard complaints before? He moved that the Bill be read that day three months.
    COLONEL ALEXANDER,in seconding the Amendment, said, he only rose for the purpose of thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the concession he had made with regard to the extension of time he had allowed to these messengers before the Bill came into operation. There was one other thing he desired to allude to. He thought it was perfectly certain the Bill would tend to fraud. In Glasgow, for example, the large majority of the people lived in flats, and, just as in London, many letters were returned with the inscription—"Not known at this address." So it was doubtful, in many cases, whether these posted summonses would ever reach the persons for whom they were intended. He hoped the Lord Advocate would delay the Bill altogether till next year.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he did not wish to delay the Bill, but desired to correct some mistake that had been made. With regard to safety of the citation, the letter containing it required to be a registered letter, of which care was taken in delivery, and receipt being got both when the letter was posted and when it was delivered; and, therefore, there was not the smallest risk of fraud on that ground. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) said that all the respectable solicitors in Glasgow were opposed to the Bill. He (Mr. Anderson) had never found that the respectable solicitors in Glasgow were averse to expressing their opinions to him when they were opposed to a Bill, and he had not seen one letter from a solicitor complaining of the Bill. The only letter he had received from a solicitor was in favour of the Bill. The Bill was a great improvement in practice. He did not believe the Bill would be so destructive to the interests of the messengers-at-arms as the hon. and learned Member supposed. Though it might in some cases deprive the messenger-at-arms of a certain number of services, on the other hand, those who continued in the service could do it a great deal cheaper. It would cost him a great deal less to post a registered letter than to walk four or five miles away to serve a summons. There was, therefore, some compensation to the man for what he lost. He thought the Bill was an extremely good one, and it only extended a provision which was found to work well in small debt cases.
    MR. HENDERSONsaid, that, instead of there being no demand for legislation of this kind, he was two years ago instructed by several of his constituents to bring the matter before the Lord Advocate of the time, and to press upon him the necessity of bringing in legislation to cheapen the cost of the process, especially in country districts, where Sheriff's officer and messenger-at-arms were a long way off. He knew the subject had been under the consideration of the Government since that time, and he agreed that the Bill was a good Bill, and ought to pass. At the same time, he sympathized with the messengers; but it was reform, and in many just reforms individual interests might suffer. He was glad, however, the Lord Advocate had postponed the operation of the
    1856
    Bill until 1st January, which would be some relief to those men as giving them more time to consider their arrangements. There was something to be said in favour of registered letters, because it appeared that summonses were sometimes served open as a means of extorting money. He might mention the case of a most respectable man who had gone to the country, and his servant, who was left in the house, received an open summons against her master for a particular offence. The servant, of course, read it, and the solicitor for the gentleman had not the slightest doubt that summons was served generally for the purpose of extorting money. The new system would make it impossible for those designing persons to extort money from respectable people by this practice of serving open summonses.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 6: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 335.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Clause 2 (Commencement of Act).
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Amendment made, in page 1, line 11, by leaving out "October one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two," and inserting "January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Execution).
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, to leave out the words "twenty-four hours after."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause A (Fees).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 36, after the word "taxation," to insert the words "except when a Messenger at Arms or any officer of Court is obliged to travel to effect such service, when his customary fees shall be allowed."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that, as the Bill provided for the posting of registered letters, the question of travelling expenses did not arise. The allowance of fees was pro-

    1857
    vided for at the discretion of the Judges by Clause 6.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, Mr. Robert Duff.)
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    [BILL 240.] COMMITTEE.
    [Progress 14th August.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he desired to move the following Amendment, providing for the duties of the Fishery Board in detail:—
    "That the Fishery Board shall have the following powers, for developing and extending the Scotch sea and fresh water fisheries generally, including herring, white fish, salmon, trout, and other species of fish; to inquire, to institute inquiries, to report, on the state of all harbours already aided, or to be aided, with public money, and on all harbours generally, as to their financial condition, their fitness or otherwise for fishery purposes, and their needed improvements; likewise as to the boats employed in sea fishing, their suitableness or otherwise for the ocean work, and specially for deep sea and distant fishing; as to the best modes, seasons, and conditions for fishing for different kinds of fish; as to the parts of the ocean and coasts where fish abound, and as to the conditions which regulate or guide the movements of fish; as to providing increased facilities for the transport and rapid distribution of all kinds of fish, to the many markets, throughout the Kingdom; as to the control to be exercised over, and in, the use of steam-tugs, of trawling vessels, and their employment, and over their uses and abuses; as to the grounds to be provided on the coast for hauling up boats, for drying and exposing nets and lines; as to the provision or supplies of bait, and the facilities for laying down beds of mussels; as to the regulation and checks in the use of the measure known as the 'cran,' fixed for measuring out of fish; as to the extension of the telegraphic and postal communication, so essential for conveying information along the coasts, both as respects the shoals of fish, state of the weather, temperature of the seas; as to the use of storm warnings to the creeks, as well as to harbours; as to the dues, taxes, rents, tithes, &c. levied on fishing places, for the dwellings of fishermen, on grounds used for fishing purposes, and on the beaches between high and low water mark; as to regulating, selecting, and salting suitable herrings, packing and filling barrels, ensuring uniformity in the standards at the several ports; as to generally providing for improving the pre-
    1858
    sent practice of branding and passing the barrels of herrings, and for guarding against abuses; and that, in order to provide for further legislation likely to be needed, Provisional Orders may be applied for; also that copies of general instructions which may from time to time be issued by a Secretary of State for the performance of the general duties of the Fishery Board shall be laid before Parliament within three weeks after meeting, and the annual Report of this Board shall be promptly laid before Parliament, furnishing full and useful information on the duties above detailed, and, further, on all other branches of the fishing business, such as the police of the seas for the protection of British fishermen against the increasing numbers and aggressions of the Foreign fishermen; as to the state of the markets in connection with the Home fishing interests, in Foreign Countries as to the measures in progress for effecting reduction in the import dues, and securing facilities for the fish trade abroad; all these being included in the business of a new Fishery Board."
    THE CHAIRMANasked where the hon. and gallant Gentleman intended to put the Amendment?
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he desired to put it after Clause 7.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member has placed what he calls an Amendment on the Paper without mentioning where it is to be introduced. It can, consequently, neither be moved as an Amendment, nor as a separate clause. It is not an Amendment; but it is an account of what the Fishery Board ought to do, and what their duties ought to include. It might be the subject of a new Bill, or even the subject of this Bill, if the Government had taken all these subjects into its consideration. I do not see that it can be moved as an Amendment, nor as a clause, nor even as a new clause.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsubmitted that other Acts of Parliament were full of instructions.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member might be worked into a Bill in separate clauses; but in the form in which it is here it is quite irregular and out of Order, and the hon. and gallant Member cannot move it.
    Remaining clause agreed to.
    Schedule.
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Amendment made, by leaving out from "enact," in line 3, to "Tweed," in line 6.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to,
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, they were creating a special Fishery Board, at great expense, and they had abstained from giving to the Board those full instructions connected with their duties which were necessary for the public convenience and interests. It was a lamentable thing that this Bill should be pushed through the House, at this last Sitting, without its containing some of those detailed orders so essential for their guidance in the performance of the work connected with the growing important fisheries of Scotland. He regretted the Lord Advocate should have associated himself with a Bill of this kind, for, when passed, all efforts to amend it would be unavailing.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
    Lords Amendment considered according to Order.
    Lords Amendment, in page 3, line 5, after "endowments," insert "including the power of investing the funds thereof."
    MR. BUCHANAN,in calling attention to the Amendment, which provided that the scheme to be prepared by the Commissioners might include the power of investing the funds of educational endowments, asked whether the Amendment was intended to widen or to limit the power of the trustees in regard to investments? As far as he could observe, no such power was given in any English Endowed Schools Act, and he regarded the Amendment as unnecessary.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, it was possible the Amendment might be unnecessary; but it was considered by a very able lawyer to be necessary. Its object really was to widen the power of the trustees. It was represented that the clause, as it stood, was doubtful as affecting many trusts in Scotland, and that it would be necessary to give these powers in order that the trusts might be
    1860
    turned to better account. With respect to this provision not being in the English Endowed Schools Act, that was quite true, because these funds were vested in the Charity Commissioners, and the Endowed School Commissioners had to appeal to the Charity Commissioners before they could obtain authority to invest the funds of a trust. There was no corresponding authority in Scotland, and it was, therefore, desirable that the Commissioners should have power to invest such funds.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, the apprehension he and others had regarding the Amendment was that it not only gave power to extend the authority of Governing Bodies in investing money, but it also restricted the powers the Governing Bodies now had. The Governing Bodies in Scotland generally had invested their funds to the best advantage; but what they felt was that the Commissioners might decide that the Governing Bodies should cease to invest money in land. Had that been so originally, many trusts, instead of being now large, would have remained comparatively small. Heriot's Trust, for instance, was originally £23,000; and if it had not been invested in land, instead of being now £26,000 annually, it would have been a very moderate amount.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment, in page 3, line 7, leave out "and," and insert "or," agreed to.
    Page 3, line 33, leave out "one-half," and insert "the existing proportion on the governing body of persons deriving their qualifications as aforesaid," the next Amendment, read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Mundella.)
    MR. HENDERSONrose to object to the Amendment. He said, when this clause was introduced it contained distinct directions to the Commissioners as to the constitution of the new Governing Body. The original clause contained only two provisions as to representation. The first related to Governing Bodies, where representatives of popularly elected Bodies either constituted wholly the Go-

    1861
    verning Body, or were in the majority; and it was proposed, in cases of this kind, that the Governing Bodies should consist only of a majority who were popularly elected. The second provision was, that in cases where, at present, the popularly elected representatives were in the minority, the Commissioners, in constructing the new Governing Bodies, should only give such a proportion of popularly elected representatives as they might determine. On the part of a great many Scottish Members, who desired that this Bill should rather extend the principle of popular representation than restrict it, this clause gave great dissatisfaction, and the consequence was that before the second reading there were no less than eight Notices of objection to it. Between the introduction and the second reading, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council reconsidered the whole matter, and, on the Motion for the second reading, he announced, in a very full House of Scottish Members, that he was prepared to accede to their wishes to such an extent as he thought would amply satisfy them, and he then proceeded to explain the nature and extent of the concessions which, he said the Department were prepared to make. So generally satisfactory was the statement which he made as to the nature of the concessions, that none of the hostile Motions were pressed against the second reading of the Bill; and the attitude of the Scottish Members generally was very considerably modified. One of the concessions made was, that in cases where the existing Governing Body consisted wholly of popularly elected members, or where they were in a majority, it would be provided in the Bill that, in the future, on the new Governing Bodies they should be represented to the extent of two-thirds. But under the 2nd sub-section of the clause, the right hon. Gentleman provided that where, in existing Governing Bodies, there were less than a half of the Governors popularly elected, in the new Governing Bodies they would be raised into a majority. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No; not a majority.] They would not be less than half of the Governing Body. It was to that concession that they attached the very greatest importance, and now it had been taken away from them in the other House. The consequence of that would
    1862
    be seen when he stated that in 85 endowments the popularly elected representatives of the Town Councils constituted the whole Governing Bodies, and in 23 cases they constituted three-fourths of the Governing Bodies, so that in 108 cases out of a total of 190 nearly £60,000 annually were administered by Boards, composed either wholly or to the extent of three-fourths of popular representatives. Those Members who wished to extend or maintain popular representation on the Governing Bodies gave way in response to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, and consented to his proposal that in the new Governing Bodies in respect of these trusts only two-thirds of the members should be popularly elected. The effect of the Lords Amendment on the class of endowments whose Governing Bodies at present consisted of one-half, or less than one-half, of popular representatives would be that they would remain as they were originally in the Bill when it was introduced. In 21 endowments there was one-half of the members of the Governing Bodies popularly elected; but in 60 there was less than one-half so elected; and there were, he thought, 10 cases in which the Provost of the burgh was the sole popular representative on the Governing Body. The effect of the Lords Amendment would be to leave them precisely as they were; so that while on the one hand, in order to conciliate the right hon. Gentleman and facilitate the passing of the Bill, they had sacrificed in 108 cases popular representation, they had got nothing on the other hand if the Lords Amendment were accepted in favour of the principle of extending popular representation. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman for that. The noble Lord who was in charge of the Bill in the other House (Lord Carling ford) said that, in accepting the Amendment of the Duke of Richmond and Gordon on the spur of the moment, he went somewhat beyond the intention of the Scottish Education Department, and the promises which were made in this House. Lord Rosebery stated that if it had not been for the Duke of Richmond and Gordon's absence, it would have been the duty of the Government to move the reintroduction of the original words on Report; but, as the noble Duke was not present, and as his Amendment had been accepted by the Government on the pre-

    1863
    vious day, it would be breaking faith with him if any Motion of that sort were made in their Lordships' House; but the consideration of the Amendment of the noble Duke must be left to be dealt with by the House of Commons, on the clear understanding that the Government had done nothing intentionally to frustrate the intentions expressed by the Government in the House of Commons. That was the situation of the matter. He (Mr. Henderson) completely absolved the right hon. Gentleman or anyone in this House of any intention to depart from the pledge made, and on which the Bill was allowed to go through all its stages with much greater ease than if the concession had not been made. At the same time, those who felt strongly on this point should not now be called upon to make the sacrifice simply because there was neglect somewhere in the Lords in insisting on what was done here. While he quite understood and appreciated the reason why Lord Rosebery did not move on Report to restore the original words, he thought the reason which the Government gave—the absence of the noble Duke—applied with ten-fold more force to the Vice President of the Council, who, on the second reading of the Bill, in the presence of nearly the whole of the Scottish Representatives in this House, gave them the assurance that this concession would be made, and that the whole force and authority of the Government would be devoted to carry it through. He thought, therefore, they had a right to expect that the right hon. Gentleman would really, in justice to those who had left, stand to the concession he had made, and which so greatly facilitated the passage of the Bill through the House, and that he would accept the clear invitation which Lord Rosebery gave in "another place," and restore the original words. He moved that the House disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member could not move, but could meet the Motion to agree with the Amendment with a negative.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he rose to support the hon. Member who had just spoken in his appeal to the Vice President of the Council. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman for what had taken place in the House of Lords. He believed what took place there was entirely without
    1864
    the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge; but he thought they had a right to blame him if, after knowing what had taken place there, he did not restore the Bill as it was. He thought Lord Rosebery took a correct view of the position of matters in the speech he made, and it was a very great disappointment and surprise to him (Mr. Dick-Peddie) when it was moved by the right hon. Gentleman that the Lords Amendments should be accepted. He would remind the House that while the right hon. Gentleman made the concession on the second reading, he resisted both in Committee and on Report the attempts that were made to induce him to depart from the arrangement he had formerly made. Having stood by what he said then, why should he now depart from it? If the mistake were not irretrievable, why should he propose that that mistake should stand? It was on the ground of the concession that they withdrew a great part of their opposition to the Bill. He observed that the only reason given in the House of Lords for the change was that they should trust the Commission. But they should trust in local government. Was there to be no trust in that? He had as much confidence in the Governing Bodies as in any Royal Commission. He had no doubt they would do their best; but he had no less confidence in Governing Bodies composed of men representing local communities, and he should deprecate anything which would show on the part of the House, and especially of a Liberal Government, any distrust of local government of any kind. The Amendment was proposed in the House of Lords by a Tory Duke, and it was at once acceded to, which was not, he thought, very creditable to the Government. If the House of Lords had carried it by a majority, he should not say anything about it; but there was no vote upon it, and after what had been said by Lord Rosebery and Lord Carlingford, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand by what he had intended.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, as he never approved of tying up the hands of the Commissioners in the way in which they were tied up by the clause as it left this House, he was very thankful to the Lords for having altered it; and when hon. Members spoke of this being a pledge on which they withdrew a great part of

    1865
    their opposition, it would be in the recollection of the House how far they did withdraw their opposition. It appeared to him that the course they took was to accept the concessions, and then to do their best to destroy the Bill.
    MR. HENDERSONsaid, he was one of those who had a Motion on the Paper against the second reading bearing on this particular point, and when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement on the second reading, he (M. Henderson) expressly stated that he was so satisfied with the concession on the point referred to, that he would not press his Motion.
    MR. ANDERSONaccepted the explanation for the hon. Member himself; but he was alluding to the Party generally known as the Heriot Ring, who opposed the Bill in the most obstructive manner.[Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He said the course they took was to accept the concessions, and then to do their best to destroy the Bill. Therefore, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman owed them a great deal on that point. But when they said they made such a sacrifice, he could not see it. They seemed to forget that the words "not less" were still in the Bill. It did not follow that the Commissioners could not make the number of elected members a great deal more than it was before. It was in the power of the Commissioners to do so, but it was not in their power to make them any less than the existing number. That, he thought, was abundant security. More than that would, he thought, spoil the Bill, and he hoped the House, having got the Bill improved by the Lords, would not from any foolish sentiment give way and reject his Amendment. But there was another reason he had to give. If the clause stood as it now was it would do absolute damage to some endowed institutions, and he should be obliged to move at the end of the section—
    "Provided this sub-section shall not apply, where its application would, in the judgment of the Commissioners, be inconsistent with the intentions of the founder, or the purposes of the endowment."
    Supposing the House rejected the Lords Amendment, it would put the clause in a mischievous condition, and would require these words added to the subsection, in order to prevent injustice
    1866
    being done. He would agree with the Lords Amendment.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he must repudiate the statement that the Scotch Members were pushing their views beyond the most moderate bounds. They did not divide in Committee on the points in dispute; and by the course they had taken of discussing the principles to which they took objection, with the Speaker in the Chair instead of wrangling over details in Committee, he maintained that they had effected a saving in the total time occupied in the discussion of the measure. There was no doubt that the Bill, as altered by the Lords, had a very different effect from what it would have had under the concessions made by the Vice President of the Council. In regard to the provisions with respect to the proportion of elected members, the right hon. Gentleman had again and again, in the course of the discussion, dwelt upon the words "not less," and had pointed out that these provisions were a distinct step in the matter of popular representation. In Governing Bodies in which there were no elected representatives, as the Bill left this House, the new Body would require to have in it a third of that element; but in the Bill as it now stood it required no elected representatives whatever. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No, no!] Well, it was to be to such extent as the Commissioners should determine. The right hon. Gentleman had made a distinct bargain with the House. He had laid down certain concessions which he was willing to make. He had made these of his own accord without encountering any opposition, and he dwelt on these concessions at every recurrent stage of the Bill, when the matter was before the House. They were told that the Amendment had been made through inadvertence in the other House, and they had that not on mere hearsay, but from noble Lords representing the Government; and how, in the face of what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and in the face of the admissions of Lord Rosebery and Lord Carlingford, the right hon. Gentleman could now consistently turn his back on his own promises, he could not conceive. He did not think it was worth while to divide; but, in any case, he wished to make a protest against that which appeared to him to be a lapse in consistency on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I very much regret that at the last stage of a Bill like this—a Bill which has come down from the Lords later than any Bill of this sort ever came down before—a Bill which is the largest and most liberal measure of this kind that ever was put upon the Statute Book — this opposition should have arisen. The Bill contains provisions which I feared the Lords would eliminate, and which I am thankful to say they have not eliminated; and on one of the strongest and most liberal measures ever passed, we are here engaged in what seems to be a squabble on a feeble and trivial Amendment. I say so, because this Bill has been passed with the consent of five-sixths or nine-tenths of the Scottish Members. Hon. Members have every right to oppose the Amendment; but I do not attach great importance to the change that has been made in the House of Lords. It is rather an improvement, I am bound to say. If it were not so, I should at this moment have moved that we disagree with the Lords Amendments. Will the House allow me just to state what has taken place, and then I will appeal to hon. Members whether I can do otherwise than move to agree with the Lords Amendments? I proposed that where the majority of the Governing Bodies derived their qualification from election, that majority should be two-thirds; that where the elected members were less than one-half, they should in future be not less than one-half; and that where there were none, there should be one-third; and in that state the Bill went up to the House of Lords. When I heard of the change made last Thursday night, I confess I felt that it was my duty at once, when this Bill came down, to move to disagree with the Lords Amendment. But when I got the printed Bill, I found that all of the words "one-half" and "one-third" had been taken out, and other words had been inserted, which left the substance and the spirit of the provision still in the Bill. I appeal to the House whether it is not so; and, being so, we feel it our duty to consider seriously whether, on the last day or two of the Session, we should run the risk of sending this Bill back to the Lords with the prospect of its coming back again too late to be dealt with, and whether on a mere verbal Amendment we should run the risk of imperiling
    1868
    the most important Bill, I say, of this Session. What are the facts? The Lords have inserted this—"That the Governing Body shall consist of not less than the existing proportion." The Commissioners cannot reduce the number of popularly elected members in a Governing Body; but they may increase it to any extent they please. Now, is it fair with a Commission for which every Scotch Member, I think, has thanked the Government, and which is fairly entitled to the confidence of Scotch Members—is it fair to assume that the Commission will not act in concurrence with the feelings and sentiments of their fellow-countrymen, and import a sufficient proportion of the representative element into these Governing Bodies? It is said there is nothing in favour of extending the principle of popular election. The very reverse is the case. In any case it will not be less than it is now. In the next clause, in regard to where there are no elected members on the Governing Body, a direct instruction is given to the Commissioners that there shall be some on the Governing Body. The clause says—
    "Where the governing body of any educational endowment, as at present constituted, includes no persons deriving their qualification as members, either directly or indirectly, from their election to be members of the town council or any branch of any other public body, provision shall be made in any scheme under this Act relating to such endowment that the governing body, as altered by such scheme, shall consist to such extent as the Commissioners shall determine of persons elected."
    I appeal to any man whether there can be any doubt that the meaning of these words is—that every close body in Scotland must be opened up, and members of town council or school board introduced into it, unless they come under the operation of the latter portions of the clause? After all, this is a question of substance and spirit, and not merely words. My hon. Friends have acquitted me of any breach of faith in the matter. Knowing that this Bill was a sort of red flag in the eyes of some of the Scotch Members, I asked the Lord Privy Seal to divide upon it rather than accept any change; but the Lord Privy Seal said, in the first place, that he believed it was an improvement; and, in the second place, he said he knew they were going to be beaten, because the noble Lords who had spoken, both before and after

    1869
    him, were against him on the point. I say there is comparatively nothing in the change. I should have been thankful if my own words had been allowed to stand, because hon. Members would have been satisfied; but if I had introduced these words at first, they would have been accepted with avidity. I will tell you why. I hold in my hand the Bill with the Amendments introduced by my old Friend Mr. Duncan M'Laren. Here is his view. Speaking as the representative of Heriot's Trust, and on Behalf of Heriot's Trust, he says that—
    "Where the governing body, or the majority of the governing body, of any educational endowment derive their qualification from election, it shall consist of the same proportion as now; that, in the second place, where there are more than one-half, or less than one-half, the scheme, as altered, shall consist of the same proportion."
    Now, in the present Bill, we say "not a less proportion." And Mr. M'Laren's third point is—that where there is no popular representation it shall be adequately provided for. We have done better than that. We say Clause 6, as amended by the Lords, is a more liberal provision for the Governing Bodies and a more absolute direction to the Commissioners than the clause as amended by Mr. M'Laren. It is a little hard that we should be charged with want of courage and with not keeping faith, because, on the last day but two of the Session, I do not move to disagree with these comparatively trifling Amendments. I do ask my hon. Friends to have some little faith in the Commission; and I say again that no man can look at this measure without being astonished that it should have passed the Lords at all. Such a Bill could not be passed in 1880, and it has passed in 1882. Its operation has been brought down to 1872; it has opened up the Governing Bodies; it has swept away all religious tests from teachers; it has given a number of advantages such as I only wish I could live to see passed in an English measure; and I do hope that, instead of this discussion degenerating into a squabble about a few words, we shall have some regard to the important educational measure which is before us.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, that in the speech they had just listened to, the right hon. Gentleman had wandered somewhat wide of the Amendment which was before them. He did not wish to follow
    1870
    him into the general discussion in which he had indulged; but he would just deal with one small point which he had raised towards the end—namely, the comparison of the Bill as it now stood with the draft Bill drawn up by Mr. Duncan M'Laren. The right hon. Gentleman said Clause 6, as it stood, was a better clause than that drawn up by Mr. Duncan M'Laren; but let him remind the right hon. Gentleman that he had not accepted the 1st sub-section of Mr. Duncan M'Laren's clause, and that subsection was the most important and the widest in its scope. As this clause returned from the House of Lords, the protection of the representative element was limited to those Governing Bodies in which that element amounted to exactly one-half, and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Henderson) had pointed out that there were only 51 such institutions in Scotland out of 189. The difference between the clause as it was sent up to the Lords, and as it returned to this House with the Amendment of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), was that, instead of making it compulsory on the Commissioners to have at least one-half of the new Governing Body elected from the Town Council and other public bodies—instead of that applying to 80, it now only applied to about 20; so that there was a very substantial difference. Everyone would regret that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen fit to follow the distinct statements of Lord Carlingford and Lord Rosebery. After those statements, he appealed, to the House whether it would not be well for the reputation of the Government for maintaining what he might really call good faith, that they should disagree with the Lords on this particular Amendment, so as to restore the clause to the state in which it was originally presented to them by the right hon. Gentleman, and in which it was sent up to the other House?
    MR. MUNDELLA: I hope I may be allowed to explain, with reference to the statements made by the noble Lords, that these speeches were made at my request to exonerate me from any charge of departing from the statement I had made.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it seemed to him perfectly clear that these were substantial Amendments, and made

    1871
    a very substantial change in the Bill. He did not wish to discuss the question on the merits; but he must express his surprise that in a matter of faith the Government had not felt themselves bound by the most emphatic declarations of their organs in the House of Lords to stand to their guns. Lord Rosebery represented the Government in the House of Lords, and nothing could be stronger than the words he had used. He understood the result of the present action of the Vice President of the Council was that he threw over the Representative of the Government in the House of Lords, and denied and repudiated his statement. What was of supreme importance in this matter was, that there should not be the slightest doubt on or reflection cast upon the faith of the Government in dealing with this Bill. Lord Rosebery might be wrong; but he (Sir George Campbell) did most emphatically say that in the course the Government were now taking they were repudiating the words of Lord Rosebery. But it seemed to him that Lord Rosebery was right, and that the Government should have stood to their guns. He admitted that though this was a substantial and important Amendment, it was not one of supreme importance. At the same time, he could not help thinking that if they had been Amendments in which the Government were supremely interested, they would not have been so much afraid of the House of Lords. They had bearded the House of Lords before now.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked whether his hon. Friend wished to have a second Government crisis in connection with the conduct of the House of Lords on a matter which he admitted was not of very great importance, and on which he and his Friends did not represent anything like a majority of the Scotch Members? Many hon. Members wished to see this Bill become an Act this Session, and it should not be jeopardized by differences as to minor Amendments. The question was, whether they could trust the Commissioners in regard to the creation of the popular representation on the Boards? The Commission which had been appointed had given entire satisfaction in Scotland. It consisted of men of great weight in educational matters. He was as sorry as hon. Members that the Lords had altered the Bill in
    1872
    the form in which it was sent up to them; but these Amendments did not substantially alter the measure, because the Commissioners were not tied down. The words were "not less than before," and he believed the Commissioners would construe them in no narrow spirit. He appealed to hon. Members whether it was worth while to waste time over the point and jeopardize the existence of the Bill?
    MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, he hoped they would be able to settle this matter without going to a division. There were two points on which he should like the English Members to understand the position. The first was, that language had been used by some hon. Members as if the pledges given by the Government had been given to the whole of the Scottish Members, instead of to a minority of them. He thought it should be distinctly understood that these promises had been given to a minority—he thought he might say a small minority—of Scottish Members, who had for the last three years done much to keep this Bill back from discussion, by attempting to make bargains beforehand with the Education Department. It was in order to disarm the opposition of this minority that the Government, without sacrificing anything substantial, had been willing to depart a little from their own views of what was best. The opposition, however, from certain quarters was continued, and the adjournment of the House was moved by the son of Mr. Duncan M'Laren, who was the chief representative of the Heriot Hospital Trust. That attempt to throw out the Bill was not supported by one single Scottish Member. But, secondly, he wished to remind the House how small the point was between themselves and the Lords. It only amounted to this—that, having a Commission in whom great confidence was generally placed, there was a difference of opinion as to restrictions to be placed upon that Commission. It was not that the Lords proposed to put any further restriction on the Commission, but that they proposed to remove something of the restriction which the House of Commons had put upon the Commission. And how small was the difference! He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) made a mistake upon one point. He thought the hon. Member

    1873
    was wrong in saying that the 2nd sub-section related only to cases where the representative members were precisely one-half of the Governing Body. The hon. Member would find, if he looked at the Bill, that it applied to all cases where they did not exceed one-half. He appealed to the House whether what the Lords had done was not very equitable? On this point they said that where one-half, or less than one-half, of the Governing Body were elected by popular representation the Commissioners should have no power to go below that proportion. There was nothing to prevent their going beyond it. They might propose to make the whole Governing Body representative; but this sub-section would restrain them from diminishing by a single member the proportion between the elected part of the Governing Body and the rest of the Governing Body. He thought the House might gracefully yield the point to the Lords without a division.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 9: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 336.)
    Lords Amendment, in page 4, lines 3 and 4, leave out "being not less than one third."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Mundella.)
    MR. DICK PEDDIEsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Motion, as it was evident the House was prepared to support the Government. The question was not whether the Amendment was important or not. The most important question was whether the Government would carry out their promise on the second reading of the Bill. He had been surprised to hear from two right hon. Gentlemen arguments to the effect that the pledge was of no great consequence, because it was not to a majority, but to a minority, and because the Amendments were of no great consequence. He thought a pledge was a pledge, whether it be given to a majority or minority. He was surprised to hear the Chairman of Committees talking of the great waste of time on this Bill. The second reading of the Bill only occupied two and a-half hours, the Committee stage 10 hours, and the Report about three hours. If
    1874
    no more time had been wasted on important Bills than that, there would not have been much to complain of. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had spoken of the "Heriot Ring." That remark might apply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh. [Mr. BUCHANAN: No, no!] It might also apply to himself as a citizen of Edinburgh, for the remark could certainly not have been applied to the other hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), who said several things rather disrespectful of Heriot's Hospital, nor to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Henderson). It came ill, he thought, from a Gentleman who had been engaged in correspondence with the Edinburgh papers, where he had been charged with being a bitter opponent of Heriot's Hospital. That charge had been denied; but it was well known that he had been as bitterly hostile to that endowment as any Gentleman could possibly be.[Cries of "Question!"] He did not intend to enter into the question of the importance of the Amendments. He thought it vain to say nothing was taken from the Bill in respect to popular representation on the Governing Bodies. He did not propose to divide the House, but he could not refrain from recording his protest against the manner in which some important matters had been met.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, the hon. Member had charged him with hostility to Heriot's Hospital. He had no hostility to Heriot's Hospital; but he had great hostility to everything like jobbery and abuse, and so far as these existed in Heriot's Hospital he was opposed to them, and wished to see it improved.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow in being opposed to jobbery and abuses, wherever they might be found. He begged to disclaim what the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Dick-Peddie) had said about his representing the "Heriot Ring." As for the "Heriot Ring," it only existed in the columns of The Scotsman.
    MR. HENDERSONsaid, if this Bill was essentially different from the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman introduced in 1880, they were indebted for its improvement and character, and for its being one of the most liberal educational measures that had passed the House, not so much to the right hon.

    1875
    Gentleman himself as to a small minority of Scottish Members who had steadfastly, since 1880, stood up for the principles to a large extent embodied in the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Subsequent Amendments agreed to.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  (Mr. Playfair, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Courtney.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

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

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—POLICY OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT,in rising to move, that—
    "This House condemns Her Majesty's Government for their neglect and mistakes which have brought about the War in Egypt, and especially for the Bombardment of Alexandria without a landing force sufficient to have saved life and property, and considers that the Foreign Policy of the Government has alienated the Allies, and weakened the influence and power of the country,"
    said: Sir, the country is now fairly involved in a war in Egypt. There are some 25,000 troops, British and Indian, in that country, or on their way to the valley of the Nile. The estimated cost of a three months' campaign is already over £4,000,000 sterling. Such estimates are generally far under the real cost. Ministers cannot bear to forecast the full consequences of their blundering. It will be well if the country escapes with a fresh debt of £10,000,000. Now, there are reasons why, even at this last moment of a weary Session, a criticism of the foreign policy of the Government should be made, and there are especial reasons on this present occasion. Events move rapidly in our age. The causes of catastrophes are often forgotten in the panic of defeat, or amid the tumults of victory. Much is forgiven to a Ministry that can struggle out of a serious crisis, even if those troubles be of its own creation. But there are other reasons why some reference should be made to the general policy of the Government. The real difficulties and problems of this Egyptian crisis are but beginning. No one doubts the ability and power of England to crush the ad-
    1876
    venturous soldier—be he self-seeking rebel or unselfish patriot—who has centred in himself the forces of the ancient land of the Pharaohs. But when you have chased Arabi from his entrenchments your worse embarrassments will begin. You will have to settle the future of Egypt. You will have to decide the control of the Suez Canal; and here you will encounter ambitions more resolute and unscrupulous and forces more potent than the arms of Arabi, or than the opposition of the Ottoman Government, whom you have been alternately bullying and cajoling, according to the most approved methods of a Liberal Ministry. No one will envy the Cabinet the task of settling the various claims and rights which they have professed to have in view—the Sovereignty of the Sultan, the power of the Khedive, the aspirations of the Egyptian people, the rights of the bondholders, and, let us add, a fifth, which the Prime Minister always omits if he can, the interests of the British Empire. Will you be able to pare away, as you no doubt hope to do, the Sovereignty of the Sultan? Can you bolster up on his Throne an unpopular Khedive whom the bulk of his own people detest because of your support? Can you give a fanatical and ill-educated nation the control of their own destinies and finances, which you have already refused them? If you do, what will become of the Khedive, your protégé, and of the bondholders, your countrymen? How will you settle the vast claims from European and Native owners of property which will arise out of the destruction of Alexandria, brought about by your bombardment, and other wider claims which will arise if the Egyptian Army, in despair, should destroy, as it undoubtedly is able to destroy, the whole of the accumulated property of every kind in the Delta of the Nile? Is Egypt, already impoverished and drained by usurious engagements, to be further saddled, when she can least bear them, with the charges arising out of these losses? Above all, what are you going to do with that white elephant of your own creation which you have conceived, nourished, petted, resuscitated, and brought to a monstrous development of mischief, which has hung like a millstone round your neck, hampering you at every step, embarrassing you with suggestions, plans, modifications, and control—I mean your Conference, fit emblem of your

    1877
    "Concert of Europe?" You are already realizing some of the consequences of these imaginative escapades of an incoherent genius; but I will venture to prophecy that in another six months' time you will be as sick of your "concerted action" as you have become of your boasted "joint action," and as anxious to wriggle out of your Conference as you have lately been to get rid of your entangling co-operation in doing nothing with France. Nothing is more amusing than the steady discomfiture of the Government in every dodge they have resorted to. I use the word advisedly, for there has been no policy in the whole business, but merely a succession, of pitiful dodges, each taken up rashly, tried with feebleness, and abandoned with haste and without dignity, as the Ministry have been made to realize its impotence. "Joint action" with France was the first of these weak expedients. That was meant to free the Ministry from the necessity of that cooperation with the "anti-human Turk," which bad been the traditional and successful policy of English statesmen. "Joint action" had a varied and a troubled existence. It was from the first a sickly bantling, though M. Gambetta's force of character and clearness of aim, dragging, as it did, your helpless shift-lessness along with it for several months in leading strings, gave it a temporary appearance of life, which soon faded away when dread of a European war caused the fall of that aggressive politician. "Joint action" received its death blow when the French Fleet steamed away from Alexandria and left you to do the work alone. Its funeral service was the refusal of the Vote of Credit by the French Assembly and the fall of the Ministry of M. de Freycinet. Her Majesty's Government had from time to time kept up a kind of sham flirtation with the Ottoman Government, which took the form of pretty speeches as the warm fit came on, accompanied by a steady current of underhand abuse and of intrigue and counter action on every question of moment. When, however, "joint action" became an awkward embarrassment, they had recourse to an old love, "the Concert of Europe." This myth, which the ridicule and asbestos géloso of Dulcigno had all but exploded, was now trotted out, and eulogized before the
    1878
    British public as a magnificent resource. There was in the Conference more than the mere pomposity of the idea and theatrical display of "the Concert." Her Majesty's Government, who never think or see more than a fortnight, if so far, ahead, thought they might rid themselves of the troubles of their impracticable "joint action" behind the shield of their Conference. But they only exchanged the whips of France for the scorpions of concerted Europe. In a month's time they got weary of their second artifice, and tried to cut the Gordian knot with the unsheathed sword of England alone. The Concert bothered, baulked, delayed them, so they bombarded Alexandria—that is, they had resort to "independent" and, more or less, "resolute" British action. This is one-half the policy I urged upon them six months ago, in February last, when they scoffed at my advice and ridiculed my predictions, all of which have been verified. The other half the Government profess to be about to adopt, though with reluctance—I mean, "co-operation with the Ottoman Government." However, as usual, the Ministry adopt even the right policy at the wrong time, and without any provision or precautions. They commenced hostilities without securing any allies, in the way most ingeniously chosen to give offence to everybody and to benefit no one. They irritated the Egyptian Army, without intimidating or overwhelming it, and they destroyed the forts without protecting the town or the life and property within its walls. They insulted the Conference they had summoned by beginning war without its mandate or even its consent; they injured the Porte by a flagrant contempt for its Sovereignty; and they give Arabi, by their ill-judged action, tenfold greater force, and turned him from a mutineer into a National hero. But this is not the last of their expedients. Isolated action is all very well for the guns of our iron-clads; but when it comes to a war, and a war which threatens to arouse the furious religious passions of Islam against England, the largest Mahomedan Power in the world, the Government begin at the twelfth hour to realize the importance, nay, the absolute necessity, of an understanding and co-operation with the Porte. So they are now professing to carry out the second half of the policy, which even so

    1879
    inexperienced a Member of this House as myself urged upon them in February last. The irresistible logic of facts has forced upon the Government slowly, reluctantly, and at a terrible cost, the only policy which, from the first, could settle the question, bristling as it does with the gravest dangers. That policy cannot be better described than in the words of a resolution which was passed at a great meeting of the Patriotic Association lately held in this City—"A resolute and independent British policy in co-operation with the Ottoman Government." But, I repeat, at what a terrible cost has the present Ministry found its way into the right path, which lay equally open to them in August, in October, in February, even in June and July last. All might then have been settled easily, without bloodshed and without expense. Beckon up the danger and agitation, the immense destruction of material wealth in Egypt, and the injury to her creditors; the cost of this unnecessary and ill-omened war in human life and in money; the infinite complications arising out of it, the danger of a European war not yet by any means past; and the sum of the charges which we advance and can prove against the Government will be, in some measure, arrived at. In a word, we charge the Government with having caused this war by their incredible neglect and still more incredible mistakes, and with beginning it at the wrong time and in the way most fruitful of danger. The excitement of the combat, the National pride in the display and valour of the Queen's Forces by land and sea, the desire to support the Government at a crisis, may drown for a time the recollection of these truths; but when the cool time of reflection comes, when the bill for the follies of the Cabinet has to be paid, then truth will be acknowledged. I am not referring to these points as a mere matter of criticism. The past is gone, and cannot be recalled. But the same errors will be repeated unless the Government listen to wholesome advice. They must reverse their whole European policy if they are to free the country not only from this war, but from greater perils. They must revert in their general policy, as they have already been forced to do in so many important details, to the far-sighted and statesmanlike policy of their illustrious Predecessor, Lord Beacons-
    1880
    field. I make bold, Sir, to say this, and feel justified in doing so, inasmuch as I warned the Government, both in August and February last, of the dangers they were provoking, and my warnings have in all respects been borne out by subsequent events. The Prime Minister answered me in a contemptuous formula, "affirming everything that I denied, and denying everything that I affirmed." It was a convenient form of reply for the moment, but it does not read quite so well now. I affirmed that "the Concert of Europe" was a delusion, and that any reliance on it could only embarrass and entangle England in her foreign relations. That has come true. I affirmed that the attempt to politically co-operate with France in the affairs of Egypt and of the Mediterranean in general was impracticable, and could only lead to weakness and dissension. That has been proved ten times over. I affirmed that the Prime Minister was committing a deplorable mistake in his policy of injustice and persecution towards Turkey, and that the only way in which we could secure our power and influence in the East was by a recurrence to the friendly alliance of Lord Palmerston with the Ottoman Empire. The Ministry, by their present action, are admitting this. I referred to the value of Cyprus, a subject on which the Prime Minister was at the time quite ecstatic in his ridicule, and I called attention to the immense gain to the country by the statesmanlike purchase of the Suez Canal Shares. These have both been demonstrated. But the question upon which I laid most stress was that of alliances, and this has been the principal blunder of the Government, and very largely the cause of all their troubles and humiliations. The late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster preferred, he once said, "friends to allies," and from him such a sentiment is at least comprehensible. The Home Secretary, with his charming capacity for adopting any side of a question, said that he did not think very highly of allies, which, coming from a Minister whose Government was completely isolated, was at best a "fox-and-grapes" kind of statement. But there was something that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did value, and that was the "sympathy of emancipated peoples." It is interesting to note how effective such random talk as this is with the mass of

    1881
    the followers of the Party opposite. It was, no doubt, accepted as a noble and philanthropic sentiment in accordance with the highest behests of that moral law whose principal apostles have of late had a slight divergence of opinion. But, Sir, when you consider of how little practical value to this country is the sympathy of the races to which the Home Secretary referred—the savage and cruel Bulgarian, the wild Montenegrin, the treacherous Greek, or the unlovely Armenian—compared with the alliance of two intelligent and powerful nations such as those of Austria and Germany, the measure of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statesmanship may be obtained. But the Government subsequently showed that they were not insensible to the advantage of alliances by the Mission which they sent to Germany, in the person of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), with reference to the Dulcigno Question.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: There was no Mission.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I think the hon. Baronet is disorderly in interrupting me. He will have an opportunity of replying afterwards.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I consider it better that these mis-statements should be denied at once.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Of course, there was no formal Mission; but—
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No Mission at all.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Then, I will say the communications which the hon. Gentleman held with the German authorities upon that question. It may even be that the right hon. Gentleman did not conduct negotiations at Berlin at this precise date; but he went there on at least two diplomatic Missions. My belief is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) endeavoured to bring his Government to a fuller appreciation of the advantages of a German alliance. Now, however, they are quite isolated and alone in Europe, and that is the principal cause of their present troubles in Egypt. I beg the attention of the House very briefly to this question of alliances. It is in this point that the Government most conspicuously reversed the policy of Lord Beaconsfield, and, I repeat, this has led them into their principal difficulties.
    1882
    Alliances are necessary to England. As compared with other nations, we are an unwarlike nation, and it is necessary for us to secure stable allies. The Treaty of Berlin was based upon the arrangement between the German Powers and England, which compelled Russia to modify her pretensions, and to yield up more than half the fruits of her barbarous crusade. Lord Beaconsfield found Europe almost help less he fore the Kaiser-bund. It was his greatest achievement that he isolated Russia from her two powerful allies, and put England in the place of England's most dangerous foe. The alliance of England, Germany, and Austria was an invincible combination. It not only secured the fulfilment of the Treaty of Berlin, but it was a guarantee for the peace of Europe and for the interests of Great Britain, for it gave England an active voice in the counsels of the master spirit of European statecraft. There was this further and most important recommendation, that in itself such an alliance possessed all the elements of stability and permanence. The interests of Germany, Austria, and England are very largely harmonious and coincident; at least, they are identical in a sense in which the interests of England are not coincident with those of any other European State. All three Powers want peace. None are now aggressive. All have a common interest in checking the ambition of those two great disturbers of public peace—the military despotism of Russia on the one side, and the restless and unsettled democracy of France on the other. After all, mutual interest is the best guarantee of international alliances, and this bond exists between England and the German Powers. But, Sir, none of these things affected the Prime Minister and his Colleagues. When he took Office he had but one purpose in view, and he moved onwards, to use a phrase of his, "marching, as if to drum and fife, ohne hast und ohne rast," to his end. That end was to reverse everything Lord Beaconsfield had done. The state of Ireland, the state of Egypt, the agitation in the East, the isolation of England, all show now how well he has succeeded. The insult to Austria gave the key-note to a complete change of policy and of European combinations. The British Cabinet, flushed with victory at the Elections, unhampered with know-

    1883
    ledge, and reckless of results, rushed with light heart into counter plans. The pride of Germany should be humbled. Prince Bismarck should be taught to keep his "hands off." Was there not "Free Italy" and "Republican France"—Italy, the darling of the sentimental associations of the Prime Minister; France, the Democratic Republic so dear to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? Would not these, together with the Colossus of the North, the true ideal of all crusading enthusiasts and pseudo-humanitarians, be a match for the German Powers, and enable you to do without the allies chosen by your hated rival? For a few months all went merrily. The full measure of your incapacity was not taken even at Berlin. You held your Conference, and outvoted Austria and Germany there to your heart's content. You signed away the territory of the "anti-human" Turk to Greece and Montenegro, as if you were sporting with an Indian Budget. You heeded, not the remonstrance of the German Chancellor, who told you that you were demanding impossibilities. In a few months you had brought Europe to the verge of a general war. You had to recede from nearly half your demands, and to reflect that your ill-advised schemes had cost Greece some £7,000,000, a distressing mobilization, and a Ministry, in order that she might be forced to accept that which she might have had six months before without expense. You were only saved from a general conflagration by the refusal of Republican France to participate in your piratical schemes against Smyrna and the Dardanelles. That was the first blow. The second came in 1881, when Italy, with her usual sagacity, deserted your bootless friendship and went over to the German Powers. Russia, to a certain extent, made her peace soon after with Germany, and you could no longer rely even on so undesirable a friend. As to France, her action has been so much bound up with this Egyptian Question that I shall not refer to it here. Even France, for whom you have sacrificed so much, has at last thrown you over. You are now alone. It is worth noticing, however, that your sham friends did not go away empty handed. Russia took advantage of your credulity to bring her forces 500 miles nearer your
    1884
    Indian Frontier, and to annex a fertile and valuable region. France occupied Tunis, increased her influence in the Mediterranean, refused you the Commercial Treaty, and would, but for events in no way due to your action or wisdom, have used you as the catspaw to establish herself in the land of her ambition—the fertile valley of the Nile. Meanwhile, Germany was assiduously cultivating the friendship of the despised Turk, whom you were persecuting. German officers and financiers were supplanting English, and the great Chancellor gained what you threw away—the alliance of a Power that can put into line 500,000 of the finest troops in the world. So the net result was this. You rejected the splendid alliances of Lord Beaconsfield; you tried others, but your allies first deceived you, then profited by your weakness, and finally deserted you. Now you are quite alone. This has been the first cause of your perils. The controlling forces of Europe have been against you. You have been met and countered at every point by the will of the greatest statesman of the age, in whose grasp you are as young children trying to pull the tail of a mastiff. Do you think that the Germans saw with anything but hostility your close union early in the year with that Chauvinist Republican, M. Gambetta? Was Prince Bismarck going to permit you to involve England in a "joint action" with his country's enemy which might add the force of England, sooner or later, to the foes against whom he is ever labouring to secure Germany? A leading German paper, under the inspiration of Prince Bismarck, wrote—
    "M. Gambetta gives his full assent to Mr. Gladstone's policy, hoping that it will afford him an opportunity for creating a conflict between England and the Austro-German allies."
    The whole of the German Press was instantly on the qui vive as to French aims. But M. Gambetta fell, and you were saved from worse dangers, into which you were plunging with the levity of ignorance, and your "joint action" collapsed. Perhaps you did not recognize the hand behind the scenes that said check to M. Gambetta's ambition and to your weakness; but you had better recognize it now, or you will fall into still greater evils. Do you think that the very warm language which the Prime Minister,

    1885
    the Under Secretary of State, and the President of the Board of Trade, who are really responsible for the policy of the Government and its mistakes, used towards the French Republic during the last Egyptian debate, was not noticed at Berlin? So long as you try to intrigue with France you will be countered, and effectually countered, at Berlin. You can only secure the success of your plans by re-establishing the understanding with Germany which Lord Beaconsfield left you. Otherwise everything you arrange will fail. You will find fresh difficulties which cannot be provided against rising up at every point. At one time it may be the Conference, at another Turkey, at a third Russia, at a fourth Italy, at a fifth the sudden secession of France; but until you restore the main principle of Lord Beaconsfield's policy—a cordial co-operation with the German Powers—you will find nothing but failure and vexation of spirit. Twice, if not three times, has the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, by his Missions to Berlin, persuaded Prince Bismarck to drag you out of the mire. Be warned in time, and avert the necessity for a fourth appeal ad misericordiam. So much for the general policy of the Government, which has undoubtedly led to their misfortunes in the particular crisis which we have to meet, and has caused the weakness of the present Cabinet in its attempts to deal with the Egyptian Question. Now, there are four crowning blunders which the Government have been committing, and been steadily repeating, all through this unfortunate business. The first is neglect of, and contempt for, and hostility to, the undeniable rights of the Sultan, who is Sovereign of Egypt, over that country. The second is the vain attempt to set up a "joint action" with France, whose interests are divergent from our own—that is, if we go one step beyond the internal financial administration. The third is indifference to the efforts of the Egyptian Chamber and people after self-government and lessened taxation. The fourth is that blunder which has marked their conduct in every point of their home and foreign policy—always being too late. They have never seen troubles and dangers which were patent to everybody else. They have refused to entertain any warning, however well-founded or reiterated. They have al-
    1886
    lowed perils to increase and accumulate by their delay until the difficulties of dealing with them have been made tenfold greater than timely action would have encountered. There are three very good reasons why a French alliance with regard to Egyptian and Eastern affairs is most undesirable for England. First, it can never be of any practical benefit to us. England and France are rivals in the Mediterranean and Egypt. They have been so for generations; and all the fine talking in the world will not lessen their rivalry. French ambition has long aspired to the domination of the regions of the Nile; and recently French arms have annexed a large territory in North Africa, not remote from Egypt. The dreams of the great Napoleon, all but realized, of Eastern Empire, have not been forgotten by modern French statesmen. Not only did British valour wrest Egypt in the early years of this century from the bayonets of Napoleon, but British statesmanship, represented by the sage and patriotic counsels of Palmerston in 1840, again thwarted the determined and all but matured scheme of M. Thiers for acquiring predominant control in Egypt. No one can read the recent speeches of French statesmen, and especially the astute utterances of M. Gambetta, without feeling that the same spirit still animates French policy. What said M. Gambetta only the other day in the French Assembly?—
    "The Conference may decree a Turkish intervention. I think that would he the worst solution of all. Once the Turks are in Egypt, possibly with the collusion of other Powers, you cannot get them out, and then France may say good-bye to all her dreams of becoming an Eastern Power. And what most attaches me to the English alliance in the Mediterranean is that I dread that a possible rupture will open to England rivers and territories where your right to live and trade are greater than her own."
    In these sentences we see displayed the whole aims and instruments of French policy; the secret of their hostility to Turkey, in the dread lest Turkish power should punish France for her cruel aggression upon and oppression of Mahomedans in Algeria, and still more in Tunis; the dread of a breach with England, lest such a breach should, as it did in the great wars of Pitt and Wellington, give to England a vast amount of trade and wealth which France had hoped to keep for herself,

    1887
    The second reason why a joint action with France is now most undesirable for us is the extreme bitterness which exists, and naturally exists, between France and the Mussulman feeling of the East. This comes out strongly in every document and evidence in the Blue Books. It flavours every speech in the French Assembly and Senate; and it is most unfortunate that England should have associated herself with, and subserved so painfully, a Power that is now the bête noir of Turkey and of all Mahomedans. It is this injurious fact which has prevented the Sultan from being willing, or from being able, if he had been willing, to act with England in her policy towards Egypt. It is, therefore, an act of almost incredible folly for Her Majesty's Government to have associated themselves with a Power so detested by the Mussulmans. It was only the dread of a European war, and the terrible lesson that France had learnt from her war with Germany, that led to the failure of the "joint action" between herself and England—a joint action which, had it continued, would have ultimately led to a war between the two countries. The third objection to a French alliance is the extreme instability of French Ministries and of French policy. Some 20 Ministries have risen and fallen within the past decade of Republican Government. The British Government, early this year, pinned all their hopes to M. Gambetta. He was overthrown within three months, and their policy collapsed with him. France is really weak and unreliable to the last degree. Were our interests harmonious with hers, it would be rash to stake all upon an alliance with such a Government. As it is, it is simply madness to forswear the splendid and stable alliance with Austria and Germany in favour of the shiftless Republic. A further capital blunder which the Ministry committed has been their hostility towards, and their persecution of, the Ottoman Government. Every step they have taken, from first to last, has been against the interests of Turkey, and almost always without her knowledge or consent, and against her emphatic protest. I have never defended misgovernment in Turkey, any more than in Russia or in any other country; but from personal experience of the East I know the value of the Turkish alliance to England, and I
    1888
    know, also, the worth and strength of the Ottoman people, apart from their Government. That which has maintained Turkey so long in the face of the greatest dangers, and of the most strenuous attacks from all sides, was not at all the Turkish Government, but the inherent vigour and vitality of the Ottoman people—their manly fighting power in the last resort. Those qualities would have enabled them to resist successfully, if they had had a General of ordinary ability, the power of Russia, Servia, and Montenegro in 1876 and 1877. It was a consideration of that fact, together with the identity of our interests with those of Turkey, which made me insist on the value and importance of the alliance of England with the Ottoman Government—an alliance which rested on the highest traditions of British statesmanship, and by which the interests and the power of England can alone be sustained in the East. This the Government are now finding out, for they are endeavouring to secure some means of co-operation with Turkey in Egypt. They have by unjust and ungenerous insinuations attempted to attribute the difficulty in Egypt to the delay and want of faith of the Ottoman Government. The Blue Books show, however, that the Ottoman Government has acted in the most upright manner, and with an earnest desire to secure the friendship and alliance of England.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he might point out to the hon. Member that this had no reference whatever to the Appropriation Bill.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I am endeavouring to trace the present war in Egypt, the expenses of which will be partly met by the Appropriation Bill, to the mistaken policy of Her Majesty's Government, and to show that at every stage of the Egyptian Question they attacked and misrepresented the Ottoman Government. The Turkish Government was a good nine months in advance of our Government, so far as foresight is concerned. The Porte saw the danger from Arabi and the military movement in October last, and was prepared to quell it. The Porte sent Commissioners to Cairo, whose advent produced most favourable effects. The bare mention of their approach caused Arabi to retire from Cairo. Says Sir Edward Malet, on October 4—"The effect has been good,'

    1889
    On October 15, he again telegraphs that—
    "The effect of their mission has been good, as supporting the Viceroy and marking the Sultan's disapprobation of the conduct of the army."
    Will it be believed that the British Government actually chased these Envoys out of Cairo within 10 days. This was done under direct pressure from France, and especially from its bellicose Premier, M. Gambetta. So at the outset the Ministry took the most prominent step they possibly could take to prevent the Sovereign of Egypt from interfering in his own Province for the restoration of tranquillity, and to weaken and discredit his authority. This first stage of the dismissal of the Sultan's Envoys from Egypt is marked also by the two other principal blunders of the Government—their co-operation, or professed co-operation, with France, and their failure to take the due measure of the impending danger from the growth of the Military Party. The Sultan foresaw it, and tried to nip it in the bud. Our Government did not see what any tyro in political affairs might have seen, and they prevented those who did forecast the peril rightly from checking it as they desired. All three blunders were here coincident—the intrusion upon the rights of the Sovereign power, incapacity to foresee the trouble that was coming, and that misleading and injurious attempt to act with France, which has been the most disastrous of the errors of the Cabinet. Nothing could be more ridiculous than to suppose that the Turkish Government has really favoured Arabi. Nothing is less desired by that exhausted State than such a re-opening of the Eastern Question as this crisis in Egypt must cause. The Turks dread both the general Arab uprising which Arabi's action threatens to bring on, and they fear the so-called National movement in Egypt, which must tend to separation. From the first Arabi's views have been totally inharmonious with those of the Turkish Government. Well, the Mission sent to Cairo was ignominiously chased from Egypt by Her Majesty's Government. This was the initial stage of our difficulties. The next stage was the sending of the Joint Note of January 6th by England and France to the Khedive. Imagine what the English nation would say if two Powers de-
    1890
    spatched a Note to the Viceroy of Ireland, even if that country had Home Rule, without consulting or even acquainting the British Government of their act. Yet this is just what Mr. Gladstone, again led by M. Gambetta, did. No wonder that the Porte sent the strongest possible protest to the British Ministry and demanded "imperiously" to have explanations. That protest of Turkey was formally backed up by the four other Great Powers—by Austria, Germany, Italy, and Russia—and here we have, for the first time, that most significant fact, the alliance of four against the "joint action" of two. We have not beard the last of that combination. What could have been a greater affront to the Sovereign than, without consulting him, to send a Joint Note to his vassal? The Note in itself was ridiculous and impracticable; but the sending of it was the greatest affront to both the Sovereign and the Egyptian Chamber that could be offered. Then came the point-blank refusal of the British Government to allow the Egyptian Chamber to vote that portion of the Budget which did not relate to the Public Debt. This moderate and reasonable request, recommended by Sir Edward Malet, was actually rejected by a Liberal Ministry, acting under pressure from Republican France. The joint Anglo-French Squadrons were now sent to Alexandria against the protest of the Porte, and against the urgent advice of those who best knew how such a measure would irritate the Arab population against England. The Natives might bear the action of all Europe; but the intervention of England, acting under the direction of France, the notorious enemy of Mussulmans, would, Sir Edward Malet warned his Government, have a disastrous effect. The next step was the sending of the Ultimatum to Arabi, again without the consent of his Sovereign, and without any pre consideration of the difficulties and unfortunate results it might lead to. The bombardment, again, was undertaken in spite of the strongest protests from the Ottoman Government; and your Conference was also assembled in face of the remonstrances of the Sovereign of Egypt. So at every stage you have acted in most direct opposition to the wishes of Turkey, and it is ridiculous to pretend that you have been playing a friendly part towards that Power. The

    1891
    Under Secretary had given several assurances, up to the very moment of the bombardment, that—
    "England and France were in absolute accord as to the steps to be taken with regard to future eventualities."
    But when it came to action the French Fleet steamed away. The Joint Note had created two camps in Europe; it set up the action of four Powers against the action of two. This action was seen in the protest against the Joint Note; it had re-appeared on various occasions, and notably during the Conference, and our Government had found a disagreeable union between Austria, Germany, Russia, and Italy against English views with regard to the Suez Canal and other questions. These four mistakes of the Government — neglect, attempted cooperation with France, and disregard of the rights of Turkey, and of the just grievances of the Egyptian people—are the causes of the war. Turkey desired to get rid of Arabi without fuss or disturbance; that was a sensible and practical view, which was thwarted by the premature and inefficient action of the English Government. Arabi would have been deported, taken away in some manner; but England, by joining with France, rendered it more and more difficult for the Sultan to remove Arabi; and by taking forcible action, prematurely and unnecessarily, we elevated Arabi into a national hero. The bombardment of Alexandria was premature, and was carried out in the way likely to do the most evil and the least good. There is an almost universal concurrence of opinion that a small landing force would have saved the destruction of property and the loss of life after the bombardment. The Government were warned, over and over again, of the necessity for such a force; and every person on the spot capable of judging states that 3,000 or 4,000 men, who might have been landed under the shelter of our guns, could have caught Arabi and his army as in a trap. It is inconsistent to speak of the landing of such a force as disrespectful to the Conference. It could have been no more disrespectful than the bombardment itself, or than the subsequent landing of an insufficient force. The fact of the matter is, the Ministry have drifted into a war without knowledge and without any proper precautions. The correspondent
    1892
    of every newspaper—of The Times, and even of The Daily News, and the very able correspondent of The Standard—all concur that a small force ready to land on Tuesday, the 11th, or Wednesday, the 12th of July, would have saved Alexandria from ruin, annihilated Arabi's forces, and averted all the cost and labour of this war. The configuration of the city is such, with a narrow strip of land affording the only exit for the enemy, that they could with ease have been captured, to use a homely phrase, like rats in a trap. The Government are without the slightest excuse for their failure to take such a simple and necessary precaution. They had been warned by the Consuls General of all the Powers, as well as by all the newspaper correspondents, and by many European residents, and by an experienced Military Agent of their own, as to what would happen if they commenced hostilities without having a force ready to strike an effective blow; but they were, as usual, blind to every advice and warning. Their premature bombardment led directly to the ruin of Alexandria, to the immense prolongation and increased cost of this struggle, and to the conversion of Arabi into a national hero. The Government have been led away by a new kind of "Jingoism." I do not willingly use the word, but it was one freely thrown at Lord Beaconsfield and his followers. If it has any meaning at all, it implies a spirit that would plunge the country into unnecessary war. It was not at all applicable to the late Government; but it is really applicable to the Party and the policy that involved the country in the Crimean War and in this Egyptian War. This war has been begun in the most unhealthy season, and the one most undesirable for a campaign, which again showed a want of foresight. None of the interests which the Government professed to serve, in a vain endeavour to make the ostensible aims of their policy square with the views of every Party, will in reality benefit by their long delay in taking any effective action. The interests of the bondholders will not be at all advanced by the destruction of Alexandria and by the ravages of war. And as for the interests of the Khedive, it is doubtful whether we can maintain him without a permanent occupation of the country. He has been rendered intensely

    1893
    unpopular by the fact of our support. The Egyptian people—that is, the great mass of the people—are undoubtedly ignorant and fanatical, and they are responsible for the terrible massacres which have taken place. How can the Government hope to uphold the Khedive and the interests of European capital if they carry out their programme of giving control of their own destinies to the very classes who are most opposed to British intervention and most in favour of Arabi? The Government rely on the Chamber of Notables; but though the Notables are an estimable body, they hold very much the same position as the House of Lords do in this country. It is impossible that their support can maintain our position in Egypt in spite of the mass of the population. The difficulties with which Her Majesty's Government find themselves environed are entirely of their own creation. They have been brought about by their unfortunate reversal of the policy of Lord Beaconsfield. They can only be removed by a prompt recurrence to the traditional policy of English statesmen. These myths of "concerted action" and "joint action," whose impracticability has been so fully demonstrated during the past eight months, must be for ever abandoned. If the Government will re-establish the old alliance with the Ottoman Government, by means of a frank, cordial, and sincere understanding at Constantinople, then troubles will disappear. If we have for our policy the support of the Prince, who is admitted by all Europe to be the Sovereign of Egypt, our position is one of unassailable legality. But if the Sultan is opposed to us, and with good reason, owing to the course of hostility adopted by the present occupants of the Treasury Bench, then any other Power—Germany, France, Italy, or Russia—can always find a potent lever wherewith to embarrass and wholly disconcert our aims and influence. The true policy is to persuade the Turkish people that you are their best friends, and so you can successfully promote reforms in the Ottoman Empire, and at the same time make your influence paramount. By this friendly and sensible policy you gain a faithful and valuable Ally, and acquire such a position in Egypt, or elsewhere, that England can, if the Turkish Power breaks up, quietly and without struggle
    1894
    succeed as her natural legatee, beloved and respected by the Mahomedan populations of the East. With Turkey on our side we can do as we like in Egypt. Against her we are powerless to settle the future of Egypt satisfactorily, although we may overrun it with our armies. And as this is true with regard to the particular difficulties of the Egyptian crisis, so the only way in which the Government can hope to be successful in their general policy is by a speedy return to the alliance with the German Powers, which Lord Beaconsfield left them, and which they recklessly alienated. Attempts to actively work with Russia and with France must prove, in the future, as they have proved during the past two years, vain and disastrous. The interests involved are too divergent, and the policy of Russia and of France is too uncertain and too aggressive. But in Austria and Germany England can have most powerful, most permanent, and most reliable support. I am glad to notice that in the last few days there are signs of a better frame of mind and of a more intelligent policy on the part of Her Majesty's present Advisers. They are beginning to realize what we have long urged upon them in vain, both the value of co-operation with Turkey, and the importance of a good understanding with Germany. If they continue in this path, the war in Egypt will be brought to a satisfactory end, and England may hope for a return of the tranquillity and general respect which was her portion under the sagacious and patriotic statesmanship of the Administration of Lord Beaconsfield. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for their neglect and mistakes which have Drought about the War in Egypt, and especially for the Bombardment of Alexandria without a landing force sufficient to have saved life and property, and considers that the Foreign Policy of the Government has alienated the Allies, and weakened the influence and power of the Country,"—(Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would not attempt to make any reply to the very general and discursive observations of the hon. Member with regard to the general policy of the Government, as this was a subject which had been fully debated in the course of the present Session. With regard, however, to the statement that the policy of the Government had cost this country the alliance of Austria and Germany, he could only assure the House in the strongest possible terms that at no time, he was certain, were the relations, he might say the friendship, closer between this country and Austria and Germany than at the present time. The hon. Member also spoke of a reversal of the alliance which was left as a legacy by the late Government. He could only characterize that statement—if the term was Parliamentary—as all "moonshine" and nonsense. The Government had every reason to congratulate themselves upon their relations with the German Government at the present time, and he might say in a word that the German Government had warmly co-operated with this country in its Egyptian policy throughout. They valued very highly the support they had received on recent occasions. The hon. Member had made several strong personal references to himself. He had said that he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had had a share in forming a counter alliance to that of which he spoke. That allegation had been made before, and he could only give it the most direct and emphatic contradiction. The hon. Member also said that he had had something to do with the Joint Note that was issued. There was absolutely no foundation whatever for that statement. The hon. Member had gone on to say that the influence of the German Government was increasing at Constantinople. But there was absolutely no jealousy whatever on the part of the Government as regarded that influence. He could not conceive how it could be in any way detrimental to our interests. The hon. Member also said that we had tried to set up a joint military action with France in Egypt. If the hon. Member had read the Papers he would have seen that the effect of the Government was to obtain a joint action with any of the Powers. The hon. Member said that the object of our action was that four Powers were antagonistic to us
    1896
    on the question of the Suez Canal. That matter seemed to be like a species of gout from which the hon. Member was suffering, which broke out from time to time. There were no grounds for believing that any such union of the four Powers had ever existed, nor was there any foundation whatever for the statement. He unhesitatingly denied that the four Powers referred to were against us in regard to this question. He thought that disposed of the point of the hon. Member's speech, and he would defer his further remarks until a later period.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he had but one remark to make, and regretted that the hon. Member for Eye was not in his place to hear it. He thought it was due to Her Majesty's Government to confirm to the full what fell from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to the mission to Berlin, to which the hon. Member for Eye had alluded. The hon. Member ought to know that this was entirely a "cock and bull" story. There was absolutely no truth whatever in—not even a foundation for—the rumour that he went to Berlin officially or semi-officially, or in any other way than as a private gentleman. He had a grievance against the hon. Member for Eye, who had repeated these statements over and over again; and if he should go to Berlin again the hon. Member, who never took any denial, might once more repeat the statement. After what had fallen from the Under Secretary it was almost unnecessary for him to state that there was no official character whatever in his visit to Berlin.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  TURKEY AND EGYPT — ACTION OF H.M. CONSULS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. O'DONNELL,on rising to call attention to the action of our Representatives in Turkey and Egypt, remarked that in consequence of the hon. Member for Eye's Amendment having been negatived he should not be able to conclude with the Motion of which he had given Notice, and which was in the following terms:—
  "That this House regrets that Her Majesty's representatives in Turkey and Egypt have been

  1897
  employed for a number of years past in furthering the schemes of money-lending associations and persons whose operations have resulted in extreme injustice and suffering to the people of Egypt."
  He would, however, lay before the House some statements which were worthy of its consideration at the present grave crisis. The financial speculations to which he would have referred were the causes for which brave men would have to fight upon the plains of Egypt. He wished to repudiate all idea of censuring or blaming the various gentlemen of the financial profession, the Oppenheims, the Erlangers, or the Frühlings and Goschens—whose operations had been supported so unfortunately by the diplomacy of Her Majesty's Government. Those gentlemen took advantage of their opportunities, and conducted a business which was perfectly legitimate in their eyes. If the profits on some of their transactions ranged from 12 to 26 per cent. or perhaps more, he was sure that all those enterprizing gentleman would have taken 50 or 100 per cent if they could fairly have obtained it, and would not have been ashamed of their success in business. The result of their financial operations had, however, been to involve the people of Egypt in misery and the country in financial ruin. As he wished to fix the attention of the House on the nature of the financial transactions which our diplomatists supported, he would lay before the House a brief account of those speculations. There was an absence of debt in Egypt 20 years ago, when the Khedive was introduced for the first time to the mysterious advantages of European finance. The official Report of Sir Stephen Cave, submitted to the House in 1876, stated that in 1864, the second year of the Khedive's administration, the Revenue of Egypt was practically £4,937,000, and that it rose to £7,377,000 in 1871. Under the latest developments of European Control, which was only another word for the results of European financing, the Revenue of Egypt exceeded £10,000,000. He would now call attention to the loans which our diplomacy had so disastrously promoted. The first was contracted by Said Pasha in 1862. The nominal amount was £3,992,800, repayable in 30 years, the interest being 7 per cent, and the Sinking Fund 1 per
  1898
  cent. No particulars were given of the amount actually received on this loan by the Egyptian Government. The technical contractors of the loan were Messrs. Erlanger, and the London agents were Messrs. Frühling and Goschen. The nominal amount of the loan of 1868 was £11,890,000, of which only £7,193,334 was received by the Egyptian Government. In 1873 a loan of £32,000,000 was issued at 7 per cent. Sir Stephen Cave said that only £20,000,000 was really received by the Egyptian Government. A loan had been raised in 1866 for the construction of railways, and, for a wonder, £2,640,000 was actually received. In addition to the local State Loans and the Daira Loans, there were certain personal loans. Of all those, Sir Stephen Cave had said that none cost less than 12 per cent. some 13 per cent. and the Railway Loan even 26 per cent. including the Sinking Fund. Among the many striking features, it was to be noticed that the large amount of indebtedness in 1876 gave absolutely nothing to show for the Suez Canal, the whole amount having been absorbed in payment of interest and Sinking Fund, with the exception of £16,000,000 for that great work. Further, Sir Stephen Cave had said that the unfortunate condition of Egypt in that respect was due in great measure to the onerous conditions of the loan of 1873, which was contracted for the express purpose of clearing off debt. Of the £32,000,000 raised, only £20,740,000 was received, and only £9,000,000 applied to the payment of debt. The bonds w ere purchased at a heavy discount, the price being sometimes 65 per cent. and entered the Egyptian Treasury at 93 per cent. The difference between the 65 and the 93 went into the pockets of the financiers. The financiers certainly deserved credit for attending to their own interests, if not to those of the Egyptians. Granting that the late Khedive was an Eastern despot, extravagant and extortionate, he would never have been able to bring such ruin on his country without the help of European financiers such as the Erlangers and Oppenheims. The worst that such a despot could do would be to enrich himself out of the proceeds of one year; he could not, as he had done by the aid of the 12 per cent financiers, mortgage the whole future of his country. After the loan

  1899
  of 1866 of £3,000,000 the Sultan protested, and issued a Firman forbidding further loans without his permission. In spite of that protest, loans were raised on the Crown lands, and in 1870 a fresh debt of £7,000,000 was incurred, of which the Khedive only received £5,000,000. Then diplomacy entered the field, and suggested that the Sultan's permission should be obtained for a fresh loan. To that end it was necessary, first, that the Sultan's Ministers should be bribed, and next that the Sultan himself should also be bribed. Accordingly, a douceur of £50,000 was given to the Grand Vizier to obtain a Hatt from the Sultan authorizing the loan. That was a proceeding which ought to have been denounced by our Ambassador at Constantinople. It was stated in the Parliamentary Papers of 1879 that the Chiefs of the Turkish Ministry did not affect to conceal their regret at this disgraceful transaction, and they suggested to the British Ambassador, who was slow to act of himself, that he should take steps to procure the cancelling of the Firman. Sir Henry Elliot, when thus appealed to, speaking, no doubt, as the mouthpiece of Her Majesty's Government, returned this answer—that the word of the Sultan had been pledged to the Viceroy, and, at whatever inconvenience, it must be kept. Accordingly a further debt of £32,000,000 was fastened round the necks of the people of Egypt, only £20,000,000 being even nominally received by the Egyptian Government. In 1873 the Khedive was encouraged to lay, in the words of the Parliamentary Papers, £900,000 "at the feet of the Sultan," and in return he received, on the 8th of June, 1873, a new Firman allowing him to pledge to any extent the resources of his unfortunate subjects to the money-lenders of Europe. No doubt the reluctance of Turkey to grant the Khedive those ruinous powers of borrowing was only feigned; but that was no excuse for our diplomacy, which was on the side of the money-lenders. In 1873 a Liberal Administration was in Office, practically the same Administration as was in Office now, and, if he was not mistaken, a Gentleman who was afterwards to figure as Her Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary at Constantinople, and who also figured in relation to the finance of Egypt as member of the firm of Frühling and Goschen, was in 1873 and in 1870 a Member of the
  1900
  Liberal Cabinet. He could only surmise that the presence of that Gentleman in the Cabinet at the time was not unfavourable to the money-lenders' advances in Egypt and Constantinople. He made no charge against the moneylenders; they acted in accordance with their conscientious views; they were in no way false to their traditions; and did not sink in their own estimation by anything they did. Far be it from him to try any gentlemen except by the law of their own consciences. But the fact remained as regarded Her Majesty's Government that a stain of no ordinary gravity rested on our diplomacy for the aid it gave to those financial transactions. For he must altogether decline to try the policy of a great State with a Christian civilization by a standard which might suit the consciences of money-lenders. By those most corrupt proceedings a debt of £72,000,000 had been fastened on the Egyptian State, and British diplomacy uttered no protest; in some cases it uttered words in favour of the transaction. And now for some proofs of the working of the accumulated loans on the unfortunate people of Egypt, who were like a pack of slaves, and had no power whatever in the matter. Although during 10 years a sum of £35,000,000 had been paid by the taxpayers of Egypt, the principal of the debt was as heavy as ever. The late Sir Stephen Cave had stated that the fellaheen were subjected to extortion, and that three years' taxes were probably sometimes paid in two. In 1879 the Consul General reported to the Government that the result of the fearful indebtedness of Egypt and of those great loans which British diplomacy had furthered was that taxes were exacted in advance, and that the peasantry were crushed under the weight of taxation imposed upon them. In fact, the sound of the lash was heard on the back of the fellah in order that gold might be obtained with which to supply the money-lender in the land of Goschen. Messrs. Frühling and Goschen called upon the Consul General at Cairo to support their demands for greater punctuality in the payment of the debt incurred by the Khedive. [Mr. GOSCHEN: No; that is not so.] He fully recognized that the gentlemen whom he had named had a perfect right to look after their own interests; but he maintained that it was not the duty of

  1901
  the British Government to give them assistance. He did not wish to use one word of censure against Messrs. Früh-ling and Goschen, and he believed that their consciences felt no twinge of remorse for the results of their action. In 1876 Messrs. Joubert and Goschen went to Egypt avowedly at the request of 2,000 holders of Egyptian Stocks. Our Consul General assured the Khedive that they would hold the scales evenly between the European money-lenders on the one side and the wretched, unrepresented, down-trodden fellaheen on the other. That, he argued, was a representation which ought not to have been made by the Consul General. It was a recognized principle that no man ought to be the judge in his own case; and, Mr. Goschen being in Egypt at the time in that position, the Consul General ought not to have made such a representation. The Consul also pointed out that it was impossible that the state of affairs existing then could continue, as it would result in the ruin of the country. Our Representative thus played a part of which England could not feel proud, for, on the one hand, he made representations which he ought never to have made, and, on the other, threatened the Khedive with ruin, his object all the time being to insure the Khedive's acceptance of the views of Mr. Goschen. The mission of Messrs. Joubert and Goschen in Egypt was not unopposed. There were Native Ministers in Egypt who thought money-lending in Egypt was a practice which had gone too far—which was increasing, and ought to be diminished. At the head of that Party was the Minister of Finance, who was opposed to the mission of Mr. Goschen. On the 10th of November, 1876, the Finance Minister of Egypt was suddenly seized by order of the Khedive, on the ground that he had provoked agitation in the Provinces and was conspiring against the Khedive, whom he accused of plundering the country in concert with Europeans. The Finance Minister was found guilty on that charge, probably unheard in his own defence, and was sent to the White Nile, a sentence equivalent to death. Messrs. Joubert and Goschen did not place on record a protest that they would have nothing to do with the Khedive until he had brought back to Egypt the independent Finance Minister.
  MR GOSCHEN: How does the hon. Member know that?
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he found no record of any such interference in the official documents. On the 11th of November the Finance Minister was exiled. By the 18th of November all the financial proposals of Messrs. Joubert and Goschen had been accepted by the Khedive. The transactions between the money-lenders and the Khedive did not seem to be interrupted for a single moment. The money-lenders had the full approval of Her Majesty's Government. Their diplomacy was exerted to promote the ends of the money-lenders, and when the International Tribunal gave a decision in favour of other creditors, he found that diplomacy insisted that other judgment creditors should be defrauded rather than that the money-lenders should lose a small fraction of their pound of flesh. Even the wretched soldiery were unable to obtain payment of the arrears of their miserable remuneration. During the years 1877 and 1878 the money-lenders had effectually fastened their nets around Egypt, which at that time might be regarded as financially ruined. The result of that policy had landed us in a war, in which the sympathies of the whole Egyptian people were against us and hostile to the Khedive.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, some Members of the House might not recollect the fact that in the year 1865 he retired entirely from all connection with the firm to which he then belonged. He wished to devote himself exclusively to public life, and to public life he had devoted himself exclusively since that time. The firm to which he then belonged had not been in any way connected with Egyptian loans since the year 1866. In all subsequent transactions to which allusion had been made, neither he nor the firm to which he had belonged had in any way been parties since that date. He would not, therefore, attempt to follow the hon. Member through his speech. With regard to the year 1876, as the House and the public were well aware, he went in a perfectly honorary capacity, without any pecuniary interests whatever, to Egypt, to make the best arrangements that could be made, and to show that the interests of the taxpayers and the bondholders were not opposed. The whole

  1903
  extent of those operations were fully set out in 1876, and all the points were discussed both in the Press and in the House at the time, and he did not feel called upon, at the invitation of the hon. Member, to revive the discussion. The belief he entertained was that the Control thus established had resulted in improved administration, and evidence had been forthcoming from various quarters to the effect that the prosperity of Egypt had been promoted by that administration.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not feel called upon to deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Dungarvan at any length, particularly as he was informed that the debate would be again raised to-morrow. The greater part of the speech of the hon. Member concerned matters which had very little directly to do with the Eastern Question. In speaking of the origin of the Control, the hon. Member had omitted to mention that the late Government of this country, as well as the other Powers, used their influence with their subjects to induce them to take less than they would otherwise have had a right to receive from Egypt. The result was that an agreement was made by which the amount due from Egypt was much reduced. The present Government found the Control set up by the late Government, and they had to deal with it as it existed. They came to the conclusion, and the Reports from all sides clearly showed, that however questionable the origin of the Control might have been, yet it had worked well. The hon. Member had quoted at great length Reports from the Agents of this country in Egypt, many of them made many years ago, and describing the state of things which existed in the time of Ismail Pasha. It had been asserted by the hon. Member that no one in Egypt respected the Khedive; if that statement were true it would be of very considerable moment. But, so far as they were informed, every man of real note in Egypt supported the Khedive. All the men who had taken any part in public affairs—all the former Ministers—were supporting the Khedive. Notwithstanding that they were usually opposed, there was reason to believe that they had agreed on a uniform course of action to show most distinctly and publicly that they supported the present Khedive. And not
  1904
  the whole of the past Ministers only, but Sultan Pasha, President of the Chamber of Notables, was a warm supporter of the Khedive. In all the towns of which they had certain knowledge the original Governors and Vice-Governors supported the Khedive. The Governors of Ismailia, of Port Said, of Suez, and other towns, it was true, had been driven out of the country, and creatures of Arabi Pasha had been put in. The hon. Member had occupied a great deal of time in referring to events which happened in the time of Ismail Pasha, with which the present Government had nothing to do. It was not quite clear how far the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) accepted or condemned the Control; but it was satisfactory that the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had had an opportunity of emphatically denying some of the assertions which had been so recklessly made concerning him. As the subject might be again raised to-morrow he would not reply to the hon. Member at that time at any greater length.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished to make a personal explanation with reference to a statement attributed to him by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He did not say that at the present moment they were in a state of hostility with the German Government; but he said that up to quite recently the policy of the British Ministry had been based upon other combinations. Nor did he refer alone to the one journey to Berlin which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) denied was made use of by the Government, but to his two previous political missions to that capital, which could not be denied.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. CALLANasked the Chairman which clause of the Bill referred to the Irish Legal Administration?
  THE CHAIRMAN: There are no clauses that refer to the Irish Legal Administration specifically. There are Votes in the Schedule that refer to it.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he wished to know whether he would be in Order in speaking on the Question of the Irish Legal Administration on the clause itself?
  THE CHAIRMAN: If there is any specific Vote the hon. Member wishes to reduce, when that part of the Schedule is called referring to a particular Judge, he can move his Motion.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he desired to speak in support of a reduction of the Vote for the Irish Law Officers of the Crown.
  Schedule B.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Schedule B stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CALLANsaid, he had received information from Ireland in reference to a matter which had been brought before the House—namely, the packing of juries in Ireland, and the exclusion of Catholics from the jury panel by the Attorney General for Ireland. He wished to draw attention to an extraordinary state of things—namely, that on Thursday and Friday last, in Dublin, in cases where persons were prosecuted by the Attorney General in person, a great many jurors on the list were ordered to "stand aside." In one case 20 were ordered to stand aside, and in another 26, so that in all 46 were put aside in these two cases, and, by some fortuitous coincidence, they all happened to be Catholics, whilst the jurors selected happened to be Protestants. One of the cases tried was an ordinary case of appearing in arms, and the other was a capital offence. On Friday and on Saturday, articles appeared in The Freeman's Journal commenting on this circumstance. On Friday that paper said the Crown had exercised their right to challenge on a wholesale scale; and no less than 19 persons, some of them amongst the most respected citizens of Dublin, were ordered to "stand aside." On Saturday, The Freeman's Journal said—
  "We are unwilling to credit the rumour that the Crown have resolved that juries exclusively, or almost exclusively, Protestant shall determine in some cases the liberty, and in others the lives, of the prisoners on trial at Green Street, yet colour is lent to the report by the fact that yesterday, in the capital case—just as on the previous day in the Whiteboy case—Catholic gentlemen of admitted respectability and position were ordered to 'stand aside' when they took the book to be sworn. To the gentlemen in question no stereotyped 'trade' objection can be made; and the inference, therefore, is that they were shoved aside from their duties as jurors simply because they are Catholic. If this is true, an odious and, it was hoped, obsolete prac-
  1906
  tice has been revived, and the course taken, as unnecessary as it is injudicious, must naturally cause indignation and resentment in Catholic circles.… The notion that such men as Edward Lenehan, of Castle Street, William Dennehy, of John Street, and others whom we could mention, should not be trusted to find a true verdict according to evidence in country cases brought to Dublin for trial, which is the simple and only inference, is offensive in the extreme. The representatives of the Crown would not venture to publicly make such a declaration; yet the names of the gentlemen specified appear in the published list of the rejected. The matter is one that calls for inquiry and explanation. For the present we will only express our regret that the representatives of the Crown should deem it necessary and expedient to 'Boycott' Catholic special jurors of the city and county of Dublin."
  He found that yesterday, commenting upon those articles, Mr. Justice Lawson, in the Commission Court, said—
  "I can only say I hope the attention of the Attorney General will be directed to those outrageous articles that are published for the purpose of prejudicing and defeating the administration of justice in this Court, which I have been reading with feelings of horror since this Court sat."
  And after this the Solicitor General said it was the intention of those representing the Crown to ask their Lordships' attention, in a formal manner, to some articles and publications in The Freeman's Journal, adding—
  "And we hope that it may not be inconvenient to your Lordship to entertain the matter at the sitting of the Court on Wednesday next. We believe that the publication of such documents is calculated to interfere in the most serious degree with the administration of justice."
  Mr. Justice Lawson stigmatized as outrageous articles the calm and fair comments he (Mr. Callan) had read to the House. But what had been the result of those articles? Instead of prejudicing or injuring the administration of justice, it had had this effect. Yesterday a man named Laurence Kenny was indicted with having, on the night of the 18th of May, at Mullingar, fired a revolver at Sergeant M'Auley, of the 5th Northumberland Fusiliers, with intent to murder him. A second count charged the prisoner with firing at the sergeant with intent to do him grievous bodily harm; and the following were amongst the jury sworn: — Michael O'Loghlen, Richmond Street; Joseph Archbold, Malahide; James Magee, Rathmines; Patrick Cloudalkin; James Reilly, Baldoyle; and Thomas Philips,

  1907
  Dame Street. The jury, after a short absence from Court, found a verdict of "Guilty" on the second count. So that the effect of the articles which had appeared in The Freeman's Journal had been that the Solicitor General did not form the jury which had been formed by the Attorney General. On Friday and Saturday the course followed was most detrimental to justice, 46 Roman Catholics being ordered to stand aside; but on Monday, owing to attention having been called to this circumstance, the gentlemen he had named, who had been amongst those told to stand aside, were put on the jury. At least, six jurors, whom the Attorney General had twice ordered to stand aside, were empanelled on the jury, which, after a short absence, found a verdict of "Guilty" against the prisoner tried before them, which prisoner was sentenced to transportation for life. These jurors had been ordered to stand aside because, from the fact of their being Catholics, it was thought that they were unfit to try cases. ["Hear, hear!"] The Home Secretary said "Hear, hear!" Of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's feeling was that no Catholic was fit to try a prisoner in Ireland. What did his "Hear, hear!" mean, if not approval of this disgraceful practice of challenging men merely because they were Catholics? As The Freeman's Journal very truly said, this practice had resulted in filling the Catholic mind of Ireland with indignation. The Freeman's Journal said this matter was one which called for inquiry and explanation, although, they said—
  "For the present we will only express our regret that the Representatives of the Crown should deem it necessary and expedient to 'Boycott' Catholic special jurors of the city and county of Dublin."
  The Catholics of Ireland owed a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) and his paper for directing attention to this case of ordering Catholic jurors to stand aside. He was sorry that certain ceremonials taking place to-day in Ireland prevented Irish Members from being present tonight; but as he (Mr. Callan) happened himself to be in town, he should not have done his duty if he had allowed this opportunity of calling attention to this subject to pass. What had happened in the Commission Court he considered
  1908
  reflected grave dishonour and disgrace on an Administration which, he believed, in regard to the cases he had mentioned, to be utterly unprincipled. He referred to the ordering of Catholics, on Friday and Saturday, to stand aside, and, on Monday, allowing them to go on the panel. He was sorry to be obliged to make these remarks in the absence of the Attorney General for Ireland, but hoped to be able to repeat what he had said when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was present. He (Mr. Callan) hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would either give them some explanation of the circumstances in question, or would get up in his place and emphasize his "Hear, hear!" by a defence of this disgraceful conduct.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: During the course of last week, the hon. Member who has just sat down, and other hon. Members on that side of the House, have undertaken to educate the country for the Autumn Sitting. If anything can make the House and the country see the impossibility of conducting Business on the principle we have seen worked out during the last few weeks, the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) and the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) will have opened their eyes on the matter. What has just happened? The hon. Member for Louth, at the commencement of the Sitting, brought forward this question by moving the adjournment of the House; but having had a reply from the Attorney General for Ireland completely answering his allegations, and giving an absolute contradiction to his statements—
  MR. CALLAN: He refused to answer my statement.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Having, I say, received an absolute contradiction to his statements at 11 o'clock to-night, the hon. Member again commences the same discussion on the same subject in the absence of the Attorney General for Ireland, and intimates that it is his intention, on a future occasion, to renew the same debate. If anything were wanting to convince the country of the necessity of dealing with such a power for the abuse of the Forms of the House, this is an admirable example. With reference to the substance of what the hon. Member for Louth has said, I think, also, that the attention of the

  1909
  country will he directed to a very important circumstance. One of the great and crying evils of Ireland has been the impossibility of the administration of justice in consequence of the terrorism which existed; and the reason why it was impossible that life and property in Ireland should be safe was because juries throughout that country were acting under such a terror that they did not dare to give righteous verdicts. This House has, by a large majority, passed a measure one of the provisions of which was to remove these juries from the influence of that terror; and one of the brightest signs of returning peace to Ireland is that at last it has been found possible to form juries who, when the evidence is plain and beyond all possibility of doubt and contradiction, find verdicts in accordance with the evidence. But what happens the moment that takes place? Why, there is a certain section of the Irish Press, and there are certain Members from Ireland, who set to work to renew against the administration of justice the same statements and speeches—
  MR. CALLAN: That is false.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: To secure for crime that impunity it previously enjoyed.
  MR. CALLAN: That is a false statement—I say it is false.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has repeatedly said, in a loud tone of voice, "That is false!" I call on him to withdraw the statement.
  MR. CALLAN: I say the statement is made that I have set myself to prevent the due course of justice. I say that is a false statement.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Did the hon. Member mean to represent that the Home Secretary has made a false statement?
  MR. CALLAN: The statement that I have delivered speeches here or anywhere intended to prevent the course of justice, by whomever made, is a false statement.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I wish the hon. Member to withdraw the statement that the Home Secretary has made a false statement to this House.
  MR. CALLAN: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman made that statement? If he has not I withdraw.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERS: I heard the hon. Member say "That is false."
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw that statement, or does he not?
  MR. CALLAN: If the Home Secretary has stated—[Cries of "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw the statement that the Home Secretary has made a false statement?
  MR. CALLAN: If the Home Secretary—[Cries of "Name him!"]—I say if the Home Secretary has made the statement that I have deliberately attempted to pervert and thwart the course of justice, I say that statement is a false statement.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw the statement that the Home Secretary has made a false statement in this House?
  MR. CALLAN: If the Home Secretary has made that statement—
  THE CHAIRMAN: As the hon. Member refuses to withdraw the statement that the Home Secretary has made a false statement in this House, I must Name him to the House. If he does not withdraw it immediately I must Name him.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to a point of Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must first ascertain whether the hon. Member withdraws the statement that the Home Secretary made a false statement.
  MR. O'DONNELL: It is on that I wish to speak.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I presume the hon. Member does not mean to withdraw the expression.
  MR. CALLAN: Does the Home Secretary impute to me that I have been guilty of conduct unbecoming a Member of this House, and for which I should be criminally responsible? If he says he did not mean that—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must, in the first place, withdraw the statement in which he deliberately accuses the Home Secretary of making a false statement to this House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will afterwards, no doubt, explain what he meant. But the hon. Member has been guilty of misconduct and of an un-Parliamentary course in accusing the Home Secretary of having made a false statement. If the hon. Member does not withdraw the statement, I have only one course to pursue.
  MR. CALLAN: If the Home Secretary says he did not wish to impute to me that I have deliberately attempted to pervert the course of justice—conduct for which I should be criminally responsible—I will withdraw the expression. It was that charge that I characterized as false. I am not guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice. It was to the imputation of criminal misconduct that I used the word "false."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member several times repeated the words "That is false," and he must be perfectly aware that such words are un-Parliamentary. If he does not withdraw them, unequivocally—if he does not say that he did not intend to impute falsehood to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which he has it in his power to do, I have only one course to take.
  MR. CALLAN: If a statement has been made imputing to me an improper and dishonourable act, I characterize that as false. I go no farther, and I go no less.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member having several times accused the Home Secretary of falsehood in this Committee—[Mr. CALLAN: I did not; I said the imputation was false.]—a course that is altogether un-Parliamentary, I have only one course to pursue, and that is to Name him to the Committee. I Name Mr. Callan as, in having disregarded the authority of the Chair, been guilty of an offence against this House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I move that Mr. Callan be suspended from the service of this House during the remainder of this day's Sitting.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Callan be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. O'DONNELL: The Motion ought to be "suspended from the service of the Committee."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Order says "the House."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 3: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 337.)
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is now my duty to report this Resolution to the House.
  Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair in order to report the said Resolution to the House.
  Mr. SPEAKERresumed the Chair, and Mr. Playfair reported to Mr. Speaker that Mr. Callan had been Named by him to the Committee as disregarding the authority of the Chair, and that the Committee had resolved that Mr. Callan be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting:—
  Mr. SPEAKERthereupon forthwith put the Question, "That Mr. Callan be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of this day's sitting."
  The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 3: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 338.)
  Mr. CALLANwithdrew accordingly.
  The following is the official Entry taken from the Votes:—
  [Mr. Callan, Member for the County of Louth, having been Named by the Chairman for having disregarded the authority of the Chair:—
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Callan be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting:"—(Mr. Gladstone:)—The Committee divided; Ayes 58, Noes 3.
  Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair in order to report the said Resolution to the House.
  Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair, and Mr. Playfair reported to Mr. Speaker that Mr. Callan had been Named by him to the Committee as disregarding the authority of the Chair, and that the Committee had resolved that Mr. Callan be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting.
  Mr. Speaker thereupon forthwith put the Question, "That Mr. Callan be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of this day's sitting:"—The House divided; Ayes 60, Noes 3.
  Mr. CALLAN withdrew accordingly.]
  Then the House again resolved itself into the Committee on the Bill.
  Question, "That Schedule B stand part of the Bill," again proposed.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he rose to a point of Order which he had deferred in consequence of the ruling of the Chair. He wished to ask for the censure of the Chair upon the Home Secretary for having distinctly stated that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), by his action in moving the adjournment of the House earlier in the Sitting, and by repeating his objections in Committee on the Appropriation Bill, had showed that there were Members in this House from Ireland who desired to restore impunity to crime in Ireland. For that gross imputation of motive he now asked the Chairman to censure the Home Secretary, and to call for the withdrawal of those words, and an apology to the hon. Member for Louth.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I heard nothing in the language of the Home Secretary that deserved censure, or I should have noticed it at the time. The Question now before the Committee is that Schedule B stand part of the Bill.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the Home Secretary, in his reply to the hon. Member for Louth, had betrayed considerable warmth, apparently through ignorance of the facts of the case.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked whether, after the ruling of the Chair, the hon. Member was in Order in rising to the same Question again?
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member desires to discuss the Question of this being the Schedule to the Bill he will be in Order.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the hon Member (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) was somewhat mistaken. He (Mr. O'Donnell) was continuing the discussion raised by the hon. Member for Louth, and replying to the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the action of the Irish Members, and especially that of the hon. Member for Louth, deserved condemnation in the severest terms, because the hon. Member for Louth objected to the jury-packing in Ireland during the last two days. He did not intend to delay the House more than a couple of minutes; but the reason why he brought his question before the Committee, having already spoken upon it at the commencement of the Sitting, and why the hon. Member for
  1914
  Louth brought the question again before the Committee was, that since they mentioned the matter last, they had received telegrams of the most urgent character from Ireland, begging them, for the sake of the Government and for the sake of peace and order in Ireland, to call the attention of the Committee to the practice of jury-packing, and to beseech the Government to make use of the tribunal of Judges which had been established under the Coercion Act in preference to jury-packing. The Home Secretary was mistaken in stating that previously the Government were unable to get verdicts in Ireland, because they had always been able to get juries to give verdicts whenever they packed the juries; and what the Irish Members regretted was that the subordinate officers in Ireland had been packing juries in the most unblushing manner within the last two days. Forty-six Roman Catholics had been ordered to stand aside, and the Government had chosen the juries exclusively from Protestants. The Home Secretary was equally mistaken in saying that the Attorney General for Ireland had completely replied upon that point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the exclusion of Roman Catholics was only a strange coincidence; that it did not take place because of their religious opinions; that the challenges had no reference to their religious opinions. He (Mr. O'Donnell) was informed that the Crown Solicitor challenged the jurors and ordered them to stand aside simply from his brief; he received the panel with a number of names, and objected to certain gentlemen without being aware why they should be ordered to stand aside. He read "object," on his brief, and objected to these jurors. It was quite possible that a gentleman in the distinguished position of the Attorney General might not know the religion of the gentlemen he objected to, and might be quite unaware that the 46 gentlemen to whom he objected were Roman Catholics. He could quite understand that that might be so; but he must press on the Government that 46 Roman Catholics were ordered one after the other to stand aside, and that the Government in Ireland were re-establishing the worst practice of the worst era in Irish history, and making Protestants their means of trying oases. He could not too strongly express the emotion

  1915
  which had spread throughout Ireland upon this revival of jury-packing in its worst form; and he had no doubt that trial by Judges, obnoxious as that was, would be infinitely preferable to trial by packed juries. He was instructed to protest against that practice strongly. It was fatal to good government; it was fatal to all chance of conciliation between Ireland and England. He did not wish to use a single expression which he might desire to recall in calmer moments; but while he could fully admit that the higher authorities in the Administration in Ireland might not be aware of these facts, the fact remained that 46 Roman Catholics were ordered to stand aside in order that juries might be composed of Protestants in the Catholic capital of Catholic Ireland. He thought he was really standing on the side of all lovers of fair play in declaring it a most deplorable and unfortunate coincidence—or accident, to say the least of it—that 46 Roman Catholic jurors should be ordered to stand aside and exclusively Protestant juries formed in consequence. He could exculpate the Attorney General for Ireland and the Prime Minister from a knowledge of this circumstance; but the practice existed, and a more infamous practice could not be conceived.
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, one of the cases tried in Dublin came from the county which he represented. There could be no stronger opponent of the exclusion of Catholics from juries than he; and it would be the greatest misfortune to the country if it should be supposed that Catholics would be ordered to stand aside under the authority of the new Act; but he was told from Dublin that some of the Catholics, who were ordered to stand aside, were ordered to stand aside simply because they begged to be excused from serving on the juries. This ought to be taken into consideration. He was also informed that since the trials on Friday and Saturday a proportion of the juries had been Roman Catholics, and that they gave verdicts as he had no doubt juries so constituted in Dublin would—in accordance with the evidence placed before them. He was certain that nothing could create greater popular distrust and discontent than the idea that Catholics would be excluded from the jury panels; but he was glad to know that, at least in some instances, they had been excluded upon their own request. With
  1916
  regard to the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Lawson, if that learned Judge went too far, that would be very regret-able; and he was sorry that, under some circumstances in Ireland, the Judges sometimes used expressions which were a little too strong, and it would be better if, in their Charges, they only used such expressions as those of Mr. Justice Stephen on the Clerkenwell case. But he was certain, from what he heard from Dublin, that there had been considerable exaggeration in regard to the exclusion of Catholic jurors.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had already stated that there had been no such thing as jury packing in Ireland, and the constant assertion of that by persons who had instructed the hon. Member opposite would not establish as a fact that which did not exist. It would be as idle to say that jurors were ordered to stand aside because they had red beards or wore white hats. These jurors were not excluded on account of their religion, nor was their religion known to the persons who ordered them to stand aside. He had already stated the reasons why they were ordered to stand aside, and his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Shea) had repeated those reasons from an independent source with which he was not acquainted. The result of the trials in Dublin had been heard with a good deal of horror and emotion throughout Ireland, and he trusted that those whom those results had inspired with horror and emotion would be satisfied that the commission of crime in Ireland would be much less safe than it had hitherto been.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he knew nothing about the facts of this case; but the attorney who was employed in the case had written to The Freeman's Journal endorsing the views which had been brought before the House to-day.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, unfortunately, juries in Ireland were struck by a peculiar system in regard to political trials. He believed he was the only Member present in the House who had been prosecuted for a criminal offence. He was prosecuted for intimidating his county in order to secure his election. He firmly believed that he was totally innocent; but he had no wish to revive that matter, except to say that he had been twice re-elected by that county.

  1917
  He had no objection to Protestants in England; but if he were tried in Ireland by a Protestant jury, from which all Catholics had been carefully weeded, he was certain that he would be convicted. The Government might strike the Irish people down and crush them with heavy fines; but as a Representative of a Catholic county, if Catholics were to be excluded from juries, even by their own wish, it would be much better to hand over trials to the Judges. As a Catholic politician, be should have no confidence in any Protestant jury, from which all Catholics had been excluded.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, that what he wished to convey to the Committee was that in to-day's Freeman's Journal there appeared a letter from the solicitor employed to defend the prisoners in this case, who stated distinctly that the Roman Catholics on the panel were told to stand aside, and not one of them was allowed to try the case. He knew nothing about the facts, and he would make no comment upon it, lest be should make an accusation which he could not sustain.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr W. M. JOHNSON)said, that could not be the case under any circumstances, because the whole jury were taken by ballot, and the panel of jurymen were not exhausted.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he was glad to hear him (Mr. O'Donnell) say that the results of the late trials in Dublin were received with emotion and horror throughout certain parts of Ireland. What he (Mr. O'Donnell) stated was that the renewal of the practice of jury packing was received with emotion and horror, and it was exceedingly unfair to try and catch a cheer by turning his statement. They now heard that the jury showed an admixture of Catholics. That that was the case was the strongest possible justification of the manly and patriotic action of The Freeman's Journal in denouncing jury-packing during the first two days; and if it was now struck down for its defence of the liberties of the people, there was no man in Ireland who would not resent the cowardly outrage.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he would withdraw what he said, if he misrepresented the hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)—EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.—REPORT.
  Resolution [August 14] reported.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked if he might receive some assurance from the Secretary of State for India that some more efficient steps would be taken to reduce the mortality in Bengal gaols? It was true there had been some reduction in the rate of mortality; the frightful rate of 97 per 1,000 had certainly been reduced; but at present the mortality was as high as 70 per 1,000. There was no reason why that rate should continue, because he found that, through the judicious action of the Bengal authorities from the year 1768 down to the year 1876, the rate of mortality was as low as about 40 per 1,000, and it was only since 1877 that the frightful proportions to which he referred had been realized. The reason why he made this demand was that he had been accused of aiming his criticisms more directly against one single official. He desired to know who were responsible for the continued high rate of mortality in Bengal gaols, and what assurances they could get that that high mortality would be diminished?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he thought the Papers which had been presented would prove to the House that every effort was now being made to reduce the very high rate of mortality in the Bengal gaols. The subject was receiving the most careful attention of the Government of India. They acknowledged that the sanitary condition of the gaols was not what was desirable; but he thought the House might be satisfied with the assurance that there was no desire to allow the present rate of mortality to continue.
  Resolution agreed to.

  CATHEDRAL STATUTES BILL [Lords].
  (Mr. Beresford Hope.)
  CATHEDRAL STATUTES BILL [Lords].

    [BILL 232.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he had to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It might be in the recol-

    1919
    lection of the House that, three years ago, there was a debate in "another place" on the Statutes of the Cathedrals. It was found that the cathedrals were greatly hampered in their development, because there was no existing machinery by which their Statutes could be amended according to modern ideas and requirements. The Government of the day—the Government of Lord Beaconsfield—appointed a Royal Commission, at the head of which was the Archbishop of Canterbury, which had the peculiarity, in common with the University Commission, that there were in the case of each cathedral temporary members added in the persons of the Dean and a Canon. The Statutes, after being discussed and revised by the Commission, were sent to the Chapters, and, their advice being taken, the Statutes came back to the Commission; and, finally, after this minute sifting, anyone, if this Bill passed, could be heard who had anything to say respecting them. It was found that the machinery of proceeding by legislation, which was the only one which certainly existed for giving validity to the new Cathedral Statutes, was too cumbersome; so this Bill provided new and more simple machinery, in the shape of a Cathedral Committee of Council. It had been brought in "elsewhere" by the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Commission, and had passed after discussion, but without a division. Its opponents said that the promoters of the Bill were afraid of the full glare of public opinion; that they were afraid of bringing their schemes before Parliament. Let him assure the House that none of those criticisms were based upon fact. In a very few words he thought he could show that the machinery which was proposed by the Bill was one which bristled with opportunities of criticism. The Committee proposed by the Bill was based on the recognized relations of Church and State, and the Cathedral Statutes were not to pass that Committee till they had been duly and properly sifted by it. All men would have a right to claim a hearing. The Statutes were then to go before the high authorities who acted in the name of Her Majesty; and finally, after passing these two trials, the Statutes would have to be for 12 weeks on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. He thought the House
    1920
    would not hesitate to give the Bill a second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he did not think this was a proper time to discuss the Bill. The Bill was one of considerable importance. It was a Bill calculated to diminish the control of Parliament over cathedral establishments—cathedral establishments being National establishments of the country. He did not think that in the last days of Parliament they ought to take the second reading of a Bill of this character. There were, from both sides of the House, no less than six Amendments against the Bill. Pour of the Amendments were directly against the principle of the Bill. One of them was to the effect that, so long as the Church of England continued to be established by law, it was not expedient to diminish the control of Parliament over the cathedral establishments, or to exclude, by Act of Parliament, any portion of Her Majesty's subjects from the exercise of their existing Constitutional rights in the government of the National Church. Another was that it was undesirable to give powers as proposed by this Bill until the final Report of the Royal Commission on Cathedral Churches, and the Evidence taken before them, should have been submitted to Parliament. He did not wish to move a direct negative; therefore, he would move that the debate be now adjourned.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
    The House divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 31: Majority 10.—(Div. List, No. 339.)
    Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. MONKsaid, that, as the House desired to have a debate on the Bill, even at this late hour, he would be happy to indulge the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) with a few observations. The right hon. Gentleman had said little about the Bill itself. One of the Bishops in "another

    1921
    place" had designated this Bill as "a leap in the dark;" and he (Mr. Monk) was anxious, before they took this leap in the dark in this House, to consider some of the provisions of the Bill. It was proposed that a Committee should be appointed to consider such Cathedral Statutes as should be presented to them by the Royal Commission; and this Committee was to have the power of enacting1 the Statutes; and, when enacted, the Statutes, so altered and so rearranged, were to have the force of law. That seemed to him to be a total change in the whole regulation of the cathedrals. If any change were to be made in the Statutes, it should be made by Parliament itself, and not committed to four Members of the Privy Council.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—India (Home Charges Arrears)* (256); Revenue, Friendly Societies, and National Debt* (257); National Gallery (Loan) * (261); Fishery Board (Scotland) * (264).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections) * (251); Passenger Vessels Licences (Scotland) (252); Expiring Laws Continuance* (253); Public Works Loans* (254); Royal Irish Constabulary (255); Prison Charities* (242).
Committee—Allotments* (248).
Committee — Report — Turnpike Roads (South Wales) * (226).
Third Reading—Reserve Forces Acts Consolidation* (224); Militia Acts Consolidation* (225); Artizans' Dwellings* (231); Parcel Post* (249); Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) * (241); Government Annuities and Insurance* (243), and passed.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE ADJOURNMENT.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I wish to give Notice that I propose on
  1796
  Friday to move the adjournment of the House until the 24th of October. I do so in consequence of the course to be pursued by the Government in the House of Commons, where the same Motion for adjournment is to be made. In the House of Commons it is not the intention of the Government to bring forward any other Business than that connected with the Procedure of that House. I might have taken another course. I might have, as is often the case, moved next Friday an adjournment until a later day than that on which the House of Commons will meet. But, on the whole, we thought it more respectful to your Lordships to ask you to meet on the same day, and on that day I shall ask your Lordships further to adjourn. With regard to the Business of the House, Her Majesty's Government have no intention of asking your Lordships to transact any. Should any emergency make it desirable that Business should be done, I shall feel bound to give your Lordships proper Notice of the fact. I understand that it has been suggested that I should state whether any Bill which has been rejected by the usual form of a Motion that it be read on that day three months might not be revived through the meeting of the House in October, notwithstanding the rejection. I think that practically this question does not arise, as there are no Bills which can be affected in that way. I have also been asked whether any Bills which have not arrived at a third reading can go on to their subsequent stages in October. A question of Order of that sort will rest with your Lordships; but it is not the intention of the Government to ask your Lordships to go on with any measures or to encourage any legislation in the month of October.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there still remains the difficulty of any single Member pushing on a measure. His right to do so would, I presume, not be affected by the course proposed by the Government. I have no intention to enter into any discussion of the noble Earl's statement; but should public affairs at that time seem to require any discussion on the part of the Opposition, we are not to be precluded by the statement of the noble Earl from then entering upon a discussion.

PASSENGER VESSELS LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 252.)
(The Earl of Rosebery.)
PASSENGER VESSELS LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 252.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had passed the House of Commons, where there had been no dissentient voice raised against it. It dealt with the question of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors on board passenger vessels. These licences were now granted by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who were not the ordinary licensing authorities. It seemed that scenes of great scandal had occurred on some of the Glasgow Sunday boats owing to the sale of intoxicating liquors on board of them, and the object of this Bill was to give the Commissioners power to prevent such sale on Sundays.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
  Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY BILL.—(No. 255.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL),in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the Bill had come up from the House of Commons. The Bill was in the interest of the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, with whom alone it dealt, and its object was to improve the pay and pensions of those individuals. Their allowance, as well as the allowances of the men, had already been dealt with; but for the purpose of increasing their pay and pensions it was necessary that an Act should be passed. The measure also proposed a scheme of compulsory retirement, to be applied to the officers of the Constabulary, which was similar to the scheme in force amongst officers in the Army. The subject had been carefully
1798
inquired into, and this Bill was the result.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he did not rise to object to the Bill, but to ask whether the position of the chief medical officers of the Force had been brought under the notice of the Government, and whether they would come under the operation of the Bill?
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, the point had been brought to his notice a short time ago; but he was informed that the House of Lords would have no power to include any other officer in the Bill, as that would imply an official character. He had been told that the question had been raised in the House of Commons, and considered by the Irish Government; but they did not see their way to include in the benefits of the Bill any other officers.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS—HYDE PARK CORNER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF AILESBURYasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is seriously intended to carry into effect the alterations proposed by Her Majesty's First Commissioner of Works at Hyde Park Corner; and, if so, when the said alterations may be expected to be commenced? The noble Marquess said, that in asking these Questions he had no intention whatever of finding fault with the scheme proposed by the First Commissioner of Works—quite the reverse; but what he wished was that the works should be commenced at once, as the nuisance was becoming every day more intolerable, even as early as 10 or 11 a.m., as well as 4 or 5 p.m. His reason, too, for pressing this on Her Majesty's Government was that as long ago as 1874 a Motion was carried and the sum of money required actually voted by the House of Commons on the proposal of the noble Lord at that time at the head of the Office of Works, then a Member of the other House for Chichester, and

  1799
  nothing more was ever done about it. When he (the Marquess of Ailesbury) made further inquiry, he found that the money had been repaid into the Treasury. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would at once commence the works, as they would certainly take six or eight months to complete, or till Parliament should meet next year.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that he desired to supplement the Question of the noble Marquess by asking whether, in the event of these proposed improvements being effected, the Government would avail themselves of the opportunity thus afforded to throw open the roadway down Constitution Hill to the public? He asserted that if the contemplated improvements were carried out the exclusion of the public from the roadway in question would be more than ever a grievance. He was satisfied that this proposal would meet with the approval of Her Majesty, who throughout her long and happy Reign had ever considered the convenience of her subjects. Carriages and other vehicles had been allowed to pass in front of Buckingham Palace, and this road would run at the back of the Palace. The public use of it would be a great convenience, and at the same time no nuisance to anybody.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that he had to state that immediately the Vote was passed by the other House steps were at once taken to commence carrying out the great improvement at Hyde Park Corner. The first thing that had to be done was to remove the reservoir from its present position to a suitable place in Hyde Park, and tenders had already been invited for carrying this out. The First Commissioner had not yet decided whether the Duke of Wellington's Arch could be moved in one block on rollers, or whether it would be necessary to pull it down and rebuild it; but it was hoped that this matter would be settled in a few days. The Government hoped that cutting off the corner of Green Park would entirely remove the congestion of traffic, which had for so long been a standing nuisance to that part of the Metropolis; and they believed that of the numerous schemes which had been suggested, this formation of a large "place" would be the boldest and happiest solution of a somewhat difficult problem. He could not give the noble Marquess an
  1800
  exact date when the works would be completed; but he could assure him that, the money having been agreed to by Parliament, and the Metropolitan Board of Works and all parties having given their consent, everything would be done to expedite the completing of the improvements as soon as possible. In reply to the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Milltown), he had to say that it was not proposed at present to open Constitution Hill to the public. The question had not been under consideration.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, that he was very glad that what was now proposed was to be carried out; but he was convinced that the block in the traffic at Hyde Park Corner would never be got rid of until a subway had been made from Hamilton Place, under Piccadilly, to Grosvenor Place. He was aware that the construction of such a subway would be a very expensive matter, and that all sorts of difficulties connected with water and gas pipes and sewers would have to be encountered; but, in his opinion, these difficulties ought to be overcome, because the block at Hyde Park Corner was really a disgrace to a great city like this.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES)asked whether it would not be possible to place the statue of the Duke of Wellington on a pedestal opposite to Apsley House?
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that the First Commissioner had received a great many representations respecting what should be done with the statue of the Duke of Wellington. Among many conflicting opinions, he had not yet decided what would be best to be done; but if the Arch were obliged to be pulled down, then he would take care that experiments were made to see how the Duke would look on a pedestal in the middle of the proposed "place" or similar position. If the Arch were not pulled down, but were rolled into its new position without having to take down the statue, then it was probable it would be better to leave it alone. The matter was, however, still under consideration.

TRIPOLI—SAFETY OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  EARL DE LA WARR,in rising to call the attention of Her Majesty's Govern-

  1801
  ment to the position of British, subjects in Tripoli, and to ask whether any provision had been made to protect them in case of emergency, said, that while matters of the gravest importance in Egypt were engaging the attention of Her Majesty's Government, he should be very unwilling to bring under public notice any question which would embarrass them in the course which they had thought it right to adopt. At the same time, it was impossible to pass over in silence events which were of frequent occurrence, and which arose, it could not be doubted, from an increasing irritation among the Mussulman population of North Africa and elsewhere. There was evidence—abundant evidence—that the unhappy state of affairs in Egypt was not confined to that country only; it had shown itself in Syria, and in other Asiatic Mussulman States; it had shown itself in Tripoli; and wherever there was a Christian and Mussulman population together, if there had not been an open outbreak, there was a dormant feeling of irritation which might at any moment result in acts of violence. As regarded Tripoli, to which he desired to ask the attention of Her Majesty's Government, he had been assured upon reliable authority that the state of feeling there at the present moment was one which caused great anxiety and alarm. British subjects who had been able to do so had quitted the country, and many of the poorer class of the Maltese were being maintained in the Island of Serba, near the coast of Tripoli, at the expense, he believed, of the Maltese Government. Now, he did not think they need go far to discover the cause of that unhappy state of affairs. He was aware it was sometimes unwelcome to refer to the past; but the present in political matters was most often the result of the past, and he thought that anyone who had of late watched the progress of events in North Africa could not fail to see that what began in Tunis was the fons et origo malorum. It could only be described as an act of unprovoked aggression and violence against a peaceful country, which, unhappily, instead of being disallowed, was tacitly sanctioned, if not encouraged, by Her Majesty's Government, till a flame was kindled among the Mussulman population of North Africa, which had ended in a conflagration in Egypt. As regarded
  1802
  the future, Parliament was shortly to be adjourned, and the country would be left for some time with the dark and ominous intimation recently given by the Prime Minister in "another place"—that the object of this war was not to restore the status quo ante in Egypt. He therefore wished to ask Her Majesty's Government whether any provision had been made to afford protection to British subjects in Tripoli? He begged also to move for Papers on the subject.
  Moved, "That Papers relating to the protection of British subjects in Tripoli be presented to the House."—(The Marl De La Warr.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: In answer to the Question of the noble Lord, I have to say that the report arrived in this country during the last month, stating that there had been a considerable panic at Tripoli and at Benghadi, and that the European residents were fleeing to Malta. Her Majesty's Government sent a vessel of war to Benghadi, where the panic was said to exist. At the same time, they also sent instructions to Lord Dufferin to communicate with the Porte and with his Colleagues on the subject. They likewise communicated with the Governments of France, Austria, and Italy, and it appeared to those Powers that the reports which they had received did not lead to any alarm for the safety of the Europeans in Tripoli. At the same time, France and Austria agreed with us in pressing the Porte to take all necessary precautions; and the Porte promised to do so. At Tripoli the Vali issued a Circular to the Consuls, taking upon himself the responsibility for the security of the peace of the district. This has had a good effect in calming the apprehensions of the European residents; and there is no reason to believe that British subjects in Tripoli are in any danger at the present moment. The Papers on the subject contain nothing beyond what I have just stated to your Lordships.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord withdraw the Motion?
  EARL DE LA WARR: Does the noble Earl object to produce the Papers?
  EARL GRANVILLE: No.
  Motion agreed to.

AFRICA (SOUTH)—CETEWAYO, EX-KING OF ZULULAND—PROBABLE RESTORATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNrose to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have yet arrived at any determination as to whether they will permit Cetewayo to return to Zululand or not, or as to what is to be his future fate; and, if so, whether he will communicate their intentions on the subject to the House? When a question as to Cetewayo's visit to England was mooted in July last, the Colonial Secretary had seemed undecided as to what was to be done with the ex-King. Cetewayo's visit had become a fait accompli, and the deposed Monarch had had an interview with the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary, and had had the high honour of an introduction to Her Majesty the Queen at Osborne. In spite of the fact that the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) had said that nothing like an official reception would be given to Cetewayo, people both at home and in South Africa would look upon this as something like an official reception; and it was only right that the Government should give some explanation on that matter. He had no hostility to the ex-King. On the contrary, it was impossible not to regard him with a certain amount of sympathy and compassion. On the other hand, the Government, by their conduct towards him, were placed between the horns of a disagreeable dilemma. If they prevented his return to Zululand, they must dash to the ground the hopes they had excited in his mind. On the other hand, if they decided to restore him, they would fly in the face of almost everyone whose personal knowledge qualified him to give an opinion on the matter, and would be pleasing only Bishop Colenso, Lady Florence Dixie, and the ex-King himself. Should another Zulu war be the result of the restoration of the ex-King, the responsibility which would rest on Her Majesty's Government would be very serious. The noble Earl concluded by asking his Question.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have determined to consider the possibility of making arrangements for the partial re-
  1804
  storation of Cetewayo to Zululand, with proper safeguards and conditions. Some portion of the country, to be hereafter defined, will be reserved, in order to meet obligations to those of the appointed Chiefs and people who may not be willing to return under Cetewayo's rule. A British Resident will be maintained in Zululand, and Cetewayo will be required to enter into engagements similar to those by which the 13 appointed Chiefs are now bound, which specially include a prohibition to revive in any form the military system formerly prevailing. No portion of Zululand will be annexed to British territory. I have made a communication to this effect to Cetewayo to-day.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it is impossible to hear the announcement just made by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies without feeling that Her Majesty's Government have taken upon themselves a considerable responsibility—a responsibility not only towards the Colonists of Natal, whose lives and property may be endangered by the resolution to which they have come, but also a responsibility with respect to the general effect which their announcement will have on the estimation in which the policy, or continuity of policy, of Great Britain is held. This is another step in the process of reversal. It gives confirmation to the opinion of those who believe that England has no settled Foreign or Colonial policy, but that her policy veers about with the variation of political opinion at the hustings. And this, in an Empire where so much depends not on absolute force, but on the belief that is entertained in the stability of English resolutions and in the permanence of English policy and power, is a very grave decision to arrive at. As to the details of this matter, it is impossible, of course, to criticize them until we see them in more fulness than the noble Lord has been able to give them in his present explanation. But I cannot help observing that the prohibition to revive the military system will be a very idle threat unless Her Majesty's Government are prepared to maintain an amount of military strength in Zululand entirely inconsistent with their more recent policy towards the Colonies. With respect to the individual himself, it is, perhaps, impossible to say all that the

  1805
  documents in our possession would suggest to one to say; but the fact is that the man we are about to restore to power over a race whom we have affected to protect, and by the side of a Colony for whose safety we are responsible, has shown himself to be one of the most dangerous and most bloodthirsty of tyrants. Not so long ago the Party which supports Her Majesty's Government, and many of those who now form part of the Government, denounced the policy of this country with respect to Turkey, on the ground of crimes which were imputed to the Turkish Government. Some of those imputations were well-founded, and some were not well-founded; but even if they were well-founded, they would be trivial when compared with the crimes that have characterized the government of Cetewayo in the past. I do not know how far this policy of restitution is to go. The Gaekwar of Baroda is dead, and consequently Her Majesty's Government cannot restore him. Ismail Pasha still remains, and he is an angel of light compared to the candidate whom Her Majesty's Government have replaced on the Throne of Zululand. Of course, this policy must in a great measure be judged by its results. It is an undertaking little consistent, I think, with prudence, with the interests of the Colonies, with the prospective peace of Africa, and, above all, it will tend to create among all the populations whose destinies are affected by the decisions of the British Government a belief that in the policy of that Government there is no stability.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the noble Marquess can hardly expect me to enter on the present occasion into a detailed defence of the policy which Her Majesty's Government have thought it best to pursue towards Zululand; but there are one or two of the observations of the noble Marquess which I ought not to pass by without notice. In the first place, the noble Marquess says that this is a reversal of policy. No doubt it is; and though, my Lords, I quite agree that it is a misfortune when policies have to be reversed, it is a much greater misfortune to maintain obstinately a policy which we believe to be wrong. I need not repeat what I have often said before, that I believe the entire policy which dictated
  1806
  the late Zulu War was wrong from beginning to end. Further, I am of opinion that it has been abundantly shown, and those who have studied the despatches already presented must, I think, come to the conclusion that, whatever may be their opinion of the best policy to be pursued with regard to Zululand, the settlement which was made after the dethronement of Cetewayo has failed. Therefore, I think almost everyone—I am sure everyone in South Africa who is acquainted with the subject—is distinctly of opinion that a fresh policy might be adopted with advantage. Of course, I am perfectly free to admit that the question as to whether we have taken a right decision or not is a question quite fit to be canvassed, and one on which, no doubt, people will hold different opinions. At the same time, I have watched with very great care and attention all the indications of opinion in South Africa, and I am absolutely convinced that a considerable change of opinion has come about on this subject. As to the argument that we ought not to put Cetewayo over any part of this territory because he is a bloodthirsty tyrant beyond all experience, I simply deny the fact. I am quite aware that a number of stories were collected together for the purpose of justifying what I believe to have been a most unjust aggression on Cetewayo. It was erroneously thought that an attack was made on the British Colony by Cetewayo, whereas, in point of fact, we attacked him. I am aware that Cetewayo, in common, I believe, with every Chief in South Africa, committed many of what we justly call cruelties; but it is well to consider precisely what those cruelties were. In the first place, a considerable proportion of them took the form of what is called "smelling out witches." My Lords, I am not a believer in witchcraft, still less am I one who approves of the punishment of supposed witchcraft; but I cannot forget that it is not so very long ago that persons in Europe and this country—persons under far more enlightened Rulers than Cetewayo—imagined that there were witches, and punished them in a most cruel and barbarous manner. Although Cetewayo was, therefore, far behind his age, however we may disapprove his cruelties in this direction, it must be remembered that he was acting according to the customs which prevailed

  1807
  in the country. I admit that there is something behind of very much more importance. Cetewayo, no doubt, inflicted severe and sometimes wanton punishments on his people in order to maintain his sovereignty. But, against these facts, you must put this on the other side. If he was so cruel a Ruler, how was it that his people adhered to him as they did? Sir Bartle Frere thought his people would desert him; but, so far from that being the case, with the exception of one of his Chiefs, who came over to our side for special reasons of personal ambition, so completely were his people attached to him that, after he was defeated by our troops, and was a solitary fugitive through the country, not one of his people would betray him to our agents. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that he was not a specially bloodthirsty tyrant, as compared with men who have occupied similar positions. I agree with the noble Marquess that the step we have determined to take must be judged by the results. The whole question of dealing with South Africa is one of extreme difficulty. We have waited with great patience to allow an opportunity thoroughly to consider the position of affairs in that country, and we have deliberately come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when it is no longer safe, looking to the condition of Zululand and to the future, not to arrive at some decision for a new settlement, and the main provisions of that settlement I have announced tonight to your Lordships.
  6.20 P.M. House adjourned during pleasure.
  12.25 A.M. House resumed by the Lord MONSON.

  NATIONAL GALLERY (LOAN) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for enabling the Trustees and Director of the National Gallery to lend works of art to other public galleries in the United Kingdom—Was presented by The Earl GRANVILLE; read 1a. (No. 261.)
  House adjourned a half past Twelve o'clock A.M., till half past Twelve o'clock.