Sitting of 26 June 1882

Preamble
MINUTES.—SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES; CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, £1,617,250, further on account—CIVIL SERVICES, Class I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS; Class II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES
382
OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS; Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE; Class IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART; Class V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES; Class VI.—NON-EFFEC-TIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES; Class VII.—MISCELLANEOUS; REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds) *.
First Reading—Election of Representative Peers (Ireland) * [215.
Second Reading—Highway Rate and Expenditure * [209l; Public Health (Fruit-Pickers' Lodgings) * [214]; Copyhold Enfranchisement* [58], discharged.
Committee—Corn Returns (No. 2) * [193]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Petty Sessions (Ireland) * [203].
Report—Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (West Ham, &c.) * [196]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) * [159].

QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT—THE RIOTS AT ALEXANDRIA —ACTION OF THE BRITISH FLEET.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs, Whether the House could not have the further Papers upon the Egyptian Question at an earlier period than at present named?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I am afraid it is quite impossible for the Government to make any promise. They are now under reference to Lord Lyons and Lord Dufferin, and, although every exertion will be made, I cannot give any assurance on the matter.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he can state what steps were taken by Sir Beauchamp Seymour and Her Majesty's ships under his command on Sunday, the 11th of June, for the protection of British life and property at Alexandria; if he can state the dates of the arrivals at and departures from Alexandria of any of Her Majesty's vessels of war up to the present time since the 25th of September 1881, the date at which Sir E. Malet recommended
  "That one of Her Majesty's ships of war should be stationed at Alexandria during the winter,"
  and the class, tonnage, and armament of such vessels; and, if he can state the periods since September 25th 1881, during which there has been no British vessel of war in the harbor of Alexandria?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, we have received from. Sir Beauchamp Seymour dispatches relating to the occurrences of the 11th, and reporting the steps which he took on that day. The House will understand that in the present condition of affairs at Alexandria it is necessary to speak with the greatest reserve, and it would be contrary to the public interest to produce those dispatches now; but they will, no doubt, be included in Papers to be laid before Parliament in due course. Unfortunately, owing to the sudden and unexpected nature of the outbreak, it was impossible to prevent the attack upon Mr. Cookson, and the other casualties which occurred soon after the commencement of the disorder. I must add that the conduct of Sir Beauchamp Seymour and of Captain Molyneux, of Her Majesty's ship Invincible, who took charge of the Consulate when Mr. Cookson was disabled, has received the entire approval of the Admiralty. In answer to the hon. Member's second Question, I have to say that the Invincible was at Alexandria on the 19th and 20th of October, the Iris from December 3 to January 5, and again from March 8 to March 26, and the Bacchante from the 5th to the 26th of March.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: The hon. Member has not answered that portion of my Question which relates to the class, tonnage, and armament of the vessels.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Member can easily ascertain that information for himself. I do not think it is desirable that the Government should go into particulars of that character.

  ARMY—CASE OF JAMES DOYLE, AN INSANE SOLDIER.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is true that James Doyle, an Irish soldier, was discharged from the Royal Artillery some weeks ago, he being at the time not of sound mind, and was sent, under the care of a Bombardier, from Plymouth to the county Wicklow, where, his friends having gone away, he was turned loose to shift for himself; whether he is aware that the unfortunate man was arrested by the police as a tramp, but was immediately liberated on receipt of a telegram from the Military authorities
  384
  at Plymouth; whether he is aware that he has since been brought up before the magistrates at Newtown Petty Sessions, charged with breaking into an unoccupied house, and unlawfully making use of certain food he found there, and been, sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labor; and, whether he can state why this man was not sent to the Military Asylum instead of being treated in the manner complained of?
  MR. CHILDERS: I find, Sir that James Doyle enlisted in January last at Wicklow for the Royal Artillery. A few weeks after his enlistment he was found to be imbecile, and was discharged He was taken to his native county by a noncommissioned officer, and handed over to his sister-in-law, who gave a receipt for the balance of his pay, about 15 s. There is no permanent military asylum, and it is the uniform practice to send imbeciles to their parishes, whether discharged from their regiments or from Netley. The War Office has no knowledge of what became of the man after he was taken over by his relatives.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the case of James Doyle, a discharged artilleryman, as reported in the "Wicklow Newsletter" of the 17th instant, as follows:—
  "A Lunatic Burglar
  "James Doyle, a discharged soldier, was brought up at Newtown Petty Sessions on remand, charged by Constable Moore with breaking into a house belonging to Mr. Keene, at Tiglin, in the occupation of John Reynolds, and unlawfully making use of certain food, &c. there on the 26th ult.
  "Prisoner (whose face wore a most vacant and stupid expression), in reply to a question by the Bench as to his motive for breaking into the house, said he was benighted, and had nowhere to stay. He went first to the house next door—there were a lot of them empty.
  "Constable Moore proved arresting the prisoner in the house. On searching him he found nothing but a piece of iron (produced).
  "Constable Nealy said the man was arrested about a month ago at Rathnew as a tramp. He then stated that he was from Plymouth, and had been in the Artillery, from which he had just received his discharge. The police communicated with the military authorities at Plymouth, from whom they received a telegram (handed in) stating that the prisoner had received his discharge, and had been sent home to Ireland in charge of a bombardier. On receipt of the telegram the man was liberated.
  "The Chairman said the prisoner would be sentenced to three months' hard labor as a vagrant;"

  385
  whether he will inquire into the matter with a view to having the sentence remitted, and the unfortunate man transferred to an asylum, or otherwise properly cared for; and, whether he will caution the magistrates to exercise more discretion in dealing with such cases in future?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have obtained a report on this case, from which I find that the facts appear to be stated with substantial accuracy in the newspaper. Further inquiry is, however, necessary to determine whether or not the man is insane, and I have given the necessary directions for that purpose.

  FISHERY PIERS (IRELAND)—CASE OF M'FADDEN—INJURY TO NETS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that a poor fisherman named M'Fadden, in the county Donegal, has made several complaints to the Board of Works in Ireland, of the loss of a train of nets caused by stones being left in a fishing pool after the building of Gorthalia Pier, without any redress, and if he has any objection to lay upon the Table a Copy of any Letters received by the Board of Works on the subject, and of any replies given to such Letters; if it be a fact that this poor man has sustained such loss by reason of such works, or of the stones not being properly cleared away; and, if he will be compensated for such loss, or what steps have been taken by the Board of Works in the matter?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, six months after the works at the pier in question were finished, M'Fadden wrote to complain that his nets and those of other fishermen had been injured by stones lying at the bottom of the sea. The matter was then inquired into, and it was found that there were some loose stones in the place indicated, and these were at once removed. It is probable that they had been washed down by recent storms. But if they had been left there when the pier was being built, the fault was M'Fadden's own, as he was left in charge of that part of the works, with special injunctions to leave no rock spoil which could possibly do any damage. M'Fadden did not apply for compensation until April, and the case is not one in which it could be granted. I have examined the Correspondence, and do
  386
  not think any useful purpose would be served by its presentation to Parliament; but the hon. Member can have access to it if he desires to peruse it.

  POST OFFICE—RURAL LETTER-CARRIERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, Is it a fact that a rule is made that disqualifies rural letter-carriers who have not been telegraph messengers from getting appointed as town letter-carriers, and if any appointment has been made in the General Post Office, Belfast, or about to be made, of men who held no appointment before (save telegraph messengers' appointments); and, if so, what is the reason that they are appointed in preference to rural letter-carriers holding appointments; and, whether he will recommend that all rural letter-carriers will get town appointments by the seniority of their appointments; and, if the rule is made, and cannot be rescinded, he will give those who have to suffer from the effects of it a yearly increase of salary by way of recompense for being so disqualified?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, there is no rule which disqualifies rural letter-carriers who have not been telegraph messengers from being appointed as town letter-carriers; but preference is given, and I think very properly, to town telegraph messengers, who have no other position to look to in which they can be permanently retained in the employment of the Post Office. On the other hand, the established rural letter-carriers to whom the hon. Member refers already hold appointments in the postal service, which, subject to good behavior, are permanent. I do not think it would be desirable to cut off town telegraph messengers from all opportunity of getting on the establishment.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—THE COAST AND RIVER FISHERIES TRUST.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as one of the trustees to aid coast fisheries in Ireland, If he would be good enough to cause a Return to be made of the names of the trustees; the dates of their elections; the number of meetings held by them during the years 1878, 1879, 1880, and 1881; the names

  387
  of the trustees present at each meeting; and the amounts granted by loans to fishermen at each such meeting; the amount of charitable money originally handed over to the said trustees; the amount at the end of the year 1881 standing to their credit, and in what securities the amount was invested; the amounts lent by them in each of such years; and the amounts repaid to them by fishermen during such years?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, in consequence of the Notice of the hon. Member, a meeting has been called of the Trustees to-morrow, to consider whether the information shall be made public or not. Until I know the result of the meeting, I cannot answer the hon. Member's Question.

  POST OFFICE—MAIL SERVICE BETWEEN LONDONDERRY AND GLASGOW.
  SIR THOMAS M'CLUREasked the Postmaster General, What prospect there is of the completion of arrangements for a direct Mail Service between the important towns of Londonderry and Glasgow?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I regret to say that the Department has not yet been able to come to terms with the ship owners for the conveyance of mail-bags by the direct boats between Glasgow or Greenock and Londonderry. I shall be very glad if we are able to come to terms with the ship owners, in which case the service asked for would be established.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—THE CONFERENCE.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can make any statement as to the proceedings of the Conference; whether the powers and the sittings of the Conference will be continued until its decisions have been carried into execution; and, whether any steps have been taken to guard the preponderance of England and France, in accordance with such public declarations as those of the late Foreign Minister of Austria-Hungary and of the Italian Ambassador that "the Austrian and Italian Governments had no political interests in Egypt?"
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, it is not in the power of Her Majesty's Government to make any statement at present as to the proceedings of the Conference or its duration. They must depend on the course of events and the views of the Powers. Her Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that there is any occasion to take steps for the purpose suggested in the second part of the hon. Member's Question.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)—SMALL-POX.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to a Report from the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylums District, from which it appears that a patient named John Tynn, who was admitted into the Stock well Hospital on the 17th of May, stated "that he had attended at Guy's Hospital the same morning, and was told that he had smallpox;" whether it is true that the man came in a Clap-ham omnibus from London Bridge to Stock well with the smallpox eruption fully out upon his face; and, whether, if this be true, he will communicate with the authorities of Guy's Hospital, with a view to prevent so reckless a neglect of ordinary precautions against the spread of infection?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, my attention has been called to the report made to the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylums District with respect to this case, and the Local Government Board are now in communication with the authorities of Guy's Hospital on the subject. There does not seem to be any question that the man went in a Clap-ham omnibus to the hospital; but how he came to be so conveyed I have not yet ascertained.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTgave Notice that another day he should ask the right Gentleman whether he could suggest any precautions that would prevent the repetition of such an act?

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—SUB-CONSTABLE MANNIX.
  MR. SYNANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on investigation of the charge of drunkenness on patrol, on the 17th March last, against Sub-Constable Mannix, of Loughill, in the county of

  389
  Limerick, County Inspector Henry found the charge to be substantially true, and whether he, in consequence, reduced to the ranks Constable Egan, who was the constable of said Sub-Constable Mannix on the occasion; whether that finding and order were subsequently set aside by the authorities in Dublin Castle, and upon what grounds; whether Mr. Thomas M'Namara, of Loughill, offered himself as a witness to prove said charge, but was not examined, and why his evidence was refused; whether Sub-Constable Kearney, upon whose report said investigation took place, has been dismissed from the service, and upon what grounds; and, whether any further steps will be taken to order a new investigation, and to examine Mr. M'Namara, and to have justice done to Sub-Constable Kearney?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sub-Constable Kearney preferred a charge of drunkenness on patrol against Sub-Constable Mannix. The charge was investigated by a Court of Inquiry, who found the sub-constable not guilty, and completely exonerated him. County Inspector Henry had nothing to say to the case. He was not a member of the Court of Inquiry, and he did not make any report or inflict any punishment on Constable Egan in the case. Mr. M'Namara was not examined as a witness. It was known that his evidence was mere hearsay, and he was not even brought forward as a witness by the solicitor for Sub-Constable Kearney, who had preferred the charge. This was the second occasion on which this sub-constable had been found guilty, within a few months, of preferring false and scandalous charges against comrades, and for this he was dismissed. No further steps will be taken to order a new investigation.

  INDIA—INDIAN CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, in view of the changed condition of India since the commencement of the century, he will take advantage of the pending consolidation of the Indian Criminal Law to advise the Indian Legislative Council to pass a measure granting the right of a public trial to any native of India who has been imprisoned by the
  390
  warrant of the Viceroy for more than twelve months, or whose property has been sequestrated for a similar period; and, whether he will also limit the power of issuing such warrants of imprisonment and sequestration of goods to the Governor General in Council alone?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, there was at this moment no consolidation of the Indian Criminal Law pending. The Act 10 of 1882, which was an Act to consolidate and amend the Law relating to the Criminal Procedure, had already been passed by the Council of the Governor General of India, and received the assent of the Governor General on the 6th March last. The Act 8 of 1882, which was an Act to amend the Indian Penal Code, had also been passed, and received the assent of the Governor General on the 2nd March. As he (the Marquess of Hartington) stated the other day, warrants which were issued under special regulations could only be issued by the Governor General in Council. They were only issued on a very special reason of State policy, and entirely related to political matters. They were not used at all in the administration of the ordinary Criminal Law. He had not full and complete information on the subject; but, so far as he could ascertain, there were very few persons now detained under these special powers. It was necessary, naturally, after the Sepoy Mutiny, and at the time of the Wahaby Conspiracy, to exercise these powers to some extent as regards the Natives of India, but since that time he believed they had been very rarely applied to British subjects; and in the cases where they had been exercised, it was more frequently in regard to subjects of Native States who had made themselves liable to punishment for political offences, and who, if the Government of India had not dealt with them, would probably have been dealt with much more severely in their own States.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether the noble Marquess would have any objection to lay upon the Table a Return showing the number of Natives who had been arrested under these warrants and kept without trial?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the Home Government had no information on the subject, and he doubted very much whether the Indian

  391
  Government would deem it desirable to furnish the information asked for.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether the noble Marquess would make an application to the Indian Government on the subject?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that he had already stated that he had made such an inquiry, and that he could not pledge himself as to what the answer of the Indian Government would be.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether the noble Marquess would have any objection to lay a Copy of the terms of his application upon the Table?
  [No answer was given to the Question.]

  CRIMINAL LAW—MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE-CASE OF CHARLES FROST.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is true that Charles Frost has been twice convicted of crimes he has never committed, once in 1866, when he was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude, but was released after fifteen months, his innocence being established; and again in 1878, when his sentence was fifteen years, another "free pardon" being granted in 1880 upon the same grounds, viz., innocence; and, if he can state what compensation he proposes to grant to this unfortunate man?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTin reply said that the case was still under consideration. As he had stated the other day, employment had been obtained for the man by the Government, but he had left it of his own accord.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked whether the information which influenced the Alderman in his observations when the man came before him, but which had not been made public, was furnished by the Home Office or by Scotland Yard?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that he knew nothing about that.
  MR. MACFARLANEgave Notice that in a few days he would ask the right hon. Gentleman what decision had been arrived at in reference to this case.

  POST OFFICE EMPLOYES-TELEGRAPH AND SORTING CLERKS.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Postmaster General, Whether, under Section 7 of the scheme set forth in the
  392
  Postmaster General's Letter to the Treasury of June 13th 1881 (Parliamentary Paper, No. 286, of Session 1881), for the improvement of the pay of Post Office telegraphists and sorting clerks, it was intended that overtime work on Sundays should be in all cases separately accounted and paid for; whether he approves of such a construction of that section as reckons Sunday overtime work in substitution of time not worked out on any of the other six days of the week; whether, under the said scheme, sorting clerks are properly required to do always fifty hours work per week without overtime pay, and without regard being had to the number of such, hours that may fall upon the Sunday; whether it is the fact that, under the above construction of the scheme, sorting clerks are in some cases required to do as much as thirteen hours per month of Sunday duty, without receiving any payment for overtime; and, whether he will issue such instructions as will insure compliance with the real intentions of the scheme?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, a sorting clerk and telegraphist is liable for the performance of an average of two hours' duty on each Sunday, so that the attendance does not exceed eight hours in four consecutive Sundays, and a separate record is kept of this attendance. Including the two hours on Sunday, he must perform 50 hours' work a-week. I and not aware that this rule has been departed from in the manner implied by the hon. Member but if he will give me any specific information about any individual case, I shall be glad to inquire into it.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—MR. OWEN (THE ARCHITECT) AND THE IRISH CIVIL SERVICE BUILDING SOCIETY.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been directed to the following observations of Lord Crichton's Committee of 1878:—
  "We consider it a matter of regret that the Board of Works' architect, Mr. Owen, should, in spite of the Treasury Minute of 31st August 1846, hold the position of chairman of a Building Society. * * * It is in evidence the Government loans for cottages compete 'in a certain sense' with the operations of Building Societies. * * * We think, therefore, that, as private interests must be made subservient

  393
  to public interests, the architect should, even at a personal sacrifice, be required to withdraw from the direction of the Civil Service Building Society;"
  whether Mr. Owen is still a director of the Irish Civil Service Permanent Building Society; and, what course the Treasury propose to adopt in the matter?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, my attention has been called to this case by the Question of the hon. Member, and I find that Mr. Owen is still a Director of the Irish Civil Service Permanent Building Society. This is one of a class of cases which will require the early and careful consideration of the Government. It may be remembered that this subject was thought important enough to be examined into and considered by a Select Committee of the last Parliament, which, however, was prevented by the Dissolution of 1880 from arriving at conclusions upon it.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE AFFRAY AT BALLINA—THE BOY MELODY.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the manner in which the juries were empanelled in the case of the boy Melody, at Ballina, and the exclusion of jurors on religious and political grounds; if he can state what compensation the Government has given to the family of Melody, and the families of those who were wounded in the recent affray; and, whether he can now give the House an assurance that the services of Sub-Inspector Ball have been entirely dispensed with?
  MR. TREVELYAN: My right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland having had the depositions taken before the Coroner in this case under his consideration, has thought it right to direct the Crown Solicitor to have an application made to the magistrates to receive information against Sub-Inspector Ball for the manslaughter of Melody. Pending these proceedings the Government cannot move further in the matter.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—VACCINATION—MEMORANDUM OF DR. SWEETING.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in pursuance of an order of the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum
  394
  District, he has received from the managers a Copy of a Memorandum on Vaccination, by Dr. Sweeting, late medical superintendent of the Fulham Small. Pox Hospital, addressed to the managers; and, whether, considering the importance of informing the public mind upon the subject, he has any objection to lay a Copy of this Memorandum upon the Table of the House?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, a Copy of the Memorandum addressed by Dr. Sweeting to the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District has been received by the Local Government Board, and I quite agree with the hon. Member as to the importance of informing the public mind on the subject of vaccination. The Memorandum, however, is not even addressed to the Local Government Board, but to a local authority, and it would not be consistent with the ordinary practice of the Board to present such a document with a view to its being printed and circulated at the public expense.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—OMAGH GAOL—WIDOW OF CAPTAIN DISNEY.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What provision the Government intend making for the widow of the late Captain Disney, Governor of Omagh Gaol, county Tyrone, who lost his life through the defective sanitary condition of that prison?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have just received a communication from the Treasury, which Department sanctions a gratuity to Captain Disney's widow to the amount of one year's salary—namely, £200.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid that he regarded the compensation proposed to be given as so utterly inadequate that he should call the attention of the House to the matter when the Estimates came on for discussion.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARMS' LICENCES.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, after the passing of the Arms Act, the Hon. M. J. Ffrench, R.M., Cashel, called a meeting of the magistrates attending the Cashel Petty Sessions at a club-room known as the Rock Club, Cashel, at which he (the

  395
  Hon. M. Ffrench) issued to the justices there assembled a request that they should abstain from signing certificates for license to have arms where demanded, thereby completely nullifying the fourth section of the Arms Act, and whether such request has been strictly adhered to, save in one case, where the signatory happened to be the sole absentee on the occasion referred to; whether it is a fact that, at a petty sessions held at Fethard, county Tipperary, on the 22nd of May, a magistrate sitting on the bench, Major Purcell, Rowan, applied for a gun license for his brother-in-law, Charles Black-moor, Esq., Montlestown Castle, a gentleman holding fee simple property over £400 per annum; whether the stipendiary magistrate, the Hon. Mr. Ffrench, asked if applicant had paid his rent; and whether, on being informed that Mr. Blackmoor had no rent to pay, the application was refused, on the grounds that he (Mr. Ffrench) had heard that Mr. Blackmoor had attended Land League meetings;" whether it is true that a farmer, named John Quigley, tenant to Richard Penne father Lloyd, county Roscommon, who holds property in the county Tipperary, applied for a gun license at the Fethard Petty Sessions held on the 22nd May; whether, in a catechetical examination, which the Hon. M. J. Ffrench has adopted, it was elicited that the applicant had paid his rent, but, owing to an error of deducting the poor rates on the valuation and not on the rent paid, a trifling sum of three shillings and four pence remained due; and, whether, until such trifling sum was paid, the stipendiary magistrate refused to grant a license, notwithstanding that the tenant and landlord are on the most friendly terms, as appeared from the letter of the landlord to tenant, produced?
  MR. TREVELYAN; Sir, I have obtained a report from the Hon. Mr. Ffrench, the Resident Magistrate referred to in this Question, from which I find that there is no ground for the statement made in the first paragraph of it, as he called no such meeting of magistrates, either at the Rock Club or anywhere else. With regard to the second and third paragraphs, what appeared to have happened was that an informal application, written in pencil on a scrap of paper, was handed to Mr. Ffrench, asking for licenses for Charles and John
  396
  Blackmore. He knew of no such person as John Blackmore, but having made inquiry he issued licenses to Charles and Henry Blackmore on thel9th instant. He has no recollection of having asked any question with regard to their rent. In reply to the remainder of the Question, it appears that he was applied to by John Quigley for an arms license. He did make some inquiries from the applicant with regard to his rent, and finding that he owed his landlord a sum of 3s. 4d., he advised him to pay it off at once, the amount was so small, and to come again for an arms license. I will, however, refer to Dublin to see whether a different system cannot be adopted.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881, CLAUSE 19—ADVANCES TO IRISH TENANT FARMERS.
  MR. VILLIERS-STUARTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Whether the nineteenth Clause of the Land Law (Ireland) Act empowers the Board of Works to advance to tenant farmers sums of less than £100, for the purpose of enabling them to carry out the orders of the Land Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners relating to laborers' cottages and allotments; whether it is true that the Board of Works have hitherto omitted to avail themselves of the power thus given them under the Act; whether the difficulty experienced by tenant farmers in obtaining these loans has contributed to the failure of the nineteenth Clause; and, whether the Government will take such steps as will insure the Board of Works availing themselves of the power of granting small advances to tenant farmers for the purpose of carrying out the orders of the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners under Clause 19?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, no difficulties have been thrown in the way of applications for loans under the 19th clause of the Land Act. Only seven have however as yet been received. In two of these it was not stated that the application was made under the order of Court, and they were therefore treated as coming under the 31st clause. When the error was detected a copy of the Court's order, as is necessary, was asked for in each case; and upon receipt of this the loans were sanctioned. In a third case the loan has been sanctioned, but the tenant now appears to wish to evade the ne-

  397
  cessity of building. In the four other cases, which have been received comparatively recently, the Court's order was sought for without loss of time; but in spite of reminders none of them have yet been received. In the meantime, however, the cases have been referred to the Inspectors for report.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—THE PROTOCOLE DESINTERESSEMENT.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the statement made by M. de Freycinet in the French Chamber that—
  "The Powers have signed a self-denying Protocol whereby each Power debars itself from seeking in Egypt any territorial or other advantage apart from the other Powers,"
  is correct; if so, whether this self-denying Protocol was proposed to the other Powers by Her Majesty's Government, as was the case with the Protocole de Désintéressement signed in 1880; whether the Protocol referred to by M. de Freycinet would, if signed by England, preclude Her Majesty's Government from opposing a proposal for the neutralization of the Canal, it being a part of Egyptian territory; and, whether the Protocoles de Désintéressement of 1840 and 1880, which have been cited by Her Majesty's Government as precedents for the Protocol now proposed, referred to questions in which England was not specially concerned, as she is in the present case, owing to her predominant interest in the Suez Canal as her direct road to India?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Protocol was proposed jointly by England and France to the other Powers. There is nothing in the terms of it that would preclude Her Majesty's Government from opposing any such proposal as that suggested by the hon. Member if it were made. The hon. Member must form his own opinion as to the degree in which England was concerned in the questions referred to in the Protocols of 1840 and 1880.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the following information is correct:—
  "Ragheb Pacha has addressed a letter to the Italian Consul General, who is the senior member or doyen of the Consular body, inviting him and his colleagues who may happen to be 'interested' in the massacre of the 11th instant, to
  398
  appoint their delegates on the Commission of Inquiry. Ragheb demands that these delegates be furnished with full, and not, as previously, with limited powers, necessitating constant references to their respective Governments?"
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, we have not heard of this invitation being addressed by Ragheb Pasha to the Italian Consul General. The British Consular authorities in Egypt have been instructed, if such a Commission is constituted by Ragheb Pasha, to hold themselves aloof from it.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, With reference to his statement that Her Majesty's Government have no control over the number or salaries of the Foreign officials employed in Egypt; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will raise any objection to a diminution of the number and reduction of the salaries of such Foreign officials by the Egyptian Government?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I must decline to give any answer binding Her Majesty's Government on a supposed case which has not arisen.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government would be bound by any decision of the Constantinople Conference which might be in conflict with the separate interest of Great Britain as distinguished from the interests of the other powers?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I cannot make beforehand any declaration as to the course which Her Majesty's Government would pursue with regard to decisions which may or may not be arrived at by the Conference. The doctrine as to the majority of Powers binding the minority will be found in any ordinary text-book on International Law.
  MR. MAC IVERwould, with the permission of the hon. Baronet, put the same Question in a different form—namely, Whether it was the intention of the Government to treat the interests of Great Britain as identical with those of France?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: lean not answer that Question without Notice, but even if Notice were given, I do not think it would be desirable to answer it.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the expenses and outlays of the British Government incident to the

  399
  present condition of Egypt would be chargeable to the Egyptian Treasury?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am not at present prepared to define the claims which Her Majesty's Government will have to make upon the Egyptian Government.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether the expenses and outlay of the Egyptian Government consequent upon the present policy of Her Majesty's Government would be borne by the British Treasury?
  [No reply was given.]

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—SUPPOSED CASE OF PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AT PRESTON, SUSSEX.
  MR. MONTAGU SCOTTasked the Vice President of the Council, If his attention has been called to the exclusion, on Thursday the 22nd of June, of cattle from the Royal Counties Agricultural Show at Preston, near Brighton, on the ground of a supposed case of pleuro-pneumonia in the neighborhood; and, whether it is a fact that Preston is, or is about to be, declared an infected district within the meaning of the Cattle Disease Prevention Act?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the Privy Council has no information as to the exclusion of cattle from the Royal Counties Agricultural Show at Preston, near Brighton, beyond what has appeared in the newspapers. The cattle appear to have been withdrawn by the Society or by the owners in consequence of the existence of pleuro-pneumonia in the borough of Brighton; but the Privy Council, having considered the question, decided there was nothing to justify them in stopping the show. The local authority have declared infected places, which include all the premises where the disease has appeared; but there has been no idea of declaring the parish of Preston an infected area. Representations against the holding of the show have been made; but we have refused to interfere, as there was nothing to warrant us in stopping the show.

  IRELAND—PRISONERS DETAINED UNDER THE STATUTE 34 EDWARD III.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is true that Miss Hogan, Miss O'Neill, and Mrs. Hanlon are still imprisoned in Tralee Gaol under
  400
  the Statute of Edward III.; whether there are any exceptional circumstances in their case that they have not been released with Father Feehan, Mrs. Moore, Miss O'Connor, Miss Kirk, and Mr. Abraham; whether it is true that there is no reception room in the gaol, and that they are obliged to receive visits standing at the large iron gate of the prison, in the open air, and exposed to the inclemency of the weather, while the visitor stands about fifteen feet away, at another iron gate; whether the male convict prisoners do not frequently pass this gate to their work, and so interrupt the visit; whether the entrance of any visitor, prisoner, messenger, or warder to the gaol interrupts the visit; whether the Government proposes to remedy this state of things; and, whether it be true that, though those ladies have now been imprisoned two months, they have not been allowed to communicate with one another?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the three persons referred to in the first paragraph of this Question are still imprisoned in Tralee Gaol, in default of finding bail. There was nothing exceptional in their cases; but there was an appeal pending before the Queen's Bench when the other cases were considered by the Lord Lieutenant. The appeal has been dismissed, and the cases will now be considered by His Excellency. The Prisons Board is making inquiry into the allegations contained in the remainder of the Question.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—CETEWAYO, EX-KING OF ZULULAND—STATE OF HEALTH AND VISIT TO THIS COUNTRY.
  MR. W. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that intelligence has reached the Government to the effect that the health of Cetewayo is so much affected by his captivity that, unless he is speedily released, his life will be in serious danger; and, whether it is true that he is coming to England?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, in reply to the first Question, I can only say that all the intelligence of that nature we have got is contained in the Blue Book already before the House. With regard to the second Question, it is perfectly true that Her Majesty's Government, after consultation with Sir

  401
  Henry Bulwer, have come to the conclusion that there is no longer any reason for postponing the promised visit of Cetewayo to England; and instructions have been sent to Sir Hercules Robinson to take the necessary steps, and to inform Cetewayo that this visit in no way commits the Government as to its future course.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether any dispatches on the subject will be presented, or how we shall know in what way and why Sir Henry Bulwer has changed his opinion?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The communications are telegraphic, and I should think there would be no objection whatever to laying them on the Table.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: May I ask if Sir Henry Bulwer has changed his opinion?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: He has simply conveyed his concurrence to bringing Cetewayo to England. His detailed opinion is not before us.
  COLONEL MAKINS: May I ask where the sable Monarch will reside when he is in this country?
  [No reply was given to the Question.]

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE LADIES LAND LEAGUE.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following, published in the "New Ross Standard" of 17th June, purporting to be a resolution of the Ladies' Land League at Carrigbyrne:—
  "That we regret to learn that grass-grabbing still goes on in this district, and we are sorry to find so many men steeped in selfish slavishness at the present time as to take the grass of obnoxious landlords;
  "That we are sorry to record that a certain Wexford cattle dealer goes about in this district buying the cattle of grass-grabbers, and if we find that he comes out in this neighborhood again, we shall be under the necessity of publishing his name;
  "List of grass grabbing snakes—John Corish, Pat Mullins, Joe Dalton, Foulksmills,"
  and ten other names, with addresses; and, whether any steps are or will be taken, in consequence, with a view to restore industry and order in the district?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the attention of Government has been given to the matters referred to in the Question of the hon. Baronet. Measures have been taken to protect life and property in the district. I am afraid that is all the Government can. Undertake to do.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPEALS UNDER THE LAND ACT.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that, in the appeal cases under the Land Act recently heard at Castlebar, the report of the official valuator was completely ignored by the Land Commissioners, who fixed the rents at a sum considerably lower than that recommended by him; whether he stated that in the large majority of these cases no improvements whatever were visible; whether great dissatisfaction on the part of the landowners exists in this district at the manner in which these appeals have been dealt with; and, whether he will lay upon the Table a Return of the appeals tried before the Land Commissioners up to the present date, specifying—(1) old rent; (2) judicial rent; (3) rent fixed by judicial valuator, stating whether he certifies that there are any improvements; and (4) appeal rent?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Irish Land Commissioners inform me that, in deciding on appeal cases at Castlebar, they gave their judgments on their own responsibility, after hearing the evidence and considering the reports of the valuer, and they must decline to enter further into the matter. They have no knowledge whatever of their decisions having given dissatisfaction. If the hon. Member wishes to move for a Return showing (1) the old rent of a holding, (2) the rent fixed by order of the Sub-Commission, and (3) the rent fixed by the Court of Appeal, I have no objection to letting him have it; but I cannot consent to give him the reports of the official valuers.
  MR. DILLONasked if there would be any objection to include in the Return the two columns which, he believed, originally appeared in the one furnished to the Commissioners themselves containing the valuations of the tenants' and landlords' valuators respectively?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could not promise that. Any question which had

  403
  reference to the Land Commission must be referred to the Commission.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he would repeat his Question on Monday next.

  LAW AND POLICE—THREATENING LETTERS—CASE OF MR. JOHN CUNNINGHAM.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that on the 15th instant Mr. John Cunningham, of 17, Thornhill Square, Islington, was visited at his residence by three detectives from Scotland Yard, who charged him with being concerned in the sending of a threatening letter; whether he is aware that the charge against Mr. Cunningham proved utterly groundless; and, whether, having regard to the fact that Mr. Cunningham is an officer of Inland Revenue, and therefore liable to be injuriously affected by the unjust suspicion cast upon him, the Home Department will cause a full inquiry to be made into the matter?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that a threatening letter was sent to a person in Ireland which had been posted in London. Inquiries were made on the subject of the posting of the letter, and some detectives called on Mr. John Cunningham, but there was no charge brought against him. From the report he had received, it appeared that the whole matter was conducted considerately by the officers who called upon Mr. Cunningham, and nothing personally offensive was said or done to him. On the contrary, the parties were on such friendly terms that they shook hands when parting. As to his suffering for these inquiries, he had received a letter from the Inland Revenue Officers, who were the employers of Mr. Cunningham, assuring him that nothing of the kind occurred, as they believed he had nothing to do with the writing of the letter.
  MR. HEALY: Is it because Mr. Cunningham is a Government official that the detectives called upon him, or would they have called upon him if he were an ordinary member of the public? Has the introduction of the French system been sanctioned by the Home Secretary?
  [No reply was given to this Question.]

  NAVY-PENSIONS TO DOCKYARD WORKMEN.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the question of increased retiring allowance to the hired workmen in Her Majesty's Dockyard can now be considered; whether he is aware of the disadvantages and hardships under which they labor under the present system by being too old to be placed on the Establishment and discharged at an age when unfitted for private employment; and, whether a more nearly equal basis with established workmen in the various branches of Her Majesty's Service cannot be adopted?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, the question of retiring allowance or gratuity to hired workmen on discharge was considered in 1876, when a new and improved scale was adopted, and there is no present intention of reconsidering it. As to the comparative advantages of established and non-established men, it is, of course, a matter of opinion what constitutes a precise balance; but it is believed that those advantages are pretty fairly distributed at present.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE ORANGE ANNIVERSARIES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, following upon a public appeal and resolution of the Land League in the month of June last year, the inhabitants of Ulster, on the occasions of the Orange anniversaries in July, conducted themselves in such a manner that no serious breach of the peace resulted from the celebration of the anniversaries; whether the Government apprehend any breaches of the peace next month in Ulster, in connection with the celebration of the Orange anniversaries; and, whether, the Land League being now suppressed, the Government mean to take any, and, if so, what, special steps to prevent the celebration of the Orange anniversaries from resulting in breaches of the peace and possible loss of life?
  LORD ARTHUR HILL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also answer a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is to the following effect:—Whether it is not the case that

  405
  of late years, before the Land League was established, the July celebrations in the North have been celebrated with an entire absence of party and sectarian animosity?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Question of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) only appeared on Saturday, and I have, consequently, had but little time to make inquiries; I believe, however, that the influence of the Land League was used in the direction indicated by the Question. In reply to the latter part of the Question, and to the noble Lord's Question, I may say that the Irish Executive, under both past and present Governments, have always taken care that a sufficient number of Resident Magistrates, with an adequate Constabulary force, should, on the occasions of these anniversaries, be on the spot to preserve the peace. The same course will be taken next month. Some serious breaches of the peace have, I think, occurred in connection with the celebrations even in late years.

  IRELAND—PRISONERS DETAINED UNDER THE STATUTE 34 EDWARD III.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has yet been able to complete his inquiries into the operation of the Act of the 34th of Edward the Third in Ireland, and if he will state the names of the persons still imprisoned in virtue of that Act, and the gaols in which they are confined.; and, whether the Executive intend to leave those persons in prison to complete the terms of their sentences, although others charged with like offences, and imprisoned under the authority of the same Statute, have been restored to freedom?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I assume that the hon. Member limits his Question to the cases of persons in custody in connection with the land agitation. There are 10 such cases, and they are as follows:—Joseph M. Johnson, Dundalk Prison; Daniel O'Loughlin, Denis Hogan, John Macnamara, Galway Prison; John Beehan, Timothy Kett, Patrick Dunne, Limerick Prison; Margaret Hogan, Anne Hanlon, Bridget O'Neill, Tralee Prison.
  MR. SEXTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the Question?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot give any general answer as to the course the Government intends to pursue in these cases. They will consider every case on its own merits.
  MR. SEXTON: Have the Irish Government these cases under consideration?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Lord Lieutenant always has his attention taken up with the cases of the "suspects" as well as with the cases of persons confined under the Act of Edward III.

  EGYPT—THE INTERNATIONAL COURTS —ALEXANDRIA WATERWORKS.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the following statement, published by the "Times" newspaper, be true, viz.—
  "Two years ago Mr. Cotterill, consulting engineer of an irrigation company, was summoned before the International Tribunals by three Said fellaheen for an alleged debt. The verdict was in favor of the defendant, and the fellaheen were condemned in costs. Yesterday (the 22nd instant) they sought out Mr. Cotterill. and demanded payment of their claim, threatening him with death if he refused. They declined to leave his side, even mounting into his carriage. Mr. Cotterill went to the British Consulate;"
  if, upon the advise of the British Consul, Mr. Cotterill has left the country; and, if the Government will take steps to support the authority of the International Court, and protect the property of British subjects; if he is aware that, within the last few days, the Governor of Alexandria informed an English gentleman that Arabi Pasha has threatened to seize hostages, including the persons of British subjects; and, if it be true that, in consequence of his threat, the engineers of the Alexandria Waterworks have left Egypt?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have no information as to the alleged legal proceedings against Mr. Cotterill, or of his having been advised to leave the country. In reply to an inquiry addressed to Sir Beauchamp Seymour, he has reported that Mr. Cotterill has gone to Naples, and that Mr. Cornish is at the Alexandria Waterworks, and intends remaining there. He adds that neither he nor Her Majesty's Consul is aware of any threat having been made to seize hostages.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Can the hon. Baronet inform the House whether there is any truth in the statement generally circulated that Arabi Pasha has received a decoration from the Sultan?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper; but, having made that protest, I may say it is the fact.
  MR. G. ELLIOT: I will ask a Question which does arise out of the Question on the Paper. Is it correct that Arabi Pasha has a list of European officials who will not be permitted to leave Egypt?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have already answered that portion of the Question. I stated that neither Sir Beauchamp Seymour nor Her Majesty's Consul is aware of any threat having been made to seize hostages.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS—CARE OF AND PRESERVATION.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the First Commissioner of Works, What steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to carry out the unanimous resolution of the House that, pending the passage "of a general measure dealing with the ancient monuments of the kingdom," and in order, as far as possible, to protect them from further injury, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should appoint one or more inspectors with authority to inspect and report upon such ancient monuments?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, I may point out to my hon. Friend that I have introduced a measure on the subject of ancient monuments, and that one part of it will authorize the Government to appoint Inspectors. As the measure in no way interferes with the rights of owners without their consent, I was in hopes that it would not meet with opposition; but the right hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck) gave Notice of opposition before the Bill was in the hands of Members. I am not without hopes that when he has read the Bill he will withdraw his block.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. PATRICK DUFFY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Patrick Duffy, of Belmullet,
  408
  county Mayo, has now been a year in custody under the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act; and, whether there is anything in the condition of the Belmullet district, or in the case of Mr. Duffy, to prevent the Lord Lieutenant from now releasing him, after enduring the exceptionally prolonged term of a year's imprisonment?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, this case is under the consideration of His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant.

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any works in connection with the proposed Channel Tunnel are being still carried on?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War has referred this Question to me. The facts of the case are as follows:—On April 1 last the Board of Trade wrote to the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), the Chairman of the Submarine Continental Railway Company, calling upon him to discontinue the experimental works while inquiries were pending. On the 9th, the hon. Baronet appealed to me by telegraph to allow the works to proceed a short distance, as the stoppage would endanger life, and I sanctioned such works as might be necessary to prevent this danger, adding that I had appointed an Inspecting Officer to visit the works at once and arrange what works were necessary. This visit was, however, put off by the Company. Again, on May 3, the Company were informed that the Chief Inspecting Officer, accompanied by the Solicitor to the Board of Trade, had been directed to proceed to the spot and make themselves acquainted as to the position and progress of the operations. This visit was also put off by the hon. Baronet, as was one suggested by the Board of Trade for any day not later than the 10th of May. Subsequently, arrangements were made with the Company for the visit of inspection to take place on the 27th of May, and again on the 10th of June and on June 24. These appointments have, however, always been postponed before the day fixed, under one pretext or another; and I am now in consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown as to the steps that

  409
  should be taken under the circumstances, in order to insure an inspection, without which it is impossible for me to answer the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Have the works been going on during these two months?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I am without any positive information on the subject.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—OPENING OF LETTERS.
  MR. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether letters are still being opened in the Irish Post Office; and, if so, what precautions are taken to insure that they are not opened by subordinate officials for curiosity or with a dishonest purpose?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Irish Post Office is not under my control, and if it were, for the reasons I have already given to the House, I should not feel it my duty to give the hon. Member any information on the subject.
  MR. DILLON: I put this Question to the Postmaster General a few days ago, and he referred me to the Home Secretary. If the Irish Post Office is not under the control of the Home Secretary, under whose control is it?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is under the control of the Lord Lieutenant. The rest of the postal system of the United Kingdom is under the control of the Secretary of State; but whether the Question is asked with reference to the Irish Post Office or the English Post Office, the answer is the same. The Government would not feel justified in giving any answer to a Question of this kind.
  MR. DILLON: I will put the Question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland on Thursday next.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, With regard to the Dispatch (Egypt, No. 7) from Sir E. Malet to Lord Granville, dated Cairo, May 14th, in which Sir E. Malet informs his Lordship that—
  "His French colleague and himself think that the political advantage of the arrival of the combined squadron at Alexandria is so great as to override in consideration the danger which it might possibly cause to Europeans in Cairo;"
  whether he can inform the House what
  410
  was the political advantage referred to; and, whether that political advantage has been obtained?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I must leave the hon. Member to form his own opinions.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Sir, I think I have a right to receive at least a courteous answer, and if it is necessary for me to conclude with a Motion I will do so. This is a matter of very great importance and is capable of being answered in a straightforward manner. In the Papers laid on the Table it appears that Sir Edward Malet telegraphed to Lord Granville, saying that his French Colleague and himself thought that the political advantages of the arrival of the combined Squadrons at Alexandria would be so great as to override in consideration the danger which it might possibly cause to Europeans at Cairo. Now, I was under the impression, as I believe the House was, that the dispatch of the Fleets to Alexandria was to protect life and property; but I find here the authorized Agent of England saying that, on the contrary, the protection of British life and property was of secondary consideration; that the political advantage that was visible to our Representatives, and also to the French Representatives, was so great as to induce our Representatives to concur in the plan of a combined expedition, even at risk to European life and property. Now, I do not want to draw unnecessary conclusions, but this is an official Paper which certainly requires explanation. I do not propose to raise any debate upon the answer of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs; but I am entitled—when the country is told that a political advantage was in view of such importance as to make the protection of life and property a secondary consideration—I am entitled to know what that political advantage was, and whether that political advantage has been obtained, or whether all that danger was brought on life and property without even obtaining the political advantage aimed at. The answers of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs are becoming shorter, as the memory of this House is becoming longer, and just at the very time when we are entitled to know something the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who used to be very communicative, refuses to tell us anything. I should ask

  411
  him now to give me an answer, even although it should turn out in a week or two that it would be no more correct than the generality of his answers have been down to the present. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I was going to say, when I heard the first portion of the hon. Member's remarks, that I intended my answer to be very courteous, and I am sorry if he thought it was not; but I certainly feel exonerated from making any apology by his reference towards the close of the accuracy or inaccuracy of my statements.
  MR. O'DONNELL: My reference was to inaccuracy of fact. I intended no imputation on the veracity of the hon. Baronet.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I intended my answer as a means of showing that it was impossible to fully answer the Questions of the hon. Member. It would be utterly impossible for the Government to defend their Egyptian policy until they can defend it as a whole, with all the facts before the House, and I am perfectly convinced they will then receive the support of a majority of this House. The hon. Member complains that there has been a difference of opinion as to the objects for which the Fleet was dispatched to Alexandria. Some time ago I used certain words in reply to a Question by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), at the time of the dispatch of the Fleet to Alexandria, and I can only refer the hon. Member to that statement as being a full description of the objects for which the Fleet was sent to Alexandria.
  MR. O'DONNELLbegged to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE PROCEDURE RESOLUTIONS.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the importance of some of the Resolutions upon Procedure which succeed No. 1, Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of
  412
  proceeding with them first, and postponing the further consideration of Re-solution No. 1?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am under the impression—indeed, I remember quite clearly—that I have answered this Question at a former period. My statement was that I believed it was unusual and would not be for the convenience of the House to take a discussion on particular Resolutions. The Government did not then see any reason for taking such a step, and I do not see any reason at the present time. But before we come to any possibility of discussing the Resolutions, I will take care to inform the House of the course which the Government intend to pursue.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND).
  MR. FITZ-PATRICKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the facts that the tithe rent-charge was made a charge upon land by the Tithe Composition Act of 1838, and was supposed to be covered by the rent paid by the tenant, and to the further fact that, by the proposed Arrears Bill, the landlord will be obliged to forego one or more year's rent, on which the instilments payable to the Church Temporalities Commissioners (representing such tithe rent-charge) have been already paid, it is intended to make any allowance to the landlords for the loss which they will suffer by having paid these instilments upon rent which they have never received, and which they will now be forced to forgive.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I do not know what facts may be in the possession of the hon. Gentleman; but no facts have been brought before us in a shape to enable us to form any judgment upon the question. But I would venture to suggest that the hon. Member, if he is in communication with the parties concerned, should supply the Government with the exact particulars in order that Ministers may be enabled to give an official opinion on the subject.

  EGYPT—THE SUEZ CANAL.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, with reference to the facility with which it is feared the Suez Canal could at any moment be destroyed from its banks, his attention has been drawn to a statement

  413
  of Sir Garnet Wolseley, at a meeting of the Royal United Service Institution, that—
  "It would be the easiest matter in the world to stop the traffic on the Suez Canal; this might be done by barges, by one large torpedo, by dynamite, or powder, in certain positions well known to our Intelligence Department, thereby doing damage sufficient to stop the canal for a year:"—("India and her Neighbors," by Sir W. Andrew, p. 297);
  whether, in view of an opinion emanating from so distinguished an officer, the presence of a gunboat at either end of the canal renders unnecessary the adoption of any precautions for the protection of its banks; and, whether he adheres to his statements in the "Nineteenth Century" for August 1877, with regard to the relative advantages of the routes to India via the Suez Canal and the Cape respectively.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have already read the opinions cited from Sir Garnet Wolseley, and I read them without any surprise. I am not aware that those opinions are in conflict with anything that I have said, either personally or on the part of the Government. With regard to the second part of the Question, that raises a large question, which it is not possible to answer. If the police of the Canal were in our hands the case might be different. But there is the Suez Canal Company, with the administration of which there are very intelligent persons connected with whom the Government have had no communication; and we have not heard of any alarm on the part of these persons. The opinion of Sir Garnet Wolseley is, therefore, rather an abstract opinion, and not having reference, as I understand it, to any impending contingency. The hon. Member also asks me whether I adhere to my statements in The Nineteenth Century for August, 1877, with regard to the relative advantages of the routes to India viâ the Suez Canal and the Cape respectively. As far as I can recollect them I do; but I hope the hon. Gentleman does not wish to impose upon me the penalty of reading all that I have written on this question.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSdesired further to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the opinion expressed by Admiral Carr Glyn, who recently, at a public dinner, said that it was absolutely necessary to protect the
  414
  Suez Canal and that the only means of doing so was by sending a gunboat into the Canal?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I was not aware of that opinion; but it appears to me the question opened up is a very large one, and I do not feel at all certain that the opinion expressed contains a solution of it. It would not, however, be desirable to go into the question at the present time.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL—CLAUSE 1—MR. JUSTICE O'BRIEN.
  MR. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government were put in possession of the views of Judge O'Brien as to the abolition of trial by jury before his appointment was made; and, if he can state whether or not his Lordship agrees with the rest of the other judges in protesting against the first Clause of the Crime Bill?
  M. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, the Government had no information as to the views held by Mr. Justice O'Brien on the subject referred to before his appointment was made, nor were they in possession of his opinion upon the question of the wisdom or un wisdom of the 1st clause of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill.

  WAYS AND MEANS—RELIEF OF LOCAL TAXATION.
  MR. E. W. HARCOURTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention to adhere to his promise, which was accepted in perfect good faith on the 24th of February last, to give relief to the ratepayers during the present Session of Parliament from the incidence of rates levied for the maintenance of main roads in England, irrespectively of all fugitive and evanescent legislation? The hon. Member said he really felt almost ashamed to ask the Question.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): And I may say, Sir that I am almost ashamed to answer; but the hon. Member is always so courteous in his proceedings in this House that I wish to approach him in a friendly spirit. I presume that the hon. Member's mind, like the minds of many hon. Gentlemen, has been disturbed by rumors which have been cir-

  415
  culated on this and other questions. The hon. Member moved at the beginning of this year a Resolution to the effect—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, some relief should be forthwith afforded to ratepayers from the present unjust incidence of highway rates appropriated for the maintenance of main roads in England;"
  and with the exception of the word "unjust," I accepted in substance the Resolution. At present, however, there has been no opportunity of discussing any practical proposal in reference to that subject. When the Finance of the year came to be examined it was quite plain that I did not possess the means of redeeming my pledge, and, therefore, the course which we were bound to take was to make a proposal to the House to place us in funds for the purpose. We have laid before the House that proposal, and the House will, no doubt, pronounce judgment upon it. We shall do our best to procure its adoption by the House, and thereupon to make an application of the money to the purpose for which it is intended.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Is it to be understood that the proposal respecting the Carriage Tax will be submitted to the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Yes; certainly.
  MR. E. W. HARCOURTasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to adhere to the promise which he made on the 24th of February; and, whether the right hon. Gentleman had not stated that this proposal would be submitted to the House detached from any other subject who was likely to cause controversy.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, at the time when I accepted in its spirit the hon. Member's Resolution, the Government had before it the introduction of an important measure with regard to local government. I understood the hon. Gentleman—and I think rightly understood him—to ask that his proposal might not be made to depend on the good or ill-success of that measure, and I gave a promise that we would endeavor to detach it from any measure of the kind. When the hon. Gentleman asks me whether I intend to apply money which I do not possess, that is a question which, I think, answers itself. We
  416
  shall do our best to place ourselves in funds for the purpose.
  MR. E. W. HARCOURTsaid he felt it his duty to give Notice that he would, on the first convenient opportunity, bring forward a Resolution on the subject.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, I may, perhaps, take this opportunity of saying that it will be for the convenience of the public if hon. Gentlemen who have given Notices of Motion on the second reading of the Tax Bill will kindly reserve their Motions until the Speaker leaves the Chair. The effect of that will be that after we have obtained the second reading we shall be able to pass the Bill through Committee pro formâ. There are some matters of great interest to the parties concerned, though not much known to the world at large, relating to the coffee and cocoa trade, and it is desirable that the provisions relating to them should be in the form in which it is intended to ask the House to pass them. It will be quite understood, however, that the fullest opportunity shall be afforded for full discussion on going into Committee.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE PROCEDURE RESOLUTIONS—LATE SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will, when the consideration of the Procedure Resolutions is resumed, make or entertain any proposal with a view to bringing the nightly labors of the House of Commons to a close within reasonable hours; and if at, or after, midnight there would be any practical objection to allowing such members as might think that any question had then been sufficiently debated, to give their votes by means of an instrument in writing personally delivered to some officer of the House appointed for that purpose?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with regard to this Question, I am afraid there would be no advantage in entering upon a discussion of particular points connected with the Procedure Resolutions, at a time when we cannot give effect to any view we may entertain. I believe it will be for the convenience of the House that the whole of them should be reserved until the time approaches when we can conveniently discuss them.

  EGYPT—THE ENGLISH FLEET AT ALEXANDRIA.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, with reference to a Question he had addressed earlier in the evening to the Secretary to the Admiralty, he desired to know, Whether it was not a fact that three of the ships which he named as being at Alexandria could hardly be described as fighting ships? He believed that the Invincible was an old-fashioned vessel, which was re-commissoned by the present Government. [Cries of "Order."]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question now put by the hon. Member had no reference whatever to the Question he had previously asked.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) asked me to make a statement with regard to the visits paid to Alexandria by Her Majesty's ships of war. I stated the ships of war which have gone there, and that it was for the hon. Member, by referring to the Returns which are before the House, to find out what the character of those ships of war is. But I must say that on one or two occasions I have had the not altogether pleasant duty of saying that it is very undesirable at this moment, on public grounds, to state particulars of the vessels in those waters. The hon. Member for Birkenhead now asks me a Question without Notice, and in putting that Question he makes certain statements in regard to one of those vessels, and I can only say I do not] think it is a very patriotic course to take.
  MR. MAC IVER: I will move the adjournment of the House.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—BRITISH SUBJECTS IN EGYPT.
  MR. G. W. ELLIOT: With reference to the answer given by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy), I will, with leave of the House, read the following telegram, which I have received from Egypt, and will base a Question upon it:—
  "Anderson and Cornish afloat. They are included in the list of European officials not allowed by Arabi to leave the country."
  I wish to ask whether the Government can give us any statement respecting this telegram?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As I stated to-day, I think the hon. Gentleman must have misread the name in his telegram. I saw Mr. Easton to-day, and I gathered from him that Mr. Cornish is still at the waterworks at Alexandria.
  MR. G. W. ELLIOT: Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain whether he has not been brought back after being afloat?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: What is the date of the telegram?
  MR. G. W. ELLIOT: The 23rd.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Our information is much later than that.
  MR. G. W. ELLIOTgave Notice that he would, to-morrow, ask whether Mr. Cornish had been afloat with the intention of protecting his life, and whether he had not been brought back by the instructions of Arabi?

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTasked whether the works in connection with the proposed Channel Tunnel were still being carried on?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, that the works to which he referred were, of course, the experimental works, in anticipation of the works for the Tunnel, and not the works for the Tunnel itself. But, with regard to the state of those works, he had already stated that it was impossible for him to obtain positive information until he had been allowed to inspect them. Up to the present time he had not been able to get an opportunity of inspecting them amicably, and he was now in communication with the Law Officers of the Crown to see whether it was not possible to obtain an inspection in some other way.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would lose no time in obtaining the information, amicably or otherwise.
  MR. GREGORYasked whether the application to the Law Officers of the Crown did not refer to the stoppage of the works as well as to the inspection of them?
  [No reply was given to this Question.]

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he rose to move the adjournment of the House, ["Oh, oh!"]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, no doubt the hon. Member was aware that a Motion for the adjournment of the House had already been made that evening, and, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he believed he was strictly in Order. His real purpose was to protest against the tone of the Secretary to the Admiralty. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that if, after the intimation he had thought it his duty to make, the hon. Member still thought it right to move the adjournment of the House, he could not under the present Rules prevent it.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he meant to conclude with that Motion, and he considered that he was justified in making it, in consequence of the remarks of the Secretary to the Admiralty. He felt bound to complain of the tone in which the Secretary to the Admiralty had answered his Question. He (Mr. Mac Iver) knew Alexandria. ["Divide!"] He knew the ships. So did everybody in Egypt whose interests could be affected. It was only in the House of Commons that absolute ignorance prevailed. As to asking for information, which it would not be right to give—["Agreed!"]—he should never be so unpatriotic as to do anything of the kind. He asked that in future, when Members of the Government thought it right in their discretion to refuse to answer a Question on the ground that it would be inconsistent with the public interest to answer it, they should say so in plain yet courteous terms; but he also wished to press on the Government that when they assumed to answer Questions their answers should be correct, and not calculated to mislead. ["Order!"] He, in common with many, had much to complain of as to the mode of answering Questions. ["Order!"] He would be the last, in a crisis like this, to wish to embarrass Members of the Government; but it was quite a different thing when they assumed to reply, and yet did not want to give answers that would be unpleasant to the House. He had personal grounds for complaint, as the hon. Gentleman had charged him with being unpatriotic. Who were they that were unpatriotic? ["Order!"] The Government had no real purpose to serve in sending ships to Alexandria—["Order!"]—other than a wish to make an appearance of doing
  420
  something by way of gaining time, in the hope that something might occur in the interval—["Order!"]—whereby it might become unnecessary to act. ["Order!"] In consequence of the interruptions, he had detained the House longer than he had intended—["No, no!"]—and he begged now to move that the House do now adjourn.
  MR. NEWDEGATE, in seconding the Motion, said, that he was one of those who considered that the practice of putting mere Questions in the House was running into great abuse. The House placed itself unduly in the hands of Members who put Questions, because these Questions, though put in the presence of the House, were beyond the control of the House, and could not legitimately be debated, however important or insulting to the House these Questions might be. At the same time, as long as the House thought fit to permit the system of Questions which were beyond its control, he expressed a hope that, in replying to those Questions, Ministers would abstain from casting personal reflections on the Members who put them. Her Majesty's Ministers had an ample resource in refusing to answer impertinent Questions, or Questions put on inopportune occasions. It was competent for Ministers to decline to answer; but it was beyond their functions and disrespectful to the House to assign reasons, particularly if they were personal to the Member who had asked the Question. Her Majesty's Ministers could, and ought simply to decline to answer Questions which they considered irrelevant or inopportune.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Mac Iver.)
  MR. HEALYsaid, he desired to point out that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was following the noble example of the Home Secretary, who, when asked a Question, always refused to answer when he could possibly do so.
  Question put, and negatived.

  ARMY—PREPARATIONS AT PORTSMOUTH AND CHATHAM.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he was able to confirm or to contradict

  421
  the statement which appeared in some of that day's newspapers—namely, that troopships were being rapidly got ready at Portsmouth and Chatham; and, if that was so, whether he would tell the House what was their destination? [Cries of "No!"]
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in ordinary circumstances I should have requested that a Question of this kind should be put to me with Notice; but I think I shall have the approval of the House when I say that that is not a Question which, if put to any Member of the Government, he ought to answer.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 157.]
  (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

  COMMITTEE DEFERRED.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee on the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill be deferred till To-morrow, at Two of the clock."—(Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
  MR. HEALYasked whether the Bill could be thus postponed without first rescinding the Resolution giving it priority?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, there was nothing to prevent the House from postponing that Order if it thought proper.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Order of the Day was that the Prevention of Crime Bill should be taken unless the House otherwise ordered.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the postponement of the Orders of the Day could be carried out with the concurrence of the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.

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

POSTAL TELEGRAPH SERVICE.

  RESOLUTION.
  DR. CAMERON, in rising to move the following Amendment:—
  422
  "That the working of the Postal Telegraph Service, with a view to the realisation of profit, involves a Tax upon the use of Telegrams; that any such Tax is inexpedient, and that the profit derived from the service is now such that the charges for Inland Telegrams should he reduced,"
  said, that, under ordinary circumstances, he should have felt considerable hesitation in proceeding with this Notice on the Paper, inasmuch as he was aware there were many questions of more urgency. If he thought it would in any way facilitate the despatch of Government Business, he would readily postpone his Amendment; but there were so many other Notices standing in the way of Supply, that if he gave way others would occupy the time. They ranged over a variety of topics, and it appeared to him that the House would be better occupied in the discussion of this practical question; moreover, it might prevent an inopportune discussion on the affairs of Egypt which some hon. Gentleman wished to bring on. He intended his remarks to be brief, and in asking for cheap telegrams he should treat it simply as a question of political economy. He should rely upon axioms which the Postmaster General had himself laid down about two years ago. A deputation from the Society of Arts waited upon the right hon. Gentleman to urge the adoption of a cheaper charge for inland telegrams; and they naturally referred to the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1876, and pointed to the various anomalies connected with the present rate. Whilst the minimum charge for an inland telegram was 1s. for 20 words, in foreign telegrams the word rate was adopted. A telegram could be sent to France or Belgium for 2½d per word, so that it was possible to send a telegram to either of those countries for a less sum than was charged for a message from one part of London to another. They pointed out also that, previous to the assumption of the telegraph system by the Government, 6d. telegrams existed in London; and although he did not lay special stress upon that point, and though he was perfectly aware that concurrently with the increase of charge great advantages had been given to the public in London, that was a fact which should not be lost sight of. The deputation also referred to the advantages in connection with telegraphy in Continental capitals, where by means

  423
  of pneumatic tubes written messages, unlimited as to the number of words, were sent for half a franc. A noted statistician on the deputation entered into a calculation as to the amount of loss the Post Office would incur by reducing the charge for telegrams. He urged that the loss of revenue would be very slight; and what he said was borne out by the Report of the Select Committee, which stated that the way to increase the income was to reduce the charge at the proper time. However, the deputation did not venture to recommend in detail what the Post Office should do, and neither would he (Dr. Cameron) do so. In a lengthy reply to the deputation, the Postmaster General laid down two important principles, upon which he (Dr. Cameron) now based his case. They were—First, that if the price charged for a telegram was not sufficient to make it commercially remunerative, the deficit must be made good out of the general taxes of the country. The general taxpayers must be fined in order to enable telegrams to be forwarded under market price. Secondly, if the price charged was more than sufficient to make the Service commercially remunerative, then the difference was really so much taxation imposed upon telegrams, as much as if the tax-gatherer stood over the sender of the telegram, and levied upon him a tax at the moment it was sent. Having stated these principles, the Postmaster General went on to explain the financial position in which the Post Office stood with relation to the Telegraph Service. The right hon. Gentleman started from the year 1876, when the Committee on Postal Telegrams reported, and when Mr. R. Blackwood, one of the chief officers of the Department, introduced an important improvement in the shape of a balance-sheet, drawn up in a commercial form, and setting out the amount which, if the State telegraphs were an ordinary commercial undertaking, they would pay. For the year ended March 31, 1876, after making provision for everything that could properly be charged against revenue, there was a net profit on the Telegraph Service of £197,000, or what would have sufficed to pay a dividend of 2 per cent on the capital invested. In 1880, according to the financial statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, the net profit had
  424
  risen to £354,000, or 3½ per cent; and in 1881, according to a recent Return, the net profit was £440,000. In the five years between 1876 and 1881, the profit had increased by £243,000, or about £50,000 per annum; and if, as he saw no reason to doubt, the same rate was maintained up to the close of the current year, there would be a net profit of £540,000, which, after paying 3 per cent upon the capital invested, would leave £220,000 to the good. It was against the confiscation of that amount to general purposes of taxation that he protested. He was aware that last year a reorganization scheme was adopted, the cost of which, so far as the telegraphs were concerned, was to commence at £38,000 a-year; but even deducting that, there was still a net profit of £180,000, and, applying the dictum of the Postmaster General to that amount, it must be regarded as £180,000 of taxation upon telegrams. The right hon. Gentleman very properly said that it was not for his Department to determine how taxation could best be raised—that was a question for the Treasury; but if the Treasury were willing to allow him to act as he thought proper, he had a plan cut and dried which would be a great boon to the telegraphing public, and would do away with this abuse of levying taxation upon telegrams. The plan which the Postmaster General proposed was a 6d. telegram for 12 words, with a ½d. word rate for all additional words. Various other suggestions had been made; but that was the proposal which the Post Office had considered seriously. They had done so for this reason, that a word rate had been adopted in other countries. The word rate, as adopted in Belgium, had many advantages, one of which was that the charge made by the Department was exactly proportionate to the work done, and that it freed the Post Office from a large amount of un-remunerative business. Under the present system in this country many people unnecessarily extended their telegrams, especially in the addresses, which were not charged for. The Postmaster General had informed the deputation that waited upon him that he had seriously considered this matter, and had instructed Mr. Patey, one of the ablest and most trusted officers in the Post Office, to enter into calculations and prepare a scheme. Having made the calcu-

  425
  lations, Mr. Patey had arrived at the conclusion that the adoption of a 6d. rate would involve an immediate reduction in the net revenue by the amount of £167,000 per annum. This calculation the Postmaster General told them had been made with great caution and with great skill. Many specialists considered this estimate of loss too great; but he (Dr. Cameron) proposed to take the official figures. He had shown that by the end of the year the clear revenue from the Telegraph Service—after allowing for all expenses, and 3½ per cent for all the capital involved—would be about £180,000; and he maintained that the time had now arrived when, with that revenue, they could try an experiment which would be of the greatest convenience and service to the commercial community, and which would involve a loss of only £167,000; so that there would still be a margin of profit. Whenever the plan of 6d. telegrams was adopted, whatever might be the immediate effect on the revenue, the business would progress at a rate hitherto unknown. For a year or two there would be a certain loss of profits; but in a short time the Service would have so extended itself, and the use of telegrams would have become so general, that the Post Office would be amply recouped. As to the abstract question of putting a tax on telegrams, he did not think that there could be a second opinion; and at the present moment, when they were just on the turning-point, when the sum in the shape of profit was not so great as to constitute an irresistible temptation to officials connected with the Treasury, they had arrived at the best possible time for considering the matter. He claimed that there was nothing on which £167,000 could be better expended than on the introduction of 6d. telegrams; but this was a case where the net profits more than represented that sum. A tax on telegrams was a direct tax on intercourse and commerce, and was calculated more than any other tax to check the general development of business throughout the country. He therefore asked the House to pronounce that tax inexpedient, and to affirm his Resolution, so as to allow the Post Office to introduce a reform for which it had made every preparation, and which the Postmaster General had informed the public he could carry out with the most perfect
  426
  certainty of success, and which could be carried out without, he believed, the necessity for any legislation in that House. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. MONKsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the Resolution. On several occasions within the past few months he had been in communication with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to a reduction in the rate, not only of inland, but also of foreign telegrams; and the replies of the right hon. Gentleman had, on the whole, been of a very encouraging nature. The subject was one in which the various Chambers of Commerce throughout the country had taken a very great interest, and it was felt that a reduction in the cost of telegrams would be a very great boon to the commercial community. In these circumstances, he hoped that no great opposition would be offered by Her Majesty's Government to a proposal for an early reduction in the charge for telegrams, if not to 6d., at least to 9d.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the working of the Postal Telegraph Service with a view to the realisation of profit involves a Tax upon the use of Telegrams; that any such Tax is inexpedient, and that the profit derived from the service is now such that the charges for Inland Telegrams should be reduced,"—(Dr. Cameron,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would endeavour to deal very frankly with this very important question. He fully admitted that the arguments in favour of a reduction in the charge for telegrams were very strong. It was undoubtedly the case at the present time that, under the international rates which had been lately settled, it was possible to send a short telegram from any part of England to any part of Belgium, or from any part of the United Kingdom to any part of France, at a less cost than was incurred in sending a telegraphic message from one part of London or of Liverpool to the other. The reason for that was that, under the special rate agreed upon between England and Belgium, telegraphic messages were sent at the rate of 2d. a word, and

  427
  under that agreed upon between England and France they were sent at the rate of 2½d. a word. If the address was registered, it was not unusual for a telegram sent under those scales to consist of an address of three words and a single word, such as "better," "come," or "worse," and such a message could be sent from the extreme North of Scotland to a remote corner of Belgium for 8d., and to any part of France for 10 d. He was also free to confess that, in view of the number of telegraph stations in the United Kingdom, which, at the present time, amounts to between 5,000 and 6,000, the number of messages sent was not as large as might have been expected. He had caused a calculation to be made, and he found, excluding Press telegrams and foreign telegrams, that the number of inland telegrams sent each year was about 25,000,000. That gave a weekly average of about 480,000, and a daily average of about 80,000. Considering that there were 5,000 stations, he did not think that 80,000 was a large amount per day, and there was no other conclusion to arrive at than that the present 1s. charge was virtually prohibitory, not only to the working classes, but to many of the middle classes also. He hoped the House would think that he had stated the case in favour of a reduction in the price of telegrams clearly and unreservedly. He was further prepared to admit that if the price of telegrams were reduced, there would probably be a large increase in the amount of business. But his hon. Friend had thrown out a suggestion with which he could not quite agree, that if they had not money enough to bear the implied loss at once, which the reduction in price would involve, they should do it by bits. The hon. Member, he understood, would approve of a reduction being confined to certain local districts, and they should continue the 1s. telegram for long distances, and have the 6d. telegram for local districts. He could not help thinking that it would be a most serious thing if they were to impinge upon the great principle which regulated Post Office administration—namely, uniformity of charge independent of distance. There was a simplicity and advantage about this uniformity which ought not to be lightly sacrificed. Another suggestion was sometimes made. In France, and, he believed, in other Continental coun-
  428
  tries, they had what was known as a system of express telegrams. By payment of an extra fee they could have a telegram "expressed," and sent on before the telegrams which did not pay this extra fee; consequently, all the more important telegrams in France, or, at any rate, a great number of them, were made "express" by the payment of the extra fee, and the price of the important telegrams thus came to be nearly as high as telegrams were in England. As regarded that system, he could only say that as long as he had anything to do with the administration of the Post Office he would strenuously oppose its introduction. He attributed as much importance to this as he did to the maintenance of uniformity of charge; and it seemed to him if they once gave to the person to whom an extra sixpence or shilling would be of no consequence the privilege of having his telegrams sent on before the telegrams of the poor man, they would spread far and wide the sense of partiality and unfairness—and nothing could be more undesirable. Therefore, he hoped they should always maintain the principle of uniformity, and the principle that telegrams were to be sent strictly in the order in which they were received, whether they were handed in by rich or poor. Although he was perfectly willing to agree to many of the abstract principles laid down by his hon. Friend, unfortunately he could not accept the Motion as it stood, because it was based upon facts which he greatly regretted to say did not exist at the present time. He agreed that any profit beyond what was necessary for the maintenance of the charges connected with the Telegraph Service, including interest on the outlay involved in their purchase, must be regarded as taxation; and when the day came when they secured this profit, it would be a question eminently deserving the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a tax on telegrams was a desirable means of obtaining revenue, especially when taxation involved the maintenance of so exceptionally high a rate per telegram as 1s. But his hon. Friend had assumed that, at the present time, a profit was being made beyond the amount necessary to defray the expenses and meet the outlay on capital. It would be his painful duty to show that the conclusion at which his hon. Friend

  429
  had arrived was not applicable to the present state of things. So far as the hon. Member's figures were actual figures they were strictly correct. From figures which were in the hon. Member's possession the hon. Member drew a certain conclusion. The hon. Member, dealing with the telegraph revenue on commercial principles, said it had shown a regular growth since 1876 up to the year 1880–1, when telegraph revenue was £440,000, the usual increase in the previous four years having been at the rate of about 20 per cent. The hon. Member said, that being the case, the same growth must necessarily be shown in 1881–2, when the telegraph revenue would have risen to £520,000. On that assumption the hon. Member arrived at the gratifying conclusion that it would be possible to introduce the 6d. telegram and still leave a telegraph surplus. No doubt this would be so if the telegraph revenue in 1881–2 was £520,000; but the fact was that, in 1881–2, not only had there been no increase of revenue, but it was estimated there would be a considerable diminution. If hon. Members should express any surprise as to the cause of this decrease of revenue, they would soon discover that the explanation was to be found, which seemed to be frequently forgotten, and it was that it was impossible to create wealth out of nothing. If they spent more public money in any way whatever, whether in increasing the pay of public servants or in any other way, that public money must come out of some source, while proportionately diminishing the revenue from which it was taken. The House would remember how, last Session, he was pressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House to increase the pay of the telegraph employés. He was sometimes described as being very dilatory, and at other times as being very hardhearted. He looked into the subject very carefully, and the House would now appreciate the importance of looking into it carefully, because not only was it a serious thing to spend public money unnecessarily, but he knew, at the same time, that the amount of money that might be decided as necessary to give to the telegraph employés would have an important effect in determining the time when this great boon to the public of a reduction in the price of telegrams could
  430
  be introduced. Well, after giving the matter careful consideration, he came to the conclusion, in order to satisfy the just and reasonable claims of the telegraph employés, certain changes were necessary, and that those would cost during the present year at least £80,000. This £80,000 had to be provided somewhere; it represented so much more added to the expense of carrying on the Telegraph Service. It swept away the whole of the increase in the telegraph revenue which his hon. Friend calculated on, and it landed them in this result—that whereas in 1880–1 they had a net revenue of £440,000, the net telegraph revenue of 1881–2, instead of being £520,000, would not, it was estimated, be anything more than £400,000. No one could doubt that what was done last year to improve the position of the telegraph employés had placed the financial position of the Telegraph Service in a very different light. He thought it was well to state this, because, in spite of all that was done for the telegraph employés, he noticed they were constantly holding meetings, and they were constantly saying that what they received was worse than nothing. All he could say was that if £80,000 a-year out of the public funds was worse than nothing, he, for one, deeply regretted that that sacrifice of public money was ever made. Well, it appeared that the telegraph revenue of 1881–2 would be about £400,000. The estimated financial effect of reducing the price of telegrams to a minimum charge of 6d. would be to diminish the net revenue by about £177,000. He was prepared to stand to that estimate, with the slight addition which had been rendered necessary in consequence of the increased expense of carrying on the Service. Those were the figures he had previously given, and he was prepared to abide by them. He would show the House how that sum was arrived at. The average amount now received from each telegram was 1s. 0½d. The cost was about 9d. The profit was thus about 3½d.; and 25,000,000 telegrams at 3½d. amounted to £364,000. The gentleman who was at the head of the Telegraphic Department of the Post Office had informed him that if telegrams were reduced to ½d. per word, with a minimum charge of 6d., each telegram would be charged, on the ave-

  431
  rage, 10 d., and the cost would be 8½d. This gentleman had calculated that there would probably be 30,000,000 of telegrams instead of 25,000,000. Each telegram would then bring a profit of 1½d., and the net revenue would be £187,000, showing an immediate net loss of £177,000. On the other hand, he was bound to admit that there were many high authorities who did not estimate that the loss would be so great as he had just said. But it was extremely difficult to foresee what would be the number of telegrams sent under the 6d. rate, and it was also extremely difficult to see what would be the average amount received on each telegram sent. It was well to remember that the greatest of all postal reforms—the introduction of the penny postage—was not, in its first results, by any means a financial success. Experienced officials had carefully looked into the question and informed him that it was more than 16 years after the introduction of the penny postage before the revenue reached its former amount. Great, therefore, as might be the after financial results, and the advantage conferred immediately upon the public, it by no means followed that loss would not be incurred by the adoption of such a reform as was advocated by his hon. Friend. The result arrived at was that the revenue from inland messages would be reducedby£177,000. If the present net revenue was taken at £400,000, the future revenue would be £223,000. The capital expended in the Telegraphic Service was about £10,500,000. Interest on that sum at 3 per cent would be about £.320,000. Thus, instead of the telegraph bringing large profits, as his hon. Friend had said, there would be a deficit of £100,000. Besides, he had taken the interest at the lowest amount—3 per cent. But the result would be still less satisfactory if the interest were reckoned at 3¼ per cent. It was, however, desirable to state that, although that would be the immediate financial result, he believed that with 6d. telegrams the Revenue would steadily improve. Mr. Patey, the head of the Telegraph Department, had come to the conclusion that at the end of four years the revenue from the telegraphs would have regained its present position. The question, therefore, to be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that House, and the country was, whether,
  432
  for the sake of the great advantages which he believed would result to the community from the lowering of the price of telegrams, it was worth while to sacrifice for the first year £177,000, for the second year it might be £140,000, the third year perhaps £100,000, and at the end of the fourth year, perhaps nothing at all. He hoped he had stated the case fairly. It was often asked by the public Press and by Chambers of Commerce why the Postmaster General did not introduce 6d. telegrams? His asnwer was—"Where is the money to come from?" On the other hand, he was often asked to raise the wages of telegraph employés. But he would ask hon. Members to remember that they could not eat their cake and have it. He could only say that the best way for hon. Members on both sides of the House to bring about 6d. telegrams was to strengthen the hands of the Government in carrying out a policy of economy. As for himself, nothing would give him greater pleasure than to receive a message from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the finances of the country were in a condition to admit of the change proposed. He hoped that his hon. Friend, after this explanation, would withdraw his Resolution.
  MR. R. BIDDULPH MARTINsaid, he hoped that the Government would take into account the important bearing upon the question of telephonic communication, which in large towns was tending to supersede the telegraph.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give some assurance in support of the abstract principle of the inexpediency of taxing telegrams, he should be happy to withdraw the Amendment. Otherwise he should go to a division.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, I think the statement of my right hon. Friend was a very complete, a very clear, and a very ingenious statement, and it indicated no bias on his part adverse to the principle of the reduction of the price of telegrams. He laid down a principle which was, I think, very liberally stated by him in favour of the general views of my hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron). He stated that, as soon as the net revenue of the telegraphic system reached a point at which, it met the interest on the expenditure, he was disposed to view every

  433
  excess above that as taxation upon telegrams. I do not feel quite certain that I could go quite so far with respect to the settlement of the point at which money from telegrams would become available for the reduction of the price; but, undoubtedly, whatever the point may be, I am very much disposed to admit that no remission of taxation has been more advantageous to the public than the remission of taxation upon telegraphic communication. When we have reached the point when the telegraphic system shows the funds to be disposed of, or when, it may be, the country shows a Revenue in a state so active and so nourishing that there are considerable funds to be disposed of, in my opinion the question of the charge upon telegrams will have a very fair claim indeed for consideration and comparison with other claims. That, I think, is all that can be justly said at the present moment, and I hope my hon. Friend will be disposed not to press his Resolution.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, that the present Postmaster General had introduced several beneficial changes since his accession to Office; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would ere long signalize his reign of Office by the introduction of a 6d. telegram.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that he was quite willing to withdraw his Resolution if the House would permit him; but if not, he would go to a division on it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 148; Noes 77: Majority 71.—(Div. List, No. 177.)
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

EGYPT—WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE (MR. BOURKE).

  QUESTION.
  MR. PULESTONasked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke), Whether it was his intention to go on with the subject of the Notice which stood in his name on the Paper—namely, the state of affairs in Egypt?
  MR. BOURKEsaid, his Motion had been on the Paper some weeks, and he regretted very much he had been unable to bring it forward. His object was to ascertain the state of the negotiations
  434
  between this country and Prance, between this country and Turkey, and between this country and Egypt, and with other Powers.
  MR. HEALY, rising to Order, asked what this had to do with the question of the Speaker leaving the Chair?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the proceeding was in Order.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, he was very anxious to get information on these points; but, as the Conference had just commenced to sit, it might not be convenient for the Government to give the information he desired, and, therefore, he did not propose to proceed with his Motion. At the same time, he did not wish to prejudice anything that his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) wished to say with respect to his Motion, nor did he wish to prejudice the right, which he desired to reserve to himself, of bringing forward any Motion on the subject upon very short Notice; because the fact of the matter was, that events were going so fast in Egypt that he thought it highly probable that some Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench might think it his duty to bring forward the question of Egypt at the first favourable opportunity.

STATE OF IRELAND—THE EARL OF KENMARE'S ESTATE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BIGGAR, who had given Notice that he would move—
  "That a Select Committee he appointed to inquire into the dealings of Lord Kenmare with his tenants, and whether or not certain of them have not been committed to prison as suspects for the purpose of having unfair rents extorted from them,"
  said, that the reason he selected his Lordship in preference to other landlords in Ireland, whose conduct might have been equally objectionable, was that Lord Kenmare was a Member of the Government; and he, at least, should have acted in a way towards his Kerry tenants that would not have necessitated complaint; also, he mentioned him because he saw in the newspapers that he was one of the promoters of a public company, which proposed the wholesale eviction of tenants, their object being to depopulate Ireland as much as possible. It was for this purpose that he

  435
  thought it very desirable to draw the attention of the House to his Lordship's conduct; and he would undertake, from the statement of the parties concerned, and who had been arrested as "suspects" under the Coercion Act, to charge Lord Kenmare with using his position as a Member of the Government in order to treat his tenants tyrannically, and for the purpose of extorting unfair rents from them. Lord Kenmare had figured very much in the Law Courts during the last 12 months, and especially in matters before the Land Commissioners, who had set aside several of the noble Lord's leases, charging his Lordship with having acted unreasonably towards his tenants. He maintained that no Member of the Government had any right to use his official position to get more consideration or more assistance than other landlords; and it appeared very much as though this was the case from the fact that three of the tenants evicted by his Lordship were, soon after their eviction, placed in gaol as "suspects"—a very much larger proportion than was shown by any other landlord in Ireland. If this was so with regard to Lord Kenmare, who passed as a Member of the Government, and a highly religious Roman Catholic, what might they not expect from other Gentlemen of Liberal politics, and who had no special connection with the Liberal Government, or any particular love of religion or the Irish people? It should be understood that those tenants were none of them very largely in arrears. If they had been, there might have been some excuse for acting in the manner stated; but they were evicted for one year's rent. It might be alleged, on behalf of Lord Kenmare, that he was a Nobleman who dealt very well with his tenants, and would not willingly do a tyrannical or unfair act; but he had intrusted his affairs to an agent who had the worst possible reputation of any land agent in Ireland, and if Lord Kenmare employed an agent of that description he was liable and responsible for his conduct, and it was no use his attempting to shelter himself behind the statement that he had not personally consented to the outrages committed in his name. In letters which he had received from the tenants evicted by his Lordship, these unfortunate men detailed the circumstances of their arrest. One
  436
  walked on part of the farmland, from which he had been driven, soon after the eviction, and was almost immediately taken into custody under the Coercion Act. One of the tenants said that he was served with a writ for the running gale, was arrested under the Coercion Act four days after the rent was due, and a few days after was served with a writ for the amount of the rent and costs, judgment having been obtained against him. He said he wrote to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, asking to be released on parole, in order to make an estimate of his improvements, and was refused. Another tenant, Pat Murphy, was ejected for non-payment of rent; his house was then burned down, and he was arrested for putting up a hut near the farm. The hut was erected on waste ground, by the side of a passage which led to some land of Lord Kenmare's, and to land of some of his tenants. After burning the house, Lord Kenmare had Murphy's wife summoned for occupying this hut; she was summoned five different times in one month, and ultimately sent to prison for seven days, because she was not able to pay the fine imposed on her. Mrs. Murphy's child died from exposure, and she said it was Lord Kenmare's harsh treatment which killed the child; but the attorney on the other side said that, as the woman had a sick child, Lord Kenmare did not wish to deal harshly with her, and he waited a few weeks before sending her to gaol. Such was the conduct of a Liberal Catholic landlord, who held Office in Her Majesty's Government. He thought that he had shown that Lord Kenmare had used his high official position for the purpose of inducing the then Chief Secretary for Ireland to send his tenants to prison upon trumped-up and dishonest charges. He had also prosecuted the unfortunate wife of one of the tenants to such an extent that she lost her child. He hoped the Government would give a caution to Lord Kenmare not to be bringing ridicule on his Party, and that he would resign a position which he was disgracing.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the subject introduced by the hon. Member for Cavan involved a much wider question than the question of the individual tenants he had referred to, bad as their cases might be. Lord Kenmare had acted in a manner which tended to de-

  437
  feat both, the Land Act and the Arrears Bill; and he asked what could they expect from a Government, one of whose Members treated the Land Act as a nullity, and the Arrears Bill as if it was never about to be passed? He would take the case of a man named Daniel Shea, who formerly held land under a middleman, whose interest he bought out, and then paid a rent of £6 per annum. When the middleman's lease expired his rent was raised by about £30, and he was obliged to take a lease. Of that lease Mr. Justice O'Hagan said that it was so iniquitous that it would be broken by any Court of Equity; and in the course of further comments on the case, and on the fact that though Shea was wholly illiterate, the lease was never read over to him or inspected by anyone on. his behalf, his Lordship said that the instrument contained more stringent provisions than any lease that had been brought to the notice of the Commissioners. "No doubt," he added, "it had been accepted by the tenant under undue influence." When the lease was broken Shea was still obliged to pay the exorbitant rent at which he had held previously. He therefore determined to serve an originating notice to get his rent fixed by the Commissioners; but before he did so Lord Kenmare promised a re-valuation of the land and an offer of an amicable settlement. That offer, however, was never made; but in its place came a notice of ejectment, the landlord, to make the writ legal, claiming not only the rent for the last six months, but the hanging gale also. Anything more flagitious than this attempt of Lord Kenmare to defeat the Arrears Bill introduced by the Government of which he was a Member he had never heard of. The noble Lord was a pious Catholic. Such "pious Catholics" were a disgrace to the country which produced them, and to the religion which they professed. This, as he knew, was by no means an isolated case of ill-treatment. What really could the tenant obtain in such circumstances from the Land Act? If he served an originating notice for a fair rent, it might be years before the case came on for hearing, and meanwhile the old excessive rent would have to be paid. Now, with regard to the Sub-Commissioners, he had often asked for a return of their names and qualifications;
  438
  but he found that no information was given as to the districts in which they were operating. What had happened was that Members for Tyrone and. other Northern constituencies had gone to the Government, and had represented that their constituents were suffering injury from the delay in the hearing of their cases; and the Sub-Commissioners had been transferred to these Northern districts, to the detriment of the districts from which they had been removed. In these circumstances the people were justified in asking whether the Land Act was a fraud, or was it a reality? Were the Government going to allow notices to be served for ejectments, when Sub-Commissioners might declare the rents to be exorbitant, and were tenants, in the meantime, to be put on the roadside? Did the Government honestly intend to carry out their own Act, and, if so, why did they not do so? There were plenty of briefless barristers and hangers-on about Dublin Castle to make Sub-Commissioners of. Only a paltry number had been appointed, while there were 80,000 tenants in the Courts, so that some of them must wait for several years. The Government did not appreciate the importance of this matter; or did they occupy the time of the House with the Prevention of Crime Bill in order to prevent Irish legislation being criticized? Were the men whose rents might be exorbitant to run the risk of ejectment, which might be a sentence of death? Was the Land Act a joke? Certainly, there was no greater joke in "Laputa," or the pages of Swift. It was costing the country £100,000 a-year to carry out the Act, and the amount by which the rents had been reduced in one year would not amount to three-fourths of that sum, which might, perhaps, be doubled or raised to £250,000 if the legal costs of landlords and tenants were added. The organizations of the tenants had been suppressed as being illegal; but the landlords' organizations—the Property Defence Association and the Orange Emergency Committee—were permitted to carry out their operations without let or hindrance. The landlords had appealed against decisions, and had carried appeals to the highest Court, so that the unfortunate tenants were left victims of the law's uncertainty. A proposal was now made to raise £750,000 for the purpose of ejecting tenants from their

  439
  holdings. The Prevention of Crime Bill would not reach landlords who were guilty of cruel evictions, or who forced unjust leases on their tenants; and though the Government had stated its action would be retrospective, he supposed it would not apply to such men as Lord Kenmare. That "measurable distance" from civil war which the Prime Minister some time ago declared to exist in Ireland had been shortened considerably by the document just issued from the landlords' committee. Mr. Arthur Kavanagh spoke of colonizing the districts from which Land Leaguers were evicted with loyal people from other countries. Did Mr. Kavanagh propose to repeat the Plantation scheme of Cromwell's time? Perhaps he intended to turn the Chinese into "loyal people from other countries." The Alien Act was about to be re-enacted; and he thought that Act could never be more properly used than if it were applied to the Chinese, whom Mr. Kavanagh proposed to introduce into Ireland. That gentleman also proposed that where a single holding had been "Boycotted" the whole townland should be evicted and swept away; and he declared that he considered "land was in the most valuable condition of all when it was, for the most part, free from tenants." They were, therefore, to have a corporation of landlords, with its "A" shares and its "B" shares, and £750,000 to bring the land into that "most valuable condition of all," as it was called. Were the Government, he asked, going to look on calmly at that state of things? Were they still to potter away with their Commissioners and Sub - Commissioners, deciding only one case out of every 100 before them; while the tenants were being subjected, in the meantime, to those notices of ejectment and turned out on the roadside? The Government were passing their so-called Prevention of Crime Bill; but they allowed those crimes against the Irish tenants to be committed in the face of Heaven. When the Attorney General for Ireland rose to reply they would, no doubt, have some of those pacific and benevolent declarations which usually fell from him, and which, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman reached the Judicial Bench, he trusted would be continued. Still, words, however benevolent, would not restore to evicted tenants their holdings.
  440
  He therefore asked the Government to make some statement that they intended immediately to put an end to the block in the Land Courts, and to require landlords like Lord Kenmare, while they continued to act as Members of the Administration, to conduct themselves at least with something like common decency.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had seized that opportunity for bringing under the notice of the House the conduct of one of the largest landlords in Ireland, because Lord Kenmare was, in a great measure, a type of Irish landlordism and its action at the present moment. He believed that while that noble Lord was acting in a way that was thoroughly disloyal to the present Government he was, at the same time, enjoying a considerable official salary out of the public taxes. He had heard from unfortunate tenants on Lord Kenmare's estate, whose fellow-prisoner he (Mr. Dillon) was for six months, that his Lordship's understrappers boasted over the estate that, inasmuch as he was a Member of the Government, he could live on his salary of £4,000 and leave his tenants to starve. Would he be allowed to continue in the enjoyment of that £4,000 a-year? He charged Lord Kenmare with endeavouring to counteract and destroy the effect of the Land Act passed by the Government at an enormous expense of labour and of public time, and also with being one of the great landlords who were now deliberately attempting to render useless the passing of any Arrears Bill by, as it was called, taking the bull by the horns and dealing with the tenants before any Arrears Bill became law. He concurred in the condemnation pronounced by the hon. Member for Cavan on Mr. Samuel Hussey for the mode in which he managed his estates; and having conversed with many a poor man who had the misfortune to be born under his rule, the impression left on his mind was that Mr. Hussey was one of the men in Ireland whose proper vocation would be to go out and take charge of a slave plantation in Brazil; and he doubted whether he would not get into trouble with the Government of Brazil if he treated the slaves there as he treated his Irish tenants. One of the worst features of the system of large agencies was that,

  441
  when it fell into the hands of men like Mr. Hussey, it helped to educate a nest of young ones, who spread themselves over the country to disturb districts which had previously been peaceable. Not content with inflicting unmitigated tyranny on the tenants of Kerry, this agent sent his sons and protégés broadcast over Ireland. He regretted to say that one of them had alighted in the county of Mayo, and, in a district hitherto peaceable, had stirred up such a feeling of hatred between the tenants and the landlords who employed them that troops and police had to be drafted into the locality to prevent disturbance. It had been complained of as a grievance that some of the Sub-Commissioners sitting in the South had been sent to the North of Ireland at the solicitation of Northern Members. He thought that was a very questionable advantage to the Province of Ulster. Indeed, he doubted very much if the majority of the tenants of Ulster were not sorry that they ever laid their cases before the Courts at all. He had been informed on good authority that a large landlord in the county of Tipperary was now proceeding against his tenants by writ in the most expensive mode from the Superior Courts of Dublin to levy a half-year's rent, being the whole sum due. How could they expect to have peace and quiet in the country while such cruel and selfish proceedings on the part of landlords were allowed to continue? A case, typical of a vast number described by the Sub-Commissioners in Ireland, came before the Sub-Commission Court at Armagh recently, in which the presiding Commissioner, Mr. Romney Foley, said—"I fix the rent at the value of the farm as sworn to by the landlord's valuation." In thousands of cases the same thing had occurred in Ireland; and was it any wonder, having regard to such a proceeding, that a spirit of discontent rankled in the breasts of the Irish tenantry? At Maynooth, a few months ago, Lord Cloncurry, after personally contesting a number of cases brought before the Sub-Commission by his Kildare tenantry, stood up in Court and said he would consent to a certain reduction—20 or 25 per cent—and the Court immediately fixed the rents at the sum he consented to accept. He mentioned that as a sample of how the majority of the
  442
  Sub - Commissioners administered the Land Act; and he mentioned it also to show that Lord Cloncurry, after hearing the evidence in the cases of his tenantry at Kildare, consented in open Court to a greater reduction than that for asking which his unfortunate tenants at Murroe were cast out on the roadside. If he could have got the least hold upon his Kildare tenantry he would have treated them in the same way. How could the Government expect the people to be loyal to the law, or to abstain from agitation, when they were subjected wholesale to such a system as that? The Land Act, in its present shape, had proved a complete failure; and unless the Government took some steps at once to bring about an interval of peace in Ireland, during which the House could approach the settlement of that measure, he was afraid that next year they would find themselves in a very much greater embroglio. If the Irish Members had been listened to last year, instead of being danced upon and laughed at, the House would have been spared many months of wasted time. If the Government only listened to them now, and if they but realized the fact that the course they were pursuing must inevitably end in failure, many disagreeable scenes might be averted in the future. He was assured by a gentleman in whom he placed the greatest reliance that at that moment in North Kerry the prospect of the Arrears Bill was stimulating evictions to a feaful extent; and if the Government did not take some measures immediately to stop the eviction of the people there and elsewhere, they would have to regard the Arrears Bill as a curse rather than a blessing. The landlords were taking care that the Arrears Bill should not come between them and the land in the most valuable condition it could be found—namely, "without tenants." The same observations applied to the Province of Ulster, where such landlords as the hon. Member for Carrickfergus (Mr. Greer) were extremely rare. Any doubt he might have had about what he had stated was completely removed by an article which appeared in The Standard of Saturday last, giving a semi-official explanation of the new Land Corporation of Ireland. This article, which was evidently written with the knowledge and sanction of the promoters of the scheme, stated that this

  443
  new Corporation, would induce those tenants who were an incumbrance on the soil to quit the country. They all knew the fearful meaning of that, and that if the Land League made fresh efforts to prevent that object it must be dealt with by the Prevention of Crime Bill. The landlords let the cat out of the bag too soon. They now saw why the Members for Dublin University watched the Coercion Bill night after night to prevent any alteration being made in it. The desire of these Gentlemen was not that the measure should be effective in putting down crime, but that it should be used to assist the Land Corporation in "inducing" a great number of the tenantry of Ireland to leave their country. He read the document issued by Mr. Kavanagh with astonishment. Up to this, he had a very much higher opinion of Mr. Kavanagh's intelligence, not to say of his public decency. Often when addressing that House he boasted that he was proud of being an Irishman; but no Irishman would have hand, act, or part in a scheme for sweeping away the majority of the population of his country, and replacing them by Englishmen, Scotchmen, and other foreigners. Would the Government allow this Corporation to do what the Property Defence Association and the Orange Emergency Committee did before—to maintain an armed force in their pay in Ireland while the whole population lay disarmed? No quibbling about legality or otherwise should be allowed to justify such a course in face of the stringent Coercion Bill about to be passed. The document went on to state that the passing of this Coercion Bill would inspire confidence in the Irish landlords, who were now timid aud hesitating. That it had done so already was proved by the number of evictions that had recently taken place. The writer of the letter went on to remark that he had submitted the proposal to a Resident Magistrate, who had said that such an association would do more to pacify the country than a whole army could do. Then this was the work in which these Special Resident Magistrates, with their salaries of £1,500 a-year, were engaged. They were approving a scheme which would result in the extermination of the people of Ireland. As long as he had a seat in that House, he would press night after night for the removal from
  444
  office of that Resident Magistrate. They had proof now, out of the mouths of the landlords themselves, of the manner in which the "Special Resident Magistrates" in Ireland were dealing out even-handed justice between the landlords and the tenants. They had proof positive of what he asserted in that House before. When this Coercion Bill became law these Special Resident Magistrates, who ought to act impartially between the rich and the poor, would be dining at the tables of the landlords, and would concoct with them the decisions to be given the next morning, and would arrange with them what men were to be arrested under special warrants, and who were to have six months' imprisonment with hard labour. As long as that system went on it was useless to expect the Irish people to have confidence in the law. He found amongst the subscriptions to this fund the name of the man who had given rise to this debate—the Earl of Ken-mare—and he must protest against the public money being applied to such a purpose. The Earl of Kenmare could not afford to give £500 to this fund unless he received some £4,000 per annum for some undefinable service which he performed for Her Majesty; and when that Vote came up he should call on the Committee to refuse to grant that sum to the noble Earl, in order that he should not use the public money in exterminating the poor people of Ireland, who had paid him or his father before him thousands and hundreds of thousands of pounds in rent. The noble Earl, by his conduct, was doing his utmost to render the attempts to bring peace and tranquillity to Ireland an utterly impossible task.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the Motion of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was a peculiar one; but more lay behind it than appeared on the surface. The Motion placed the Government in a difficulty in one respect. In itself it required nothing more than a plain denial; but three speeches had been delivered which made it necessary to give more than a plain denial. The hon. Member had attempted to draw a distinction between Lord Kenmare and other landlords, on the ground that the noble Lord was a Member of the Government. The hon. Member had charged Lord Kenmare with using his

  445
  position, to exact unfair rents. Then the hon. Member had gone on to say that Lord Kenmare passed as a Liberal and an ardent Roman Catholic. First he must protest against the fact of Lord Kenmare being a landlord being mixed up with his being a Member of the Government. Whether a man was in business in general, or in the special business of a landlord, he had a right to carry on his transactions exactly with the same freedom, whether he was a Member of the Government or was a private individual. Having made this protest with regard to Lord Kenmare's connection with the Government, and having said, once for all, that no idea could be more preposterous than that the official position of Lord Kenmare could weigh on the minds of the Land Commissioners, or of the authorities at Dublin who were charged with the duty of imprisoning persons under the Protection Act, he would proceed to defend Lord Kenmare exactly as if he were a private landlord. The hon. Member for Cavan had taken an exceedingly partial view of the relations between Lord Kenmare and his tenantry. The charges were not definite, although two or three of them were definite. The hon. Member began by representing Lord Kenmare as a sort of tyrant, who devoted the £4,000 a-year which he drew as Lord Chamberlain to oppressing his tenants in Ireland. The hon. Member's accuracy in other matters was on a par with his accuracy in that statement. If the hon. Member had taken the trouble to study the Estimates, he would have found that the noble Earl received only £2,000 from his official position. Then the Government absolutely refused to admit the slightest responsibility on Lord Kenmare's part in the operations of the Protection Act. It was the business of the Government to see whether or not certain persons should be sent to prison. The Government were, as a Government, responsible. He could not even conceive what part the Government could have in the matter, except to judge at what time they could safely let out such of Lord Kenmare's tenants who had been imprisoned. But among all the tenants, who numbered some 1,400 or 1,500, only three had been arrested under the Protection Act. Two had been released—one on the 19th of April, the other on the 22nd of May. The third was still
  446
  in custody—William Walsh was his name—on a charge of being reasonably suspected of being concerned in an attempt at murder in a proclaimed district. That was not the first time that the question had been brought before the House. It had been introduced on a former occasion by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who had drawn attention to the fact that only two of the tenants had served originating notices on their landlord. The fact was that Lord Kenmare's tenants had shown no desire at first to enter the Land Court, and it was only after 940 tenants in the same district had commenced proceedings that they thought of doing so. The consequence was that those 940 had precedence over those of Lord Kenmare's tenants who served originating notices. Then there was the case of John Kernan, which had been referred to. Kernan was served with a writ in January, 1881. He was evicted in May of that year. He was seized in June, and charged, as he said, with trespassing on the farm. According to the public records, he was charged with "maliciously demolishing certain walls and fences, and committing other damage to property." He was kept in prison till April last, when he was discharged. After his release he, not unnaturally, entertained bitter feelings against his landlord; and it was brought against Lord Kenmare that an unfair rent was exacted from this man. But it appeared that Kernan sub-let a portion of his land, and charged a higher rent for the portion sub-let than he paid for the whole. That was rightly enough, as he thought, taken by the Land Commissioners as a reason for not lowering his rent, and was a sufficient answer to the suspicion of the hon. Member for Cavan that he was imprisoned as a "suspect" for the purpose of having an unfair rent extorted from him. The other person mentioned was charged with intimidating persons in order to prevent them paying their rent. He was relased on the 22nd of last month. Then the hon. Member referred to a case which, as far as he could make out, had nothing to do with the terms of the Motion—he meant the case of Mr. and Mrs. Murphy. That case, as described by the hon. Member, appeared to have a great deal of hardship in it; but when it came to be examined by the light of the actual facts, it assumed an entirely different aspect,

  447
  and did not in any way tend to the discredit of Lord Kenmare. Murphy was in close relations with, one O'Callaghan, his brother-in-law, to whom he owed nearly £60. O'Callaghan was the tenant of the farm, and Murphy took it over from him. They came to be on very bad terms, and Lord Kenmare did his best to reconcile their differences. Ultimately they agreed to refer the matters in dispute to their respective parish priests, who gave their award in favour of O'Callaghan. Murphy would not, however, pay the money, but retained possession of the farm with all the advantages accruing there from. It was O'Callaghan, and not Lord Ken mare, who took proceedings against Murphy and got him turned out of the farm. Afterwards Lord Kenmare ejected O'Callaghan; but by that time Murphy had ceased to be a tenant, and was the forcible occupier of a hut which had been formerly used as a dairy. Lord Kenmare considered that he had a responsibility for Murphy and his family on grounds of humanity; and accordingly, when Murphy was put out of possession on this occasion, Lord Kenmare offered to give him £60 in cash in order that he might remove himself and his family from the country. This offer Murphy rejected. With reference to Mrs. Murphy's child, he protested against cases of this kind being brought forward in the House of Commons without better evidence than had been adduced in the present discussion. So far from acting inhumanely in this matter, Lord Kenmare really acted with rather exceptional humanity. He directed his own medical adviser to report on the condition of the child, and then offered to send it, at his own expense, to a hospital at Dublin. With regard to the case of Daniel Shea, it had been stated by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), with the most perfect accuracy, as far as the judgment of Mr. Justice O'Hagan was concerned; but the fact that a lease of Lord Kenmare's had been broken did not prove that his Lordship was in general tyrannical to his tenants. As to Shea's rent being excessive, Lord Kenmare's agent asserted that it bore exactly the same proportion to the Poor Law valuation as the judicial rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners a month before, at Bantry, for seven tenants. [Mr. HEALY: The worst Sub-Commissioners
  448
  at Bantry.] He now passed to the question with regard to Shea and the other tenants, on which the hon. Member for Wexford and the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had founded a general argument. The hon. Member for Wexford said that, as soon as Shea's lease was broken, Lord Kenmare served an ejectment upon him; but the object was to make him pay his rent, which there was no reason to believe he was unable to pay. Then the hon. Member seemed to think that Shea was badly used because he could not at once get his rent lowered and a judicial rent fixed. Shea served an originating notice, and, like other tenants, he would have to wait till that notice was dealt with. Hon. Members opposite talked as if the Land Court were not proceeding with any amount of rapidity and promptness; but the Government, which incurred great obloquy in passing the Land Act, watched its operation with the greatest interest. In point of fact, those Courts were getting through their business with something very like reasonable rapidity. According to the last account, about 1,000 cases were being got through every week—about one-half of them in Court and one-half out of Court. The last time he spoke to the Land Commissioners they told him they hoped to get through the entire arrears by the middle of 1883. It would be a long time indeed if, during all that period, the Irish tenants were liable to eviction; but any tenant who served his originating notice was as secure against eviction as if he had had his case dealt with, and his judicial rent fixed. ["No!"] Of course, that was as long as he paid his other rent. He had great sympathy with the Irish tenant; but that sympathy did not extend so far as to think he was exceptionally ill-used in having to continue for another twelvemonth to pay his old rent, when, at the end of that twelvemonth, he was to have what was intended to be a fair rent fixed for him. He was glad that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) showed considerable appreciation of the Land Bill; but, in his comments upon the want of rapidity in the proceedings of the Land Court, he had left out of sight the important consideration, the very large number of cases that had been settled out of Court, and in which the tenant had reaped quite as much

  449
  advantage as if he had applied to the Court. The Land Commissioners had not been able to furnish him with a statement of the number of settlements out of Court; but it appeared, even from the daily papers, that there were frequent cases in which settlements of a most advantageous kind to the tenants were made upon the large estates. The hon. Member for Wexford also told him that £100,000 was spent in reducing £75,000 of rent; but it must be remembered that that reduction of £75,000 was for 15 years, and that it could only be increased if the value of the land increased very considerably. Then an attack had been made upon the Sub-Commissioners, and the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had said that in some cases their decisions were unfair against the tenant. But, on the other hand, they were attacked for having shown too much favour to the tenants. From these attacks, coming as they did from opposite Parties, it was only fair to draw the deduction that the Sub-Commissioners were acting impartially. The hon. Member for Tipperary had drawn attention to a recent circular announcing a landlords' association, and he asked what steps the Government were about to take with reference to that organization? It would be very premature and very improper for him to speak on this occasion at any length on this question, because he had not actually read the circular through; but there were certain principles of government which were so undoubted that one could boldly lay them down at any moment. So long as the organization of landlords—if it deserved that name—kept within the law, so long it would not be interfered with by the Government, just as no organization of the tenants would be interfered with by the Government so long as it kept within the law. It was said by the hon. Member for Wexford that the Prevention of Crime Bill was directed against the tenants; but that he denied. It was directed against the minority of miscreants at present tyrannizing over the people of Ireland, both landlords and tenants. The hon. Member asked whether the Government would proceed to disarm the Emergency men, or those called by another name? As a broad principle, the Government asked for powers to disarm no one who used arms for legitimate purposes or self-defence. The hon.
  450
  Member referred to the prospectus which, he said, was published by Mr. Kavanagh, and said a Special Resident Magistrate was quoted in the circular as having given certain advice. Well, he (Mr. Trevelyan) did not know about those passages. The hon. Member quoted from the circular another passage, so worded that it certainly gave an idea to the tenants of Ireland that the intention was to make wholesale evictions of whole districts. That sentence was undoubtedly a very unfortunate sentence, and it was a most unfortunate thing, if it was the case that this was a genuine document, that in a sentence of that sort in the document any allusion was made by Mr. Kavanagh to a Special Resident Magistrate. No Special Resident Magistrate and no Government official ought to have allowed his name to be mixed up with a document which contained such a sentence about evictions; but, at the same time, he might state the general principle that, so long as any organization of landlords and tenants continued to be a business association, and kept within the law in every respect, so long it seemed to him to be a question not for the Government, and the Government would not interfere with it. The hon. Member had, however, asked what the Government were going to do in order to protect the tenants from the spirit expressed in that sentence—no doubt an unfortunate spirit? The Government had already done something for the tenants. For, in the first place, they had passed the Land Bill; and if the tenants only chose to serve originating notices, and to claim the benefits of the Land Act, all the societies and associations in the world, even though actuated by the spirit of the sentence which had been referred to, would not be able to remove them from their holdings. Then the second thing the Government had done for the tenants was to introduce the Arrears Bill, which they intended to press forward with as much thoroughness as they had ever pressed forward any other Bill. The Government were asked why they did not step in between Ireland and misery, and stop this state of things, and that if the turmoil continued it would be the ruin of the Liberal Government? The ruin of a Government meant very little. It meant to them that they should go back to some sort of leisure and enjoyment of life; but it meant a very diffe-

  451
  rent thing to Ireland. It meant misery and turbulence, and an almost indefinite postponement of any choice of genuine amelioration and happiness; and in order to avert this, the Government brought in this Arrears Bill, which would enable a very great majority of the tenants to place themselves in this position under the Land Bill—that they would have no longer anything to fear, and would be safe from evictions. If hon. Members opposite would only believe that the Government meant well to Ireland, they would help the Government to pass the Prevention of Crime Bill, and so enable the Government to direct its whole strength and its whole courage to passing the Arrears Bill, which hon. Members knew was the utmost that any Government could do at the present moment for the pacification of Ireland.
  MR. FITZPATRICKsaid, he thought a great many inaccurate statements had been made regarding the new Land Corporation. He could only imagine that the object of the hon. Member who had brought this question before the House (Mr. Biggar) was to induce the people of Ireland not to avail themselves of the advantages which this scheme would confer upon them. The hon. Member had referred to the scheme as one of extermination of the present class of tenants, to be carried out by eviction. As one of the promoters of the new association, he (Mr. Fitzpatrick) denied that it had anything whatever to do with eviction, or had any reference to it. No farm could be taken up by the Corporation, except the tenant had completely sold his interest, realized his profit, and left the country. Then, if the Land League chose to "Boycott" the farm, the Corporation would take it up and work it for the landlord. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had asserted that the Corporation had been formed to carry out evictions. That assertion was totally devoid of foundation, and if Parliamentary usage permitted, he would characterize it as it deserved, for it was most unfair to make statements which were well known to be untrue. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had asserted that the association was a declaration of war against the tenants, and spoke of the circular declaring the necessity of carrying the war into the enemy's country. Who began the war? [A VOICE: The
  452
  landlords.] It was begun by the Land League, and the hon. Member had once told them that it was now war to the knife against the landlords. [Mr. DILLON: I said nothing of the sort.] He (Mr. Fitzpatrick) maintained that if there were any war at all, it was a defensive war only, and directed against the pernicious counsels of the Land League and the agents of those who sought to prevent honest tenants from paying their debts, and to hinder them in the performance of their duties. Upon one point, hon. Members had made a great outcry. They said there was a clause in the scheme directed against townlands, from which there would be wholesale evictions. There was no such intention by the promoters of this scheme; indeed, it was impossible. The intention was only to interfere in case there were a few violent bankrupt men, who were determined to keep the town-lands in a state of turmoil and to annoy their neighbours. In such a case the Corporation would become agents for the townland. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) professed to have read a prospectus of the Corporation. That he could not have done, as three drafts only were in existence, all of which were in his (Mr. Fitzpatrick's) own possession. The articles of association empowered the Corporation to purchase and acquire land and hereditaments in Ireland, and generally to carry on all business necessary to agriculture. Among the objects of the Corporation was—
  "To lend money to proprietors, to tenants, occupiers of land, and others in Ireland, or connected with Irish property, upon security of land in Ireland or other security."
  Thus the Corporation could be made use of by tenants as a loan fund to enable them to buy their own farms. As regarded the objects of the association, he would refer to a letter from Mr. Kavanagh to a Nobleman, who wished to know whether there was any chance of the Corporation being utilized for carrying out evictions? Mr. Kavanagh stated that it was very far from his intention to encourage landlords to evict their tenants; his personal influence, so far as it went, would be directed to preventing any case being taken up by the Corporation in which there was any proof of harshness on the part of the landlords. So far from the charges brought against the Corporation being substantiated, he (Mr. Fitzpatrick)

  453
  maintained that the Corporation would promote the good of the country, and that the object of its promoters was as much the good of the tenant as of the landlord.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that it was nothing new to hear protestations of patriotism, and of their regard for the interest of their tenants, from hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Conservative Benches. The time had passed, however, when they could be regarded with seriousness, for the most positive and palpable fact on the surface of Irish life was the hideous contrast between those protestations and the acts of those who made them. He (Mr. Sexton) had known an hon. Member of that House come there, fresh from his estate in Ireland, where his tenants and their wives and children were huddled on the roadside, clothed, fed, and sheltered by the Land League, and deliver protestations of patriotism and love such as he had now listened to. This new Land Corporation, judging from the proclamation it had put forward, wore frankly in the daily Press the countenance of the wolf; that night, however, it had been presented to them by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitzpatrick) as a wolf in sheep's clothing. That hon. Gentleman had shown his faith in the Corporation by subscribing, or promising to subscribe, £500 to its funds, and that was a practical reason for his zeal in defending it, and why he took such a warm interest in its welfare. Any gentleman would be desirous, if possible, of obtaining a dividend on his investments. The hon. Member asked who had begun the war? No doubt, the hon. Gentleman would reply the Land League began it; but, in reality, that base and hideous war began before any of them were born. It began in the misery and the oppression of the last century, in the days of George III., when the sturdy farmers of Ulster were driven forth from their humble homes to fight in the American War of Independence, to die of want on the roadside or in a distant land. If the landlords were indignant now, and were losing their heads and embarking in exploits which could only lead them to shame and disaster, why was it? Because they wanted a breathing-space in that long war, in which all force had been on the landlord's side; they wanted
  454
  a breathing-space, because the people had risen up and banded themselves together to claim the rights of men in their native land. They spoke about the Land League. It was a well-known historical fact that the Land League was suppressed last year. The Land League had done its work, and though suppressed, it was not killed in a sense, for it seemed to excite greater terror now it was dead than when it was living. The secret was that during the brief space the Government allowed it, the Land League successfully accomplished its mission, which lay in conveying from the minds of the Irish Leaders to the Irish people, those principles of combination of action which must get rid of landlordism. It would take a great deal more than subscriptions of £500 from the hon. Member for Portarlington and others to undo what had been done by the Land League. That hon. Gentleman had given a touching account of the benevolent motives of the Irish landlords; but it was idle to attempt to get rid of the Circular of Mr. Arthur Kavanagh, or to limit the character of the Land Corporation by references to prospectuses which the hon. Member for Portarlington still retained in the seclusion of his pocket. In the circular which had been given to the public in The Times and The Freeman's Journal Mr. Kavanagh made no secret of the object of the Land Corporation. The object was clearly to replace the tillers of the soil by a new Plantation, by separating the Irish tenants from the soil and extirpating them. That was the object of Oliver Cromwell. It was strange that after two centuries of complete and irresponsible power, the landlords of Ireland should have to return to a policy which was never mentioned by humane or honest Englishmen without shame. The landlords had published a bogus list of subscriptions of money which had no existence in the landlords' pockets or elsewhere, in the hope of inducing the financiers of London to join them. It was a strange thing that at this time the landlords of Ireland should be attempting to expel from Ireland a people than whom none on earth were so thankful for small mercies. What did the Land Corporation propose to do? In the first place, it proposed to stimulate and develop the system of grazing farms. The system of grazing farms

  455
  did not give employment to the people. It was altogether a loss to the country. They knew in Ireland what the system of grazing farms meant. It meant a depletion of the population of the districts in which it had been adopted to an extent unequalled in the whole world. It was a system which would give employment to one herd where before 20 labourers might be employed to till the soil. If that system were adopted, he warned the Government that it could only spread disaster through the country. What did it propose in the second place? The hon. Gentleman said the Corporation did not propose to go into the occupation of any farm, unless the tenant had sold his interest. It did not matter at all, however, to this Corporation whether or not a farm became vacant by sale or by eviction. A farm was vacant; that was enough for them. There were at this moment in Ireland 1,000 families and 10,000 people who were waiting patiently for the coming into operation of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, in the hope that landlords might be induced to take them back. This new Corporation was Me-phistopheles stepping in between landlord and tenant to prevent a return of good feeling, and to anticipate and kill the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill. Great would be the responsibility and great would be the guilt of any Government that did not interfere, but, on the other hand, allied itself, however remotely, with such a Body as the Land Corporation, which was so unpatriotic in its conception, and which would be so morally murderous in its future. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said he would not interfere with the Land Corporation. Well, that did not square with justice. It certainly did not square with justice if, on the one hand, the Chief Secretary for Ireland refused to interfere with a scheme for a wholesale expulsion of people from Ireland, while, on the other hand, he made no provision to enable the people to apply the law in self-defence. The right hon. Gentleman gave credit to the Land Courts for settlements out of Court by a combination of tenants. He (Mr. Sexton) said, with equal confidence and with more reason on his side, that settlements effected out of Court by a combination of tenants were due, not to the Land Courts, but to the Land League.
  456
  Would the right hon. Gentleman or the Government do any one of three things? Would they suspend evictions? Or, if they would not suspend evictions altogether, would they suspend them in such cases as the Resident Magistrates might report to be cases of hardship? Would the Government, on their own responsibility, in such cases as the Resident Magistrates reported to be cases of hardship, cases of cruelty, prohibit the carrying out of evictions, and refuse to lend the armed Forces of the Crown to assist in carrying them out? Would the Government push on the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill into law? There were thousands and thousands of unfortunate families in Ireland living in miserable huts, into which they had been driven, who were waiting for the passing of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill. Would the Government push on that Bill, and thereby settle the dispute which formed the whole core of the Irish, difficulty, instead of pushing on the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill, the first effect of which had been the formation of this Land Corporation, this sinister Land Corporation for the expulsion of the people, the working of which would enable the minions of the landlords to carry out the oppression of the people without fear of reprisals? What was the third object of the Land Corporation? Why, it was simply diabolical, and he wondered that any man of respectable position would attach his name to it. They said not only that they would take isolated farms, but that wherever they found the farm of an evicted tenant which had not been taken up, they should be placed as agents of the tenants in that townland, and should have power to evict them if necessary. It was also proposed by the framers of the scheme that the evicted people should be replaced by loyal farmers from other countries. [Mr. GIBSON: Hear, hear!] He could understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman regarded the whole proposal with undiluted joy. The Irish race had found just judges in England, and people who sympathized with its sorrows. But to neither of those classes did the right hon. and learned Gentleman belong. In fact, he had never concealed his dislike and even his hatred of the Irish people; and whatever plan promised to banish the Irish people from the land which

  457
  was their own would be certain to command the approval of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. For the purpose of working their nefarious scheme with greater safety, the new Corporation hoped to be allowed to turn out all the surrounding farmers, in the belief that to garrison a townland would be cheaper than to garrison a single farm. He (Mr. Sexton), however, told the House, the Land Corporation, and the country, that although the scheme was a bold one—one not marked by any religious, moral, or patriotic principle—yet it would fail, for its promoters were entering upon a fight in which the odds of probability were all against them. They seemed to face the contingency of outrage with light hearts, and he should have expected it from their antecedents, their only care being to get possession of the land and to bring in tenants from foreign parts. Such was the plan of the Land Corporation. Outrage would, of course, result from it. If whole townlands were cleared of people, a new policy of Cromwellian Plantation being openly avowed, could anyone suppose that the ignorant classes in Ireland, having in their ranks men of violent nature, would not be induced to retaliate in a manner which might appal humanity? He warned the Land Corporation, and all who might be inclined to support them, to beware and pause before taking a final step. The people of Ireland had funds at their disposal, and union reigned among them. Though a Liberal Government, false to its former principles, might refuse to defend the people against this nefarious combination, he did not hesitate to foretell the disgraceful failure of a movement which was the most cynical and heartless to which men of position had ever given their support.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, that the course of the discussion for the last hour or two had been somewhat desultory. It had commenced with a rather laboured condemnation of Lord Kenmare, and that condemnation had since been used as a kind of peg upon which to hang an attack upon the Land Corporation. He (Mr. Gibson) could not but think that all who had listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) and of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) must have been struck by this fact—that whereas, up to
  458
  the present, they had been accustomed in former speeches to a good deal of extraordinary language, and to show a great amount of hatred to landlords and landlordism, that night they had discovered some indications of fear and terror. It seemed from that there was reason to believe that it was felt that, censurable as the individuals composing it and the institution of landlordism might be, its members had at last hit upon something which, at all events, made the Leaders of the Land League reflect. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland said that he had not read the papers to which hon. Members below the Gangway had referred. He (Mr. Gibson) regretted that that should be so. The matter had been before the public many days, and Mr. Kavanagh had stated his views very frankly and very clearly upon it in a letter to The Times, and on two days they had been made the subject of leading articles in that journal. Besides that, The Freeman's Journal had written upon it with considerable vigour. But as he had not read the literature on the subject, the right hon. Gentleman had acted wisely in refraining from passing judgment on the scheme, for it was obvious that a scheme such as that under the consideration of the House, which must necessarily have an extensive operation, could only be judged as a whole, and that it was unfair to fasten upon particular sentences a meaning which they could hardly bear, even when read apart from the context. He (Mr. Gibson) was not a member of the Land Corporation; but he had read its literature with great attention, because it affected Ireland; and because he had the honour and privilege of being a close and warm friend of Mr. Kavanagh; and the meaning he placed on the transaction was, that it was a strong, vigorous, and successful attempt at self-defence; that in no sense whatever could it be regarded as aggressive. If farmers should choose to pay their rents, and to demand the liberty to do so—a liberty which they had foregone for so long in consequence of the terrorism under which they groaned—or if they should choose to appeal to the Land Court to fix fair rents for them, they would have nothing to fear from that or from any kindred organization. But when farms were lying idle from which tenants had

  459
  allowed themselves to be evicted in obedience to the behests of the Land League—"Boycotted" farms which the Land League or the leaders of the people said must remain unoccupied—surely, then, it was not unreasonable to say, if no tenant was allowed to touch those farms under the existing terrorism, that an organization should be allowed to come into existence for the purpose of introducing a better state of things under wise and just conditions. His view of the organization was, in fact, this—that it might in many cases save the landlord from ruin, and enable the tenant to regain the liberty which he had lost. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) said that the association was a society for the extirpation of tenants. He forgot that its operations were only to commence when a man should have ceased to be a tenant, and when his former farm should be lying idle.
  MR. DILLONexplained that what he had said was that one of the objects of the Corporation, judging from the prospectus, was to keep the land in the most valuable condition, or, in other words, free from tenants.
  MR. GIBSON, continuing, said, that the hon. Member for Sligo had characterized one portion of the scheme as simply—and the hon. Member paused in order to find a word that was sufficiently bad for his purpose—it was simply diabolical. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, "diabolical" was undoubtedly a good word. The hon. Member applied it to the scheme because, he said, the Corporation was to have the power of evicting. But if a tenant should please to go through the vulgar and commonplace process of paying his rent, he could not be evicted; or, if he did not like his present rent, thinking that it was too high—and naturally tenants did not like to pay rent—he had only to go into the Land Court, and, almost for the asking, he would get his rent cut down a quarter or nearly a third. So that he did not see the force of the charge that this Corporation would have conferred on them powers of eviction. What was the state of things with which this organization sought to cope? The hon. Member for Sligo said that the landlords of Ireland had been so long petted and pampered. Had they been petted and pampered during the last two years? The hon. Member con-
  460
  trasted the proceedings of this Land Association with the merciful proceedings of the Land League—the expression he used was "the charity of the Land League." Charity was a very noble thing, and it sometimes cost money; but the charity which took the form of taking other people's property was open to a certain amount of criticism. He had not heard that the Land League had shown any great charity, as regarded their own funds, either to tenants or labourers. And here he might say, in passing, that there was a remarkable contrast between this Land Corporation, which published the names of those associated with it and the subscriptions—in short, everything connected with it—and the Land League, which had never condescended to anything so petty and small as the publication of a balance-sheet. When people heard those expressions about "the charity of the Land League" they were apt to forget where they were living. Had they not been told from numerous platforms, and also, he thought, in that House, that the object of the recent Land League agitation had been to bring landlords to their knees, or to abolish landlordism? And he thought the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) used the expression that he was for war to the knife with the landlords. [Mr. DILLON: No, no!] He never for a moment hesitated to accept any statement of the hon. Member, who always spoke with the utmost frankness; but the hon. Member said something like it, and always expressed a resolute determination to get rid of landlords root and branch. That being the reality that had to be faced, they were driven to talk about just and unjust evictions. [Ironical Irish cheers.] He supposed those cheers indicated that all evictions were unjust, and he was now dealing with the statement put forward by the Land League. There were some evictions, of course, that might be open to criticism; but he was dealing now with the broad proposition that all farms from which tenants had been evicted were substantially "Boycotted," wherever the power of the Land League enabled it to be done; and an absolute reign of terror existed where the agents of the Land League could bring it about. Well, under those cirumstances, was it not rather unreasonable to say that the

  461
  tenants had a full right to organize, sometimes with great criminality and great cruelty, and that the landlords were bound idiotically to remain isolated? He ventured to think that was an argument which could not for a moment suggest itself to any man of commonsense. It was necessary for self-defence that something should be done by landlords within the limits of the law, according to the dictates of justice, and never forgetting what was due to fair play. As far as he had been able to read the correspondence in the papers, he must say he found everything connected with the Land Association thoroughly open; the names were there, the subscriptions were there, the association was proposed to be registered according to law; and, under those circumstances, was it not a little extravagant to talk of Oliver Cromwell and Barbadoes in connection with this transaction? The name of Mr. Kavanagh would, he ventured to say, be a great guarantee to the fair public opinion of England as well as Ireland. [A VOICE: Carlow!] Yes; and in Carlow, too, it would be a guarantee that nothing but what was just and fair and honourable would be done. He had the honour, as he said before, of intimate friendship with Mr. Kavanagh, and he never met a man more fair-minded, able, or thoroughly patriotic; and he was as satisfied as he could be of anything in the world that if this was not a fair scheme between man and man—between landlord, tenant, and labourer—the name of Arthur Kavanagh would in no way be mixed up with it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) had objected to the use of the word "diabolical," as employed by his (Mr. T. P. O'Connor's) hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton); but the phrase was justly employed, for it was a diabolical offence to starve the poor and drive the people into exile; and by the natural interpretation of this document, the object of the Corporation was to do both if it could. What would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to these words—"The security offered would be the land in the most valuable condition?" That certainly meant free from tenants; so that the land in Ireland would be only valuable when the Irish tenant was driven from it. And, again, "If, however, they
  462
  persevered, the result would be that Ireland would be colonized by farmers from other countries." Was not that a scheme of depopulation? The people would be driven from the land, unless they agreed to pay rents, one-fourth of which had been declared by the Courts to be robbery on the part of the landlords. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that those people had nothing to do but to pay the rent, or apply to the Court. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that it was impossible for them to pay such rent; and in the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill there was an admission by the Government that large numbers of tenants were so poor, and over-burdened by rent, that it was impossible for them to pay. As for applying to the Land Court, it would take years before that tribunal would be able to deal with a tithe of the applications before it, and meantime the Land Corporation would use all its efforts to turn men out. He would ask the two Irish Law Officers now present whether they had read the Circular; and, if so, whether they did not consider that this association came under the 4th clause of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill, which made a combination illegal which injured any man in his business? The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, although sympathetic, was not satisfactory, for he had said that he could do nothing towards expediting the work of the Land Court; and under the Bill they were now passing they might prevent all discussion, and stop the mouths of the leaders of the people. If the Government employed the Coercion Act for the enforcement of rents, they would have to deal with a state of things more serious than they would care to acknowledge, and would have to leave the people to their own dark devices and fierce passions. One of two results would be brought about from the organization to which he had referred—either the people, broken in spirit, would submit tamely to the action of the landlords; or else, driven to desperation, they would resort to crimes as extreme or terrible, if not darker, than any which had yet disgraced the annals of the country. The best means of meeting and anticipating that dreaded evil would be just and remedial legislation; and he sincerely trusted that the Government would make

  463
  some statement as to their future intentions upon this Land Question, which would give the people of Ireland a certainty of relief at some future day. Such a Bill would be a greater and better Bill than the Prevention of Crime measure they were now discussing.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had congratulated himself on the fact that the new organization appeared to strike terror into the hearts of the Irish people and of their Representatives in the House. That the right hon. and learned Gentleman regarded as something new and satisfactory, though, as a matter of fact, it was precisely what the landlords had been doing for many generations, and what they had always been well able and willing to do. It was, indeed, just because the landlords had always had it in their power to hurt the people, that the people were to-day in their present frame of mind as regards landlordism and the system that sustained it. The new movement, said the right hon. and learned Gentleman, contrasted favourably with the operations of the Land League, in being above-board, and in the circumstance that its promoters published their subscription list. But the Land League was, in fact, as public an organization as ever existed. From the very first moment, it absolutely lived on publicity, and published its programme, its line of action, and the subscriptions it received, in every Irish newspaper. What, then, could the House think of the allegation made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman? According to him, the new organization aimed at the eviction of no one, and the tenants would be safe if they did not evict themselves. Mr. Kavanagh, however, contradicted that statement by recommending that when an isolated farm was to let, they should take possession of it only on condition that the whole town-land should be leased to them, his intention evidently being that the land should be re-peopled with another population. But they could only get possession of the townlands by the slaughter of the people, and such a scheme could not be carried out without danger to the public peace in. Ireland. If the Government tad any care for the lives of the people, they would not treat the Circular
  464
  in the way it had been treated in the House that night. Now, he always thought it the duty of all Governments to see that schemes of destruction failed; but the present Government had met that scheme of extermination and depopulation in an attitude of toleration, and with the declaration that if it were managed within the letter of the law it would not be interfered with. That was not the way to treat a scheme which amounted to a declaration of open war against the Irish people. But he blamed them for more than this, as he found that a distinct incitement to such combinations on the part of the landlords had come not many nights ago from one of the Members of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), whom he charged with being the suggester and author of this perilous undertaking. Speaking recently in the House, the right hon. Gentleman had said that—
  "Personally, he thought there was nothing of greater importance than that the landlords of Ireland should press for their rights firmly and bravely, but with justice and moderation."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked the hon. Member to read the passage in which he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) referred to the arrears of rent.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he should be sorry to do the right hon. Gentleman any injustice whatever. He had quoted as much as seemed to have a perilous tendency in it.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member had omitted his remarks with reference to arrears of rent. It was quite true that he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had said in that speech that the landlords of Ireland were justified in demanding and pressing for their rights; but, over and over again, he said they should do so only with justice and moderation; and he indicated that they ought not to press for arrears of rent accrued in time of famine.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he had fully intended to add that the right hon. Member put in that saving clause several times; but it really was included in the words he quoted; and the remark he had to make upon these words was that the landlords of Ireland were to be the judges of what was just and moderate in their own interests. The important point was the practical use the land-

  465
  lords had made of the advice he gave them to combine, and to press firmly and bravely for what they considered to be their rights, within limits of which they were to be the judges. At the time it was given, the advice struck him as having a very perilous import. He regarded this landlords' movement as due to the incitement conveyed in the reproach uttered by the right hon. Gentleman, that the landlords were too lenient; he said that in many parts of the country they were supine. That was his word. Just imagine the landlords of Ireland being supine about their rents! He told them it would be a brave thing to combine together to press for their high rents; and he afterwards said—
  "At no time was it of greater importance that there should be co-operation among landlords in this respect. He believed the Government were willing and able to protect them, and with this protection and co-operation on their part the main difficulties of the situation would be overcome."
  The result was the formation of this Corporation. Mr. Kavanagh was the head co-operator; he had formed a Cooperative Society (Limited) for the purpose of exterminating the Irish people. The Prime Minister had made it a charge against the Irish Members that they were not facilitating the action of the Land Act, and that they interposed between the Act and the people in any way; but what had he to say when he was charged with so acting that this Act was proceeding at a snail's pace? Was it not from the Irish Members that had come the demand to expedite its action, to do something to bring under its protection the people who, though they might have sent in originating notices, would be paying exorbitant rents, until the Commissioners reached them? What relief did the Prime Minister offer in the cases of tenants evicted for the non-payment of rents, ultimately declared to be exorbitant? None at all. It was said that the new organization of the landlords would not be interfered with, while every organization of the tenants had been mercilessly suppressed. Yet surprise was expressed that the Irish people were not well affected to the Constitution under which they had the happiness to live! Little wonder that the Irish peasant did not sing "God Save the Queen," or "Rule Britannia," in Ireland, or that, under the Stars and Stripes, he looked
  466
  back with no feeling of loyalty to the order of things he had left! Disaffection in Ireland, disloyalty, or whatever they liked to call it, in America, were the natural products of such laws and such proceedings as those he had referred to; and while such laws were in force in Ireland, the Irish people would be less than human, and unworthy of the name of men, if they did not ardently desire in their hearts to end, how and when they could, the reign of oppression and tyranny in their native land.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that, so far as his knowledge and observation went, and contrary to the opinion expressed by many hon. Members in that House, not only in the North, but in the South of Ireland, the Land Act was regarded as far from a failure. So far, at all events, as the North was concerned, the people there were determined to extract from that Act all the good that was in it, although they did not look upon it as perfect and complete. The great blot upon the Act was the delay in its administration. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) had told them that about the year 1883 the great bulk of the cases now before the Courts would be decided; but he (Mr. T. A. Dickson) did not himself believe that when the year 1885 came, with the present rate of progress, the mass of business accumulating before the Courts would be dealt with. The great grievance to the tenants arose from the fact that during all the time they had to wait they were bound to pay what they called a rack-rent, and that the judicial rent did not date from the time of the originating notice. Again, nothing could be more disastrous to the best interests and to the peace of Ireland than the delay in dealing with arrears; and, as an Irish Member, he regretted most deeply that another Bill now before the House had occupied such a length of time as to keep back the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, the result of which was that, to his own knowledge, hundreds of tenants who, a month or a fortnight ago, would have come under the protection of that Bill, would be shut out from its benefits, because their six months' period for redemption was daily expiring. He had always been opposed to the Land League; but he was equally opposed to the newly-formed Landlords' League or Corporation, and, with regard

  467
  to it, he believed it would never have been heard of if it had not been for the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill. As far as the result of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill was concerned, in Ulster it had been most disastrous to the tenants, as the landlords were pressing for arrears in all directions. He regretted the formation of that Corporation, because he saw in the near future of Ireland, between those two opposing forces of the Landlords' League and the Land League, disaster and bloodshed.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the discussion had wandered somewhat from the subject of the original Notice given by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), which proposed to deal simply with the relations between Lord Ken-mare and his tenants. It would not be becoming in him (Mr. J. Lowther), standing, as he did, opposite to the Colleagues of Lord Kenmare, to enter into any defence of his Lordship in his dealings with his tenants. He would only say that, as far as his knowledge went, derived from his experience while holding the Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, he believed that Lord Kenmare's estate was one of the best-conducted estates in Ireland. He had been frequently brought into contact personally with that noble Lord's agent (Mr. Hussey), and he believed him to be one of the ablest, most courageous, and most conscientious men connected with the management of land in that country; but, passing by that subject, which, as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had just observed, had been treated as a mere peg on which to hang a series of speeches designed to meet an entirely different matter, he wished to make a few remarks on the question immediately before them. The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had joined in the remarks made from below the Gangway on that (the Opposition) side of the House, in deprecation of the effort now being made to reply to the suggestion thrown out, as he (Mr. J. Lowther) thought at the time, not very fairly by the Prime Minister, with regard to the apparent apathy of the landlord class in Ireland as to the moans of helping themselves. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had not very fairly referred to the absence of self-help on the part of the
  468
  landlords in Ireland, and that the new organization under notice was their reply to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GLADSTONE, interposing, said, that his remark had applied to the general body of the community, and not to the landlords specially.
  MR. J. LOWTHERbelieved the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the propertied and loyal classes in Ireland.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had referred to the general body of those who were disposed to obey the law in Ireland.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that, in his opinion, if the right hon. Gentleman would inquire more minutely into the composition of society in Ireland, he would find that the landlord class, and those who were associated with the ownership of land, formed no inconsiderable portion of the loyal section of the community; and the landlord class had determined that, at any rate, they would not remain under the stigma which they imagined had been cast upon their conduct. They had arrived at a sound conclusion, and had determined to deal with the difficulties that confronted them upon commercial principles, and quite apart from any political Party, by establishing a combination for the protection of their rights. He himself had ventured to think that this scheme might with advantage have been tried long ago; and he had no hesitation in describing it as far and away the best movement which had of late years been set on foot in Ireland. The hon. Member for Tyrone said that the Land Act had not been a failure; he (Mr. J. Lowther) would not be tempted by that digression into a reply, but would be satisfied with saying simply that he did not agree with that opinion with respect either to that Act, or with regard to the previous legislative effort made some 12 years ago. At any rate, it was now admitted that the attempts to deal with land tenure in Ireland had substantially failed. ["Oh, oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman would, at least, admit that they had not been wholly successful. They had been reminded, however, that the Land Corporation would facilitate the process of eviction. Now, he had often taken exception to the manner in which eviction had been spoken of by Members of the Government,

  469
  and especially, upon a recent occasion, by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan), who had even described it in certain cases as unpatriotic and inhumane. Evictions, the House had been told, were divided into two classes—evictions of tenants who could, but would not pay, and evictions of tenants who were unable to pay. The first class, they were informed on the authority of Ministers of the Crown, were fit subjects for eviction; the latter, it was said, should be treated with what was called indulgence. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway approached the subject in more forcible terms; but, at all events, the House was invited to draw a distinction between the two classes. But he (Mr. J. Lowther) said emphatically, with regard to a tenant who was absolutely and honestly unable to pay, that it was the duty of the landlord to suggest to him that he should select some other occupation in life. The landlord who became a party to such a tenant continuing in occupation of land under those conditions was himself a party to an arrangement which was contrary to the public advantage. He regretted to see the tendency in several quarters of the House to view a landlord who evicted a tenant who was other than a contumacious person as guilty of an act of hardship and, as the Chief Secretary expressed it, of cruelty towards Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government, in their present unenviable position, certainly could appeal with some reason to the generosity of their fellow-men; but he must protest against the doctrine that a landlord was even justified in retaining on his estate persons who were absolutely incapable, with advantage to themselves or the community, of conducting the business of agriculture. [Laughter.] Perhaps some hon. Members might think him out of date, and a "fossil," in referring to the view that the owner of land ought to have some regard for its efficient cultivation, for he was aware that the doctrines of political economy were at present in disfavour with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. Yet he ventured to think that a landlord who suffered his property to remain in the hands of an insolvent person was not discharging the duty he owed to society, for, in his opinion, it was to
  470
  the benefit of society that the soil should be efficiently cultivated. But how could it be cultivated efficiently if landlords left it in the hands of insolvent tenants? Let them, therefore, put from their minds the doctrine of the cruelty of eviction, and he hoped that henceforth the House would hear less about it. Of course, if it involved starvation, that would be a different matter; but it did not. He admitted that if there was no other alternative for the insolvent Irish tenants except remaining in possession of the soil or entering the workhouse, there would, through the inaction of Government and Parliament in the application of the proper remedy, be, at any rate, the appearance of hardship in evictions. But there was another remedy which he had pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman, urging him not to allow it to rest; he referred to emigration. He confessed that at the time of its introduction into the Land Act, his opinion was that the clause was not inserted with any bonâ fide intention, and he had since discovered that his conjecture was only too true. If the Government were really desirous of helping those unfortunate tenants who, as they considered, were suffering a real hardship in being evicted, they should be prepared to offer some alternative to those tenants than the alternative between starvation and the paupers' roll. If Government would devote a portion of the Church Surplus towards giving tenants who could not meet their engagements facilities for obtaining a living elsewhere, instead of using it in objects which would be an inducement to dishonesty, by paying the debts of the dishonest, as well as of the unfortunate, he thought they would, in this instance, deserve the thanks of the community. He would refer the Government, not to the views of their political opponents, but to what had been said on the subject by writers like Mr. Tuke. Those writers had shown the true solution of the difficulty. His noble Friend the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) had recently asked the Government whether emigration was among the subjects with which they proposed to deal, but had not succeeded in getting a satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman. If the Government directed their attention to that subject, there might at last be one part of their Irish policy upon which they would be

  471
  able to look hereafter with satisfaction. He hoped the result of this discussion would be that Government would desist from attempting to discourage landlords from the exercise of their legal rights, and that they would support the patriotic and public-spirited movement to which reference had been made in this debate.

SUPPLY—VOTES ON ACCOUNT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he did not wish to detain the House; he rose simply to protest against a third Vote on Account being taken on the present Estimates as a matter of course. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite had, on former occasions, protested against even a second Vote, and even right hon. Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench had so protested. The Government had strongly protested against the late Government in that respect, but were far worse offenders themselves. He never remembered Supply being driven to such a period of the Session, seeing that adequate discussion of the important questions involved was impossible.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that the present Government were only following the example of all previous Governments in this respect since he had a seat in Parliament. It was very rare that Members of the House had the opportunity of discussing in Supply the most important expenditure of the country. With regard to the Navy, for instance, it had been the practice with most Governments, but especially the present one, at the beginning of the Session to take a Vote for the Navy, and then leave the remaining Votes till the middle of August, in a weary and half-empty House. They appealed to the patriotism of the Members at the commencement of the Session, and got a Vote on Account; but after that nothing was heard till the end of the Session. The Navy Vote was really the most important of all the Votes, and he must protest strongly against the course which had uniformly been followed.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that he also endorsed the protest of his hon. Friends, and had to complain that, contrary to opinions expressed in past years by the Prime Minister, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and head of the
  472
  greatest spending Department, was not a Member of the House of Commons. Not only was the First Lord in the Upper House, but the Navy suffered from the kaleidoscopic manner in which successive Secretaries to the Admiralty had come and gone. First, there was the present Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), then the present Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan). Both those right hon. Gentlemen had done their work admirably, and now there was a third. As soon as a Secretary began to know his work and to become competent, he was transferred to some other Department. The Secretary to the Admiralty, in his (Sir H. Drummond Wolff's) opinion, when, as was at present the case, the First Lord was in "another place," ought to occupy a more prominent and responsible position in reference to his duties in the House of Commons. He should occupy a similar position to that of the Secretary at War in old times.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot say that the hon. Member who has just spoken has added anything by his criticisms to what has been already said on the subject. He complains that the First Lord of the Admiralty, as the head of a great spending Department, should be in the House of Lords. The fact is that the vast proportion of the Business of the country is done in this House; but it must be remembered that a fair proportion of Ministers must sit in the House of Lords, and the exact distribution must be regulated according to circumstances. The hon. Gentleman complains of the selection of three Secretaries to the Admiralty in rapid succession; and although he was kind enough to speak of them personally in high terms, he said it proved the weakness of the administration of the Department. Now, I think, on the contrary, that it is an argument in favour of the Gentlemen who have been selected to fill the post, because it only shows that we have appointed such admirable men to be Secretaries to the Admiralty, that, when higher posts have fallen vacant, looking around for the best men we could get, we have felt it our duty to offer them to Gentlemen occupying that position; and, at the same time, we have taken the utmost possible pains to have the Admiralty dealt with efficiently. You cannot have the head of every Department in this House, and if

  473
  it is inconsistent that the Secretary to the Admiralty should represent the Admiralty in this House, is it not also inconsistent that the Foreign Office and other Departments of the State should be represented here by an Under Secretary?
  MR. GORST: They are not spending Departments.
  MR. GLADSTONE: They may not be spending Departments; but I cannot admit that the distinction is of such a character as to require us to draw a line, and say that what is right in the one case is wrong on the other. The distribution of the Business of the Administration between the two Houses has always been a matter of considerable difficulty, and it is obvious that it cannot be placed under any inflexible rule. In regard to the protest of the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. Gorst), who preceded the last speaker, I admit that there is force in what he has said. I regret extremely the state of facts under which is has become necessary for us to take the discussions upon the Navy Estimates at intervals very widely apart; as to the year 1880, it must be remembered that that was an exceptional year, because there was a Dissolution in the early part of that year, and it was necessary that some of the Navy Votes should be taken before the Dissolution. But the criticisms of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen fairly apply to other years. It has not been possible, however, for the Government to apply itself at once to the business of prosecuting Supply, as was the custom, in former years. The present state of things is due to the exceptional circumstances in which we have been placed—first, to the general obstruction to the efficient discharge of the Public Business in every branch and Department of the Public Service which has existed; secondly, to the special difficulty which arose this year of being compelled, not altogether by our own choice, to devote almost the whole of the available resources of the House to Irish legislation; and, thirdly, to the peculiar arrangements which at present exist for the conduct of Business, under which it has become almost a matter of absolute necessity to take Votes on Account, whereas, in former years, Votes on Account were comparatively rare. What was formerly the exception has now become the rule, and this is the second Vote on
  474
  Account we have been compelled to ask for during the present Session. These exceptional Votes are, no doubt, a grave and serious matter, and I commend the subject to the consideration of the House; at the same time, I am bound to admit that the subject is influenced to a considerable extent by our system of accounts and balances, the date at which our financial year begins and ends, and the period of the meeting of the House. So long as these three conditions exist the difficulty will continue, and until we are able to make a change in the form of our general business arrangements, complaint, and I am afraid a good deal of reasonable complaint, will continue to be made. I have thought it right to make these observations, because it is only fair to make the admission that the present state of things is unsatisfactory, and that I should express an earnest hope that hon. Members will co-operate with the Government, with the object of mitigating the evil as much as possible.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: With regard to the question of Votes on Account, I am glad to hear the Prime Minister admit the great difficulty under which any Government labours in the present state of our accounts, because it is a difficulty under which not only the present Government, but every Government, has laboured now for some years. Right hon. Gentlemen who now sit on the Front Ministerial Bench, when in Opposition, protested with great vigour against the late Government's request for Votes on Account.
  MR. GLADSTONEwas understood to say that he had never done so.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Other right hon. Members sitting on the Front Bench certainly did so, and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister cautiously abstained from saying a good word for our proposals. The protest, indeed, was made with greater vigour because it was not made by a person in the responsible position of the present Prime Minister. My only object in rising now is to enter a protest against its being supposed that a second Vote on Account is generally necessary, although there can be no doubt that a first Vote on Account is required. This, however, is the second time this year we have been asked for a Vote on Account. I admit the extraordinary difficulties under which the Government are labour-

  475
  ing, and I have not a word to say against their proposition; but I wish to enter a protest against the proceedings of this year being considered a precedent for future years, because I think the House would do wrong, as a rule, to put off the consideration of the Estimates until a time when it is impossible to discuss them fully.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £996,091, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victuals and Clothing for Seamen and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883."
COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that, in reference to the grant for the Marines, some discussion took place on the last occasion the Navy Estimates were before the Committee; and he had then strongly urged upon the Government that some Member representing distinctly and directly the Royal Marines should be added to the Board of Admiralty. The Marines formed one-third almost of the fighting force of England, and he thought they ought to be directly represented on the Board that was to govern the whole of the Navy. The case of the Marines was a very peculiar one. The Force itself was peculiar in its constitution. It was attached to the Navy; the Naval Department drew the pay of the men and controlled them, and yet in every other sense they were soldiers. One of the difficulties at present attached to the Force was the slowness of promotion. He was not speaking of the Infantry; but in reference to the Marine Artillery the stagnation of promotion was really as great as ever. Officers who had served from 20 to 25 years had no chance of obtaining field rank until their period of service amounted to some 30 years. Whereas a captain in the Line obtained field rank after 18 or 20 years' service, a captain of the Marine Artillery had to serve 28 or 30 years before he attained
476
that rank. There was no Force in the Service of so valuable a character in regard to which the promotion was so slow. It had, practically, a bad effect upon the Service. It rendered it unpopular, and in the future it would be found that young men of ability would pause before they selected that branch of the Service, when they found it in the highest degree probable that it would take so long a time before they could attain the same rank which, under similar circumstances, they would attain in other branches of the Service. It had another prejudicial effect in making the officers of Marine Artillery feel that they were filling an inferior position, and very naturally they did not see what reason there was why—as in all respects, both as regards pay, rank, and promotion, they enjoyed the same privileges as the Army—they should be so very much inferior in respect of promotion. There was another point to which he also wished to draw the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty—namely, the appointment of Major Derriman to be adjutant of a Volunteer Corps at Carlisle. The effect of the appointment was that Major Derriman was acting in two capacities, and was drawing pay from both Departments. Either this officer belonged to the Army for the time being, holding, as he did, a Staff appointment, or he belonged to the Marines, in which case his pay could not be drawn from the Army Department. The Prime Minister had informed the House that in future officers in this position would not be eligible for Staff appointments; but he (Colonel Makins) could not understand why they should not be. It was a slur on the Department which ought to be removed. As the question was one of great interest, and affected the efficiency of an important branch of the Service, he hoped it would not be considered that he had been unduly taking up the time of the Committee by calling attention to it.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he hoped to have from the Secretary to the Admiralty a satisfactory assurance that it was not intended to carry out the proposal to reduce the Marine Force. The Estimates proposed a reduction of that Force by 600 men. He did not know what the Force was at this moment; but he believed that it was about 200 under the proper strength, and the proposal was

477
that it should be gradually reduced by 600 men. At present the force numbered somewhere about 13,000, and ought to be at home ready for any emergency; but it had been reduced by detachments sent to Ireland. That being so, he thought it would be unwise, in the present state of our foreign relations, to continue the reduction of the Force, as it was by no means too large for the services it might be required to perform. He understood that the reduction had taken place, not because the men were not wanted, but because money was wanted in other directions. The result was that the pay of certain officers had been increased, and the money had been saved by reducing the strength of the Marine Force. He had good authority for saying that this was more than an accidental circumstance, for the First Lord, in "another place," had himself stated this as the reason. By reducing the Force, money had been obtained for increasing the pay in other directions without involving any increased charge upon the public general service. Looking at the fact that the service of the Marines might be required at no distant date, he thought it was not desirable that the Government should insist on the reduction of the Force, but that it should be increased to the full strength at which it stood last year. He desired to thank the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty upon what he perceived to have been the result of the recommendations he had made as to the lighter draught of the ships required for service in the Mediterranean. The Fleet at present in the Mediterranean consisted of 11 vessels, four of which were outside the harbour of Alexandria, unable to get in on account of the low draught of water, two were inside the harbour, and five were at Malta, and were about to be supplemented by the Penelope, the Orion, and the Belleisle. He was also glad to hear that the Cyclops, the Gorgon, and the Hydra were being got ready for the purpose of reinforcing the Fleet; but he was afraid there might be some question whether those ships would be considered sufficiently safe to make the voyage. Personally, he had always doubted their seaworthiness, and he was still more confirmed in the opinion he had expressed when he found that vessels of that particular draught of water were not more readily employed in the service; and he believed the cause to be that it
478
was not considered safe for them to undertake the voyage. He regretted that the Audacious was still undergoing repairs, or she might have been made available from her light draught. He understood that she would not be available for the next two months. He was glad to see that the Hotspur was now being got ready, and he congratulated the Admiralty upon their now adding to the Force in the Mediterranean ships that would certainly be of some service there. Looking at the events which had arisen, he hoped that the recruiting for the Marines would not be stopped, and that that famous Force would be maintained not only efficiently, but in sufficient numbers for the Public Service.
SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he regretted that the discussion of the Naval Estimates had been postponed so long. When they were first brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, it was promised that there should be an opportunity for a full discussion upon them. Three months had now elapsed, and they had had no opportunity of considering the Navy Estimates; and at that hour at night (12·15) it was scarcely to be expected that they could deliberately consider these matters. He regretted the unavoidable absence of his right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith). In reference to the Royal Marines, to which his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) had just alluded, he was glad to find that the prospects and condition of that Force were to be improved. The stimulus to promotion in commissioned ranks could not fail to be of service. It was also satisfactory to find that the pay of the non-commissioned officers was to be increased. This was both just and politic, and assimilation, when on shore, to the status of the Line regiments was reasonable and right; but he must regret that, in order to confer these advantages, there had been a corresponding reduction in numbers. It was quite true that the late Government reduced the number of the Marines by 1,000; but it was understood that that was the lowest estimate which ought to be made in reference to them, and he very much regretted that the Lords of the Admiralty had now decided upon reducing the strength of the Force by 600 more. By

479
so doing, they were losing what was equivalent to a whole battalion of well-trained and well-seasoned men—men who at any moment would have been able to assist the country in any emergency, and might be relied upon at a moment's notice. True, there were not so many Marines in peace time serving afloat; but that body could always be depended on to supplement the Land Forces, and were a great auxiliary to the Army. The late Secretary to the Admiralty, when he brought forward the Estimates, made a very able statement; but the arguments adduced by the right hon. Gentleman were arguments rather in favour of increasing the Force than of reducing it. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that the number of men on board of a ship had been very much reduced during the last 20 years. He believed the right hon. Gentleman compared the years 1862 and 1882. No doubt the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was quite true; and though now-a-days they did not require the same number of blue jackets, so large a proportion being artificers and stokers, on board of a ship, he thought they must all admit that if at any time they had to land a force they would be rendered more dependent upon the Marines. He recollected the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary giving the authority of Lord St. Vincent, that if ever the hour of real danger should come to England, the Marines would be found of the utmost service to the country. The right hon. Gentleman quoted other high authorities to the same effect, and it was a well-known fact that, whenever our war vessels were called upon to send men ashore, the first to be told off were the Marines. But surely these were arguments for retaining the Force at its ordinary strength, rather than reducing it. But what was it the Board of Admiralty had done? It was quite true that they had improved the condition of the general Service at a cost of £24,000 per annum. But in order to improve that condition they had reduced the number of Marines by 600. He did not hesitate to say that the House of Commons, and the country at large, would have been perfectly willing, and even anxious, to pay £24,000 per annum in order to improve the position of the Marines; but they would not wish to improve that Service by reducing the strength of the Force. It
480
was impossible, at the present moment, to exaggerate the importance of the Royal Marines. The present Board of Admiralty had also improved the position of the Engineers; but though he regretted to say that they had done it upon the same principle, he did not find so much fault with it. It was rather, he thought, a politic movement. Her Majesty's Government were inclined to regard the artificers as being in many instances quite able to do the work of engineers. He was not inclined to object to that view, and therefore he did not find fault with what the Government had done; but in regard to the Engineers generally he thought it was a mistake to reduce the strength of the Force, especially at the present moment, when everybody felt anxious owing to the complicated state of European affairs. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty—if it were found necessary to land Marines at Alexandria—would fully consider what number of men our ships would be able to land. Of course, he did not expect the hon. Gentleman to reply to that question; but he wanted the Secretary to the Admiralty to tell them that the Admiralty had decided to recruit up to the point that it was deemed necessary to retain, and that the strength of the Force should not on any account be allowed to go below it. He again wished to express his regret at the absence of the late First Lord of the Admiralty; but he was authorized to state that these were the views which, if his right hon. Friend had been present, he intended to express, no doubt with greater effect than he (Sir Massey Lopes) had been able to express them.
MR. GORSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty what changes the Admiralty proposed to make in the nomination for the appointment of naval cadets? His hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had called attention, a short time ago, to the condition of the administration of the Navy, and to the pressure which was constantly brought to bear upon it. Since that time the late Secretary had been appointed to another position, and the misfortune was that his Successor might not feel him-self bound to carry out the engagements entered into by his Predecessor. Last Session a very interesting debate took place on the subject of naval cadets, and great hopes were held out by the late

481
Secretary to the Admiralty that, in the first place, the competition for the appointment of naval cadets would be thrown open in the same manner as the appointments in the Army, and that the appointment would not be retained any longer as a piece of patronage by the First Lord of the Admiralty for the time being. He should like to know whether any steps had been taken to fulfil the expectations held out by the late Secretary to the Admiralty that something would be done in this direction? He failed to see why, if officers of the Army could be obtained by open competition, a similar course might not be pursued in reference to the Navy. Seeing the Secretary for War in his place, he would ask him to say whether any objection was entertained to the system of open competition in the Army? And if they could get officers for the Army in that way, why on earth should they not obtain officers in the Navy in the same manner? The same rule ought to be followed throughout the Public Service, and all appointments should be thrown open to public competition. Another hope or prospect held out by the late Secretary to the Admiralty was that the Admiralty would consider the desirability of appointing naval cadets of a more advanced age. At present, many of the naval cadets appointed were mere children taken out of the public schools, and placed in institutions where they received very indifferent teaching. Many of these schools were of an inferior character, and these boys learned less than they would learn anywhere else, and their future ability as naval officers was very little advanced. Two years ago, Lord Dalhousie, then a Member of the House of Commons, made an interesting speech upon this subject, in which he condemned the system in terms which no one of less experience than himself would have liked to use. He believed the opinion expressed by Lord Dalhousie was shared by a large number of naval officers of experience, and there was a general impression that it would be much better to appoint naval officers of more advanced age—say, from 16 to 17—who would be able to go to sea when appointed. No other country appointed children to be naval officers, and he wished to know if any intention existed on the part of the Board of Admiralty to alter the age at which naval cadets
482
were appointed? That was the second point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty. The third point had reference to a question on which he understood that a distinct pledge had been given. He had called the attention of the late Secretary to the Admiralty to the fact that all the public schools of the country were examined by a Syndicate sent from Oxford or Cambridge, and he had suggested that the naval schools for the training of officers of the Navy should be subjected to a similar examination. He believed that the education given on board such ships as the Britannia was not of the highest class, and it was most desirable that there should be an examination by a Board of Examiners from Oxford or Cambridge, who should present a Report, so as to enable the House to form an estimate of the value of the instruction given.
SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, that on a previous occasion when the Navy Estimates were brought forward, he had brought two subjects under the notice of the Government. One had reference to the Royal Marines, and up to the present moment no definite answer had been given to the question he had asked. That question was one which he had put to the present Chief Secretary for Ireland when Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Trevelyan)—namely, whether a general officer would be appointed to superintend the management of the Royal Marines at the Board of Admiralty? He had not received any reply from any Member of the Government up to the present time. The Royal Marines now consisted of a body of men something like 13,000 in number, and he had argued most strongly, on the previous occasion to which he referred, that they were a body of men who ought to be represented upon the Board of Admiralty by a responsible Minister; and he would ask most earnestly whether any decision had been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government upon that point? He was of opinion that, considering all things and having regard to what might take place, he was entitled to have an answer to that question. He also wished to urge, as strongly as possible, the points which, had already been mooted in the course of the discussion in connection with the reduction of the Royal Marines in the present year. A short time ago he had

483
spoken in the most emphatic terms against the proposed reduction of the Force by 600 men, and he thought the events which had lately occurred proved most conclusively that the reduction which had been in contemplation, and which he hoped the Committee would be assured had not yet been carried out, would be a most undesirable one. The Royal Marines were a most efficient body of men, and he had urged in the month of February that if any emergency were to arise, such as that which had arisen within the last few weeks, it would be necessary to rely upon the services of this important Corps. He was glad that the question had been referred to by other hon. Members, and, if not too late, he sincerely hoped that the reduction would not be carried out. There was also another question which he had brought before the House on a previous occasion, and upon which he had obtained no answer. He had asked several questions last year with regard to the Royal Warrant which was issued in connection with the Army, and also the Warrant for the re-organization of the Marines; but he had received no definite reply. In the month of June last year the present Chief Secretary for Ireland said, that the delay in the production of the scheme for extending the Royal Warrant for the Army to the Royal Marines would not affect the promotion or pay of any one, and that all the changes would date from the 1st of July, 1881. He humbly submitted that that engagement had not been carried out, because the retirements in the Royal Marines were not gazetted until the month of December, 1881, and it would not involve a very great charge upon the Exchequer if the engagement even now were adhered to. There were only a very few officers interested in the matter; but to those few officers it was a question of great importance, seeing that their prospects, both in regard to pay and promotion, had been very much impaired, owing to their not having been gazetted on the 1st of July, 1881, in accordance with the engagement made by the Government. Instead of their having been gazetted at that date, they were not gazetted until December, 1881, and certain officers who ought to have been promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel were passed over by several hundred officers in the Army. That
484
was a matter of very great importance to officers who were quartered in garrison in Ireland. The undertaking the House had from the Secretary of the Admiralty last year was that nothing should interfere with the promotion of these officers, and that they should not suffer in consequence of the delay of the re-organization of the Royal Marines. He hoped that the present Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to give the Committee some assurance that the claim of these officers had been taken into consideration, and that justice would be done to them. It was a very great hardship that any of these officers should be passed over, after the assurances which had been given by the late Secretary to the Admiralty. The only officers affected were two lieutenant colonels, two majors, three captains, and one or two quartermasters, so that the expense of carrying out the arrangement proposed by the Government would not be very great. He would not say anything further upon that subject. He did not ask for a positive answer that evening; but he did hope that the Secretary to the Admiralty would take the matter into consideration, if he was unable to give an answer now. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that several months ago a promise was made that the matter should be taken into consideration, and that a reply should be given. In regard to the proposed reduction of the Royal Marines, he would only say that he looked upon it as a great mistake to reduce a Force which would be most useful and effective in the present emergency, especially when it was well known that the reduction was only made from motives of false economy, to provide retiring pensions for officers.
CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, it was now more than three months since they had the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty. The first place in that statement had been given to a consideration of the claims of the Marines, and as the Committee had already heard something from more than one Member about that Force, he should like to occupy a few minutes in supplementing what had fallen from other hon. Gentlemen. First of all, he would endorse what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down as to the necessity of giving a seat at the Board of Admiralty to an officer of that Corps, who would more fully represent

485
the interests of the Marines than they were represented at present. A fuller representation was necessary, as they had too long been accustomed to see the claims of the Force far from being liberally dealt with by the Board. The Force had been shuffled about from one Service to the other. At one time it had been convenient to look upon it as part and parcel of the Army, and at another time to look upon it as part and parcel of the Navy; so that, between two stools, the Marines had always fallen to the ground. Besides this, he would venture to suggest to the present Secretary to the Admiralty, that in all cases where a Marine was being tried by court martial on board ship, it was desirable that one member of the court should be a Marine officer, and at present that was not the case. He had intended, during the progress of legislation last year, to have taken action in order that some provision should be made for this, but circumstances had not favoured him. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would look into the question, no doubt he would find that there was considerable disposition amongst the authorities to agree to his proposal, and it was only fair that such should be the case. They all liked to hear of a man being tried by his peers, and it was constantly the case that Marines were tried by a court martial consisting entirely of naval officers, and that questions cropped up before the court that could only be properly understood and decided by officers of the Corps to which the prisoner belonged. He remembered a complicated case not very long ago, that of Lieutenant Woods, a Marine officer, who was tried within a stone's throw of a number of Marine officers at Plymouth, and yet was tried entirely by naval officers. The injustice of this case was felt by not only the Marine, but the Naval officers as well, and, in fact, by the whole Service. This was felt to be a considerable grievance, and he did not think there would be any difficulty in removing that grievance, because on most of the Naval stations—indeed, upon all of them, except, perhaps, the Australian and Pacific stations—there were Marine officers of the rank of captain. There were no Marine officers of that rank on the two stations named; but in these places the force only numbered some 250 men in the one case and
486
180 in the other. A great deal had been said on the question of a reduction of the Force, and he agreed with what had fallen from hon. Members. It was humiliating, when they came to think of it, that when a grievance had existed for years, and had been admitted by Lord Northbrook in the other House and the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Trevelyan), it should be stated to Parliament and the country that it could only be remedied by a reduction in the efficiency of the Force. That reduction had taken place to the extent of 600 or 700 men. The late Secretary to the Admiralty had endeavoured to reconcile the House to this state of things by saying that in these days the number of Marines on board ship was very much smaller than it used to be, and if they were to send more than one-half the force on board a vessel than they used to send, they would be crowding the ship, and putting more than the proper complement of Marines on board. He did not think that, in these days, it was necessary that the Marines should be at sea half their time. It was necessary some time ago. Everyone must admit that seamanship occupied a very much inferior position now compared with gunnery than it did some years ago. There was not such a necessity now to "salt" the Marines, to use a term in common use 20 or 30 years ago, as there used to be. He should think if one-third of the Force was at sea at a time it would be quite sufficient. No doubt, it would be desirable to have more of them at sea at one time; but the advantage they would derive if they had only one-third of them at sea at a time in having a larger force at home would compensate for any disadvantage. It was said this Force was one of the finest forces in the whole of Her Majesty's Service; and when he had advocated an increase of pay, or an increase of pension, or any other advantage to the Corps, he had been told that they must not compare them with their comrades in the Line. They were told that the Marines had certain advantages which compensated for the deficiency in pay. Two or three years ago there was a large increase given to the Line, but the Marines did not share in it. They were told, when they drew the attention of the Government to it, that the Marines had certain advantages that the Lines-

487
men had not. Well, this was a question he did not wish to go into, because it involved the consideration of many complicated details; but they must not forget that the Marine was a superior man to the Linesman. He did not wish to be invidious, but that had always been considered to be the case, and it was the case at the present moment. Last year he obtained a Return from official sources showing one or two particulars with regard to this matter. He had asked for particulars as to the average length of service of the Marines serving in the garrison at Plymouth, and other particulars, as compared with the average length of service of the Linesmen serving in the garrison at that port—the men of the 23rd Regiment and the 13th Regiment. He found that the average height of the Marine private was 5 feet 7 inches, and that of the private in the 23rd and the 13th Regiments 5 feet 6 inches. He found that the weight of the Marine private was 159 lbs., and that of the private in the 13th Regiment 154 lbs. Then the average age—and this was an important matter—was in the Marines 26 years, and in the 13th Regiment only 22 years, and in the 23rd Regiment only 19¾ years. Here, then, they had the private of the 23rd Regiment, who was in years a mere boy, getting higher pay than a Marine private 26 years of age. Then as to the average length of service; in the case of the private of Marines it was eight years, whilst in the case of the private of the 13th Regiment it was three and a-half years, and in the case of the private of the 23rd Regiment only two and a-half years. He had asked, also, for information as to the percentage which had passed the School Standard. He could not get the record as regards the private of Marines, but he did with regard to the corporals and sergeants. In the Marines all had passed the School Standard, but in the 23rd Regiment only one-half the sergeants, or, strictly speaking, 51 per cent and 75 per cent of the corporals had passed the Standard. These were a few facts which would go to show that the Marine was not only worthy of his hire, but was a superior man, and a man better worth paying than the Linesman. He (Captain Price) had asked a question the other day about the pension of colour sergeants in the Marines.
488
He dared say the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would remember the answer he had given. His (Captain Price's) point was that the pension of colour sergeants was 2s. 3d. in the Marines and 2s. 6d. in the Line.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The maximum in each case.
CAPTAIN PRICE: Yes; and the hon. Member had answered him by saying that it had been proposed that, in this respect, the Services should be assimilated; but they had not been assimilated, for the reason that the Greenwich pension was enjoyed by the Marine and not by the Linesman. The hon. Member should remember, however, that the Greenwich pension was not paid until a Marine had reached the age of 55. In the Line the colour sergeant might retire at 38 or 39 on his 2s. 6d. a-day; but the Marine sergeant only got 2s. 3d., although, if he should live until the age of 55, and should be fortunate enough to satisfy certain officials, he would come in for another 3d. The hon. Member, he thought, would see his point. There was another thing in connection with this that he wished to point out, and that was that it was only upon the Marine showing that he was in poor circumstances that he was entitled to the Greenwich pension at all. Of late years it had grown the practice to make use of the Greenwich Fund to supplement the Imperial Fund in the same way for paying the Navy. When it suited the Admiralty, they said—"Oh! the Greenwich Fund is a sort of charity. We cannot give it to anyone until they have attained the age of 55. If we find his circumstances are pretty good, we do not give it at all." And when it suited the Admiralty, on the other hand, in reply to hon. Members who stated that the Marines were not paid as well as the Line, they said—"Oh! but there is the Greenwich Fund from which they derive extra pension." There was one more point with regard to the Marines to which he wished to call attention, and that was the pension of the widows of warrant officers. In the Army warrant officers' widows got a certain pension; but in the Marines that was not the case, and he was at a loss to know why it should not be. He did not know whether the Admiralty had any intention of making a better arrangement with re-

489
gard to the pension of these widows; but he hoped they had, and that something would be heard about it very shortly. The next subject which had been touched, on by the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Trevelyan) was the question of the naval engineers. The hon. Member had gone very fully into that matter. Well, on behalf of his (Captain Price's) constituents, he must thank not only the present Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), but the late Secretary to the Admiralty for what had been done with regard to this branch of the Service. The present Admiralty had carried out very loyally the plan which was, he believed, sketched out by the last Administration. He did not know whether they had gone the full extent of what was sketched out, because he did not exactly know what the plan had been; but with regard to the engineers, he thought the late Secretary to the Admiralty had made a little too much of what had been done, having told the House in very distinct terms that they should now consider that the engineer officers were by no means a badly paid class of men. The hon. Member had given them certain comparisons which he had no doubt had a great deal of weight with the House; but he thought that those who were fully conversant with the matter would not look upon the comparisons given as altogether satisfactory. He was sorry the late Secretary to the Admiralty was not present, because he should have to quote a little from what the right hon. Gentleman had said. On a previous occasion he told the House that he must compare them, in the first place, with the executive officers of the Navy; and he went on to say that none of those officers, except a captain, received a higher rate of pay than the maximum of the engineers. But the right hon. Member had neglected to tell them how difficult it was for an engineer to get his maximum, and that was one great grievance that these officers had. There was a clause in the Regulations dealing with the pay and pensions of the engineers, which provided that it was only on an engineer officer obtaining the rank of chief engineer that he should begin to count certain services for pay and pension. He must serve 11 years as chief engineer before he could count the whole of the
490
time he had served as an engineer. But then there was another provision, which was that at the age of 55 a chief engineer should be compulsorily retired. Now, as the average age at which a man became a chief engineer was from 42 to 44, the House would see that it was almost impossible for an officer to have served 11 years so as to count sufficient time to enable him to a full pension. If he did not count the whole 11 years—if he lost even a month—he had to forfeit a considerable amount of pension. The half-pay of a captain was 12 s. 6d. a-day on promotion, and the full pay of a chief engineer, on promotion, was 13 s., so that the half-pay of a captain was almost identical with the full pay of a chief engineer. Then with regard to commanders—and the House would remember the age and length of service entered very materially into these comparisons—the average age of a commander for promotion was 35, when he had seen 12 or 13 years' service, and his pay, on promotion, was £1 1s. But the chief engineer did not get more than 17 s. until he had completed 28 or 29 years' service, and was 50 years of age. Then a comparison had been made with the navigating lieutenants, who were Executive officers. The navigating lieutenant was about 26 years of age on promotion, and he got 12 s. a-day. An engineer got 11 s. per day after six years' service; but by the time he was promoted to be chief engineer he received 13 s. a-day, while the navigating officer was in receipt of £1 a-day. The next comparison which had been made was with the Civil branch of the Service. The hon. Member, he thought, had spoken about the paymasters. The paymaster of a troopship or a flagship might be receiving £693 a-year, whereas a chief engineer could not receive more than £470 a-year. He must apologize to the Committee for going into these details; but the ex-Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Trevelyan) had gone into them at considerable length. The right hon. Member had said, turn to the Merchant Service. They found that the chief engineer on board of a man-of-war got as much as £400 to £470 a-year, whilst a first engineer on board one of the great packet ships was paid at the rate of £18 to £22 a-month. But the late Secretary to the Admiralty had taken

491
those ships which served in the home trade, where engineers were paid at about that rate. This did not seem to be the fact when they came to some of the foreign trades—China, for instance. In the China trade, the first engineer got from £40 to £70 a-month, or about three times the sum mentioned by the late Secretary to the Admiralty. And, more than this, the mess of these officers in the Merchant Service was paid for them. Their linen was found, and he thought he was right in saying that they also had a right to trade. They might have an interest in the cargo, and, in many cases, they also got a bonus from the consignees of the cargo; so that the engineers were much better off in the Merchant Service than in the Navy. The chief engineer onboard the Great Eastern got £1,000 a-year. No doubt, he should be told, that that was an exceptional case, and so it was; but it must be recollected that though the duties of this officer might be exceptional, and very responsible, they certainly could not be said to be more responsible than those of a chief engineer on board one of our first-class men-of-war. The duty of an officer on a ship of that kind must be far more responsible and far more important than the duty of chief engineer on board the Great Eastern. Any engineer in Her Majesty's Service would be fit to place on board a Cunarder, or any other of the fine ships that traded across the Atlantic. There was, he should think, hardly an engineer in Her Majesty's Service who would not be able to take charge of the engines of any merchant ship; but if the first engineer of an Atlantic Liner were to go on board a man-of-war, it would take him months to learn all the duty that a chief engineer had to do. He thought, therefore, that the Admiralty had very much underrated the duties and importance of this class of officer. Though the thanks of the Service were due to the Government for what they had done, he thought they had not fully appreciated what they were obliged to do in justice to that Service. There was another question to which he certainly ought to draw attention, besides the question of pay and pension, and that was the question of messing. A great deal had been done in that direction, and, no doubt, they could not do all that was desirable at once. They could not make all the engineers mem-
492
bers of the ward-room mess at once, although that might be done at the Royal Naval College at Woolwich. Speaking as a naval officer, he saw no objection whatever to this mess being thrown open to the engineers. At Woolwich the mess was a very large one, and any difficulties of a social character which might exist in an arrangement of this kind would be felt very much less than anywhere else—much less than they might be felt on board ship, where there was a small mess. He now wished to refer to another matter, and that was the case of the engine-room artificers. Those were a very important body of men, and were becoming a very large body. It had been the policy of the late Administration to increase very considerably their numbers, and the men of this body were, to a very large extent, taking the place of the engineers. No doubt, that was very good policy. It had resulted in considerable economy, and not, it seemed to him, at the expense of efficiency; but, having done this, they ought to go a little further in the direction of bettering the position of these "non-commissioned officers," he thought the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Trevelyan) had called them. He called attention to this matter entirely with the view of increasing the efficiency of the Service. The position of the engine-room artificers ought to be a much more responsible one than it was, and he thought it would tend very much to increase the efficiency of that branch of the Service if men received the rank of warrant officers. The experience he (Captain Price) had had in the Service led him to believe that that step would have the effect of largely increasing the efficiency of the Service. These men had to undertake the duties and responsibilities that used to be borne by engineer officers. It was now the case that in almost every ship in the Navy, especially in the smaller ships, the engine-room artificers occupied a most superior position. They were very often in possession of the engine-room. During a certain part of the day they were in sole charge of the engine and boilers, and the whole machinery, in fact, of the engines; and, certainly, if he were commanding a ship in which one of these artificers was in command of the engines whilst the ship was under weigh at sea,

493
he should feel himself relieved from much anxiety if he knew that the man had a superior rating to that which was allowed him now. An improvement in the position of the artificers would tend to a better carrying out of discipline. He was convinced of that. Being in the position of a warrant officer, he would command greater respect and insure greater obedience from those under him; and upon obedience he thought depended not only efficiency, but absolutely the safety of the ship and the lives of those on board. Not only disobedience to a command, but also the slightest hesitation or slowness in carrying out a command by a person in charge of the engine-room, must very often cause a serious accident—he did not think it would be too much to say that it might often cause the loss of the ship and of all on board. He really thought the Admiralty ought to take the matter into their consideration. The change he proposed would not be an expensive one to carry out; but if they were to put these men in the position of warrant officers, he would guarantee that they would be able to perform their duties much better, and that the extra expense would be very little, if any. The Admiralty might say they could not find cabins for these men. Well, they might go without cabins until such time as they could be supplied; and, at all events, they might, in other respects, be treated as warrant officers, wearing the uniform of that class. He had already detained the Committee too long, and he, therefore, would not trouble them with any further observations.
MR. MACLIVERsaid, he supported the views of the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken. It would have been much better, he thought, if the Secretary to the Admiralty had not held out hopes to the chief engineers 12 months ago that their position would be improved—it would have been much better if he had not propounded a scheme that did not benefit them at all. What they required was that they should be placed in the same position, age for age, and service for service, with Executive officers. If they obtained that, they would be satisfied. The scheme was in such an indefinite state, that the chief engineers had good grounds to complain. He also supported the view of the hon. and
494
gallant Member opposite with regard to the engine-room artificers. He thought they were entitled to some consideration, and that it would be a great advantage if they were made warrant officers.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that after the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Price), he had very little to say about the engineers; but there was one point in the Memorandum he held in his hand to which he should draw attention, and one paragraph which he should read. The paragraph was as follows:—
"In addition, the engineer officers would earnestly request that all time served as engineer after the attainment of eight years' seniority in that rank should be allowed to count as 'senior service.' The 11 years which have to be served in the 'senior rank' before the whole of their 'junior service' is allowed to count towards increase of full, half, and retired pay, is a very great hardship, and in many instances deprives officers of £100 a-year in their retiring allowance. Lieutenants—the relative rank of engineers over eight years' seniority—begin to count their senior service from the date of promotion, at from 21 to 25 years of age; whereas the engineer officer only begins to count his senior service from the date of promotion to rank of chief engineer—relative rank of lieutenant over eight years—or at the age of 38 to 44 years. It seems only just, therefore, that these officers—chief engineers—should be permitted to count as senior time all service from the date of attaining the relative rank of lieutenant."
This point had been urged very strongly by two hon. and gallant Gentlemen, and he would not go at any further length into it. He hoped that the Secretary to the Admiralty would consider the case of the engineers, and see how far the Board of Admiralty could add to the concessions made in the time of his Predecessor. There was another point to which he would like the hon. Member (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) to devote his attention—namely, the question of pensions awarded to naval schoolmasters. The answer given to him some time ago by the hon. Member's Predecessor (Mr. Trevelyan) was that the question of the pensions of seamen's schoolmasters was under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty, and had been referred to the Committee now sitting on the subject of Pensions, and that until their Report was received no further information could be given. He did hope the hon. Member would be able to see his way to meet the views of the naval schoolmasters, and place them

495
in the position they wished to be in with regard to pensions. Another question related to engineer artificers. That had been fully treated by his hon. and gallant Friend, in whose remarks he fully concurred. Then there was a question relating to the first-class petty officers of the Navy, who appeared to have been rather overlooked by the Admiralty. The pay of the first-class petty officers was 2s. 2d. per day, with certain privileges if they were divers or torpedo men; but the daily pay of a sergeant in the Army was 2s. 6d. in the Guards, 2s. 8d. in the Cavalry, 2s. 4d. in the Infantry, 3s. 2d. in Garrison Artillery, 3s. 6d. in the Engineers, and 2s. 8d. in the Hospital Corps, and the sergeants had other privileges which were not accorded to a petty officer in the Navy. Then there was another question which he had raised last year, but with which he would not trouble the Committee now at the same length—namely, the question of pensions to widows of Marines and seamen. That question had been brought before the Admiralty on many occasions by officers of high rank in the Navy; but it had not been sufficiently considered. He himself had mentioned the cases in which the widows of seamen, who had lost their lives in emergencies, had received pensions, whereas the widows of others who lost their lives in connection with events of not less importance received no pension at all. The Admiralty had various sources of revenue out of which these pensions might be given to the widows of Marines and seamen without throwing any great cost upon the country; and he earnestly asked the Secretary to the Admiralty to turn his attention to this question, as it was one which excited great interest in the Service, and had attracted the notice of officers of high rank and distinction, and was one which everybody with any knowledge of the Navy felt ought to be urged on the favourable consideration of those to whose hands the Service was committed.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he would not, at this hour of the night, trouble the Committee with any lengthened observations on the naval policy of the country; but he wished to express his concurrence in the protest of his hon. and gallant Friend against the recent reduction in the strength of the Royal Marines. He objected to that as a
496
matter of policy, but he thought it was still more objectionable for the reasons put forward in support of it—namely, that it was necessary to give a certain number of men increased pay, and therefore the number must be reduced to provide the amount necessary for that purpose. He wished also to protest against the reduction of Marines which had taken place. Events at Alexandria and in the Mediterranean were the strongest confirmation of the folly of that reduction at present. The Marines were admitted by everybody who knew anything about the subject at all to be the best landing force that any country could have, and our Marines could be landed and. do work which soldiers, whatever might be their general merits, could not do as well; and he believed that if Sir Beauchamp Seymour had had a larger force of Marines during the recent riots at Alexandria, the British Consul would not have been wounded, and a naval officer would not have been killed. Then there was another point—namely, the present condition of this country in regard to its iron-clads. We were at present embroiled in a dispute not with a great European Power like France or Germany, but with the Egyptians, or rather with a rebellious officer of the Egyptian Army; and what was the condition of this country? If he was not mistaken, there was at this moment only one iron-clad in commission this side of the Rock of Gibraltar, and that was one which was almost admitted to be unseaworthy three years ago. It was true that we had three iron-clads in commission, and a ship or two at Devonport; but if it was necessary to commission the latter, where should we find the Marines to man them? He should like to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to say what, after the present arrangements had been completed, would be the number of Marines available at Devonport, and after the orders which had been mentioned in the newspapers had been carried out at Chatham, what would be the force of Marines available at Chatham? He asked that because he saw in the newspapers that the French iron-clads at Toulon were ready for sea, and that 13,000 Marines—or 500 men more than the whole of our Marine Force—had been drawn from the Northern ports of France and collected at Toulon, in

497
order to man these ships as a landing force in the event of their being required at Alexandria. He should be very glad if the hon. Gentleman could deny that Chatham and Devonport, after the present orders had been carried out, would be almost denuded of Marines, and also that he would see that the reduction of the Marines was a mistake, and would endeavour to restore that Force to its previous strength.
MR. T. C. BRUCEsaid, when the Navy Estimates were before the Committee some time ago, at a late hour the Committee was given to understand that a better opportunity would be given on a future occasion to discuss the very important questions involved in those Estimates. That opportunity had apparently now come; but he was not sure that there was much advantage in regard to the hour, and as the Committee were now discussing the last Vote which concerned the personnel of the Navy, he was afraid at this hour that subject could hardly be dealt with in the manner it deserved. He should not attempt to discuss it at any length; but he wished to express his concurrence in what had fallen from some of the hon. and gallant Members who had already spoken. He hoped the Government would reconsider the proposal to reduce the Marines, for he thought the experience of late years, and of the present time, had proved that the Navy would probably be in the future principally employed in what he might call an amphibious service, and would probably not be much engaged in its own proper element, but in service on land as well as on sea. The fact of the present construction of our ships—the small number of men they carried, and the large proportion of mechanics and engineers among those men—would lead to our relying more than ever on the Marines. It was true, perhaps, that in ordinary circumstances these vessels would not be able to carry a large number of Marines; but he could not help thinking that, under the circumstances in which we were now placed, it would be very desirable to nave a large force of Marines to draw upon for the purpose of landing when there was no enemy at sea and the fighting must be done on shore. There was also the question of the engineers. The late Secretary to the Admiralty had made a comparison between the pay of
498
the engineers in the Royal Navy and the engineers in the Merchant Service; but it seemed to him that there was a great deal of difference in the duties. The engines in the Royal Navy were extremely complicated, and the duty of the engineers was far more difficult and varied than that of engineers in the Merchant Service, in which the engines were of a much more simple construction. The engines in the Merchant Service were not used as those in the Navy were for a great variety of purposes in working the ship. Another consideration was that the ships of the Royal Navy were frequently sent to unhealthy countries, where the men suffered from the nature of the climate, without receiving any higher pay.
BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he wished to urge the claims of the Engineers to special consideration by the Admiralty, and he begged to quote an opinion given by the Junior Lord of the Admiralty that the value of the engineer officers was universally recognized, especially as the machines under their charge were now so complicated. The pay of those officers had not increased in the ratio as the increase amongst other ranks of officers. At the age of 40 a chief engineer received 13 s. a day; an Executive officer, 23 s. 6d.; a navigating officer, 18 s.; a medical officer, 24 s., and an account officer, 15 s.; but at 55 the mean rate of pay per day of an engineer officer was 12 s. 1d.; an Executive officer, 19 s. 7d.; a navigating officer, 15 s. 5d.; a medical officer, 22 s. 5d., and an account officer, 15 s. 10 d. He thought those figures sufficiently proved that these officers were not paid in proportion to their services, or to the pay of other officers, and the testimony of the Junior Lord established the fact that their duties were extremely onerous. He therefore hoped the Admiralty would award them the remuneration due to their services.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he wished to support the appeal for a further consideration of the case of naval engineers. As the proposal made by the late Secretary to the Admiralty had not yet been put in force, there was yet time for the Government to give further favourable consideration to the claims of these men. He could not possibly conceive any similarity between the responsibilities of an engineer officer in the Royal Navy and

499
those of an engineer in the Merchant Service. In the case of an engineer in the Merchant Service, he had to keep his machinery going simply for carrying purposes, or for going from port to port as quickly and as safely as possible; but in the case of a naval engineer, he had charge of machinery of a very complicated and important nature, and he had not only always to maintain it in efficiency, but he must always be ready for action, and he had in that case to consider the safety, the honour, and the interests of the nation. Then these engineers were frequently sent to very hot climates for considerable periods at a time, which destroyed their health and shortened their lives, and these considerations ought to be taken into account in estimating the services of these men. He hoped there was yet time for the Government to consider the claims of these men, without whom the Navy would be absolutely valueless. It was impossible to overrate the immense importance of their work, and their claims ought to be considered in proportion to their importance. The case of the artificers was also one calling for the consideration of the Government. He understood that these men were not asking for any very considerable increase in their pay, and it could easily be shown that what they asked for would add greatly to the advantage of the Service, and to the efficiency of their duties on board ship. He hoped that another year much more time would be allotted for the consideration of all these questions. It was very objectionable that the questions affecting the Navy should be discussed late at night. It was not creditable to the House or to the country. It was not the fault of the Government altogether to-night; but he hoped they would so arrange on another occasion that there would be a fair opportunity for full consideration of these important matters.
MR. PULESTONsaid, he objected to the principle laid down in the answer of the Secretary to the Admiralty to a question put to-day, that because a scheme was carried out in 1876 it could not be re-opened in 1882. He quite concurred with hon. Members who had spoken that the practice of dealing with these Estimates without proper discussion was a scandal. Last year the Estimates had to be taken at the fag-end of the Session, when there was scarcely anybody pre-
500
sent, and he did not agree with the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) that it was not the fault of the Government, because he thought they had occupied the time of the House with matters of far less consequence. There had been worthless debates on such questions as the policy of the House of Lords, and it was perfectly useless to take up any important question with regard to the Navy at 2 o'clock in the morning. No one was then in the humour to listen to arguments, and it was no use talking. He hoped the remaining Votes would have a fuller consideration than the Votes taken to-night. The naval engineers, perhaps, might be thankful for favours to come which were promised by the late Secretary to the Admiralty; but when the time came for the fulfilment of those pledges a new scheme was introduced, which put them in a worse position than they were previously in. He quite appreciated the difficulties in regard to this question; but what he complained of was that the reforms, which were so essential for the efficiency of the Service, were taken up in a piecemeal way, and when they were given were not effective, and did not keep up at all with the progress of the country and the necessities of the Service. There was a great deal to be done, not only with reference to the engineers, but all through the Dockyards and the Naval Service generally, in equalizing the classes of workmen. Reference had been made to the question of naval schoolmasters. Those men were very much worse off than the other classes referred to, for they only got half the pension of a Marine. It was a great mistake to allow a class of such importance to be dissatisfied with their allowances and pensions, and he hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would take note of their case with a view to improving their position.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, they were now on Vote 2, which related to victuals and clothing for seamen and Marines; and even anyone who was conversant with the mode in which the proceedings of the Committee were conducted would have been puzzled to know what was the Business before the Committee. The proceedings of this evening showed the disadvantage which necessarily attached to the way in which the Votes for all the different Services were brought before the attention of

501
Parliament. Not only had they now to sit until the small hours of the morning to consider the Estimates of various kinds, but they had a discussion in such a fashion that it was perfectly impossible that anything like a logical or intelligible criticism could be sustained by a number of Members on such varied Services of the Navy. He would not attempt to go into the large number of questions which had been raised by different hon. Members, but there was one feature with regard to the Estimates which he thought the Committee ought to take note of. There was an apparent saving on the whole of the Estimates of £221,000. On this particular Vote for victuals and clothing there was, on the other hand, an increase. He thought that the increase in the present Vote required some very detailed and clear explanation. The present Administration came into Office with very loud professions of economy and reform in the Public Service, and to note some of the speeches which were still made by Liberal Members throughout the country, one would be led to believe that something like practical economy, combined with efficiency, would be carried out. What was the fact with regard to the naval administration of the Government? They acceded to Office in 1880–1, and the figures for that year certainly did show a diminution in. the cash charges of the actual expenditure in connection with the Services. The Effective Votes were reduced by the sum of £141,000, and looking generally at the Estimate, one would be inclined to think that the Government had a right to take credit to themselves for that reduction. Let them examine that reduction in a very simple way, and they would find in reality there was no reduction at all, but in order to produce an apparent reduction, the efficiency of the Service had been shamefully sacrificed. There was a reduction of £141,000 in the Effective Vote, but, on the other hand, there was an increase in the Non-Effective Vote of the sum of £54,000. Whether a reduction of Effective Services was good or not depended very much upon the efficiency of the Service in connection with which the expenditure was lessened; but an increase in the Non-Effective Vote contributed nothing to the efficiency of the Service, and was a dead loss to the
502
country. The reduction of £141,000 in the Effective Vote, reduced by the £54,000 increase in the Non-Effective Vote, left a balance of £87,000. The Government could not take credit for the reduction of £87,000 at all, because, in connection with the present Vote for victuals and clothing, if hon. Members would turn to the Navy Victualling Accounts of 1880–1, they would find that at the beginning of the present Government's administration, they took over from their Predecessors victuals remaining in store in April, 1880, of the total value of £534,924. In the first year of Office of the present Administration that amount of stock had been reduced to £458,000—that was to say, the whole of the reduction in expenditure in the Votes represented the diminution of stock in the victualling yards, and that was what was called economy and efficient administration. Besides that, the Victualling Yards' Return presented a number of very curious and interesting features which would repay examination by any hon. Member. At this late hour he would not occupy the attention of the Committee unduly; but he had shown, he thought, how the whole of the reduction on the Naval Estimates was accounted for by the reduction of stock in the victualling yards alone. But that was not the whole of the story, because, when he took up the Appropriation Accounts for the same year, audited and reported upon by the Controller and Auditor Genera], he found that over and above the reduction of stock in the victualling yards there was a further reduction in still more important yards—namely, the Dockyards. The value of the stock in these yards in the beginning of the financial year 1880–1, as would be seen from the Dockyard Expenses Account, was, on the 1st of April, 1880, £2,967,000. On the 31st March, 1881, the end of the first administrative year of the present Administration, that value had been reduced to £2,757,000, or by a sum approaching a quarter of a million of money. Well, that was too much for the present Government to face, and in order to account for some, at least, of that reduction they had claimed that the difference was due, to a certain extent, to the variation in the rates. He knew something about the way in which those rates were assessed, and he was convinced that the variation

503
in rates, put into plain and honest figures, was depreciation in value, so he must object to the reduction on that account, at any rate to the full extent—£76,000. Even admitting that that was a fair explanation of the difference to the amount of £76,000, there still remained the difference between £2,967,000 and £2,853,000—namely, £113,600. Now, he had dealt with two different Returns, the Victualling Yards and the Dockyards Returns, and they showed that instead of a reduction in expenditure on the whole account, there was a small reduction on Cash Accounts to the extent of £141,000, which was entirely met by the increase in some other Votes, while the great expenditure and reduction in the stock in the victualling yards and dockyards and naval stores was entirely unaccounted for. He would not dwell further on that matter, except for the purpose of pointing out that in the present Estimates there was a new feature, which he had mentioned on a previous occasion, and that was that the money which used to be paid into the Exchequer as Exchequer Extra Receipts was now being taken in aid of the Votes, and that, consequently, there was the appearance of the Votes being lighter than they really were, because in order to obtain information as to what the actual amount of the charge was, they must add the total shown on the total page to the amount taken in aid. Under the circumstances, it became more than ever important that some system of stocktaking should prevail on which the Committee could have something like reliance. The Controller and Auditor General had, over and over again, pointed out that he had no means of properly checking this Department of the Administration; and when they came to consider that such a Return as was now presented in this Blue Book, with regard to the Victualling Account alone, contained, he thought, £500,000 worth of shoes, £178,000 of blue cloth No. 2, and £164,000 of half boots, without any apparent means of checking the issue, or checking their condition, it was time that they should ask the Government to give the Committee some assurance that practical steps would be taken to institute a complete system of independent check and stocktaking, which the House of Commons should have resort to. So much with regard to the general expenditure. With regard to the details
504
of this particular Vote, he should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty if he could account for the fact that, besides "The provisions received under contract," there was a second head—namely, "Saving of payments for provisions not taken up," that amounted to about a quarter of the whole? It seemed an extraordinary thing to one not connected with the administration of the Navy, that 25 per cent of the expenditure for victualling seamen and Marines should be taken out in cash. There must be something requiring investigation, something surely calling for explanation, in a feature so extraordinary as this. Then he must ask the hon. Gentleman, also, whether the Marines in service in Ireland were subject to the same regulations in respect to rations as the Marines were in this country, or did they enjoy any exceptional privileges in connection with rations; and he would also ask whether they received any separation allowance for their wives and children which was not given to the Marines in this country?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he would endeavour, with the indulgence of the Committee, to answer the various questions that had been addressed to him. In the first place, he must say that he shared the regret that had been expressed at the late hour this discussion had come on; but he was bound to point out to the Committee that the Government ought not be blamed in the matter, inasmuch as this was the third Government night on which the Navy Estimates had been the First Order on the Paper. Although they had not got the full benefit of the time thus devoted to Naval Estimates, he did not think the Government was at all in fault. With regard to the future, he believed it was his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) who asked if he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) could not give a promise to take an early day for the discussion of naval matters more in detail. It certainly was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Head of the Government that a day should be given in July, and by giving a day the right hon. Gentleman, of course, meant that it should be a substantial opportunity of discussing the most important Votes. He (Mr. Campbell - Bannerman) was not in a

505
position to give any pledge beyond that. The hon. and gallant Member for Essex (Colonel Makins) made some observations on the subject of the Marines, and suggested that the Marines deserved to be, and ought to be, represented on the Board of Admiralty, and his hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Henry Fletcher) joined in supporting that proposal. It seemed to him (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) that this was not altogether a reasonable request, because, in the first place, he rather disputed the view that was implied—the view that an officer was required on the Board of Admiralty to represent the interests of a certain section of the Service. If an officer was appointed to the Board of Admiralty, it was as an Executive administrative officer, and he was not placed there to represent the peculiar interests of a certain section of officers or men. He did not know that it had ever been suggestsd, for instance, that the Royal Artillery, or Royal Engineers, should have at the War Office a separate Adjutant General for themselves. The Adjutant General was responsible in the first place, and the Deputy Adjutant Generals for the Royal Artillery and Engineers under him managed the discipline of the particular branches of the Service to which they belonged; and as to the Admiralty, there was a Deputy Adjutant General, and an Assistant Adjutant General under him, who, under the Naval Lords, had the control of all the affairs of the Navy and the Marines. He did not think it could be said the interests of the Marines were not fully considered, or that any matter connected with them did not receive all the attention that it deserved. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Makins) also pointed out that there was a stagnation of promotion in the Marine Artillery; that the promotion had been greatly improved, as he understood it, in the Marine Infantry, but not in the Marine Artillery. Something had been done for both, but possibly there might be some inequality in the promotion of the two branches of Marines; but at this moment he could only say he would look into the matter. He could not, however, make an absolute promise; there had been a great deal done to improve the promotion, but it was quite possible it might not have been as effective in the Artillery as in the Infantry. His hon.
506
and gallant Friend had alluded also to the case of Major Bramwell. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would look into the case; it was quite a new matter to him. His right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir John Hay) also alluded to the question of Marines. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman appeared to him (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) to make, for a countryman of his, who ought to be logical if anything, an extraordinary error; he confused post hoc with propter hoc. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he was glad to find that in consequence of his observations on the question, the Admiralty were now sending out some vessels of lighter draught to the Mediterranean. He and his Colleagues attached great weight, as they ought to do, to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's opinion; but he could not flatter him by saying it was altogether due to the observations he made that certain ships of lighter draught had been sent out to the Mediterranean. It was true the Admiralty had sent out an additional number of ships to the Mediterranean, and it so happened there were amongst the number some which were of a lighter draught than those already there when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the matter. He did not wish, however, on this occasion to enter into the question of the military preparations in the Mediterranean, or to discuss what had happened, or what had been prepared for any eventualities that might occur. His right hon. and gallant Friend made another observation of the same kind; he said that they had reduced the number of Marines in order to meet the increase of pay. He could not help thinking that that was a fallacy which had been repeated by a great many hon. Members. The real reason of the reduction was stated by his right hon. Predecessor (Mr. Trevelyan), who had said that the complement of ships had been much reduced, and that, as the Marines bore a certain proportion to the rest of the men on board ship, fewer Marines were required. It was a well-known fact that fewer Marines were now found on board ship than formerly. The real point was this, that it was not thought advisable, for the maintenance of the efficiency of the Corps, that there should be more than a certain propor-

507
tion between the men afloat and the men ashore. Seeing that the number of Marines who were required on board ship had been greatly decreased, it was also reasonable there should be a certain decrease in the number on shore; that was the reason for the reduction that had been made. There was, as had been pointed out by an hon. Gentleman opposite, a year or two ago a reduction of 1,000 Marines which was carried out by the late Board of Admiralty. [Sir JOHN HAY: To which I objected.] He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was not making any comlaint at all, but showing that it had been the idea of the Admiralty for some time past that a reduction of the number of Marines was possible. There might be a great deal to say against a reduction; he was not prepared himself, not being so fully conversant with the matter as he might be, to give all the reasons that might be alleged on the question. But he would point out this, that so far, at all events, as concerned the immediate circumstances of the day, he did not imagine that the reduction had as yet had any effect at all; he did not imagine that there were many fewer Marines in the Service now than there would have been if the policy of reduction had not been adopted a month or two ago. [Sir JOHN HAY: Four hundred.] Four hundred less than under the late establishment? He was not quite sure, but, at any rate, the argument that the Marines were depleted by the number sent to the Mediterranean was no argument at all. If, when required, an additional force of Marines could not be sent away from England, the thing would be reduced to an absurdity.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that what he had asked was, would there be sufficient Marines at home, after the additional force had been sent away, to man the ships at home, supposing the Marines were required for that purpose?
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, that was another question. He would not insist upon it, but he thought that his right hon. and gallant Friend contended that if they sent 6,000 away, they ought to maintain the Reserve at its full strength. Inquiries had been made also by some hon. Members, amongst whom he thought was the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox), whether Sir Beauchamp Seymour, in command of the Mediterranean
508
Squadron, ought not to have a larger force of Marines at his disposal?
LORD HENRY LENNOXbegged to say that he had never asked anything of the kind.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANbegged the noble Lord's pardon. He would point out this, that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had the full force of Marines that his ships could carry. In ordinary times they could not have a larger number of Marines in the ships than the full complement of the ships, and whatever force Sir Beauchamp Seymour had capable of being landed at Alexandria would correspond with the number and size of the ships that he had under his command.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he would not interrupt the hon. Gentleman at this late hour, but he should have another opportunity of entering into the subject.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, the hon. Member for South Devonshire (Sir Massey Lopes) was the first, he thought, to allude to the case of the engineer officers, and several other hon. Gentlemen had gone into that matter. The Admiralty had done for the engineer officers not certainly all those officers asked for, or all that might have been done, perhaps, in the opinion of some of the officers' friends; at the same time, they had made a very substantial improvement in their condition. He might say that what his right hon. Predecessor had announced with regard to these men was not the complete scheme of the Government. He did not wish to give rise to any great expectations; but still there were many of the points alluded to to-night that would be found to be met, he thought, in some degree, when the scheme ultimately came out. The whole scheme was really founded upon the principle of decreasing the number of the engineer class and increasing the number of engine-room artificers. For the engineer class, high capabilities, considerable technical education and training—qualities that were not absolutely necessary for many of the duties they had hitherto had to discharge—were required; and, therefore, it had been thought that the Navy would not suffer in its efficiency if there was a smaller number of highly-trained engineers and a larger number of engine-room artificers. Various advantages had

509
been given to the engineers, including several increases of pay. The increases were not very large, but still they were substantial, and he might say that the separate engineers' mess was being abolished in ships as circumstances would permit. It had been already abolished in the troopships, and in all vessels from corvettes downwards. A good deal had been said about the 11 years' service which was necessary before a chief engineer could count all his time for pension, and it was alleged that this had the effect of entirely preventing them from realizing the full rate of retired pay. No doubt, something might be done to modify that; but, beyond making that statement, he could not at present make any further promise. He would point out, however, that that rule as to 11 years applied to other kinds of officers besides engineers, navigating officers, and paymasters; so that there was no hardship peculiar to engineers. Something, he believed, was intended to be done which would, in some respects, remove their complaint. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had questioned him about the naval cadets, and had quoted something which he said was not exactly a pledge, but an understanding or an undertaking of his (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's) Predecessor, that certain changes would be introduced. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) very much doubted whether his right hon. Friend had ever given any pledge or undertaking on the subject; in fact, it would have been very improper for him to do so, because in regard to a matter of that sort he could not of his own act, if he might use the expression, have given a promise of the kind; but the two points to which the hon. Member had drawn his attention were the adoption of public competition for entry of candidates and the question of age. Well, upon these points opinion was very greatly divided. It had been said that naval officers of great distinction were in favour of the changes proposed. He knew that, but he knew at the same time that there was a great deal to be said on both sides—that there were also many naval officers of great distinction who were opposed to the changes. It was not so one-sided a matter as the hon. and learned Member seemed to think, and all he could say was that the whole question of the en-
510
trance and education of cadets would always have the constant careful attention of the Admiralty. The hon. and gallant Member for Horsham (Sir Henry Fletcher) and the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) said that it would be desirable to have a Marine officer sitting upon all courts martial held upon Marines. No doubt primâ facie, there was a strong case for such an arrangement; but it would be difficult to lay down a certain rule on a question of that kind, because it was obvious that there must be many cases where it would be inconvenient to have Marine officers sitting upon the trial of Marines. He would see whether any arrangement of the sort could be carried out. Comparison between the Line and Marines had been drawn to show that the pay of the latter was insufficient; but to meet arguments advanced in the interests of the engineers and Marines there was one reply which suggested itself, but which he was always reluctant to use or trust to, because it was what he might call a brutal argument. It was one, however, that he might venture to use on this occasion, and that was, that where they found a large number of men in the Service and willing to enter it, they must draw the conclusion that that Service was popular. In both the cases referred to, both in the case of the Marines and engineers, there was no difficulty whatever in obtaining men. In the Marines, the facts which the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Price) himself had given showed that they got a very high class of men. Owing to these facts they were able to shut the door very closely, and to be very particular as to the class of men admitted; and if they were to open it more than they did they would at any time be able to get a much larger number of men than they at present required. The comparison drawn between the Line and the Marines was not a fair one. In the Line the age and the period of service had been increased last year, so that the comparison which had been made was now hardly correct. Besides, any comparison of the average age of men serving, founded on long service as compared with short service, was misleading, because in the case of short service it was always contemplated that the ranks should be filled up from the Reserve, He had been questioned with re-

511
gard to the pay of the sergeants, and he could only say that he did not mean to shut the door on this subject at all, but that he rather wished to guard against any idea of a close comparison being instituted between the two Services. As the Committee knew, the whole question of pensions had lately been under the consideration of a Departmental Committee. That Committee had laid its Report before the Board of Admiralty, and they would take the earliest opportunity of considering it. Probably it would be considered in the autumn, and he dared say some changes might result from it. As to the question of widows' pensions generally, he did not know that he should be justified in holding out any hopes in the direction hon. Members thought desirable. But there was one thing that Lord Northbrook had been anxious to accomplish, and that was to have some better provision for the widows of seamen disabled in action or by accident when on service. His noble Friend hoped to be able to do something in the matter in the course of the present Session—at all events, the matter was receiving the most careful and anxious attention. As to the engineroom artificers, several points in regard to them had been brought forward. It had been suggested that they should be made warrant officers, but that was a matter which he could only promise to bring before his Colleagues. The noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) had spoken about a reduction of the Marines; but upon that point he had made a general answer, which he trusted the noble Lord would accept. He did not wish to deny that there might be considerable feeling on the subject, but, as at present advised, he could not undertake that any new policy would be adopted in the matter. The noble Lord asked what number of Marines were available at Devonport and Chatham? He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) could not answer him that question now, but he would be happy to communicate the facts to him privately. The noble Lord had alluded to the French Government as sending a large force of Marines, or being ready to send a large force of Marines—some 13,000 he thought the noble Lord had said—from Toulon.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he had stated that his authority was the
512
newspaper reports of the day, that a force of 13,000 Marines in the French Navy, which was a land force, had been sent from a Northern port of France to Toulon, to embark in the iron-clads in readiness to proceed to sea.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he understood that there was a contrast drawn between our position and that of France with regard to the Marines; but the noble Lord must be aware that the Marines of France were not the same as our Marines. The French "Infanterie de la Marine" were landsmen and not seamen, so that the case the noble Lord had referred to was analogous to our sending a few regiments of the Line on board a troopship
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, it was too late to discuss the matter.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, an hon. Friend had put a question to him to-day as to the settlement made in 1876 as to the retiring allowance to hired workmen in the Dockyards; he did not mean to imply that that was an absolutely final settlement, for, of course, all such matters were open to consideration. As to the pensions of schoolmasters, that subject would be dealt with in the general arrangement effected with regard to pensions, which would be carried out, or, at any rate, carefully considered in the course of the autumn. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had complained of the expenditure in the Navy, and it was refreshing to hear him, for most of the speeches which had been delivered to-night had been speeches recommending increased expenditure, because the improvements which had been urged as desirable to carry out were improvements which would lead to increased cost.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Member had misunderstood him. He had not complained so much of the increased expenditure as the increase in the amount of stores.
MR. PULESTONsaid, he had drawn attention to the irregularity with which the accounts were kept. He had pointed out that the figures were displaced in such a manner as to deceive the Committee. Of course, he did not mean to say that this was done intentionally.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, that what he had been referring to was the statement made before the question of the stores was raised. The

513
hon. Member had compared the reduction in the effective expenditure with the increase which had taken place in the non-effective expenditure. It was a lamentable fact that there had been that reduction and that increase. It did not admit of any denial that in the Navy, as in the Army, for some years past, there had been going on a continued rise in non-effective expenditure which those who now had charge of the two branches of the Service had no power to stop. Engagements had been made with men now serving, and those engagements must be fulfilled. They were endeavouring, however, to the best of their power, to prevent future generations being charged in this respect as heavily as was the present generation. With regard to stock-taking, he could assure the hon. Member who had called attention to it that there was a most elaborate and costly stock-taking effected by skilled officers well qualified to carry it out. The hon. Member desired, it seemed, that there should be an additional stock-taking by the Auditor General.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Yes; an independent stock-taking.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, that one great difficulty in the way of that would be the question of expense. One stock-taking in itself was a very expensive thing, and if they doubled it, the cost would be a very serious matter. However, he quite agreed with the hon. Member that it was very desirable that these things should be looked into most carefully. With regard to the question that had been put to him as to the savings which were effected by the seamen, it had always been a habit in the Navy for the men to have certain rations served out to them; but they were not obliged to take them up, and they did not take them up very frequently, in order that they might have an opportunity of getting a variety of food for themselves. This was the principle which had always been acted upon, and this accounted for the item in the Estimates. He had nothing further to say in regard to the questions which had been put to him, and if he had omitted any point he should be very glad if hon. Members would remind him.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that, with regard to the Marines, if the hon. Member would turn to page 184 of the Estimate
514
he would there find that they were reduced by the number of 600, and that there were 987 fewer good-conduct men than there were last year—that was to say, that in reducing the Force by 600 men they had not only brought about a reduction in strength, but, besides that, taken away 300 good-conduct men. That showed that they had not now such good men as they had before.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, that what the hon. and gallant Member spoke of, he supposed, was the establishment of the year, not the actual number of men in the Force.
SIR JOHN HAY: No; the men in the Force.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he should have thought it would have been the establishment for the year. Of course, if the quality of the men had been let down by recruiting, it would improve as the men were trained.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid, the hon. Member had not said whether he would take into consideration the case of the engineers.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he thought he had sufficiently answered that point. Certain things which had been mentioned were to be done for them, and the Circular which would be issued on the question would not be long delayed.
MR. PULESTONasked whether a complete statement would be made?
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he could not say anything upon that subject.
MR. PULESTONasked whether the Circular would be presented this Session?
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Certainly.
CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, that, with regard to the Marines, in answer to something that fell from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), he should like to remind him that last year Lord Northbrook, in making his statement in "another place," distinctly stated that he could not ask the country for more money, and that the changes which he was making could only be effected by reducing the strength of the corps.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he would take no more Naval Votes to-night.

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a further sum, not exceeding £1,617,250, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, viz.:—

CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
  Great Britain:—

  £

  Houses of Parliament

  4,000

  Monument to Earl of Beaconsfield (Re-Vote)

  Public Buildings

  15,000

  Furniture of Public Offices

  1,000

  Revenue Department Buildings

  20,000

  County Court Buildings

  4,000

  Metropolitan Police Courts

  1,000

  Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland

  1,000

  New Courts of Justice, &c.

  10,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  10,000

  Science and Art Department Buildings

  1,000

  British Museum Buildings

  1,000

  Natural History Museum

  4,000

  Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade

  1,000

  Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland)

  Metropolitan Fire Brigade

  2,500

  Ireland:—

  Public Buildings

  10,000

  Science and Art Buildings, Dublin

  1,000

  Shannon Navigation

  500

  Abroad:—

  Lighthouses Abroad

  1,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  1,000

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
  England:—

  £

  House of Lords, Offices

  5,000

  House of Commons, Offices

  4,000

  Treasury, including Parliamentary Counsel

  5,000

  Home Office and Subordinate Departments

  8,000

  Foreign Office

  6,000

  Colonial Office

  4,000

  Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

  3,000

  Privy Seal Office

  Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

  15,000

  Charity Commission (including Endowed Schools Department)

  3,000

  Civil Service Commission

  3,000

  Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission

  2,000

  Inclosure and Drainage Acts Expenses

  1,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  5,000

  Friendly Societies, Registry

  600

  Local Government Board

  10,000

  Lunacy Commission

  1,000

  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
  England:—

  £

  Law Charges

  10,000

  Public Prosecutor's Office

  600

  Criminal Prosecutions

  10,000

  Chancery Division, High Court of Justice

  20,000

  Central Office of the Supreme Court, &c.

  10,000

  Probate, &c. Registries, High Court of Justice

  10,000

  Admiralty Registry, High Court of Justice

  1,000

  Wreck Commission

  1,000

  Bankruptcy Court (London)

  3,000

  County Courts

  100,000

  Land Registry

  500

  Revising Barristers, England

  Police Courts (London and Sheerness)

  1,000

  Metropolitan Police

  50,000

  County and Borough Police, Great Britain

  1,000

  Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies

  20,000

  Prisons, England

  40,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  35,000

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  2,500

  Scotland:—

  Lord Advocate, and Criminal Proceedings

  5,000

  Courts of Law and Justice

  5,000

  Register House Departments

  3,000

  Prisons, Scotland

  10,000

  Ireland:—

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  5,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  5,000

  Court of Bankruptcy

  1,000

  Admiralty Court Registry

  250

  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
  England:—

  £

  Science and Art Department

  30,000

  British Museum

  15,000

  National Gallery

  3,500

  National Portrait Gallery

  300

  Learned Societies, &c.

  3,500

  London University

  1,000

  Deep Sea Exploring Expedition (Report)

  Transit of Venus

  2,000

  Scotland:—

  Universities, &c.

  National Gallery

  Ireland:—

  Public Education

  70,000

  Teachers' Pension Office

  100

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  100

  National Gallery

  300

  Queen's Colleges

  2,000

  Royal Irish Academy

  CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
  £

  Diplomatic Services

  20,000

  Consular Services

  20,000

  Suppression of the Slave Trade

  500

  Tonnage Bounties, &c.

  1,000

  Suez Canal (British Directors)

  200

  Colonies, Grants in Aid

  2,000

  South Africa and St. Helena

  1,000

  Subsidies to Telegraph Companies

  1,000

  CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.
  £

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  20,000

  Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.

  6,000

  Relief of Distressed British Seamen Abroad

  2,000

  Pauper Lunatics, England

  Pauper Lunatics, Scotland

  20,000

  Pauper Lunatics, Ireland

  10,000

  Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland

  2,000

  Friendly Societies Deficiency

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

  500

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland

  200

  CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
  £

  Temporary Commissions

  3,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  500

  Total for Civil Services

  £1,077,250

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  £

  Customs

  40,000

  Inland Revenue

  150,000

  Post Office

  200,000

  Post Office Packet Service

  Post Office Telegraphs

  150,000

  Total for Revenue Departments

  £540,000

  Grand Total

  £1,617,250

  The Clerk of the House informed the House that Mr. Speaker was unavoidably prevented by indisposition from resuming the Chair during the present sitting of the House:—
  Whereupon Mr. Playfair, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to put a question or two to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. There was in this Vote, unless he was mistaken, a large sum of money asked for the Services in Ireland; and, looking at the variety and importance of the Services, hon. Members would be justified, even at this hour, as the opportunity so seldom occurred, of raising some question on the general policy of the Government in Ireland. He did not propose to take that course on the present occasion, and he would confine himself to asking the Chief Secretary certain questions, and if he received a satisfactory answer he would not go any further. The first question related to the operation of the Statute of Edward III. in Ireland. The Committee would remember that four ladies who were arrested under that Statute had been lately released, and the right hon. Gentleman had stated that 10 persons were still in custody under it, three of whom were ladies. He would, ask how long were these ladies to be kept in gaol? No doubt they were persons of minor importance to those who had been released; but it must be borne in mind that they were suffering a far more severe punishment than if they had been arrested as "suspects" under the Coercion

  519
  Act. When visited in prison, for instance, they had to stand on one side of an iron gate, whilst their friends were on the other, and they were liable to be interrupted by any person passing in and out. They suffered indignities and pains that would be bad enough for men to bear; but it was horrible to think of it when the Committee remembered that they were not men, but women. The right hon. Gentleman had said that these ladies had not been released because they had appealed to a higher Court, and the appeal was still pending. Well, the Irish people had often been told that the Court of Queen's Bench was open to them, and it was asked, "Why don't you appeal to that Court?" Well, they had the extraordinary result now that three ladies, having appealed, were kept in prison, whilst other people had been released, in order that their appeal might be decided upon. He trusted the Chief Secretary would no longer keep these ladies in prison, and that he would be able to say that the seven men also who had been arrested under a Statute 500 years old would be set at liberty. Another question he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman was with regard to the Act of last year. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had stated that, in regard to all cases of "suspects," not themselves personally suspected of being associated with crime, the persons would be released. Well, the three principal men in custody were set at liberty within 24 hours of that announcement; but the more humble members of the Party to which these three gentlemen belonged were still in custody. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said that the reason why the three Members were released was because it was supposed their release would conduce to the interests of law and order in Ireland. Well, surely, the same principle should apply to all the "suspects." The principle of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be that the more speedily the releases were effected the better it would be for law and order; but the releases had proceeded so slowly that six weeks after the right hon. Gentleman's statement he (Mr. Sexton) had asked how many "suspects" were in prison—"suspects" who were not personally associated with crime—and he was told that there were still 91. Well, he had had the Papers
  520
  searched from the date of his Question down to the present day, and he found that only some 17 had been released during the period that had elapsed. That would leave over 70 of these men still in gaol. What was the reason—what was the common sense or fair play of the conduct of the Government in this matter? Why should they add to the punishment of imprisonment the torture of suspense to the families of these men who were expecting from day to day that they would be let out? They were told that the Lord Lieutenant was considering the cases of these men. Surely it was not necessary to consider the cases so closely after the statement of the Prime Minister that at least 20 or 30 a-day could not be let out. Where there was no fear that the result of releasing a man would be to endanger the peace of a particular district, surely that man should be let free, according to the right hon. Gentleman's original statement. Most of these prisoners were connected with the agricultural operations, and the time had now arrived when the absence of these men from their homes meant almost ruin. Harvest-time had commenced, and in every case where a man was in gaol, and his wife or family were in charge of his farm, these people—namely, the wife and family—were subjected to petty persecutions on the part of the police and others. He had received several letters from "suspects" whose families were suffering in this way. He had received a letter from a "suspect" whose wife was endeavouring to till his farm near Enniskillen, drawing a painful picture of the manner in which the police were trying to intimidate her, and the men working for her. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would assure the House that the "suspects" would be set at liberty without any red tape or circumlocution.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the occasion was a very proper one upon which to raise this question, although it was hardly one upon which he could answer with any great minuteness. He should be very sorry to allow it to be thought that the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant and his advisers in the matter of releasing the "suspects" could in any sense be influenced by the extremely important object he (Mr. Trevelyan) and his Colleagues had of easing the passage

  521
  of Supply through, the House. This he said with regard to his answer, not with regard to the hon. Member's observations, because if there was any grievance that could be imagined, it certainly was the grievance of being in prison, and Supply was the time at which to bring grievances forward. With regard to the ladies and others in prison under the Act of Edward III., he had said to-day, at Question time, the method of imprisoning persons in default of bail was used very largely in ordinary cases as well as in agrarian cases. The Lord Lieutenant had considered these cases from time to time, evidently influenced by the length of time the persons had been in prison in comparison with the offence with reference to which their arrest was made. He had given the Lord Lieutenant reasons why he considered there was a distinction between the cases of these three ladies and the other persons who were released, and he still thought it was a legitimate distinction. The ladies had not been imprisoned longer than some of the other persons who were released the other day, and he had no doubt the Lord Lieutenant would carefully consider how they could be dealt with. Since the Protection Act came into operation, there had been 940 arrests which had resulted in 917 persons being placed in gaol, and of those 23 had been twice arrested and 55 had been released. He could not agree that the releases had been slow. It was obvious that, taking the great body of "suspects" as a whole, those who were left to the last would be generally the worst cases. He was not speaking of any particular number, but of the whole number, and the tendency to release would be to grow more slow as time advanced. When the present Irish Executive settled down to work, there were a number of "suspects" in prison—about 365. The principle upon which the Lord Lieutenant had acted in releasing "suspects" had been, above everything, whether they could be released with safety to the country, and to the special districts to which they would return. The Protection Act was passed for the public safety, and it would be worked to the end of its time mainly with regard to the public safety. The hon. Member said that the three Leaders of the movement were at once released when the present Executive commenced its work. He did not hesitate to say that
  522
  their release was absolutely justified by the fact that no injury to the public safety had resulted; and anybody who had watched the course of public events in Ireland in regard to the agrarian movement must see that there was no reason to keep these Gentlemen in prison, and it was much better for the country and for themselves that they should be making speeches in the House than be in prison. He could not, however, see that of all the "suspects" a great number were only in prison for intimidation; but it must be remembered that agrarian crime had been very much mitigated of late, and at this moment the cases of intimidation were very much larger in proportion to the other agrarian crimes than they were four or five months ago, and that was, in itself, a reason for not letting out those prisoners merely because their offence was intimidation, when the Lord Lieutenant was informed by responsible persons that the presence of these men in their own districts would lead to an increase of intimidation. Even now, although there had been a satisfactory diminution of agrarian offences, there were as many offences in a month as there were in a year during the quiet times from 1872 or 1873 to 1879. That was a very serious state of things; and, in that state of things, he thought the Lord Lieutenant would be very much to blame if he released anybody from prison for any other reason than that they might be let out without danger to the public safety. The Protection Act at this moment was the only effective engine which the Government had for dealing with this state of things in Ireland. Hon. Members, he thought, knew pretty well that it was the strong desire of the Government not to keep men in prison even for a day after they were persuaded that the presence of those men in their own districts would not be a source of danger to those districts; and a general assurance was all that he could give at this moment, and he must not be expected to say more. He was quite convinced that the hon. Member would be satisfied that the Irish Government were honestly endeavouring to do justice to all concerned.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, there was one consideration which he hoped the Lord Lieutenant would keep in mind—namely, that even if men were now in prison under a suspicion of

  523
  intimidation, if they had been tried and found guilty, they would have been liable to only three months' imprisonment; whereas, in some cases, they had been kept in prison for 12 or 18 months. That was a matter which no one could see the justice of. He wished to put a question to the Financial Secretary with regard to the Shannon navigation, as he could not make out on what principle the amount was set down as a further Vote on Account. He should have thought the whole of the Vote would have been inserted, because it was of the first importance that these navigation works should be pushed on; for during the summer months, and just at present, it was more of consequence than at any other time to complete those works, because the summer floods were frequently the most destructive in the year. The hon. Gentleman had assured him a few days ago, with respect to the course of the Channel, that the Government had used some pressure to induce the Board of Works to push that work on. Under those circumstances, it was extraordinary that the Government should only ask for £500 for this service. On the day when he had asked for this information he saw a letter from a farmer in a district near the Shannon, in which a great deal of damage had been done, and the least the Treasury could do was to push on the works as quickly as possible. It was plain they would not be able to do that with £500, and he was convinced, from what he had himself seen, that £500 would not be sufficient for three weeks' work with all the men employed. He could not make out the system upon which the Government had divided these figures, and he hoped they had some other reserve from which they would be able to push on the works and make them effective.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was afraid he could give very little information as to why not more than £500 had been asked for.
  MR. SEXTONsupposed he had better accept the courteous answer given by the Chief Secretary, and he was satisfied that the three ladies would not be kept in prison any longer than was necessary; and with regard to the prisoners generally, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the condition of the country and the hardship those men suffered through being kept
  524
  in prison during the harvest - time. While the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to ease the passage of Supply through the House, he himself did not wish to embarrass the Irish Government by opposing Supply.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

BOILER EXPLOSIONS BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords' Amendments to the said Bill be now considered,"—(Mr. Hugh Mason,)—put, and agreed to.
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  The following Amendments read, and agreed to:—In page 2, line 23, after ("Trade") insert ("either upon or without such preliminary inquiry"); in page 3, line 22, after ("record") insert ("and in Scotland to a witness attending a criminal trial by jury in the Sheriff Court"); line 24, after ("Courts") insert ("and in Scotland to the auditor of the Court of Session"); line 30, after ("same") insert ("with the evidence").
  The next Amendment, in line 38, to leave out ("make such") and leave out ("as they think fit respecting") read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  MR. WARTON: I rise to Order. It was ruled by Mr. Speaker lately that in case of Amendments coming from the Lords, those Amendments should be put seriatim.
  THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. LYON PLAYFAIE): The rule is, when there is no opposition—
  MR. WARTON: There is opposition.
  THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. LYON PLAYFAIE): The Question is, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. WARTON: I rise to Order. I object to these Amendments being taken en bloc, and the Speaker lately ruled that they could not be so taken.
  THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR): They will now be taken separately, as opposition has been made.
  The next Amendment, in line 39, to leave out ("the") and insert ("a preliminary"), and after ("inquiry") insert—
  ("Or formal investigation or any part thereof including therein the remuneration of persons holding such inquiry or investigation to be paid by any person summoned before it,")
  —read.
  THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR): The Question is, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. WARTON: Mr. Playfair, do I now understand you to put each Amendment separately?
  THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR): Before opposition was shown the Amendments which were read out were passed. After the hon. and learned Member opposed, the Amendments still remaining are moved separately.
  MR. WARTON: Would you kindly tell me what are passed?
  THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR): Those which were read together were passed, because there was no opposition. I am now taking them separately.
  MR. WARTON: Nothing was put to the House. I waited for the Chairman to put the Question. I only want to call attention to one matter, and it would save a great deal of time and trouble if I could do so now. You did not put anything.
  THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR): Is the Amendment reached upon which the hon. and learned Member wishes to speak?
  MR. WARTON: It is the Amendment proposed in line 39, to which I desire to take exception. [Cries of "Passed!"] Then, at another time, I shall object at the very beginning. I waited out of courtesy to the Chair.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rise to Order. Did you, Sir, actually put from the Chair the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment?"
  THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR): I did so.
  Remaining Amendments read, and agreed to, as follows:—
  In page 4, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("members of the Court of Inquiry including any assessors") and insert ("persons holding any inquiry under this Act"); line 4, leave out "any") and insert ("If and so far as not otherwise provided for all.")
  A Consequential Amendment made to the Bill.

MOTIONS.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DODDS, Bill to amend an Act of the Session of the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-one, intituled "An Act to authorise the application of Funds of Municipal Corporations and other governing bodies in certain cases," ordered to he brought in by Mr. DODDS, Mr. EDWARD CLARKE, Mr. JACKSON, and Mr. ST. AUBYN.
COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

  MOTION FOR LEAVE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Copyhold Acts, and to promote the Enfranchisement of Lands of Copyhold and Customary Tenure, and of Land subject to Customary Incidents."—(Mr. Waugh.)
  MR. WARTON: I object.
  MR. WAUGH: I think that is very unfair.
  MR. WARTON: My point of Order is this, that a Bill is now brought forward called No. 2, and of which there is no Notice whatever. I object.
  MR. BIGGAR: I beg to move that the House be counted.
  MR. WAUGHhere rose, but—
  MR. BIGGARsaid: I rise to a point of Order. I hold that my Motion has precedence of every other Motion.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Merchant Shipping (Colonial Inquiries) * (164).
Committee—Lunacy Districts (Scotland) (117).
Committee—Report—Poor Rates * (113); Public Schools (Scotland) Teachers (143).
Report—Gas Provisional Orders * (157); Water Provisional Orders * (158); Somersham Rectory * (116).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) * (150); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) * (145); Artillery Ranges * (119); Roads Provisional Order (Edinburgh) * (78), and passed.

EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—THE CONFERENCE.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether the attention of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has been called to certain statements made by The Times Correspondent to-day; and, whether he remembers an answer which he gave to me with respect to the attitude of the Sultan as regards the first proposal of the Conference? I do not know if the noble Earl's attention has been called to it; but it appears that the noble Earl was mistaken with regard to the particular measures which subsequent facts have shown were to be taken. I do not know whether the noble Earl wishes to make any explanation with respect to them?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I shall be delighted to make any explanation the noble Marquess wishes if he will give me Notice for another day. I really must say that it is not an idle crotchet of mine to require Notice of Questions, and I very much concur in

351
the view expressed by a Colleague of the noble Marquess the other day, who said he was really astonished at the Government being so ready to answer Questions without Notice, and that he himself made it a rule in Office never to do so. I think it is not reasonable to expect me to answer Questions of great importance off-hand. The noble Marquess knows perfectly well that, without the slightest trouble to himself, he might have given me Notice of the Question in the morning; and the necessity of Notice is obvious when the difference of a word or two respecting what is said here may spread all over Europe.

AFFAIRS OF TUNIS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in rising to call attention to the affairs of Tunis, and to move for further Correspondence on them, said: My Lords, under ordinary circumstances, it would not have been improper to ask for further Papers about Tunis. We know nothing, officially, at least, of what has taken place during the autumn, although protracted struggles between the French and Arabs seem to have continued. We know nothing, from official sources, of the impression produced in France by the celebrated trial, in which M. Roustan and M. Rochefort were opponents. We are also wholly uninformed as to how late events are viewed by the Italian Government. After a series of Papers on Tunis, towards the end of last Session, one on Tripoli was issued. Since then reticence has followed. We are only led to think, by sounds and flashes which pass through it, that behind the curtain a drama has been actively proceeding. So much might have been said for further Correspondence upon Tunis under ordinary circumstances. But ordinary circumstances do not now present themselves. Night after night the two Houses of Parliament are agitated upon Egypt. The connection of Tunisian and Egyptian difficulties by those who have watched them both will hardly be disputed. It was long ago predicted that an Egyptian Question would arise from the Tunisian one. In the course of my remarks, I hope briefly to explain in what manner the subjects are related to each other. It may first be convenient to remind the House, although in a very perfunctory
  352
  manner, of the events which formed the Tunisian complication. We need not dwell upon the language of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) to M. Waddington at Berlin, because, whether or not the circumstances justified it, it does not seem to have had any influence on subsequent proceedings. M. Waddington was deprived of power, and never acted upon any lesson which the noble Marquess had suggested. Beyond that, the system of M. Waddington in Tunis might have been wholly different from that which has been actually exhibited. We next have before us the unfortunate career of a British subject—Mr. Levy—violently driven from one tribunal to another. All recollect the measures of the Bey against the Kroumirs, and the marches of the French against the Bey, which ended in the Treaty of Bardo, and the astonishing compulsion of the Regency to accept as First Minister the Consul General of France, by whom the war had been promoted. At this stage authentic knowledge ceases. The prudent combination of the Government has been—on Egypt, slow and fragmentary light; on Tunis, sudden and unmitigated darkness. We are only led through journalists and travellers—particularly Mr. Wemyss Reid, to whom the best acknowledgments are owing—to believe that the French Protectorate was soon resented by a considerable body of insurgents; that Kerouan, the sacred city, has been occupied; that the Regency has been disturbed by intricate campaigns, by hard-fought battles, and by general confusion; and that the Bey—a virtual prisoner of France—has been compelled, ostensibly at least, to direct his arms and his resources against the loyal masses who were struggling to release him. It is only, too, through sources of that kind we are led to think that the origin of the war was investigated last December in a Parisian Court of Justice, and, after great forensic efforts on both sides, was attributed by a jury, whom no power could abash, to the intrigues and follies of the late Consul General. Such may be regarded as a chain of the events, if they are all confirmed—if none of them are fabulous. The conclusion they suggest, although they do no more, is that the true line of Great Britain would rather be to favour the departure of the French than sanction a Protectorate which de-

  353
  tains their forces in the territory they have occupied. I admit, again, that a conclusion of the kind is but suggested by the narrative in the possession of your Lordships. It requires more than such a narrative to vindicate it. However it may be sustained by this consideration, the best despatch writers of France have ineffectually laboured to establish that Tunis does not enter into the Ottoman Empire. They urge that France has not acknowledged its dependence. They might there be checked, as France on various occasions, and all through the Crimean War, acknowledged its dependence. Let it be granted that she never did so. Have other nations recognized its independent nationality? They have not. The doctrine, therefore, is that dependence is annihilated if one State refuses to acknowledge it; while independence may subsist, although a large majority of States refused to acknowledge it. But recognition or acknowledgment is more essential to independence than dependence. The only escape is that when the voice of France is in one scale, and that of Christendom, together with the Caliph, in the other, the voice of France ought to preponderate, and that of Christendom, together with the Caliph, to give way. Whether or not that ought to be so, the Foreign Office do at present hold that Tunis belongs to the Ottoman Empire, in the same way as Tripoli, or Egypt, or Bulgaria. The occupation is a blow, therefore, to the authority and prestige of the Sultan. Great Britain is perpetually seeking to control or influence the Sultan. At this very hour she is doing so in the midst of a most critical occasion. To restore the credit of the Sultan, so far as the Tunisian occupation has impaired it, would be consistent with her language, and auxiliary to her objects. There is something else to be considered. According to official phraseology, a French alliance ought to be guarded now as sedulously as it was before 1870. The principle is excellent. But when France occupies the territory of an Empire which we desire to maintain in its integrity, a strict alliance with her is not possible. If Governments attempted, national opinion would prohibit it. If no obstacle precluded it, all through the East it would be fatal to our objects. But there is a far more grave considera-
  354
  tion as to Egypt. I began by stating that the difficulties of Egypt and of Tunis were connected. It is here that the opinion ought to be supported. Until the subject is more thoroughly elucidated, the disastrous movement of Arabi Pasha can be ascribed to no more likely cause than to the spectacle which late events in Tunis have exhibited. It is a movement against the Egyptian status of the Western Powers, of which one has actively promoted the humiliation of the Sultan; the other silently acceded to it. The events in Tunis, cold, pre-occupied, and distant as we are, have made on our minds a shadowy impression. How far more serious has the impression naturally been on the Mahometans of Africa, who recognize the spiritual power of the Caliph? How much more deeply than ourselves must they have felt the quick surrender of the pretexts by which the expedition was defended; the rapid war, without a declaration to commence it, against a Potentate whose absolute supremacy was first ironically blazoned; the indignities by which the Treaty was extorted; the grasping stipulations it included; the enforced subserviency of the Bey to a foreign, hostile, and encroaching Representative; the accumulated miseries a neighbouring dependency has suffered? But, my Lords, we are not left to any speculative argument. An Egyptian journal, cited in the Papers now before us, has distinctly justified the movement on the ground that the population feared lest France should meditate in Egypt what in Tunis had already been effected. Mr. Blunt, who is a witness as to facts, although he may not be an arbiter of policy, who is, besides an organ of the movement, a negotiator for the rebel, a few days back, in a letter to The Times, advanced the same interpretation. To what opinion can we come, except that the departure of the French from Tunis is among the first conditions of establishing tranquillity in Egypt? Let me now endeavour to review, with the permission of the House, the modes of prosecuting a result observed on these conclusive grounds to be desirable. It will hardly be brought about by the sole exertions of Her Majesty's Government. It is true they never gave their sanction to the war, except in absolute reliance on the good faith of the assurances that it was directed only to secure the Fron-

  355
  tier of Algeria against incursion from the Kroumirs. It is true they might consistently protest against continued occupation. But the language of the Government after the Treaty of Bardo will hardly sanction any hope of their activity in this way. The despatch of May 20th informed France that the Treaty of Bardo, and the proceedings which it crowned, had not made "a favourable impression" on our public; but did not even venture to admit that the Government partook the feelings of the country it was acting for. No one who studies that despatch will rely upon the conduct of the Government as a means of extricating Tunis from the force which seems, at least, to be oppressing it. If Her Majesty's Government had influence to close the occupation, they would have had influence to guard against it. Again, if they desired to close the occupation, they would not so long have left the struggle of France and Tunis in obscurity. It is the very line by which the action of the former is protected. The authorities of Italy, no doubt, have strong convictions that the French ought to withdraw. But, in spite of strong convictions, they have looked on from the beginning to this moment. A great interpreter of Italy, Signor Gallenga, holds that she has not become a military nation. On that point he may be possibly mistaken. At least, Italy cannot, like France, look back to old traditions of success and many centuries of warfare. Italy might lend Great Britain important aid; but is not likely, by assuming an initiative, to direct or supersede her. The imaginary essence sometimes described as the European Concert—a term unknown to former annals of diplomacy—will hardly form the agency desired. Since the Crusades there never has been such an union. The existing Conference, indeed, may be thought to resemble one of the Crusades, since it has seized Constantinople, against the wishes of its Ruler, as a basis of the further struggles which it meditates. I only mention that in passing. The real fact is, that Europe has in later times been always balanced and divided. Even in 1815, when a greater number of Powers were drawn into a League than at any other moment—they are all enumerated in the life of Mr. Herries, who acted as their subsidizing patron—France, a large exception, was not in-
  356
  cluded in the system. The Concert now poetically fancied is not bound together by any Treaty whatsoever, a fact last year discovered to your Lordships. During the autumn the component parts have been in discord as to Egypt. It will be of no more value to deliver Tunis than it was of value to defend it. By these reflections, steadily pursued, we may be led to think that the influence of Germany is the only influence sufficient for the object. The position of Germany at Metz, if nothing else, secures a locus standi with French counsels. If Germany resolved that the Tunisian occupation ought to cease, although it lingered on, it would not be enduring. But as soon as an attempt is made to gain the influence of Germany, two objections are not unlikely to present themselves. The expenditure of France in Africa has been regarded as a barrier to any other war she might attempt. It might thus appear to be a sacrifice on the part of Germany to put an end to the embarrassments of Tunis. This argument, no doubt, admits of being replied to. It is unfortunately strengthened by another. When, in 1879, Germany had withdrawn herself from Russia at great risk, the year after—1880—Great Britain lent herself to Russia by submitting to a Prime Minister who had lately been the ardent champion of that Empire, and by submitting to him against all the usages, the pledges, and engagements which ought to have ensured a wholly different situation. An appeal to Germany would, therefore, be as unbecoming as it might be ineffectual. What alternative presents itself? To correct the Ministerial position by which Germany is well entitled to be alienated, and in regaining credit for ourselves to pave the way for the recovery of Tunis to the Sultan. I move an humble Address to the Crown for further Correspondence on the affairs of Tunis.
  Moved for, "An Address for further correspondence respecting the Affairs of Tunis."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, there are some considerations which the noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) has brought under your notice to which I should not myself find it easy entirely to reply. If it were necessary

  357
  to reply, I think the burden would probably rest more on others than myself. I will, therefore, address myself to a statement which the noble Lord made, and also to the suggestion of the policy he has advised Her Majesty's Government to take. He complains that for some months past no Papers have been presented to your Lordships with regard to Tunis. There are no Papers of any very great importance; but what Papers there are, I shall be most happy to accede to the noble Lord's Motion and present them to your Lordships. I may say, at the same time, that since the last Papers were presented our relations with the local authorities are on a much more satisfactory footing than they were. I do not wish to make any complaint against any particular Representative of any Foreign Power; but it is quite natural that in consequence of the tension produced by the state of things following the entrance of the French troops into Tunis, there was a degree of irritation among the Consular authorities which did not conduce to the harmonious conduct of Business. Since then the personnel of the French representation has been changed, and I am happy to say, however, that at the present moment nothing could be more harmonious, nor could the desire on the part of the French Representative to meet all the just and reasonable claims of other Powers be apparently stronger. Several subjects which have been mentioned to your Lordships have been more or less settled. We have heard a great deal of the Enfida case. That case, which never reached a point at which we were advised that we could take formal action, is now entirely taken away from becoming a question calling for any international interference by an arrangement which is perfectly satisfactory, as I understand, to all the parties concerned. All the Powers concur with England. With regard to several other matters, they are still either under the consideration of the two Governments or we are waiting for further information, in order to hear the opinion of our Legal Advisers as to what course we ought to pursue. With regard to the question of our policy, it is rather a serious matter to deal with the matter to which the noble Lord alluded. The noble Lord says it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to favour the
  358
  withdrawal of the French troops from the Regency. On that point, I may say I do not think Her Majesty's Government would make any objection if the French Government withdrew their troops from Tunis; but I think it is not likely that France will withdraw her troops. With regard to the adoption of any stronger measure, such as that of forming a League for the purpose of driving the French out of Tunis, I am not aware that the Government have any intention of proceeding on the noble Lord's advice.
  Motion agreed to.

IRELAND—THE CHURCH TEMPORALITIES COMMISSION—ARREARS OF RENTS AND INTEREST.

  QUESTION. MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in rising to ask the Lord Privy Seal, Whether Her Majesty's Government will cause the Church Temporalities Commission to postpone their claims on estates on which the rents have not been paid; and to move for a Return of the amount of arrears of rents and interest due to the Church Temporalities Commission, said: My Lords, when your Lordships passed the Land Act of 1881, it was on the understanding that it would produce little alteration in the bulk of the rents in Ireland; but now that a uniform reduction, frequently much in excess of 25 per cent, has taken place on the large estates, as well as on the smaller ones, purchased from the Encumbered Estates Court, a corresponding reduction should have been made in the amounts payable to the Church Temporalities Commission, by estates of which the power to pay these charges had been diminished by a fourth. Indeed, before your Lordships passed the Land Act, the Prime Minister had said that there would be no ground for asking for compensation for the landlords, owing to any general reduction; but that, should the contrary prove to be the case, the question of compensation would arise. It is, therefore, a matter of surprise that Mr. Gladstone should since have taken a different view, notwithstanding that he and his family had received £68,000 compensation for their slaves in the West Indies. Now, however, the Government has failed to secure the ordinary course of law in

  359
  Ireland, and Members of the Government, not content with encouraging, by their speeches and attempts at legislation, those who have brought about the failure of legal processes, have alternately accused those who are suffering by the interruption of law and order, of remissness and harshness; and it would have been only natural to expect that the Government should have itself set the example of avoiding undue harshness, by remitting the payment of taxes upon a non-existent income, and those rent-charges due to the Church Temporalities Commission, which has now become a branch office of the Inland Revenue, since no spiritual services are rendered to those who have to pay what formerly were tithes. Instead of such moderation and forbearance, we find that the Government have been exacting Income Tax and all the charges due to the Church Temporalities Commission. Many Irish landlords have paid Income Tax on income that they have not received, and the Government have not been ashamed to allege their payments of Income Tax as proofs that rents are being paid in Ireland. Not only are the Government exacting taxes imposed when the country was in a normal condition and still possessed a Government, but they are contemplating fresh exactions from the impoverished Irish landlords. This would be incredible, were it not established by the evidence of Mr. Godley on the first day that the Committee on the Land Act sat. In answer to Questions 326–332, it came out that the Government intended to require stamps of an unknown value to be affixed to the agreements made under the Land Act. What the Government are doing by allowing the Church Temporalities Commission to insist upon their claims is well and clearly stated in a letter of Mr. Caledon Dolling, in The Irish Times, of June 17—
  "An estate which I know in King's County, rental £1,500, is charged to the Church Temporalities Commissioners with a yearly head rent of £400 and an interest of £100 a-year. The tenants refused to pay on this property, and there is more than two years' rent due on it. The head rent to the Church Commissioners is in arrear two years. The interest had to be paid, or they would have charged penal interest. The estate is 20 per cent under Griffith's valuation. The landlord, being continually pressed by the Church Temporalities Commissioners, took proceedings. He issued 40 writs, and proceeded to sell out 10. The costs up to this
  360
  date are £500. The total amount sued for is £620. If he proceeds to evict the 10, it will be close upon another £100 between caretakers' and other expenses. What is he to do? Who is to blame for these evictions? Is it not by reason of the Church Temporalities Commissioners pressing that these evictions have taken place; and, is not Mr. Trevelyan responsible for the Church Temporalities Commissioners, now the Land Commission? If he brands the landlords with eviction, is he not guilty of it himself? Should not the Government, on their side, give an order to the Land Commission to stay all proceedings for head rents, tithe rent-charges, and interests for the present, and why do they not do so? Because they fear to show the rental of the Church Temporalities Commissioners, which has such enormous arrears on it."
  So that, whilst the interests of the United Kingdom require that forbearance should be exercised on all hands in the matter of claiming the payment of debts, the Government, like the wicked servant in the Gospel, turn round upon their fellow-servants, the landlords of Ireland, who have been patiently waiting for what their tenants may please to pay them, and exact from them payment of taxes and of penal interest to the Church Commission. But the conduct of the Government is even worse in morality than that of the wicked servant—for he only claimed his own, and was wicked, because he refused to others the merciful consideration which had been granted to himself. The Government, however, are claiming taxes which have not been earned, since the Government has ceased to fulfil the duties and functions of a Government and to secure the lives and properties of its subjects. After the recent murders in the Phœnix Park, the Spanish Press asked how it was that loyal and orderly subjects continued to pay taxes to a Government which had forfeited its claim to them? But it is unnecessary to quote foreign contemporary opinion. It is one of the earliest of sound Whig principles that taxes should be refused to an unjust Government; and what Pym and Hampden and Sydney thought right must be right now. With regard to the Return of Arrears due to the Church Temporalities Commission, for which I have given Notice of Motion, there can be no difficulty in making it out, if the books of that Commission are kept regularly; and any objection to give such a Return can only be caused by its showing, either the harshness with which that Commission exacts its dues, or else, because it would show that

  361
  the Church Fund is not so large as has been anticipated. In view of the pressure put upon Irish landlords by the Government through the Church Temporalities Commission, at the same time that it has put every discouragement in the way of their obtaining the payment of their debts, and has lately described such efforts as unpatriotic, it becomes a duty to remonstrate against the careless language used by some of Her Majesty's Ministers. Idle words would seem to be a better term than careless language or reckless utterances, because it appears to be almost impossible to bring those who utter this language to any account here, and that these words must be left to be accounted for by them hereafter. The evictions that have been most notable of late are those on Lord Cloncurry's estate; in those cases the tenants could pay, but did not, at the bidding of the Land League. It is evident that, since the announcement of the Arrears Bill, the payment of rent has ceased nearly every where in Ireland, not only by those small tenants who might be affected by the Bill, but also by the larger tenants. Yet the Chief Secretary for Ireland speaks of the number of evictions as appalling. A short time ago the Attorney General for Ireland, in answer to a Question as to whether Mr. M'Gloin had shot his would-be murderer, replied—"I am sorry to say that the statement is substantially true." As he went on to mention evidence that the man who was shot had intended to commit murder, he ought to have said that he rejoiced to say. The Lord Lieutenant has, however, rebuked this language, as it deserved, by his recent action in a similar case, when he sent £10 and a double-barrelled gun, with a letter of commendation, to a man who had courageously repelled some midnight assailants. It is useless now to recapitulate the Prime Minister's rash speeches, or the encouragement to outrage and murder contained in Mr. Bright's exultation over the fact that landlords were running away for their lives; but it may be well to remind noble Lords on the Front Bench that they are accountable for such speeches, and for their results, so long as they sit in the same Cabinet with their authors. The noble Lord concluded by asking the Question and making the Motion of which he had given Notice.
  Moved for, "Return of the amount of arrears of rent and interest due to the Church Temporalities Commission."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he would call their Lordships' attention to a case of hardship, that of a tenant under the Church Temporalities Commission, who was compelled to pay to that Body the whole of his stipulated rent without reduction, while his own tenants were applying successfully to the Land Court for a reduction.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, he also wished to mention a case of hardship. It was the case of some near relations of his own, possessors of valuable property in Tipperary, which they held under very heavy head-rent from the Church Temporalities Commissioners. The land, to the best of his belief, was not rented above Griffith's valuation, and the rents had not been raised during the last 50 years. During the last two years they had scarcely got a penny of rent. Last year they had got none, and still they were compelled to pay this head-rent to the Church Temporalities Commissioners, who, if he were not mistaken, were simply Government officials. It seemed to him an extremely hard case that while the Church Temporalities Commissioners were pressing these unfortunate landlords, and thereby forcing them to bring pressure upon their tenants—a proceeding which gave rise to violent feeling in the locality—there should be an outcry amongst Liberals, as lately shown in a speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, against the heartless and unpatriotic cruelty of starved landlords who were compelled, in order to pay the Government, to take steps against their tenants. It did seem to him that the position of the Irish landlords, between tenants who would not pay, and the Government who made them pay, was like that of a person who was being ground, and that not very slowly, between the upper and the nether millstones.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL): I need hardly remind my right rev. Friend that the words of the Chief Secretary for Ireland had no relation whatever to the case of tenants who can pay and will not pay; but I will not go into that matter. I am not quite sure

  363
  that I have to-day sufficient information to answer the points raised or not by the right rev. Prelate and the noble Lord who has preceded him (Lord Oranmore and Browne); but I have information from the Commissioners which, I think, will be satisfactory to the noble Lord who asks the Question (Lord Stanley of Alderley). The Land Commissioners inform me that they do not press for payment of money due to them out of estates where they are satisfied that the rents have not been received. That is the information which I have received from the Land Commissioners, and, owing to its satisfactory nature, there appears to be no ground for the interference of the Government. With respect to the Return asked for by my noble Friend, there will be no difficulty in producing it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Return ordered to be laid before the House.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in consideration of the statement of the Prime Minister on public business on the 20th instant, in which he specially alluded to the necessity of amending (1) the leases, (2) the labourers, and (3) the purchase clauses of the Irish Land Act, 1881, and followed up his allusion to this subject by stating that—
  "Although in reference to it he could give no positive intention on the part of the Government, he could only give assurances that the Government will endeavour to make up their minds at what they think the proper time,"
  it might not be advisable for Her Majesty's Government, when they have definitely made up their minds upon the provisions of this proposed Irish Land Act (1881) Amendment Bill, to introduce it into this House, with a view of giving the country some knowledge of what is proposed as well as of accelerating the progress of the Bill through Parliament? The noble Earl, after apologizing for the length of the Question as it appeared upon the Paper, said, that during the last two years they had
  364
  been accustomed, on every occasion when the Prime Minister made a statement on which a Question afterwards arose, to have his words explained away in one manner or another; and therefore he (the Earl of Galloway) had thought it only right to quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman before alluded to. He would call their Lordships' attention to what he might call the right hon. Gentleman's prefatory remarks, spoken on Tuesday last, with respect to Public Business, and intended, no doubt, as much for the benefit of that as of the other House of Parliament. The Prime Minister first repeated what they were all aware of—that the Government stood pledged to proceed in the first place with the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill, a statement which would be approved on both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to say that Her Majesty's Government felt it of importance that they should proceed with the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, and that they were going to ask that it should have precedence over all other Business except the Prevention of Crime Bill. Now, they all knew that the Arrears of Rent Bill contained principles which were of an entirely novel kind, and which, so far as they could glean from gentlemen connected with both sides of politics, were considered of an almost unprecedented nature. In consequence of that opinion, there could not be a doubt that before it came away from the other House it must go through an amount of sifting and searching criticism which would make it a considerable time before it could come to their Lordships' House. It was a Bill which he had no doubt would go down to posterity as the "Kilmainham Treaty Bill." The Prime Minister then observed that the Government intended to persevere with the Corrupt Practices Bill; fourthly, he thought it would be necessary to introduce a measure for the disfranchisement of certain boroughs; and, fifthly, to bring in a Bill, not for the continuance, but the amendment of the Ballot Act. Sixthly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Procedure Resolutions; and he said he was to give a special night for the discussion of the Egyptian Question. All that information was given on Tuesday; and since then, in answer to a Question of his noble Friend

  365
  below him (the Earl of Sandwich), it was stated that Her Majesty's Government intended to persevere with the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill. All these measures had been introduced in the other House of Parliament, and it was evident that none of them would come before their Lordships until they had passed the ordeal of the other House. In the statement made last week, before the right hon. Gentleman used the words to which he (the Earl of Galloway) was drawing attention, he alluded especially to the fact that the amended Irish Land Bill should certainly embrace three particular points—the amendment of the Leases Clauses, the amendment of the clauses with respect to Labourers, and the amendment of the Purchase Clauses of the Act of last year. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to say—
  "I can announce no intention, no positive intention, upon the part of the Government; I can only give assurances that we will endeavour to make up our minds at what we think the proper time."—[3 Hansard, cclxx. 1774.]
  That statement was open to three questions. It was open to anybody to ask the proper time; whether the Government intended to make up their minds; and when they meant to endeavour to make up their minds? Before proceeding further, he wished to remind their Lordships of what had happened in regard to the Irish Land Act in their Lordships' House. It would be within their recollection that, at the beginning of the Session, their Lordships decided, by a substantial majority, though against the wish of the Government, that it was expedient that an inquiry should be made into the working of the Land Act of last year. It would also be within their recollection that that determination on the part of their Lordships produced a certain amount of rancour and hostility in the mind of the Prime Minister, and that it took a practical form. As regarded the result, however, he (the Earl of Galloway) did not know there was any other than a waste of the public time for three nights. But within a week of the exhibition of that rancour and hostility the right hon. Gentleman made the admission that it would be necessary to inquire into the working of that same Irish Land Act. Now, he (the Earl of Galloway) thought he was right in saying that that admission was
  366
  made by the Prime Minister nearly four months ago. Therefore, the statement last week was merely a reiteration of what he stated four months ago. He thought it would be quite evident to their Lordships that that Bill, even if Her Majesty's Government did succeed in making up their minds, could not be brought into the other House of Parliament before the month of August; and it did seem to him that Her Majesty's Government were bound, in their intention to deal with it, that a Bill of such moment, involving interests of such magnitude, and which had caused a great deal of discussion and feeling in Ireland, should first be brought before their Lordships. He did think Her Majesty's Government were entitled to accede to the proposal, and in order that the country might have an early opportunity of seeing the provisions of the Bill it should be introduced into their Lordships' House. It used to be the custom of the other House to allow an interval of three weeks between the introduction of a Bill and the second reading; but he feared that that salutary practice was now obsolete. Perhaps circumstances made such an interval impossible in the present day; but, as far as the public were concerned, much the same result would be obtained if the Bill were first introduced into their Lordships' House. Otherwise, if the Government could not introduce it into one House, and would not introduce it into the other, it might be thought, after the Prime Minister's recent statement, that they were trifling with the patience of the country and dignity of Parliament. The dangling of a Bill in that way before Parliament, as a sort of horoscope, was much to be deprecated.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that the Irish Question was so constantly before that and the other House, that hardly anything that could be said would throw any new light upon it. The statement of the Prime Minister was, however, of vital importance, coming as it did less than a year after the passing of the Land Act, and at a time when its action had put the landlords and tenants of Ireland in the peculiar position not only of suffering for what had been done, but in not knowing how much they would suffer in future. When the Land Act was discussed early in the present Session, the opinion was generally ex-

  367
  pressed on the Ministerial Benches that the worst cases of rack-renting came first into Court, and that the Commissioners would not, as time went on, make such general or such large reductions of rent. But it had altogether worked in another direction; for, since that debate, the prophecies made on the part of the Government, and in defence of the conduct of the Commissioners, had not proved true, and the experience of the cases which had come before the Land Courts had taught them that the Land Act had already deprived the landlords of about one-fourth of their property. Now, he should like to know what guarantee there was that the new changes shadowed forth by the Prime Minister would not take away the few remaining rights of the landlords and the residue of their income, for the proposal of the Government looked very like carrying out the recommendations of Mr. Redmond's Bill. It might not be a Treaty, but here were the "suspects" all out, and part of a measure proposed by the Representative of the extreme Irish Party brought forward, and the other items promised to be brought forward by Her Majesty's Government. If that was not a Treaty, he did not know what was. What were Irish landlords to expect, or how could they possibly make any arrangements, when there was a new sword of this kind hanging over their heads? What could they expect from the Purchase Clauses of the Act, which were the only means they had of escaping from the unfortunate position they were in? When they knew their rents were to be reduced in the future, they certainly consoled themselves in the hope of getting the arrears of the past; but there was introduced a compulsory measure which released the tenant of his obligation to pay his arrears. The Bill would not reach their Lordships' House till late in the Session, after the passing of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill, when the noble Earl the Leader of the House would press upon them the necessity of accepting it without delay; but surely, if they were threatened with the loss of a large part of arrears due under the sanction of a Bill in Parliament, they ought to be allowed time to discuss it.
  EARL GRANVILLE, interposing, said, that the Government were as anxious as anyone could possibly be, and most desirous to introduce the Arrears of Rent
  368
  (Ireland) Bill at the earliest possible time; but whatever faults it might possess, and whatever difficulty there might be in discussing it later on, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Oranmore and Browne) was clearly out of Order in doing so at the present moment.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he did not intend to discuss the Bill, however much it might be a common practice in that House. The tenants who were making efforts to pay up rents were, in consequence of the introduction of that Arrears Bill, now paying none.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDrose to Order. The question was, whether a certain Bill should be introduced in that House or "elsewhere."
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I do not know that I am in the least out of Order. It would be well my noble Friend should read the Notice on the Paper.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I think the noble Lord has already made two or three speeches.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEproceeded to say the statement referred to of the Prime Minister would tend to increase disorder in Ireland. It had already prevented arrangements being come to in regard to rent, and also the payment of arrears, and it would greatly embarrass the action of the landlords. Landlords were so placed that they did not know what to do, and they were often compelled by circumstances to act in a way they would not in a more settled condition of things. There was a report that the Prime Minister was well satisfied with the results of his Irish legislation, and that they did not disturb his rest. That showed that he had got a fine constitution; but if he could see the unfortunate results, it would not be surprising that his rest, like that of Macbeth and Richard III., should be disturbed by the ghosts of those who, through his mistaken policy, were now in another world.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, it appeared evident to him that the House did not intend to be led away by the allurements of the noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne) to enter into a discussion of the Irish Question upon this inquiry, which had been accurately described as one relating simply to the procedure of the two Houses of Parliament upon a possible

  369
  Bill; and he should absolutely decline to follow the noble Lord by attempting to discuss the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill now before the other House. The noble Earl (the Earl of Galloway), he thought, had not quite accurately conveyed the purport of what was said the other day by the Prime Minister when, in the course of a long statement, he referred to the Land Act. The Prime Minister made no announcement on the part of the Government of any intention to bring in a Bill relating to any part of the Land Act, excepting, of course, that which was before the other House dealing with the arrears. What the Prime Minister said was that there was the question of the Purchase Clauses, which would, sooner or later, have to be dealt with. The noble Earl spoke of the subject as if it were the property of Mr. Bright; he seemed to have forgotten the Report of their Lordships' Committee on that subject. The Prime Minister added that certain suggestions had been submitted to the Government by the Land Commissioners, as to leases and labourers—that was, as to the effectiveness of the provisions in the Land Act with respect to labourers—but he said that the time had not arrived when it would be possible for the Government to say whether they could deal with these points by a measure during the present Session. The Prime Minister also said that when the Government knew they were through the two Irish Bills now before the House, they would decide whether or no they could attempt to remedy the defects of the Land Act this Session; and, if so, that would be the time for them to consider in which House the Bill should be introduced. But, of course, they reserved that question until they had decided whether there should be such a Bill at all.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, that the formation of a Labourers' League in Ireland, for the purpose of promoting the interests of labourers, and ready to seize upon any idea that might be thrown out to them, indicated the danger of the situation, and made it desirable that the views of the Government as to whatever was to be done should be formulated as soon as possible. It would be very undesirable, and it could not be the wish of the Government, that that League should assume the same
  370
  character as the League formed by the tenants.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he had thought it necessary to refer to the words of the Prime Minister, because certain questions respecting the Labourers' Clause had been the subject of recommendation by the Land Commissioners to the Government; and there was also a question as to the Purchase Clauses. Those were both important points, and, while acknowledging what had fell from the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), he should be glad to have some assurance from the Government as to when they intended to make up their minds on the subject.

LUNACY DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)

(NO. 117.) COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1 (General Board may alter or vary districts, subject to modification, &c. by Secretary of State).
On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 28, leave out ("may be requisite") and insert ("they may think fit"); and in page 2, line 1, leave out ("such") and insert ("any"), and after ("board") insert ("interested").
LORD BALFOUR, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—In page 1, lines 25 and 26, leave out ("or the parochial board of any parish or combination interested"); page 2, line 1, after ("supply") insert ("or"), and after ("magistrates") leave out ("or parochial board"); line 2, leave out ("modify") and insert ("annul"), said, its object was to provide means whereby the districts into which Scotland was divided for lunacy purposes might be varied. There was formerly a power vested in the prison boards to petition the lunacy boards to vary their districts when the necessity arose. As their Lordships were aware, however, prison boards had now ceased to exist in the counties of Scotland, and it would be necessary to appoint some other body to exercise the power formerly belonging to the prison boards. The Bill proposed that the commissioners of supply in counties, and the magistrates in burghs, should exercise that

371
power. That, he ventured to think, was perfectly right, because they were the nearest representatives of the old prison boards; but the Bill further provided that the parochial board of any parish interested should also have power to petition for this purpose. He had asked, when the Bill was before the House the other day, why it was necessary to give this power to the parochial boards, because, heretofore, they had not been a unit—if he might use the expression—in the administration of the Lunacy Acts in Scotland, and it seemed to him a novel and unnecessary power to give to bodies constituted as parochial boards in Scotland were; and in view of getting their Lordships' opinion on the point, he had given Notice of the Amendment that stood in his name on the Paper that day. Since he gave that Notice, however, it had been represented to him that there were some large parishes which ought to have this power, as they provided asylums of their own, the population being sufficient to warrant them in doing so. He ventured to think that that was no reason why all parochial boards in Scotland should have that power given to them, because it was necessary to give it to a few large parishes. Therefore, he should be inclined to move his Amendment, unless he heard from the noble Earl who bad charge of the Bill (the Earl of Dalhousie) that the Government would be prepared to assent to words that would limit this power to petitioning to boards which were large-sized, or had already built asylums of their own. For the sake of raising the question, therefore, he begged to move the Amendment that stood in his name; but if the Government were prepared to accept a modification of the clause he would not press it.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he was glad to be able to tell the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) in the House what he had already told him in the Lobby—namely, that the Government were quite ready to insert an Amendment on Report which would meet the objection of the noble Lord.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed.
The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow.

EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—MR. WILFRED BLUNT.

  QUESTION. MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD LAMINGTONrose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to a letter which appears in the "Times" of Friday the 23rd instant, from Mr. Wilfred Blunt, addressed to Mr. Gladstone, in which the following passage occurs:—
  "You are aware, Sir, that I was engaged during the past winter as mediator in a variety of unofficial but important negotiations carried on between Sir Edward Malet and Sir Auckland Colvin on the one side, and the Chiefs of the National Egyptian Party on the other, negotiations in which I engaged my personal honour for the loyalty of Her Majesty's agents; also that I have been in close communication with those Chiefs since my return to England;"
  and to move for any public correspondence which has passed between Sir Edward Malet and Sir Auckland Colvin and Mr. Wilfred Blunt. The noble Lord said, this letter involved the character of certain important officials in Her Majesty's Government. Their Lordships were aware that, during the last two months, two gentlemen had been very actively occupied as amateur diplomatists in Egypt; and, in his opinion, a great deal of the unfortunate condition of affairs in the East was due to the action of these two gentlemen. This was apparent from an account which he would read from The Standard of last Saturday, of an interview the correspondent of that paper had had with Arabi Pasha. He said—
  "To-day I had an interview with Arabi Pasha. He was surrounded by about a score of officers. …. His bearing was quite haughty. ….. He displays no desire to communicate his views to England. 'My friends, Blunt and Gregory,' he is fond of saying, 'have told all that there is to tell that is true. What is the use of asking me to recapitulate their observations?' At the same time, he so far unbent himself as to converse a little with me. He said, 'I attribute all the evils of the present crisis to Malet, Colvin, and several of the correspondents of the English newspapers. They have all with one accord made it a point to mislead the English public by persistent misrepresentations. England had the whole truth from Blunt and Gregory, but she preferred to believe not these honest men, but the lies, official and unofficial, to which she lent a too-ready ear. Let her, then, take the consequences of her folly. I hold her responsible.'"
  Without saying anything as to the insolence of Arabi Pasha, the passages he had quoted showed the influence which those

  373
  two gentlemen—Mr. Blunt and Sir William Gregory—had exercised in Egypt, an influence which he (Lord Lamington) could not but say was mischievous. Sir William Gregory, who was well known in this country, had passed the winter at Cairo, whence he sent long letters to The Times upon the Egyptian Question. He (Lord Lamington) was much surprised at the publication of those letters by such a great organ of public opinion, and he did not hesitate to say that those letters were copied and sent back to Egypt as the expression of public opinion in England upon the subject, and that a great deal of harm had been done by this attempt on the part of Sir William Gregory and Mr. Blunt to create an ideal for the National Party in Egypt. With regard to Mr. Blunt, he must ask the Government for an explanation. Had he held any position under the Government? In the letter to which he had referred, Mr. Blunt stated that he had been engaged as mediator in a variety of unofficial but important negotiations, carried on between Sir Edward Malet and Sir Auckland Colvin on the one side, and the Chiefs of the National Egyptian Party on the other; negotiations in which he engaged his personal honour for the loyalty of Her Majesty's agents; also that he had warned Her Majesty's Government of the danger they were running from a false appreciation of facts, and that he had repeatedly urged the necessity of their coming to a speedy understanding with those in whose hands the guidance of the movement lay; that he had counselled them to the best of his ability during the recent crisis, and spared no pains to urge them to come to that settlement of their differences with the Khedive to which they had then happily arrived; and that in this he took upon himself a great responsibility. As in the case of Arabi, he would say nothing of the insolence of the general tone of Mr. Blunt's letter; but it was most desirable that the public ought to have some statement from Her Majesty's Government as to what Mr. Blunt's position really was; whether he was authorized to act as a negotiator and mediator between Sir Edward Malet and the Chiefs of the National Party. Having regard to this letter, it was, in his opinion, most desirable to know from Her Majesty's Government what was Mr. Blunt's precise
  374
  position; and he, therefore, begged to move for the Correspondence on the subject.
  Moved, "That there he laid before this House, copy of any public correspondence which has passed between Sir Edward Malet and Sir Auckland Colvin and Mr. Wilfred Blunt."—(The Lord Lamington.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, your Lordships are aware that Mr. Blunt is a man of ability. He was formerly in the Diplomatic Service; he is a personal friend of Sir Edward Malet, and he is also, from long residence in Egypt, acquainted with many Egyptians. It appears that he has had certain personal and unofficial communications with Sir Edward Malet on Egyptian matters; and, on one occasion, in December of last year, he was requested by Sir Edward Malet and Sir Auckland Colvin to obtain a promise from the War Minister that no disturbance should arise at the moment when the Controllers refused to allow an increase in the Army. I am sorry to say that Mr. Blunt's views were such as Sir Edward Malet—and I must say that I entirely agree with Sir Edward Malet—disapproved of. The noble Lord asks for the private communications which Mr. Blunt has had with the Government. They are simply these—When Mr. Blunt arrived in London I was very glad to see him, and to hear what he had to state, whether I agreed or did not agree with him, on a matter on which he was well informed. He spoke to me very eloquently upon his views. Those views did not produce any impression on me; for though I could agree with him that it was not the part of this country to prevent a prudent development of Egyptian institutions, I entirely differed with him as to the part Arabi Pasha had played in this matter. Since then I have not been in communication with Mr. Blunt on Egyptian affairs. It is hardly necessary for me to state to the House that the Foreign Office have not endeavoured to support Dervish Pasha in any illegitimate mode of getting rid of Arabi Pasha.
  EARL DE LA WARRasked, if the noble Earl would produce a despatch of the 24th of December last or thereabouts relative to this subject?
  EARL GRANVILLE, in reply, said, he would inquire whether there was a despatch of that date; and, if so, whe-

  375
  therthere was any objection to produce it. He had forgotten to state, with reference to the question raised by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lamington), that there were no Papers, and, therefore, he supposed the Motion would be withdrawn.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) TEACHERS BILL.—(No. 143.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he wished to present a Petition from school teachers in Scotland in favour of an Amendment he had on the Paper to the Bill proposed by the Government. The present Bill was really the result of a Motion made by Sir Herbert Maxwell in the other House, and the effect of his Amendment was, that teachers should not only receive notice of the intention of a school board to pass a resolution for dismissal, but the ground upon which such notice was issued. The prayer of the Petition was entirely in unison with the spirit of the Bill, and he hoped the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal would be able to accede to it. By adopting the suggestion in that Petition, the grievances of the teachers would be remedied.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Three weeks' notice to be given to members of school boards and teacher of motion for dismissal).
THE EARL OF GALLOWAY THE EARL OF GALLOWAY moved, as an Amendment, words providing that the circular convening a school board meeting to consider the question of a teacher's dismissal must state the reason for such dismissal. When a teacher received warning, it was, he contended, only fair that he should be informed of the reason. This Amendment really was to give effect to the prayer of the Peti-
376
tion that he had already presented to their Lordships.
Amendment moved,
In page 1, line 22, after the word ("meeting"), to insert the words ("and unless in such circular and in such notice the reason or reasons be specially stated by the member or members proposing it."—(The Earl of Galloway.)
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, it was quite impossible for him to accept the Amendment. At the present time the school boards of Scotland possessed a power of dismissal which was very considerably limited by the Bill. It was limited in a way which was satisfactory to almost everyone who took any interest in school administration. It was provided that ample notice should be given to a teacher before the question of his dismissal was considered, and also that it should only be considered at a full meeting of the board. His noble Friend (the Earl of Galloway) wished the notice to contain a statement of the proposed ground of dismissal. That, he (Lord Carlingford) thought, would be a most unfortunate alteration in the Bill, and certainly one which would not be in the interest of the teachers themselves. It was not in the interest of the teachers that the cause of dismissal should be published to the world, and remain for ever on record. The noble Earl was mistaken if he imagined he was acting in conformity with the wishes even of the school teachers. He (Lord Carlingford) had had communication with many teachers, who earnestly desired him to have the Bill carried as it stood, and not to accept the Amendment now proposed. Among others, he had himself received a voluntary communication from a very important body in Scotland—the Educational Union—in which they earnestly pressed him to the same effect. He hoped, therefore, the noble Earl would not press his Amendment, which he could not accept.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, that after what had been said by the noble Lord he would not persevere with the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.

EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—THE DUAL NOTE TO THE KHEDIVE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they will lay upon the Table of the House the Dual Note presented to the Khedive on the 8th January 1882, by the representatives of England and France in Egypt? Said, that before putting the Question which stood in his name, he would like to make two or three remarks on the subject. It appeared to him that the Dual Note, which was presented to the Khedive by the Representatives of England and France, formed one of the most important episodes in the transactions which were taking place in Egypt. It was the result of many communications between the Governments of France and England, and it must have had a very important effect upon the Khedive and upon the Sultan. He (the Earl of Dunraven) was not aware whether the exact text of the Note was contained in the Papers which had been laid before Parliament. There was a telegraphic dispatch from Sir Edward Malet, saying he had presented the Dual Note on the 8th of January; and there was before that a dispatch from the noble Earl (Earl Granville) to Sir Edward Malet, giving him his instructions, telling him that, after consulting the French Consul General, he was instructed to make simultaneous representations. The noble Earl, on the 6th of January, wrote to Sir Edward Malet—
  "I have accordingly to instruct you to declare to Tewfik Pasha, after concerting with M. Sienkiewicz, who has teen instructed to make simultaneously with you an identic declaration, that the English and French Governments consider the maintenance of his Highness on the Throne on the terms laid down by the Sultan's Firman, and officially recognized by the two Governments, as alone able to guarantee for the present and the future good order and general prosperity in Egypt, in which England and France are equally interested. The two Governments being closely associated in their resolve to guard by their united efforts against all cause of complications, internal or external, which might menace the order of things established in Egypt, do not doubt that the assurance publicly given of their formal intention in this respect will tend to avert the dangers to which the Government of the Khedive might be exposed, and which would certainly find England and France united to oppose them. They are convinced that His Highness will draw from
  378
  this assurance the confidence and the strength which he requires to direct the destinies of Egypt and its people."
  It was very difficult to understand that the whole of the Identical Note was contained in these words, because the whole tenor and effect of it was completely changed by the reservation or reservations which were made by the noble Earl. If the dispatch which he (the Earl of Dunraven) had read contained the whole of the Identical Note, it appeared to him that it was utterly impossible, but that the scope and intention of the Note must have been misunderstood by the Khedive. In December, the noble Earl first wrote to M. Gambetta, agreeing that the time had come when the two Governments should consider what course had better be adopted by them. Her Majesty's Government also then thought that it was desirable that some evidence should be given of their cordial understanding, but that it required considerable and careful consideration as to what steps should be taken. After some further consideration the matter was a little more advanced. The noble Earl wrote to Lord Lyons—
  "The time has come when the two Governments should consider what course had better be adopted by both Governments. Her Majesty's Government also thinks that it is desirable that some evidence should be given of their cordial understanding."
  After some further communication, the noble Earl stated that he agreed that it would be advisable
  "To convey collectively to Tewfik Pasha the assurances of the sympathy and support of France and England."
  That led to the draft of the Identical Note, which was prepared by M. Gambetta, and submitted to Her Majesty's Government, and that appeared to him (the Earl of Dunraven) to be included in the dispatch which he first read to their Lordships. The words contained in the dispatch were very strong and very distinct. They conveyed the assurance that the two countries, France and England, would be found closely associated in the resolve to guard, by their united efforts, against all dangerous complications, and it stated that France and England would be united in opposing any dangers to which the Government of the Khedive might be ex-

  379
  posed. The Dual Note was agreed to by the noble Earl, but agreed to with a reservation. It was not very easy to understand whether the noble Earl made one or two reservations. In a letter to Lord Lyons he stated that Her Majesty's Government assented to the draft declaration, with the reservation that they must not be considered as committing themselves thereby to any particular mode of action, if action should be necessary. Now, at first sight, that would appear as if Her Majesty's Government merely reserved to themselves the natural right of determining upon the mode in which action ought to be taken, or of deciding upon the particular form in which action ought to be taken; and that was the view of the reservation taken by M. Gambetta, because in a dispatch, dated January 7, he said he observed with pleasure—
  "That the only reservation of the Government of the Queen is as to the mode of action to be employed by the two countries when action is considered necessary, and this is a reservation in which we participate."
  But there was another view of the reservation taken which was mentioned in a letter from Lord Lyons to the noble Earl, which was received on February 4th. Lord Lyons there spoke of a conversation which he had with M. de Freycinet, who very naturally wanted to know what was the meaning of the reservation of the noble Earl, and Lord Lyons said—
  "I presume Her Majesty's Government is to be understood as reserving to themselves, as a matter of course, the right to determine whether action is necessary, but especially to guard them selves against being supposed to commit themselves to any particular mode of action if action should be found to be necessary."
  Now, that was quite another matter. That reserve was not only as to the mode in which action should be applied, but the right to decide whether any action of any kind was considered necessary, and was to be applied. This view of the reservation was evidently that of the noble Earl, for in a dispatch to Lord Dufferin he said that—
  "It was not true, as reported in the newspapers, that the French Government had proposed to us, or that we had agreed to promise the Khedive, material support."
  It was difficult to understand how two great nations like England and France could use their united efforts in oppos-
  380
  ing anything, or could be found opposed to causes detrimental to the Khedive, if they had determined not to give him any material support. But he the Earl of Dunraven) had nothing whatever to say against any reservation on that ground. It was perfectly right and proper that Her Majesty's Government should judge for themselves whether action was necessary, and what action was necessary. What he really wanted to know was, whether the fact of the reservation was made known to the Khedive; because, if not, it appeared to him the meaning of the Note must have been entirely misunderstood by the Khedive. With the double reservation the Note appeared to him (the Earl of Dunraven) to mean almost nothing. The noble Earl did not seem to have thought very highly of it, if he was correctly stated in the French Parliamentary Papers to have said, in conversation with M. Challemel Lacour, that he "never thought it would be of the slightest use." If the Note could not be of the slightest use, then what was the use of troubling the Sultan and Khedive with it? The Sultan, however, seemed to have taken a different view of it, and thought that it did mean something; because he remonstrated in the most vigorous terms, and stated that he objected to it altogether, as it was an infringement of his Sovereign rights. He (the Earl of Dunraven) did not suppose that if the Note had been read with that reservation, the Porte or any other Government could possibly suppose that Sovereign rights were infringed. But what he (the Earl of Dunraven) principally wanted to know was whether the reservation of the noble Earl, and its proper meaning and character, were incorporated in the Dual Note which was presented to the Khedive; and, if not, whether the reservation, and the meaning of it, was communicated to the Khedive at the same time that the Dual Note was presented? It appeared essential that the House should have some information on these points, because it was otherwise impossible to judge of the meaning of those Parliamentary Papers which had already been presented, and impossible also to judge of the motives and action of the Khedive and of the Sultan. The noble Earl concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, it is a somewhat inconvenient course to pursue to give Notice of one Question and then to put another. With regard to the Question of which the noble Earl has given Notice, taking the interest that I know he does on this great and important subject, I think he has read all the Papers, and that it is from a slip of memory he is not aware that the Dual Note was included in the Papers presented to the House so long ago as the 7th of February last. With regard to the discussion he has raised, I really mean to adhere to what I have already stated, unless I am called upon by the House to do otherwise—namely, that, although individual Peers may think it right to make light of, and to invite a discussion of, this important question, it appears to me that the subject should be discussed as a whole, when I shall be prepared to defend the conduct of Her Majesty's Government both with regard to the Dual Note and the reservations, as well as the other points connected with these long negotiations.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are we to understand that the noble Earl declines, on this occasion, to state whether the reservation was communicated to the Khedive?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I have not declined to do anything of the sort. The reservation was not communicated to the Khedive.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (COLONIAL INQUIRIES) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1880, with respect to Colonial Courts of Inquiry—Was presented by The Earl of KIMBERLEY; read 1a. (No. 164.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.