Sitting of 11 June 1883

MINUTES.
— PRIVATE BILL (by Order) —Considered as amended—Exeter, Teign Valley, and Chagford Railway*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [211]; Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [130], debate adjourned.
Report of Select Committee—Forest of Dean (Highways)*.
Committee—Report—Lord Alcester's Grant (re-comm.) [207]; Lord Wolseley's Grant (re-comm.) [208].
Considered as amended—Registry of Deeds (Ireland)* [202].
Third, Reading—Local Government Provisional Order (No. 2) * [143]; Consolidated Fund (No. 3),* and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERS (VENTILATION OF RAILWAYS) BILL (by Order).
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. ANDERSON, in moving—
  "That the Bill be referred to a Hybrid Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection,"
  said, that the object of his Motion was to secure that the Bill should be referred, not to an ordinary Private Bill Committee, but to a Hybrid Committee; and he could hardly understand how there could be any reason for objecting to a Motion such as that. His desire, of course, was to enable persons to appear before a Committee, without being compelled, in the first instance, to establish a locus standi. That was the usual course in cases in which the public interests were involved —namely, to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee, for the purpose of having the public interests properly represented. Nobody would pretend that the Metropolitan Board of Works represented the public interests, or the interests of the ratepayers. Nor would anybody contend that the London Commissioners of Sewers represented the public interests. The interests of those who travelled by the District Railway were not likely to be served by the rejection of the present proposition, which was simply to enable

  189
  persons who were interested in the question to appear before the Committee, without being obliged, in the first place, to establish a locus standi. So far the House had taken a most unfortunate course with regard to these Bills. It had deliberately suspended the Standing Orders, in order to undo legislation which it had approved of and sanctioned a very short time ago; and the mode in which it was proposed to undo that legislation was, in his opinion, of a most objectionable character. The Bill simply provided that these ventilators should be closed, and that the expense of closing them should be borne by the public. Not only was the expense of closing them to fall upon the public, but the original expense of opening them was also to fall upon the public. It was estimated that the expense of opening, and the expense of closing them, would reach altogether the sum of £40,000; and it was proposed by these Bills to throw this burden upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis. The ratepayers of London had, therefore, every reason for opposing this Bill; and it was desirable that persons who professed to represent the ratepayers, other than the Commissioners of Sewers and the Metropolitan Board of Works, should be able to appear before the Committee, and state their objections to this proposal to throw upon them a charge of £40,000. Unless his Motion were agreed to, the ratepayers would have no means whatever of opposing this exorbitant and improper charge upon them. But if the Bill were referred to a Hybrid Committee, the ratepayers could come before that Committee, and give evidence to show what their opinions were; whereas, before a Private Bill Committee, they would be obliged, in the first place, to establish a locus standi. He thought it would be a most objectionable course if the public were not to be represented in the same way as they were upon occasions when the general public interests were at stake. It was frequently the case that the Board of Trade represented the public, and the Board of Trade insisted on Hybrid Committees, in order that the public interests might be properly protected. On this occasion the Board of Trade had neglected its duty. It ought to have dome forward in the interests of the public; but it had failed to do so, and the only thing he could do was to
  190
  move that these Bills be referred to a Hybrid Committee. He had spoken of the burden of £40,000 which it was proposed to throw improperly upon the public. There was, however, another burden—namely, that of suffocation, which was to be thrown upon the travellers by the Railway; and yet they were to have no power to appear before the Committee of their own Motion, but were to be at the mercy of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commissioners of Sewers. He said nothing about the Railway Company. He desired to leave the Railway Company to fight its own battle. He had nothing to do with them, and he was speaking solely in the interests of the public, upon whom it was proposed to inflict the burden of £40,000, and in the interests of the travellers by the Railway, whom it was proposed by the Bill deliberately to suffocate. He intended to propose, in the case of both of these Bills, that a Hybrid Committee should be appointed, instead of an ordinary Private Bill Committee. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill he referred to a Hybrid Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection."— (Mr. Anderson.)
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, his hon. Friend had made an extremely good speech, no doubt; but it was a speech which ought to have been made upon the second reading of the Bill. The object of his hon. Friend was to secure an independent representation of the public before the Committee to whom the Bill was referred. It appeared to him (Mr. Labouchere) that if they were to have four Members of the Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection, the Metropolitan Board of Works would represent the ratepayers before that Committee. He was certainly surprised to hear from his hon. Friend that the Metropolitan Board of Works did not represent the ratepayers of the Metropolis. So far as he knew, the Board of Works was the only representative the ratepayers of the Metropolis had. Not only would the Metropolitan Board of Works be heard, but the Commissioners of Sewers would also represent the interests of the public; and, on the other side, the Railway Com-

  191
  pany would naturally seek to oppose the Bill, and would call all witnesses who would be able to speak on their behalf. Of course, they would call a reasonable number of travellers on the Underground Railway in support of their case, who would be able to say whether or not the contention of his hon. Friend, that they were likely to be suffocated by the passing of the Bill, had any foundation. There was no reason for saying that other evidence would not be submitted to a Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection; whereas, if the proposal of his hon. Friend were agreed to, there would be a Committee of seven, three of whom would be appointed by the Committee of Selection and four by the House, who would consist, he presumed, of two advocates on one side and two on the other. That was a fair presumption, and it was what was done when a Committee was appointed in this manner. After the Railway Company had given evidence, and after evidence had been heard on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commissioners of Sewers, if the Committee was a hybrid one, any gentleman who had a fad about this Railway would be able to come forward and give evidence. Now, he was a ratepayer of the Metropolis himself, and he objected to spend the public money in feeing counsel in order to examine all these amateur witnesses. Even when the case was closed they would have to discuss and settle the matter between two advocates on the one side and two on the other. There was, therefore, no reason, he thought, for departing from the usual course of procedure in these matters. And he would beg to move that all the words of the Amendment after "That the Bill be referred to a" be struck out, and "a Committee of Four Members" be substituted.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that au Amendment of that nature was not necessary.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would confine himself, therefore, to opposing the Motion, as he understood the same object would be gained by negativing it.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he had not much to say in addition to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); but he felt bound to oppose the proposition of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr.
  192
  Anderson) to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee. The question raised was not whether the course taken by the Railway Company was right or not. In point of fact, the Company had taken powers under a previous Bill, and they had misused them. His objection to the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow was simply that, as a rule, a Hybrid Committee represented a particular interest; whereas it was essential, in the inquiry they wore about to enter into, to consider the question in a merely judicial spirit. The Metropolitan Board of Works and the Corporation of London were not represented upon the Committee, but were perfectly content to submit the matter to an ordinary Committee, in which they had complete confidence. It was because he believed that all the questions at stake would be much more fairly discussed, and that much less waste of time and expense would be involved by referring the Bill to an ordinary rather than to a Hybrid Committee, that he opposed the Motion.
  MR. CROPPERsaid, he rose to support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) said the speech of his hon. Friend ought to have been made on the second reading. He (Mr. Cropper) thought that speeches to a similar effect had been made on the second reading. At any rate, he had said all he could on the second reading against the proposal to close the ventilators. He thought it was an important point now that they should select as good a Committee as possible. The question was settled, and therefore was not worth arguing, whether these ventilators should be retained or not. But it was important that some good system should be proposed and adopted. He thought, if that question were well put before the Committee, and if the Committee were as large as possible, some good result might be brought about in the interests of the millions of people who travelled underground, and whose welfare ought to be considered in the question. His opinion was that the ventilators themselves were an improvement. He did not think they were any eyesore to speak of; and he thought that all the weight which could be given to the Committee should be given to it. He supported the Motion,

  193
  because he believed that a large Committee would be able to act more satisfactorily than a small one.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGhoped the House would not adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Glasgow. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper) that they ought to have a good Committee; but his experience of the House did not teach him that the goodness of a Committee consisted in the fact that it was composed of an extreme number. All they wanted was an intelligent Committee, who would devote their time to the consideration of the questions referred to them. Such a Committee would be able to come to a much better decision than a Hybrid Committee; upon which there would probably be two advocates on the one side and two on the other. For instance, if he were placed upon the Committee—which he presumed he would be—in such a case everybody would know how he should vote, and the only effect would be to leave the decision of the question to the Chairman and the other two Members of the Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection. Before an ordinary tribunal the Railway Company could call what evidence they liked, and the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Commissioners of Sewers would also be able to call any amount of evidence to show that these ventilators were a disfigurement to the Embankment, and that in the City they were dangerous to the traffic. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had observed that the expense to the ratepayers of pulling down the ventilators would be about £40,000. He wanted to know if the hon. Member had ever thought over, in his own mind, the sum which the Embankment had cost the ratepayers of the Metropolis? It was much nearer £2,000,000 than £1,000,000; and it would be a great mistake to allow the Railway Company to take land for which they had never paid, but for which the ratepayers had paid for the enjoyment of the public. Surely, then, it was a matter of great importance to the people of the Metropolis that the Railway Company should not be allowed to take away a largo portion of the Embankment from the enjoyment of the public, for which the Company did not propose to give one farthing in return. Nor had they made
  194
  any use of their own property for the construction of these ventilators; but their sole desire seemed to be to put money into the pockets of their shareholders. He hoped the House would adhere to their original intention, and send the Bill to an ordinary Committee in which they would all have confidence. The Committee of Selection would take care to appoint good men upon it; and four men were, in his opinion, much better than seven or 17. He hoped the House would negative the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow; and that both in regard to this Bill and the Bill brought in by the Metropolitan Board of Works they would appoint the ordinary Committee in the usual manner.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had supplied his opponents with an argument in support of the Motion, because he said that if an ordinary Committee was appointed, he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) would certainly be placed upon it.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he did not think the hon. Member had rightly heard him. What he had said was, that he had no desire to be upon a Hybrid Committee, because his views would be known, and his vote would be known, and he wished to have an independent Committee consisting of men who would have no interest in the matter except that of the public good.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, the answer to that was that an independent Committee had already allowed these ventilators to be made. He thought a Hybrid Committee, selected with ordinary care, would take into consideration the interests which the public had in the matter; and in the event of a Hybrid Committee being appointed, an opportunity would be afforded to the Committee of hearing a large number of persons who could not appear before an ordinary Private Bill Committee, and who, therefore, could not otherwise make their complaints known. It was said, he did not know with what justice, that a large number of working men in London considered that some system of ventilation ought to be adopted, in order to secure their health and comfort in travelling along the Railway in crowded trains. It therefore might be worth while, during the sitting of the Com-

  195
  mittee, to ask some questions of the working men themselves, in order to ascertain what their views upon the matter wore; and, therefore, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had done well in bringing the question forward. Then, again, he did not look very favourably upon the alliance between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the City of London. He did not think that the Metropolitan Board of Works was the most popular Body in London at the present time; and he did not think it would do much good to prevent public opinion being heard before the Committee. He should certainly support his hon. Friend if he carried his Motion to a division. He was bound to say that, under the circumstances of the case, it would be the duty of the Committee to ascertain the best means by which the Railway could be ventilated.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, the Corporation of London, the Commissioners of Sewers, and the Metropolitan Board of Works were all agreed that the best way to bring this matter to a speedy termination would be to refer it to an ordinary Committee in the usual way. These who opposed the introduction of the Bill now moved that the Committee should be appointed in a different way from the usual way, and it was plain that their object was to delay the measure. His hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) said there were millions of people travelling by this Railway, and it was the duty of the House to see that they were not smothered by the smoke which the Railway Company emitted from their engines. At the same time, his hon. Friend pointed out that the ventilation might be conducted in a better manner than it was at present. No doubt, the Railway could be ventilated in a different manner from that which was now adopted. He therefore hoped the House would not be led away by those who opposed the Bill, and that they would not, by adopting the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), shunt the Bill to another Committee.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow had travelled for a good many years upon this Railway, and he did not see that his hon. Friend had suffered
  196
  very much in consequence. Until the Railway Company took steps to promote the ventilation of their Line, he hoped the House would persist in the course they were taking of preventing them from ventilating it at the expense of the public. He hoped the House would reject the Motion, and refer the Bill to an ordinary Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 171: Majority 98.—(Div. List, No. 124.)
  Bill committed.

QUESTIONS.

  ALKALI WORKS ACT, 1881—REPORTS OF INSPECTORS.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the President of the Local Government Board, When the Reports of the Inspectors under the Alkali Works Act, 1881, will be in the hands of Members?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, The Reports of the Inspectors under the Alkali Works Act, 1881, were in the hands of the printers shortly before Notice was given of this Question. The printing is being expedited; but the printers tell me it will be a fortnight before proofs can be obtained, which seems a long time. No delay that can be avoided shall take place, and arrangements will be made that in the coming year the Reports shall be presented at an earlier date.

  NAVY—DOCKYARD SHIP FITTERS.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to make any alteration with regard to the ship fitting branches; and, whether it is contemplated to withdraw the shipwrights' apprentices from the fitting shops in the two dockyards where, under the new system, they have been introduced?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, the Report of the Committee, presided over by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, which has inquired into the Constructors' Department, deals with the two questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke. I hope that that Report will very shortly be laid on the Table, and it will supply a

  197
  much more complete reply to my hon. Friend's inquiry than I could give in answer to him at this time. I would therefore ask him to await its production, and I trust there will be very little delay.

  EGYPT—EGYPTIAN EXILES IN CEYLON.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received a Letter, signed by the Egyptian exiles in Ceylon, regarding their view of the engagements entered into between Her Majesty's Government and them on the occasion of their pleading guilty to the charge of rebellion against the Egyptian Government, together with a copy of a Letter on the same subject from Mr. Mark Napier, also a Letter from Toulba Pacha in regard to a change in his place of exile; whether he will lay these Papers upon the Table of the House; and, whether any steps are being taken to secure to the exiles the minimum allowance which the Governor of Ceylon has stated is requisite for them, viz. £50 per month to each family?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEYes, Sir; these Papers will be laid upon the Table. It is under consideration, in distributing the additional £500 recently awarded to the prisoners, to distinguish the different eases so far as possible, and to assist those most in need. Her Majesty's Government are in communication with Sir Edward Malet and the Governor of Ceylon in the matter.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether the houses free of rent which these exiles now occupied would be taken from them?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That is a further question which will be taken into consideration in connection with what I have just now stated.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Are we to understand that no effect is to be given to the views of the Governor of Ceylon that these exiles ought to have from £40 to £50 a-year allowed them in place of the rent of these houses?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: A distinction will be drawn according to their circumstances. We are informed on very good authority that one of these exiles is well off; in fact, their circum-
  198
  stances vary. My hon. Friend will see that it would not be wise to treat all exactly the same. We are waiting further explanations on the subject.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Is it true that the first act of the Governor of Ceylon, on returning to the Island after a throe months' leave of absence, was to give a banquet to Arabi Pasha and his fellow-prisoners?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI have no information on that point.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: Will the noble Lord say whether a Copy of the despatch of the Governor of Ceylon will also be laid on the Table?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I must ask my hon. Friend to give Notice of that Question.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 — IRISH LAND COMMISSION — SECTION 60—"CHAINE v. NELSON."
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the recent decision of the Common Pleas Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, in the case of Chaine v. Nelson, had the effect of altering the view taken of the sixtieth section of the Land Act by the Land Commissioners, and showing that their action under this section had been ultra vires; whether a special Circular was issued by them on 21st May, intimating that, in consequence of the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, the date of the judicial rent commencing to accrue is the gale day next after the actual decision fixing such rent, and not earlier; if it is the case that, notwithstanding such Circular, the Sub-Commissioners, or some of them, continue to use the form of order as previously; and, what steps it is proposed to take to modify the orders already made, but now decided to have been illegal?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I understand, Sir, that the personal opinion of the Land Commissioners remains unchanged; but they, of course, accept the decision of the Common Pleas Division so long as it remains unaltered on appeal. With regard to the Circular of the 21st of May, the circumstances are that numerous inquiries having been made as to the effect of the decision, the Commissioners thought it right to prepare a Minute showing that effect. The Order to which the hon. Member refers directs

  199
  and determines no question relating to the judicial rent. It merely uses the words of the 60th section of the Act of 1881.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my Question, which refers to Orders already made.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I presume the Commissioners are awaiting the result of the appeal, which, I am told, will be determined very shortly.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—VACCINATION—DEATH IN ST. PANCRAS WORKHOUSE.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the proceedings at au inquest on Saturday last respecting the death of Herbert Walsh, vaccinated in St. Pancras Workhouse by the public vaccinator, in which a medical witness attributed the death of the child to the cessation of mother's milk caused by the mother having been re-vaccinated without her consent being asked the day after the child's birth; to the statement of the public vaccinator that in re-vaccinating mothers a few hours after their confinement he was acting under the advice and with the knowledge of the Local Government Board; whether the child was vaccinated when only eight days old; whether the Local Government Board approve of the re-vaccination of a woman, with or without her consent, so early after her confinement while nursing her infant, or of the vaccination of an infant so young; and, whether the Board will issue directions to restrain a practice attended with such results?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Board have obtained a copy of the depositions taken at the inquest respecting the death of Herbert Walsh. It was stated by a medical practitioner at the inquest that he was of opinion that the vaccination of the mother caused the flow of milk to cease, and the verdict of the jury was to the effect that the child died from inanition or wasting, caused by the absence of the mother's breast milk and want of proper nourishment. On the other hand, three medical men, including Dr. Sharkey, assistant physician at St. Thomas's Hospital, and Dr. Henderson, pathologist of St. Mary's Hospital, who were examined at the inquest, could see no connection between
  200
  the suppression of the milk of the mother and the vaccination; and, in fact, there was no cessation of the milk for a month after the time when the woman was vaccinated. The mother was re-vaccinated on the day after her confinement. She was admitted into the workhouse in labour, and was delivered early in the afternoon of the same day. There had consequently been no previous opportunity of re-vaccinating her. The labour was a natural one, and the mother was progressing favourably; and the medical officer was satisfied, from his previous experience, that the operation could be performed without injurious effect. With regard to the question whether the consent of the woman to the re-vaccination was obtained, the medical officer in his evidence at the inquest stated that the mother knew that she was going to be vaccinated, and raised no objection; and that in cases where objection has been made he has not vaccinated. The Board have not advised the re-vaccination of mothers a few hours after their confinement, and the Board have no reason to suppose that this is a general practice. The child was vaccinated when eight clays old. As regards the re-vaccination of mothers on the day after their confinement, the Board have been content to leave this to the discretion of the medical attendant, who can best estimate the risk of small-pox encountered by the woman during her stay in the lying-in ward. The Board have not had occasion to announce their approval or disapproval of the practice; but, under ordinary circumstances, would think it better that any required re-vaccination should not be associated with the accidents of the lying-in room. With regard to the vaccination of infants a few days after birth, I would refer to my answers to Questions on the 20th of February and the 6th of March. With respect to the case of the mother referred to in the Question, the Board will communicate with the medical officer.

  ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT—THE COMMITTEE ON DRESS OF THE ARMY.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the Army Pay Department is the only Department that has not an officer to represent it on the Committee which is now sitting, under the presidency of Colonel Harri-

  201
  son, R.E., for the purpose of remodelling the equipment and the uniform of the Officers of the Army; and, whether it is a fact that there are now 278 Officers serving in the Army Pay Department?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: Sir, there are no Departmental officers on this Standing Committee for remodelling the equipment and uniform of officers of the Army; but if a question affecting a Department be under consideration, the Committee has power to associate with it ad hoc a member of the Department concerned. In reply to the second Question of my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that on the 1st of May there were 282 officers serving in the Army Pay Department.

  ARMY—WITHDRAWAL OF THE ROYAL MARINES.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the Government intend to withdraw the Royal Marines who have been for some time on special duty in Dublin in aid of the Civil Power?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is not intended to keep the Royal Marines permanently in Dublin; their numbers are being gradually reduced, according as it is believed that their services can safely be dispensed with.

  ARMY ESTIMATES—VOTE IV.—MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND SERVICE.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, having regard to the grave charges and insinuations freely brought in evidence before Lord Morley's Committee, and in the Press, against Medical Officers in the late Egyptian war, he will take care that the Vote in the Army Estimates relating to the Medical Service of the Army (Vote 4) is taken at a time when those interested in vindicating the conduct of those officers will have ample opportunity of doing so; can he now name the day on which that Vote will be taken; and, will adequate notice be given of the day selected for taking the Vote?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, that it would be necessary for the requirements of the Public Service to obtain some Votes for the Army during the course of the present
  202
  month; but as the Medical Vote was comparatively small in amount, and as the discussion to be raised upon it would probably take a considerable time, he proposed to postpone the Vote until the next following evening on which the Army Estimates were put down. As to the date on which Vote 4 would be taken, he hoped to be in a position to make a statement to the House on the night this month which, as he had stated, would have to be dovoted to the obtaining supplies for the Army.

  PUBLIC HEALTH— METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD—HAMPSTEAD HOSPITAL.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will by acquiescence sanction the renewal of litigation by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, with the owners of property and residents of Hampstead, respecting the use of the hospital there for fever or small-pox patients?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Lord Chancellor, in delivering judgment, said—
  "I think that there ought to be a new trial in this case, because the verdict of the jury upon the main issue does appear to me to have been founded upon a state of evidence which is not to my mind satisfactory, having regard to the nature and importance of the question to be determined."
  The heavy expense which the litigation involves is much to be regretted. The Board have reason to believe that an endeavour has been made to arrive at a compromise, but that the offer has not been entertained by the plaintiffs. In the event of the case proceeding, no sanction on the part of the Board is necessary to enable the managers to defend the action brought against them, and the matter is not one in which the Board have any authority to interfere.

  INLAND NAVIGATION, &c. (IRELAND)— BRIDGE ACROSS THE SHANNON.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is he aware that the Grand Juries of Leitrim and Roscommon have levied. and have now on hand a considerable part of the sum requisite to construct a bridge over the Shannon at Upper

  203
  Drumkerriff near Drumshambo, and if he will use his influence with the Grand Juries to have this reform carried out, the present dilapitated bridge being on the leading road from Enniskillen to Boyle, and also said bridge causes such an obstruction of the river that much land is consequently often flooded?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I understand, Sir, that this matter is in the hands of a Joint Committee, consisting of members of each of the Grand Juries concerned and the respective County Surveyors. This Committee was not satisfied with the plans originally prepared. Fresh plans are being prepared with all possible despatch, and it is expected that the work will be actually commenced at an early date.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) — BELFAST WORKHOUSE—IRREGULARITIES OF OFFICIALS.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it be true that a young female pauper named Keenan, servant to the matron of the Belfast Workhouse, and under her immediate control, was seduced by a male pauper named Reid, the result of which was a child was born; is it true that Reid was married to another female pauper, prior to Keenan's seduction, named Beckett; is it a fact that Keenan and her child, and Reid and his wife, continue paupers in the workhouse although able-bodied and fit for work, and that Reid holds a position of trust as pauper assistant in the workhouse, which enables him to have access to various parts of the institution; will he, as President of the Local Government Board, cause an inquiry to be made as to how many similar cases of imposition exist in the Belfast. Workhouse, and is he able to say whether the guardians have taken any steps to discontinue relief to these recipients, or to prevent a repetition of such disgraceful conduct?
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSON, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, wished to ask him whether he had yet received from the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) the substantiation which he said he would endeavour to obtain of the very serious charges implied in the Question which the hon. Member put on June 1 against the Lurgan Board of Guardians and the officials of the Lurgan Union?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir; no such communication has been received. In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny), I have to say that it is true that a woman named Keenan had an illegitimate child, but there is no ground for supposing that the father of the child was in the workhouse. Charges of the character mentioned were made against a pauper named Reid by another pauper named James Cullen, who immediately afterwards left the workhouse, and has not since come forward to substantiate his charges, although every effort has been made to find him and bring him before the Guardians for the purpose. His statements were wholly unsupported, and their truth was distinctly denied by the persons concerned when the Guardians inquired into the matter last September. It is not the case that Reid holds a position of trust as a pauper-assistant. At the time when the charges referred to were made against him he was removed from the position which he formerly hold, and has not since been restored to it. He has lately been admitted into the infirmary.
  MR. KENNY: With reference to the Question of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. J. N. Richardson), I may state that I am in communication with the gentleman who supplied me with information on that subject, and I expect to be able to substantiate the charge in a few days. At the same time, I have not the slightest doubt of the accuracy of the statement contained in my Question.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—NEW TURKISH TARIFF — BRITISH IMPORTS INTO TURKEY.
  MR. MONKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is able to make any further communication to the House respecting the imposition of an Eight per Cent. Valorem Duty on British Manufactures introduced in the Ottoman Dominions?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Constantinople having reported that the British merchants in Turkey have not protested against the imposition of the 8 per cent ad valorem duties, he has been instructed that, provided that the British merchants do not object, he may accept those duties, while making a reserve on

  205
  the part of Her Majesty's Government as to the action of the Porte in suddenly bringing the new Tariff into force in disregard of the assurances given to Her Majesty's Embassy, that no change would be made before October next.
  MR. BOURKEasked under what Treaty the duties were now levied on British manufactures?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, they were now levying under the Treaty of 1863.
  MR. BOURKE: So there has practically been no change?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: They are now levying the Duty under the Treaty as they have a right to levy it up to 8 per cent. British merchants are of opinion that in regard to several important classes of articles this change is by no means unfavourable to our manufacturers, as compared with the Tariff which the Porte claims has expired before the Treaty.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—CO. MAYO.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Sub-Commissioners in Mayo have recently refused to allow the agents of landlords, who have been brought into the Court for the purpose of having their rents reduced, to cross examine the tenants on matters of fact; and, whether, as the land agent is the person who, presumably, is the most likely person to elicit the truth in reference to matters connected with the property which he is in the habit of managing, and as there appears to be no Clause in the Land Act which prohibits a person acting as agent for a property, under power of attorney, from personally appearing in a case in which his principal is concerned, he will call the attention of the Land Commissioners to the hardship which is inflicted on owners of property by this new regulation, with the view of enabling the landlords' case to be brought before the Courts in the simplest and fairest way, and without the necessity of extraneous professional advice?
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I rise to Order. I wish to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the opening lines of the second paragraph of this Question, which state that—
  206
  "Whether, as the land agent is the person who, presumably, is the most likely person to elicit the truth in reference to matters connected with the property which he is in the habit of managing."
  I hold a contrary opinion altogether; and I submit that these words are of a distinctly argumentative character, and, according to the Rules of the House, ought not to be put.
  MR. SPEAKER: No doubt, it may be a matter of controversy whether the land agent is the person who is most likely to elicit the truth in reference to matters connected with the property he manages; but, at the same time, I have not thought it necessary to object to the form of the Question.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the 52nd section of the Land Act specifies the persons who may conduct a case before the Sub-Commission. A landlord's agent is not included in the list; and a Sub-Commission, consequntly, acts properly in refusing to allow an agent to cross-examine a tenant, or, in any way, to conduct a case.
  COLONEL KING - HARMAN: Have the Sub-Commissioners acted improperly in allowing land agents to cross-examine the tenants up to the present?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I conclude that that is the case. There are only four classes of persons specified in the 52nd section, and undoubtedly the landlord's agent is not included.

  POST OFFICE—THE PARCELS POST.
  MR. KENNYasked the Postmaster General, Whether notice has been served on the mail car contractors in Ireland, setting forth that from the 18th of August next no parcel under seven pounds in weight can be received or carried by mail car other than what passes through the Post Office; if, in consequence of the loss which contractors will suffer by this regulation, it is proposed to grant them fair compensation; and, if so, what facilities will be afforded to the contractors to prove their exact losses; and, whether the Post Office authorities have adopted any scale by which to regulate such compensation?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply, Sir, to the hon. Member's Question, I may say that notice has been served on the contractors for mail services throughout the Kingdom, that parcels up to the weight of 7 lbs. w ill form part of Her Majesty's

  207
  mails from the date on which the Parcels Post comes into operation; and in a certain class of contracts it has also been necessary to restrict the carriage of parcels entirely to such parcels as may be sent through the post. The terms of payment under these altered conditions are a matter for negotiation, and a settlement has been already arrived at in a very large number of cases. Where fresh terms cannot be agreed upon, it is open to the contractors to terminate the contract by three months' notice, when the service will be put up to public competition.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE X.—THE VARNA RAILWAY.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government can now see their way to insist upon the strict fulfilment of Article X. of the Treaty of Berlin, so as to avoid such terms being forced by Bulgaria on the Varna Railway bondholders as practically confiscates their property; whether, the bondholders having been obliged to take the guarantee of Bulgaria for the £140,000 a-year, Her Majesty's Government will take such steps as are necessary to preserve their rights; and, whether, before any final arrangement is agreed to by the agent of Her Majesty's Government at Sofia, he will be directed to secure the payment of all arrears of interest to the bondholders as a precedent condition?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICESir, the Bulgarian Government, after long negotiations with the Varna Railway Company, have, at the instance of Her Majesty's Government, agreed in principle to refer the amount of their liability to the arbitration of the Ambassadors of the Great Powers at Constantinople. The precise terms of the agreement of arbitration are still under discussion; and Her Majesty's Government regret that the Bulgarian Government have neglected to answer the last two Notes on the subject addressed to them on the 3rd of April and the 4th of May last. The reason given for the delay being the recent change of Ministry and the absence of the Prince of Bulgaria at Moscow. Her Majesty's Agent at Sofia has been instructed to press urgently for a reply to the above-mentioned communication.
  MR. DIXON - HARTLAND: The noble Lord has not in the least answered my first Question. I would ask him, whether the Bulgarian Government only agreed to remit the matter to arbitration on the absurd condition that the decision should be unanimous; next, whether there has been any alteration of the Ministry at Sofia since March last?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEThe question of unanimity has been one of the points under discussion between Her Majesty's Government and the Bulgarian Government; and it is on this and on other points that, as I stated the other day, Her Majesty's Government regret that they have been unable to obtain any understanding.
  MR. DIXON - HARTLAND: What change has there been in the Ministry at Sofia since the 11th of March?
  LORD EDMOND FIZMAURICE: I am not aware that there has been any change of Ministry, but there have been changes of individual Ministers.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he would repeat his Question that day week.

  THE ELECTORAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND).
  MR. DAWSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that, owing to the defects in registration, many persons in Ireland entitled to the franchise are precluded from obtaining it; whether, owing to the provisions contained in the sixty-third section of the Act 11 and 12 Vic. c. 91, many thousands of persons otherwise entitled to the Poor Law, Municipal, and Parliamentary Franchise in Dublin, are deprived of any share in the selection of Poor Law, Municipal and Parlimentary representatives; and, whether, with a view to encourage Constitutional action in Ireland, he will press forward the Registration Bill he has introduced, and amend it so as to remove the difficulties which at present exclude many thousands of people in Ireland from franchises which the Law intends they should enjoy?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I am well aware of, and I regret, the circumstances referred to in the second paragraph of this Question, which the hon. Member has in so patriotic a manner brought before me more than once. I think this is a matter which would more properly be dealt with in a measure relating

  209
  to the franchise, whether Municipal or Parliamentary, than in a Bill dealing exclusively with registration. I almost doubt whether it would be considered within the scope of a Registration Bill by the opponents of the measure. With regard to the defects of the existing system of registration, I may say that among the proposed Irish measures of this Session there is none that I am more anxious to see promptly carried than one dealing with this question. But the delay in the Government Bills has been so great, and was so unexpected by me when I first brought forward my programme of Irish measures, that I must own I have not now the same confidence of being able to get them carried this Session.
  MR. DAWSONasked whether it was not a fact that in the English Registration Act of 1878 the provisions referred to in his Question were incorporated from political motives?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the provisions were practically determined by the Act of 1869, introduced by the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). That Act was undoubtedly of a political nature, and was only carried after considerable discussion.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) — THE RATHKEALE UNION— INSURANCE OF THE UNION BUILDINGS.
  MR. SYNANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, by letter of the 18th April 1883, the Board of Public Works informed the Board of Guardians of the Rathkeale Union that they had effected an insurance on the Ballastkerry Dispensary buildings for the sum of £1,150, at the rate of 3s. per cent.; whether, by resolutions of the 21st March and 2nd May 1883, the Board of Guardians objected to pay more than 1s. 6d. per cent. being the usual rate in the Union, and whether the rate was reduced in consequence of said resolutions; whether, by resolutions of the 11th April and 2nd May 1883, the Board of Guardians called upon the Board of Public Works to inform them how the sum of £1,150 was apportioned over the separate buildings in order to enable the Board of Guardians to effect an additional insurance; and, whether the Board of Public Works have complied with those resolutions, or will now do so?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the facts appear to be correctly stated in the Question; and I learn that the Board of Works have already complied with the resolutions referred to.

  POST OFFICE ANNUITIES AND LIFE ASSURANCE TABLES.
  MR. HOLLONDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, When the new Post Office Annuities and Insurance Tables, authorised by the Act of last Session, will be ready; and, whether, in view of the fact that these tables must be laid upon the Table of the House thirty days before they come into operation, he can give the House an assurance that they will be presented in sufficient time to be approved during the present Session, and thus avoid another year's delay in bringing the Act into operation?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, I have agreed with my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General, that the two sets of tables should be issued together. The Actuarial Reports on which the annuity tables must be founded are still under review; and, though the work will be pressed forward, I do not think I could give the assurance for which my hon. Friend asks.

  ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS ACTS—REBUILDING.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What provisions have been agreed to between the Secretary of State and the Commissioners of Sewers as to rebuilding on the sites cleared under the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Acts 1875 and 1882; and, when the Correspondence, for the production of which an Address was agreed to on the 3rd May, will be in the hands of Members?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the terms of the arrangement relating to the various sites would be found in the Correspondence which was in the hands of the printers, and would shortly be laid upon the Table.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When a Bill will be brought in for confirming the Provisional Orders made in the four schemes under the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings

  211
  Acts, 1875 and 1882, brought forward by the Metropolitan Board?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the Bill had been already brought in.

  GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENTS— THE HOME OFFICE.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to a leading article in the "Times" of 6th June, which states that "an attempt has been made to relieve the Home Office of a part of its work," a scheme for transferring to the Local Government Board the control of business relating to factories, artizans' dwellings, and burials; and, if the statement is correct; and, if so, under what statute such transfer has been made?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, Sir; it is not the fact that anything that could be properly called a transfer of business has taken place, nor do I think that any such scheme would be practicable. It is true that during a pressure of business, my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had been good enough to render me assistance in looking through Papers; but there has not been, nor could there be without Statutory authority, any transfer of responsibilities to that Board.

  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL — REPORT FROM THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked Mr. Attorney General, When the Report of the Standing Committee on the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill be presented to the House, so that the Country may have an opportunity of considering the Amendments which have been made in that Bill by the Committee?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, this Bill was being considered together with the Criminal Code Bill. The Standing Committee on Law had not made such progress as he could have wished, but he should be the last to give up the hope of proceeding with these Bills during this Session. He would promise that the Report of the Committee should be presented at such a time as would allow the House and the country the fullest opportunity of examining the Amendments which had been introduced.
  SIR. R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not answered the last portion of the Question?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that would be acting in opposition to the Instruction to the Committee, which was to deal with both Bills jointly.

  MADAGASCAR — INTERVENTION OF GREAT BRITAIN WITH FRANCE.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in accordance with the declaration of Her Majesty's Government recognising "the Queen of Madagascar as absolute Monarch of the whole Island" and with the understanding between Great Britain and France "that the two Governments should maintain an identic attitude of policy in Madagascar and act in concert in the matter," Her Majesty's Government has made representations to the French Government concerning the action and the claims of France in Madagascar?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICENo representation, other than those contained in the Blue Book already presented to Parliament, has been made to the French Government on the affairs of Madagascar.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) — OLDCASTLE UNION—SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES.
  MR. SHEILasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Guardians of Old-castle Union granted a superannuation allowance of £38 2s. 8d. a-year to Mr. John Flood, aged 67 years, which was duly sanctioned by the Local Government Board; whether the same Guardians granted a superannuation allowance of £12 a-year to Mr. Francis Hartley, age 71 years, which was disallowed by the Local Government Board on the ground that Mr. Hartley did not devote his whole time to the service of the Union; whether the Oldcastle Guardians pointed out that Mr. Flood had not given his whole service to the Union; and, whether the Local Government Board in continuing the sanction of the payment of a pension to Mr. Flood is acting legally?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the facts are substantially as stated; but it should be mentioned that when the Guardians

  213
  submitted to the Local Government Board the claims of Mr. Flood to pension, there was nothing whatever to show that his entire time had not been devoted to the two Poor Law offices in respect of which it was proposed to pension him; and it was in the belief that this was the case that the Local Government Board sanctioned the grant. The Superannuation Act does not contain any express provision enabling the Board to cancel the grant; but they will take legal advice as to whether they have power to take such a step.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS—PROHIBITION OF PUBLIC MEETINGS ON OPEN SPACES.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the Board of Works have systematically refused, since the 18th January 1883, to allow any public meetings to be held on any of the open spaces which they are required to protect and allowed to regulate?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I beg to state, Sir, that the Board has not systematically refused, since the 18th of January, 1883, to allow any public meetings to be held on the open spaces; but, having regard to the powers given to the Board to prevent acts or things tending to interference with the use of the open spaces by the public for the purposes of exercise and recreation, the Board has not seen fit to grant permission to persons desiring to hold public meetings for the purpose of discussing religious and other topics upon Sundays. I may add that the magistrate at the Lambeth Police Court, on the 7th instant, in convicting two persons charged with the infringement of the bye-laws, stated his opinion that meetings such as I have mentioned would interfere with the use of the open spaces for the purposes of exercise and recreation.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Are people allowed to discuss religious questions on week-days?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: If the hon. Baronet will give Notice of the Question, I shall be glad to answer it.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERS: Is it not a fact that the Board have refused to give its assent to the holding of any public meeting of any kind whatever—religious, secular, or otherwise — on Sundays or any other day?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL - HOGG: Every application that is received is considered on its merits.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERS: Have they not been systematically refused? I understand they have.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I most distinctly state that they have not been systematically refused.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that Mr. Henry Hill, of 81, Barlow Street, Old Kent Road, was summoned at the instance of the Metropolitan Board of Works before the Lamboth Police Court for speaking on the occasion of a public meeting at Peckham Rye on 1st April; that the hearing of the summons was adjourned to 7th June, when Mr. Hill was fined twenty shillings and three guineas costs, with the alternative of fourteen days imprisonment, though four witnesses, whose testimony was not impeached, deposed that he had not spoken; whether the Metropolitan Board of Works have extended their powers in prohibiting meetings on public places, when the Law under which they exercise their powers allows them to regulate such meetings only; whether it has not been the custom for various meetings to be held for many years past, especially by advocates of temperance, on Peckham Rye, without objection, and even with the sanction of the vestry; and, whether, considering that working people cannot assemble to discuss grievances, or assist reforms in other than open spaces near London, owing to the expense involved in hiring rooms, he can check the action of the Board of Works?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, so far as the Home Office has anything to do with this matter, which is confirming and sanctioning the orders and regulations made, I have expressed my opinion to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works that the power to regulate public meetings in these open spaces ought not to be extended to an absolute prohibition of such meetings. I have expressed my opinion that in sanctioning the orders and regulations made, I did not contemplate that public meetings should be prohibited altogether. On the contrary, I think it would be very inexpedient to prevent meetings being held. They are allowed

  215
  to be held in Hyde Park, and I cannot see why they should not be allowed in other open spaces.

  INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT—THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state what is the present position of the negotiations which are understood to be now or to have lately been proceeding with the Government of the United States of America regarding the establishment of an International Copyright between the two countries?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, a proposal for the settlement of this question was made to the Government of the United States by Her Majesty's Minister at Washington in November, 1881, but no reply has yet been received.

  DIPLOMATIC VOTE—SALARY OF MAJOR BARING, H.M. CONSUL GENERAL IN EGYPT.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is intended to take a Supplementary Vote of Supply for the Salary and Allowances of Major Baring; whether the relative position of Major Baring as Agent and Consul General will be the same as that of Lord Dufferin with respect to the Officers in Command of Her Majesty's Naval and Military Forces in Egypt; and, whether Major Baring will be independent of, or subordinate to, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, it is not intended to take a Supplementary Vote in Supply for Major Baring's salary and allowances. I am not sure that I rightly understand the bearing of the second portion of the noble Lord's Question; but I may explain that the position of Lord Dufferin was altogether an exceptional one, and cannot be compared with that to be held by Major Baring, who succeeds Sir Edward Malet and not Lord Dufferin. Major Baring's rank and position will therefore be the same as those of Sir Edward Malet, and he will continue to receive his instructions from the Secretary of State, to whom his Correspondence will be directly addressed, Copies, when necessary, being sent to Her Ma-
  216
  jesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, according to the rule hitherto adopted by Her Majesty's Agents in Egypt.
  MR. GORST: Is the House to understand that no part of the pay and allowances of Major Baring will become payable during the present financial year?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No; I do not say that. I said that there would be no Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. GORST: If that is not so, where is the money to come from?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It will be included in. the Votes before the House. As the House is aware, the Diplomatic Vote has not yet been taken, and according to the usual practice the money saved by the economy of the Government with respect to other charges could be applied in payment of such an extra charge as the present.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Does the noble Lord mean to contend that it is usual in the beginning of a Session, in making financial arrangements, not to take a Vote of Credit for one portion of any Service because there is some hope of effecting a saving in another? That seems to me a now doctrine.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I was not making any general statement of financial doctrine, but answered a Question which was asked.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The matter stands in this way. It is proposed to increase the salary of a certain officer, and for that increase a sum of £2,000 will be required. Do the Government intend to make that increase without giving Parliament an opportunity of expressing an opinion on it?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I do not think it would be fair to give an answer to a Question of this character without Notice.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Due Notice has been given. The Question put by my noble Friend is, "Whether it is intended to take a Vote in Supply for the Salary and Allowances of Major Baring?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have answered that portion of the Question. It is not intended to take a Supplementary Vote.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: If it is not, then where will the extra £2,000 be obtained?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I give Notice that, as the noble Lord has stated that the extra salary and allowances of Major Baring will be included in the Diplomatic Vote, I shall, upon that Vote, move, as an Amendment to it, that the Vote be reduced by a sum of £2,000.
  MR. ONSLOW: May I ask the noble Lord whether the recompense which Major Baring will receive will be charged on the Imperial or the Indian Exchequer?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give Notice of that Question?
  MR. CARBUTTsaid, he had given Notice that he would oppose this Vote.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORinquired whether, except for this extra payment to Major Baring, there would not be a surplus of £2,000?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: There would be no difficulty whatever, if economies are effected in a Vote, in applying the surplus resulting from such economies towards payments in respect of the other details of the same Vote. The details of each Vote are not voted separately, but are given for the information of the House only.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The point to which I desire the noble Lord to direct his attention is this. Parliament has had Notice that the salary of a certain office is £2,000, and the Government are now proposing to increase that salary. I think that is an unusual course. I think it is an unusual course to increase a salary in that way without asking the authority of Parliament. Do the Government intend to increase that salary without the authority of Parliament?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Nobody could possibly object to the right hon. Gentleman bringing forward that question upon the Diplomatic Vote. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that I have fairly answered the Question upon the Paper, and that any further discussion should properly be taken then.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Secretary to the Treasury, whether any arrangement respecting Major Baring's salary has been brought before the Treasury, and whe-
  218
  ther the Treasury have given it their sanction?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): No arrangement of that character has been officially brought forward, though we are aware that it will be proposed in due course. My opinion is that the change should be explained to Parliament before it is made; and, so far as I am concerned, I will take care that this is done.

  EGYPT (THE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE) —THE ARMY HOSPITAL CORPS.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that the Army Hospital Corps attached to the British Expeditionary Force in Egypt was so deficient in men and appliances that, had it not been for the loan of a large number of bearers and dandies by the Indian Contingent, it would have been impossible to have removed the wounded from the field of Tel-el-Kebir, except after a long delay; and, if this is the case, who was responsible for this state of things?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I will refer the hon. Baronet to the reply of Sir John Adye, the Chief of the Staff, to Question No. 6,079 of the Evidence taken by Lord Morley's Committee of Inquiry. The Question was—
  "Before the battle of Tel-el-Kebir you got a number of Indian dhoolie bearers from the Indian Contingent. Was that in consequence of the British bearer companies not being sufficient?"
  Sir John Adye replied—
  "No; but knowing that they had a large establishment, and as the Native regiments were very few in number up at the front, I thought it was common sense that the superfluity of that establishment should be devoted to the general use of the Army on that occasion."
  This view is supported by the evidence of Sir Herbert Macpherson. (See Q. 636.) There is no doubt, however, that the dhoolie bearers attached to the Indian Contingent rendered most valuable service to the British troops, which I have no desire or intention of depreciating.

  PAPAL SEE—DIPLOMATIC COMMUNICATIONS—MR. ERRINGTON.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

  219
  What Department of the Foreign Office will be charged with making and keeping for the purposes of transmission, a record of Mr. Errington's proceedings during his protracted and repeated visits to Rome?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No Department of the Foreign Office will be charged with making and keeping the record of any Correspondence with Mr. Errington. The record of it will eventually be placed in the archives of the Office for the information of successive Secretaries of State.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Is there no record to be kept now, or is it only to be made when Lord Granville retires from Office?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That was what was stated at the time by the Prime Minister—"For the information of succeeding Secretaries of State."
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said the Correspondence would be placed on record at once, and not when the Government left Office. I do not think the present arrangement a fair fulfilment of that promise. The noble Lord has not signified in what Department the record will be kept.
  MR. GLADSTONE: My intention was to signify that the record should be kept from time to time as convenience dictated.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the following resolution unanimously adopted by the Town Commissioners of Longford on last Wednesday, viz.—
  "That we no longer desire to offer to Mr. Errington advice or suggestion, and only wish to make known to all whom it may concern that in anything said or done by him during the last three years, he is not to be understood as speaking for, or in any way representing, the people of Longford, who are of almost one mind in resenting the part which it is believed Mr. Errington has taken in influencing His Holiness the Pope to issue a circular letter to the Bishops condemnatory of Mr. Parnell and his policy;"
  and, whether, after such declaration, Her Majesty's Government will retain him as a confidential medium of communication upon Irish affairs with the Holy See?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Notwithstanding the respect which is
  220
  due to the Town Commissioners of Longford by Her Majesty's Government, it is not intended by Lord Granville to make any variation in his relations with Mr. Errington.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I ask the noble Lord whether he accepts the definition contained in the Question as to the Government retaining Mr. Errington as a "confidential medium of communication upon Irish affairs with the Holy See?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; I carefully avoided doing so.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Is Mr. Errington still at Rome making communications with the Pope? I will ask that Question to-morrow.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND)—AGRICULTURE IN IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the increased attention latterly paid to agricultural instruction in National Schools in Ireland, and the want of acquaintance with agricultural subjects felt by the inspectors who have to conduct the examinations for results fees, he will consider the advisability of substituting in the examinations for inspectorships of National Schools marks for proficiency in agricultural knowledge for the marks at present given in respect of the German and Italian languages, with which the duties of inspectors of Primary Schools are not conversant?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I know no reason to suppose that there is any want of capacity on the part of the Inspectors to examine the pupils of the ordinary National schools in the agricultural class books. The position is different with regard to the agricultural schools—i.e., schools having land attached to them—and in these cases there is a professionally qualified Inspector. With regard to the suggested alteration in the course of examination for Inspectorships, I have to observe that German and Italian are not obligatory subjects, They are among the voluntary subjects in an examination which is intended to test general ability, and not special knowledge. Candidates who have succeeded in the preliminary competitive examination are required to qualify in agriculture and other special subjects before they are given charge of a district. I do not think, therefore, that

  221
  there is any necessity for the proposed change.

  THE CORPORATION OF WEXFORD.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board is yet in a position to express an opinion on the action of their auditor in refusing to allow the reductions granted by the Corporation of Wexford to its tenants on account of bad seasons?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the matter remains as it was when I answered the hon. Member's former Question last week. The auditor has reserved his decision until his next audit, and the Local Government Board are not called upon to express any opinion on the matter unless it comes before them on appeal, which could only happen in the event of a surcharge being made.

  CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) ACTS— EXTRA POLICE IN TIPPERARY.
  MR. MAYNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is accurate, as stated at the road sessions of the north riding of Tipperary, and reported in the "Tipperary Advocate" of the 2nd instant—
  "That fifty of the ordinary Police force of the district were taken off, and put on again as an extra Police force;"
  and, if true, whether this does not involve heavy additional taxation on the district, without any addition to the Police force to which the district is entitled?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the hon. Member is probably aware that the Constabulary Acts require a re-calculation every five years of the number of men to which each county and riding in Ireland is entitled as a free force. The last quinquennial redistribution was made by Order in Council of July 27 last, and the free force of the North Riding of Tipperary was then reduced by 50 men, as it was found to be that number in excess of the proportion to which the Riding was entitled, comparing its area and population with other counties in Ireland. But the state of the Riding at the time did not permit of the total strength of the police being reduced; and it was therefore necessary to add the 50 men to the extra force employed under the Act 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 13, a moiety of the
  222
  cost of which will be charged upon the Riding. This force will be reduced as circumstances permit.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS—CHARING CROSS RAILWAY BRIDGE.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, If he is aware that Parliamentary powers have been granted to the South Eastern Railway Company respecting their bridge over the Thames at Charing Cross; and, whether these proposed works will encroach on the Embankment, and tend to spoil both that and Northumberland Avenue; and, if so, whether he proposes to ask Parliament to suspend its Standing Orders to enable him to repeal that legislation?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, the South-Eastern Railway Company promoted two Bills in the last Session of Parliament, which were opposed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and considerably modified. One of the works comprised in the Bills was the widening of the railway near Charing Cross, which was required for the purposes of enabling the Company to carry their increasing traffic with public safety. The Board objected to this widening upon various grounds, one of them being that it would be objectionable with reference to Northumberland Avenue, and the Board suggested that the widening should be upon the Eastern or City side of the railway. Although Parliament did not adopt this view, the Bills, as passed into law, provided against any occupation of the land of the ornamental gardens, or of the Victoria Embankment roadway, and did not involve any works which might lead to public danger. Under these circumstances, the Board does not propose to ask Parliament to repeal that legislation.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ASSISTANT CLERKS.
  MR. GRANTHAMasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the position of certain lower division clerks in the Education Department (and not third class clerks, as understood by him in a former answer) who entered that office as junior assistant clerks at the age of fourteen, under a signed agreement, with a pro-

  223
  mise of a nomination for a permanent clerkship if they had a good character and remained there till they were nineteen, but who were deprived of that nomination by the alteration subsequently made in the service; whether they are receiving now the very much smaller smaller salary of about £100 per annum instead of about £300 per annum; whether the yearly increase is much less than they otherwise would have received; whether the heads of the Department have recommended some compensation to be made to them; and, if the Government will now make them some compensation for the breach of the conditions on which they entered the service; and, if not, on what grounds such compensation is refused?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, I have looked into the facts of the case referred to in the Question. There was no promise given of a nomination for a clerkship, only a chance of being allowed to compete for any vacancy that might be open. As a fact, there have been no vacancies, such as one or two of the men might possibly have filled, but all of them have been turned into lower division clerks. The Education Department recommended that they should reckon their pensionable service from the time they became writers; but the Treasury, upon careful consideration, and having regard to the precedent that would be created, decided that no case was made out for this concession.

  PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS — AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, as the Agricultural Holdings Bill is now postponed until after the Committee of the Corrupt Practices Bill, the Government will consider the advisability of re-committing it, in order to incorporate it in the Clauses of "The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875," to which reference is made in the Bill?
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question he should like to put another Question to him on the same subject, and, with the indulgence of the House, he would say one word in explanation. When the Committee on the Tenants' Compensation Bill was fixed for that day, they were led to believe that the Committee
  224
  would be proceeded with with as little delay as possible. The right hon. Gentleman had, in fact, given a pledge to that effect to the Member for Gloucestershire. He wished to ask the Government whether, having regard to that understanding, they would consent not to postpone the Agricultural Holdings Bill until after the Committee of the Corrupt Practices Bill?
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he also should ask the Government to reconsider their decision, as if the Agricultural Holdings Bill was not taken first, it would come on when hon. Members interested in it would have to be away attending to Quarter Sessions.
  MR. DODSON: In answer to the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Kingscote), I can add nothing now to the answer given by the Prime Minister on the subject on Friday last to the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon. The Government are disposed to look favourably on the proposal, but wish to reserve their judgment as to the time and mode of giving effect to it until further progress has been made with the Bill. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) as to whether the Government will give precedence to the Committee on the Agricultural Holdings Bill, I can only say that when I stated what I did on a former occasion that was the intention and view of the Government. It was not an engagement on the subject; and I can only say that it has now been determined that it would be better to proceed with the Corrupt Practices Bill.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to give Notice that on Thursday I will ask the Prime Minister what has since occurred to alter the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with as little delay as possible with this Bill?

  FRANCE AND CHINA.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as stated by "La France" and other French papers, that Her Majesty's Government have asked the Government of the French Republic for explanations as to a speech made in the Senate on the 2nd by M. Challemal Lacour, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in which he said:— "We know that there are attempts to

  225
  excite China against us, and we also know from what Power they proceed?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; Her Majesty's Government have not asked for explanations, as they do not believe that the statement in question could possibly be intended to affect them in any way.

  LUNACY (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1862— PERTH PRISON—TRANSFERENCE OF CRIMINAL LUNATICS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, If it be the fact that the Scotch Lunacy Act (25 and 26 Vic. c. 54), by section 23, empowers the Governor of Perth Prison to send prisoners who have become insane back to the prison where they were committed, but that this must be "within fourteen days" of the expiry of the sentence; if the Governor of Perth Prison or the Prison Commissioners were entitled to interpret this power as extending to any period subsequent to the expiry of the sentence, in some cases even twenty years after; if the authorities at Broadmoor have legal power to send prisoners to Perth Prison for the purpose of being disposed of as above; and, if he is aware that within a few months back four prisoners under such circumstances have been sent to Glasgow to be supported, though having no claim of settlement there; and, if so, what redress he proposes?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: An inquiry is being made into this matter by the Lord Advocate, but the information asked for has not yet been received.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA)—HYDERABAD AND CHUNDA. RAILWAY.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will lay upon the Table the Papers relating to the construction of a Railway from Hyderabad to Chunda under the guarantee of the Government of Nizam?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Papers in the India Office relating to this matter refer to negotiations extending over some years, but which have not yet led to any definite result. At present they must be considered confidential. In the course of a few weeks I hope to be able to give the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire further information.

  ARMY—MILITIA MAJORS.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether
  226
  those officers, now Majors, who entered the service from the Militia after the age of twenty will be allowed to remain in their regiments, or on the list of the Army until the age of fifty, the same as Majors who purchased their companies?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the Question is not quite fairly stated, for it is not all majors who purchased their companies who are allowed to serve till the age of 50, but only those who became majors not later than the 1st of July, 1881. The Royal Warrant does not extend the same privilege to majors who came from the Militia, unless they were captains before purchase was abolished in 1871.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CROWN SOLICITORS—MR. GIVAN.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that in the province of Leinster there is not one of the Crown Solicitors who is a Roman Catholic, and if it is now intended to appoint a gentleman, not a Roman Catholic, from the north of Ireland to the office of Crown Solicitor for the county of Kildare which is at present vacant?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I would wish to ask him, Whether the newly appointed Crown Solicitor is the same Mr. Givan who in September last declared at a banquet in the County Monaghan that he would not accept any appointment from a Government who would not grant the entire of the Amendments of the Land Act demanded by the tenantry of Ulster; and, if so, whether we are to gather from the fact of the appointment that the Government are to bring in a Bill embodying Mr. Givan's views?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The only information I can give the hon. Member is that the Mr. Givan who has accepted the Crown Solicitorship for Kildare is the Member for Monaghan. With reference to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, the question of religious profession does not appear to have been at any time much considered in connection with the provincial distribution of Crown Solicitors. Although I have not positive information on the subject, I believe that the hon. and gallant Member is correct in his description of the religion of the Crown Solicitors

  227
  in Leinster; while, on the other hand, in several counties of Ulster, having a large proportion of Protestant inhabitants, the office is filled by Roman Catholics. I believe that up to the present date there is only one Crown Solicitor in Ireland who is a Presbyterian, to which body the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) belongs.
  MR. CALLANasked whether, under the circumstances, it was the intention of the Government to issue a now Writ for the election of a Member for Monaghan County.
  [No answer was given to this Question.]

  MARRIAGE LAWS — MARRIAGES BETWEEN ENGLISHWOMEN AND FRENCHMEN.
  MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the numerous cases in which marriages have been solemnised in England between Englishwomen and Frenchmen in accordance with the provisions of British Law only, which marriages have, subsequently, been held to be invalid in France; whether his attention has been called to the great hardships which have thereby been inflicted on innocent persons; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will forthwith take steps to remedy this evil by legislation; or, if not, if they will issue a circular notice to all registrars and ministers of religion authorised to perform the marriage ceremony inviting them to call the attention of British subjects presenting themselves to be married to the provisions of the French Law, and to the fact that, to insure a valid marriage, these provisions must be strictly complied with?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The attention of Her Majesty's Government for some time past has been directed to the matters referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and various communications have passed between the British and French Governments on the subject. There is reason to hope that measures will shortly be adopted which will practically obviate the danger of marriages contracted in this country between Englishwomen and Frenchmen being held invalid in France by reason of non-compliance with the formalities required by the laws of that country.

  LAND TENURE—GROUND LEASES.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If Her Majesty's Government will consent to an inquiry, either by a Royal Commission or by a Committee of this House, into the present system of ground leases in towns, whether of houses or of land for building and occupation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: This question has not been discussed in the House, and Her Majesty's Government are not aware of a state of facts sufficiently serious to lead them to think that it would be right to move for an Inquiry.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether the Government would oppose a Motion for the appointment of a Royal Commission?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We should first require to know the case of the hon. Gentleman before we could consider it.

  SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the great interest taken by many Irish Members upon the subject, and in view of the statement of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, when replying to a deputation which waited upon him on the 27th of April last:—
  "That the Irish Government could never acquiesce in the Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill not being passed into Law this Session,"
  he will provide an early opportunity for taking the judgment of the House upon the measure?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Upon this question I am afraid I must remind the hon. Member that this Bill is a Bill competing with several others, but at the same time undoubtedly stands in that class of Bills which we are exceedingly desirous to see passed, and which we believe the House in general wishes to see passed. I therefore see no reason to doubt—and certainly no exertion will be wanting on the part of the Government—that the House will have an opportunity of giving a judgment on the subject.

  EGYPT—M. DE LESSEPS' PROPOSED DUPLICATE SUEZ CANAL.
  MR. NORWOODasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the assent of M. de Lesseps has been ob-

  229
  tained to the laying upon the Table of the House Copies of the communications that have passed between the Administration of the Suez Canal Company and Her Majesty's Government as to the construction of a second Canal; and, if so, to inquire when the House may expect to be in possession of those communications?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We find that we are not at present in a position to publish the Correspondence to which reference is made in the Question.

  EGYPT—LAW AND JUSTICE—TRIAL OF SULEIMAN SAMI.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, and perhaps I may be allowed, at the same time, to make a personal explanation. On Friday I, in the House, stated that certain matters had been laid before Lord Dufferin in Egypt, and he did not consider himself at liberty to incur the responsibility of going into them. The Prime Minister, without ascribing exact falsification to me, implied something very near it. I now wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in The Times to-day from Mr. Eve, solicitor to Arabi Pasha, in which occurs the following passage:—
  "A portion of this evidence was offered before the close of the trial of Arabi to Lord Dufferin for his private information. Upon reference to a letter now before me, I find the circumstances of the communication most distinctly stated as follows:—'First, it was offered to his Lordship to bring witnesses to prove that Omar Lufti had ordered Suleiman Sami to bring his regiment down unharmed, and that Suleiman had refused to be made a fool of, seeing well the construction that would be put upon it; also that, perceiving what would be said if he stayed away while massacre was going on, after an hour's delay he came with his troops in arms in distinct contradiction to Omar Lufti's orders, and quelled the riots; secondly, it was offered to bring the man who had received the order and taken it to Suleiman Sami; and, thirdly, to bring another who had heard Omar Lufti in the streets exhorting the massacrers to strike home on the heads of the Christians, and not to spare.'"
  The letter adds—
  "Lord Dufferin said it was not his business to prosecute Omar Lufti."
  I wish to ask also, whether, in view of such a statement, the Prime Minister still adheres to the allegation made by him on Friday last, that—
  230
  "As far as Lord Dufferin's recollection and knowledge went, he entirely declined to recognize one jot or tittle of the statement as entitled in the slighest degree to credit."
  I also wish to know whether the Prime Minister, in view of his statement on Friday last—
  "That it was the duty of the Government to investigate any definite charge which was left in their hands, and that they would make the best examination in their power,"
  intends to make such inquiry into the "tremendous charge" make against the Khedive of Egypt of having been concerned in the instigation of the massacres of June 11 at Alexandria, and, if so, when he will state in what manner Her Majesty's Government intend to carry out this duty?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with regard to the second of these charges, the noble Lord has correctly stated that I said that it would be the duty of the Government to investigate any definite matter or charge which might be left in their hands, and that we should make the best examination of such a charge in our power. I am bound to say, however, that, on perusing the speech of the noble Lord, I find very little definite matter in it; and, before proceeding to say anything upon it, I wish very much to know whether that speech, or any particular report of that speech, is the basis upon which he proposes to found his Question? The matter is a very serious one, and a Member making a charge of this kind incurs an immense responsibility. But we should not like to make investigation without knowing that we were dealing with the subject-matter with which the noble Lord desired that we should deal.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I shall be perfectly prepared to place all the materials which are in the possession of myself and others in the hands of the Prime Minister, in order that he may judge of their nature, if he will only tell me the character of the tribunal which he purposes shall make the Inquiry?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The tribunal, in the first instance, must be the Government itself. It would be our duty to make the examination in the first instance; but it would be a prelimary and not a definite examination, and there would be an appeal to this House in case we should discharge our duty in

  231
  an unsatisfactory manner. With regard to the first Question of the noble Lord, I think the misunderstanding that has arisen between us is this. The Question which the noble Lord puts relates entirely, if I understand it aright, to the evidence brought forward against a certain personage named Omar Lufti.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Which would be brought against him?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The statement of the noble Lord to which I desired to apply the negative and the repudiation of Lord Dufferin was a statement which, as we understood—and I think the noble Lord probably meant it—applied to the Khedive.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Acting through Omar Lufti.
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is no proof of any connection whatever between Omar Lufti and the Khedive in this question. That would be my first answer. Now, I am bound to say, viewing the nature of the case, that the House takes a very humane interest in every question of life and death, and I fully recognize the title of the House to be informed upon all that the Government have done in regard to such a question. The course which I propose to take at present for the information of the House is this—I propose to read two telegrams from Egypt which touch the vital parts of the case of Suleiman Sami; I propose then to read a letter or despatch which Lord Dufferin has addressed to Earl Granville, in which he notices the case of Omar Lufti. These Papers will be laid on the Table as soon as possible, together with some germane Papers. When I have read the despatch hon. Members will have the most material parts of the case before them, and will be able to found upon it either Questions or discussion. This is a despatch from Sir Edward Malet, dated June 9 (Saturday)—
  "Suleiman Sami was executed this morning. The evidence against him established clearly that the burning of Alexandria was done by his orders, in disobedience to orders received by him from Arabi Pasha. In thus abstaining from interference I have been guided by the principles laid down in Lord Dufferin's despatch (No. 138), in which Her Majesty's Government concurred, and by your Lordship's despatch to me (No. 304) of the 8th of September, saying that Her Majesty's Government would not take any steps to prevent execution in cases in which participation in the burning of Alexandria was proved."
  232
  Sir Edward Malet has also sent another short telegram, saying—
  "I have received the following telegram from Major Macdonald, dated yesterday.
  Then he gives the body of Major Macdonald's telegram, which runs as follows:—
  "I consider that the charges against Suleiman Sami were proved, and that the sentence was a just one.'"
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: On what date did the Government receive the despatch?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is addressed to Lord Granville to day. Now this is the despatch addressed to Lord Granville by Lord Dufferin—
  "My Lord, —As it has been suggested in Parliament that the Khedive of Egypt was the author of the massacres at Alexandria on 11th June last year, and as it has been publicly stated that I hurried the trial of Arabi Pasha to a premature conclusion, lest, were it to have been prolonged, revelations might have been made injurious to the character of His Highness, I beg to say that such a supposition is quite erroneous. It is perfectly true that during the course of some preliminary conversations I had with Mr. Broadley in regard to disputed points of procedure between himself and the Egyptian Public Prosecutor, that gentleman occasionally hinted, in ominous but vague language, that in the interests of his clients he would be compelled to make very damnatory disclosures in regard to a number of eminent Egyptian personages. To these observations, which were more than once repeated, I invariably replied, as I am sure Mr. Broadley will himself testify, that such a result would be a matter of indifference both to myself and to Her Majesty's Government, who could have no possible desire to shield anyone to whom such a dreadful crime as murder could be brought home. Nor did I ever utter a word to discourage Mr. Broadley from executing his intentions. It is true I did not regard these minatory suggestions as serious—at all events, so far as the Khedive was concerned; but even had I attached more importance to them, I should not have held different language. It was during the course of one of these conversations that Mr. Broadley said to me that in strict justice it was Lufti Pasha, and not Arabi, who ought to be in the dock, and that he could mention facts to support this assertion. The circumstances which he referred to did not, however, appear to me to make out a case against Lufti which could be seriously sustained, and if, as Mr. Eve has asserted in his letter to The Times of to-day, I replied during the course of what was expressly a privileged,' and therefore unguarded, conversation, that it was not my business to prosecute the Minister of War,' I can only congratulate myself upon having made so sensible a reply. The circumstances under which the trial of Arabi was concluded I have already related to your Lordship in my previous despatches, and especially in the despatch of the 5th instant.

  233
  The narrative speaks for itself and disposes of the theory that I did anything to hush up the proceedings. Only one other person, and that an English gentleman, in some degree professionally connected with the Arabi interest, ever submitted to me a suggestion that the Alexandria massacres could be traced to the agency of His Highness the Khedive; but the accusation was not supported or substantiated by any tangible fact or circumstance which could bring conviction to a reasonable mind, especially when account was taken of the avowed sentiments of my interlocutor. Nor during the whole of my stay in Egypt was a tittle of evidence brought to my notice which would in the faintest degree have authorized so strange an allegation. After the conversation in question, however, I thought it worth while to sound a number of trustworthy and unprejudiced persons, both European and Native, on the point, and I especially discussed the matter with Sir Charles Wilson. As I have already stated, Sir Charles Wilson's sympathies were absolutely impartial. In fact, he was considered by the Egyptian Government to have taken a far too indulgent view of the Arabi movement. Sir Charles Wilson ridiculed the idea of the Khedive's complicity in the massacres, as I am bound to say did every other person to whom I mentioned the subject. Under the foregoing circumstances I have never been able to come to any other conclusion than that the accusation in question was one of those thousand baseless calumnies which teem from Egyptian soil, for whose origin there is no accounting, and which, being unsupported by any substantial or tangible evidence, are the more difficult to refute."
  Then comes a postcript—
  "With regard to Mr. Eve's statement as to the witnesses to whom the safe-conduct was to be given, I have no recollection of the circumstance to which he refers. Had Mr. Broadley required a safe-conduct for any of his witnesses, he would have made me an official demand in writing to that effect, and, as a matter of course, I should have requested the Egyptian Government to comply with his desire."
  The two important questions are the execution that has lately taken place, and the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in regard to it, and the question which, I deeply regret to say, has been raised by the noble Lord with regard to the Khedive of Egypt. But I hope we may be allowed to place these documents in the hands of Members; and I think it would be better that I should make no collateral or subsidiary statements, because the main points raised are, I think, fully dealt with in the Papers I have read.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I do not propose to enter into the questions raised by the Papers we have heard read. But with regard to the execution of Suleiman Sami, the House will expect to have some information as
  234
  to the course the Government have taken. Therefore, I wish to ask a Question of which I have given Notice to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Will he undertake to communicate to the House the several telegrams that have passed between the British Government and their Representatives in Egypt, or between the British and Egyptian Governments, on the subject of Suleiman Sami's execution? In asking for the telegrams that have passed, I wish to have the dates, not only of the days on which they were despatched, but the hours. I hope the Government will also be good enough to make the proper correction for the difference of time between this meridian and that of Egypt. There is another question; reference has been made to a telegram on Saturday from Major Macdonald. I wish to know what is the position he holds, and by whose authority he is acting?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman very kindly gave him Notice two hours ago of his intention to ask for the production of these telegrams; and he might mention that these telegrams, with the dates and hours corrected in the manner asked for, would, of course, form a portion of those Papers mentioned by the Prime Minister, which would be presented to the House with the least possible delay. He thought that it would be better for the House to have full details presented at once rather than piecemeal information. With regard to Major Macdonald's position, he did not think he could give a better description of it than by saying that when Sir Charles Wilson left Egypt, after rendering most valuable services, Major Macdonald was appointed to watch the trials on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and now he was performing the duties previously performed by Sir Charles Wilson.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What regiment does he belong to?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: A Highland regiment.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government would have any objection to producing the text of the telegram sent at 3 o'clock on Friday to Sir Edward Malet; also, whether, among the fresh evidence that Suleiman Sami wanted to call was that of Arabi Pasha; and, if so, why Her Majesty's Government, considering the

  235
  nature of the evidence upon which Suleiman Sami's fate depended, did not delay his execution until a Commission could be sent to obtain Arabi's evidence?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that neither he nor the President of the Local Government Board had stated that a telegram was sent at 3 o'clock on Friday. What he said was that a telegram was sent subsequently to the meeting of the House, and not previously. With regard to the other Question, he was not in a position to inform the House whether among the fresh evidence required by Suleiman Sami was that of Arabi Pasha.
  MR. M'COANasked the noble Lord, Whether his attention had been drawn to the letter from Mr. Mark Napier in The Times of that morning, and whether the course there mentioned with regard to the trial of prisoners had been pursued in the case of Suleiman Sami?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, his attention had been drawn to Mr. Mark Napier's letter. He might mention that the letter alleged that he had been entirely wrong in stating that the procedure followed was that of the French Code, rather than that with which they were more familiar in this country. There were six heads in Mr. Mark Napier's letter. Two of those statements distinctly proved that he was right, and Mr. Mark Napier was wrong, for Mr. Mark Napier mentioned certain facts which were distinct features of the French, and not of the English procedure. As to the remaining heads, he was not in a position to state whether Mr. Mark Napier was correct as to the facts, but his own impression was that he was not correct. He was sorry to have to differ from Mr. Mark Napier, and he must, in justice to himself, mention that when Mr. Mark Napier called upon him at the Foreign Office he had a most interesting conversation with him, in the course of which Mr. Mark Napier frankly and candidly admitted that he had not the slightest acquaintance with the French procedure.
  MR. BOURKEasked whether the course mentioned in Mr. Mark Napier's letter as having been pursued was in accordance with the French procedure?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that he was unable to speak with authority upon the French procedure. He was only quoting from information
  236
  supplied to him by gentlemen who were cognizant with it. He believed he was right in stating that at the French "instruction" evidence was taken, and that witnesses were examined and cross-examined upon it at the final trial.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Although the Government have promised to lay the Papers on the Table, yet, with reference to one portion of the Question, I do not think it is desirable or necessary for the House to wait until the Papers are presented—I mean the Question with reference to the course taken as to the execution of Suleiman Sami. I propose to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the action of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the recent Trial and Execution of Suleiman Sami at Alexandria.
  The leave of the House having been given:—
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid: Sir, I understand it to be the feeling of the House that it was desirable that the earliest opportunity should be taken to ascertain precisely how we stand in regard to a matter of great importance. I do not desire to go at any length into this question, but I will remind the House of what took place on Friday. The House met at 2 o'clock, and a Question was put to the Government with reference to the statement that Suleiman Sami had been condemned to death. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was not at the moment in the House, and the Prime Minister apparently was not in possession of the information desired with regard to the matter. The noble Lord subsequently came down to the House, and we heard from him a very clear explanation of what had taken place at the Foreign Office. As far as I understand, the first communication that reached the Foreign Office on the subject of the conviction and sentence was on Thursday; some communication had taken place, and the matter had not been brought under Lord Granville's notice till some time on Friday. The noble Lord spoke of it, as "the first thing on Friday morning." We want definite information on a matter upon which so very much turns. However, according to the noble Lord's statement

  237
  some time prior to the meeting of the House at 2 o'clock the matter had been under Lord Granville's consideration, and he appears to have come to the conclusion to make some inquiry. After discussion took place on the subject, he made a communication which led to some communication in return. We want to know the nature of these communications. What was the telegram sent? It would not be difficult for the noble Lord to give us that telegram, and the other communications, with the exact time and hour at which they took place. All that of which I have spoken occurred during the Morning Sitting. When the House met in the evening further Questions were put, and we were left in a position of some uncertainty as to whether instructions were sent to our Representatives in Egypt to take steps to stay the execution until the receipt of further instructions. Was any second telegram sent, and at what time, and what answer, if any, was received? I wish also to have some clear and distinct information as to Major Macdonald's position in the matter. His position clearly was of very considerable importance in relation to Her Majesty's Government. This was not a case of an ordinary judicial transaction in Egypt; it was not a case in which we should hold aloof and allow the Egyptian tribunals to act according to their own judgment; but, having arisen out of the transactions of last year, and being so closely connected with the circumstances in which we occupied the position we now hold in Egypt, it was a matter on which it was our right and our duty to make inquiries and to see that right was being done. I want to know what authority and functions Major Macdonald was to exercise in this case. Her Majesty's Government themselves acknowledged a certain responsibility by the very fact of the instructions given to Major Macdonald. I am anxious to know whether we were right on Friday in supposing that the Government had put themselves into communication with their Representatives in time to ascertain before the prisoner was actually executed whether there was a case for the interposition of Her Majesty's Government, and also whether there was time for that interposition if there was occasion for it. There ought not to be a moment's doubt
  238
  left on the mind of the House or of the country as to the action taken by Her Majesty's Government, because if, on the one hand, they did nothing, then the House has a right to complain of the breach of the understanding which seemed to be arrived at on Friday; and, on the other hand, if they made representations, and those representations were disregarded, then a serious state of things has arisen. It is necessary that we should have at once, without waiting for Papers, clear explanations on these points; and if the noble Lord would tell us at what hour the telegrams were sent, and what telegrams were sent, we should have more means of forming a judgment than we have at present. I therefore, for the purpose of getting an answer, beg to move the Adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI think, Sir, the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly reasonable one, and I shall proceed to answer his Questions at once. I was under the impression that the most important of these telegrams having been read by the Prime Minister it was hardly necessary to produce the short telegram of Lord Granville, to which Major Macdonald's telegram was a reply. I will, however, at once produce the telegram. But I must entirely demur to the account of what took place as to what was said on Friday evening by the right hon. Gentleman. It is of great importance to make that point clear. Her Majesty's Government had no doubt whatever, from the information that reached them, that the sentence which was to be executed upon Suleiman Sami was a fair and just one; because they knew that they had on the spot a trusted and trustworthy agent, who had not sent to them any information such as his instructions would have obliged him to send if he had thought that a great act of injustice—nothing less than a judicial murder—was about to be perpetrated. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government recognized that there had appeared in many newspapers statements, some of which they believed to be entirely incorrect in regard to that matter, which were producing a disturbing effect on

  239
  the minds of the public generally and on Members of this House, who were anxious that justice, wherever English influence prevailed, should be tempered with mercy. That being so, the President of the Local Government Board on Friday stated that the Government had decided to put themselves in possession of Major Macdonald's opinion, so as to be able to fortify themselves should any question be raised, not only by the negative argument of Major Macdonald's silence, but by his positive statement and affirmation on the question. As was stated by the President of the Local Government Board, Lord Granville determined, on Thursday evening and on Friday morning on consultation with those whom he thought it well to consult on the matter, on communicating with Sir Edward Malet on the subject. That decision having been arrived at, early at the Morning Sitting on Friday certain Questions were put without Notice. I was not in my place at the time—there being no Foreign Office Question on the Paper—but I was communicated with, and I came down to the House just as the discussion was over. The right hon. Gentleman gave me an opportunity of answering his Question shortly before 7 o'clock, and I stated that the Government had determined to have those trials carefully watched by a British officer, assisted by gentleman specially conversant with the Turkish and Arabic languages. Major Macdonald was not himself acquainted with Turkish and Arabic; but Mr. Maccullagh and Mr. Cameron were not only conversant with those languages, but many members of the Court Martial were well acquainted with French, Italian, and also English. Sir Charles Wilson has told me that the President of the Courts Martial held while he was there, spoke English almost as well as an Englishman. But on all the Courts Martial, as the Papers presented will show, the utmost care had been taken that persons well qualified by their knowledge of the country and of the languages should form the tribunals to which those important issues of life and death were intrusted. I would remind the House that on that particular tribunal sat a distinguished Englishman (Morris Bey) and a distinguished Italian (Frederigo Bey). That being so, Sir, Lord Granville, as I have just said, de-
  240
  termined to inform himself of the facts so as to be able at the earliest date to give information in either House of Parliament, should any Question be asked. I have been asked whether the telegram was sent from the Foreign Office previous or subsequent to the meeting of the House at the Morning Sitting on Friday. In answer I have to say that although the determination had been arrived at previous to the meeting of the House, the actual telegram did not go until some hours after. We never said anything about the telegram having been sent at 3 o'clock. The point raised was whether the decision to send the telegram had been arrived at previous or subsequent to the meeting of the House. As I have stated, the decision was arrived at before the meeting of the House, but the actual telegram was not sent until after. I communicated to the Secretary of State what had occurred in the House, and the first telegram was sent immediately on my return to the Foreign Office. It was sent at 7 o'clock on Friday evening. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to state what hour it would be in Egypt, and I am informed by those who are competent to speak on the point that we ought to allow two hours. That would bring the time to six minutes past 9 o'clock. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: When would it get there?] I think if I said in 21/2 or 3 hours I should be accurate. The first telegram was couched in those words — "Will the sentence against Suleiman Sami be carried into effect?" The second telegram was sent at a quarter past 8 P.M. It has already been read to the House. It was as follows:—
  "Has Macdonald any doubt as to the justice of the sentence of death passed on Suleiman Sami Is the date of execution fixed?
  They were both sent to Sir Edward Malet. Then, Sir, we received the answer from Sir Edward Malet which has been already read to the House, dated June 11. The third telegram, which I have already read to the House, said that the evidence against Suleiman Sami established the fact that he was implicated in the burning of Alexandria and that he had acted contrary to his orders. Then there was a later telegram, which has just been received, which states that Major Macdonald considered the charges against Suleiman Semi proved and the sentence a just one.

  241
  These are the facts; and what I wish to impress upon the House is that the Government did not send telegrams with a view to stopping the execution, because it is highly improbable that, if they wished to do so—which they did not—that course would have been the one likely to accomplish that end; but they were sent with the view of satisfying themselves positively that Major Macdonald was satisfied, so as to be able to say so in the House. The position of Her Majesty's Government was, that having taken steps, as they considered. sufficient to secure a fair and impartial trial, they did not think that in the complete silence of their adviser, Major Macdonald, there was any reason for their departing from the ordinary course, and not allowing justice to proceed in the case of Suleiman Sami, as in the case of other prisoners who had gone to their account for crimes committed—not in connection with the burning of Alexandria—for I believe I am right in saying this execution is the first one on that charge—but in connection with those other painful and terrible events which have attracted universal attention. I hope the House will see that Her Majesty's Government, in adopting that course, have acted in accordance with the known facts, and that they have been fully justified by the result; because they not only had the argument from the silence of Major Macdonald, but from absolute statements, confirmed, as I can prove them to have been, by all the probabilities of the situation, and all the facts, that Suleiman Semi, when he met his fate, deserved that fate, and that a bad and wicked man has gone to his account with the guilt of crimes upon him which have been execrated all over the civilized world.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he thought the House had reason to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for giving them an opportunity for arriving at some enlightenment as regarded this terrible business of June 9. But he thought the House would agree with him when he said that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the statement made by the noble Lord. It was unsatisfactory, because, with all its ability and ingenuity, the Government had a case which it was impossible to defend.
  242
  The noble Lord had said that the Government never had any doubt as to the justice of the proceedings of the trial and conviction of the prisoner. That statement was rendered absolutely absurd and ridiculous by the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government on Friday. If they never had a doubt, why did they telegraph to Sir Edward Malet to make inquiry? If the Government never had a doubt, the Prime Minister never had a doubt. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] Why, then, was the right hon. Gentleman unable, at 2 o'clock on Friday night, to give the House any information on the subject? But the case appeared now to be much worse, because they seemed on Friday to have sent two telegrams which he could only characterize as panic-stricken. The first was to Sir Edward Malet, asking what day was fixed for the execution.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, this showed the inconvenience of discussing Papers which had not been presented. The words were, "Will the sentence on Suleiman Semi be carried into effect?"
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that made it even worse, when they remembered that the Government had no doubt as to the justice of the trial. Then they had a second telegram which was sent to ascertain Major Macdonald's opinion on the trial. The first telegram was sent at 7 o'clock, and the other an hour later, on Friday. But they had been told that when Lord Granville saw the statement in The Times that Suleiman was condemned, he arrived at the decision that it was better to make inquiry. The President of the Local Government Board said that the delay in making the inquiry was due to the fact that it took a long time to put the telegram into cypher.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he merely suggested it as a possible reason because he was pressed to give names. Not being a Member of the Foreign Office, he could not know what were the circumstances which produced the delay. All that he said he knew was that a determination to inquire into matters of fact had been arrived at on Thursday night.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Thursday night?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had stated that, and he had further said

  243
  that Lord Granville had come to the determination after consultation with Lord Dufferin.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, then it was not to be wondered at that our foreign policy sometimes led to disaster. It seemed that on Thursday night they arrived at a decision to make inquiries, and yet, although this was a matter of life and death, no inquiry was sent till 7 o'clock on the following day. And, besides, no reply was received or could be received until Suleiman had been hanged. These were circumstances which, however the Government might attempt to brazen them out, would be considered by the country in a very serious manner. He was perfectly well aware that it was very convenient to the ruling authorities that he should be hanged. He should ask the House to consider for a moment the telegram which appeared in The Times on the 7th instant with reference to the trial of this unfortunate man. The Times Correspondent at Alexandria had watched these trials with great care. The Government had great confidence in him because he had been a firm and strong supporter of the Government of Egypt and of the English connection with it. He wrote as follows:—
  "The preliminary inquiry into the case of Suleiman Sami, who is accused of burning Alexandria, was conducted, according to the testimony of Major Macdonald, with perfect impartiality, and resulted in conclusive evidence of the prisoner's guilt. The prisoner did not deny the accusation, but alleged that he acted under the superior orders of Arabi. His four witnesses called to support this theory of defence gave contradictory evidence. The Commission considered that the defence was not proved, and committed him and his subordinate officers for trial by Court Martial. Sixteen days were allowed for the preparation of the defence. At the end of that period the prisoner's counsel threw up his brief. A second counsel who was engaged asked for 14 days to be allowed him, and eight were granted."
  Before he went further, he wanted to recall a statement made by the Prime Minister before Whitsuntide as to the manner in which these trials were to be conducted. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) had stated that the prisoner was not present while the witnesses were examined, nor when they were cross-examined. The Prime Minister gave him a direct contradiction on these points, but he added that—
  "This was to be followed by the real trial, in which the evidence would be sifted, the wit-
  244
  nesses cross-examined, and their evidence rebutted. He should agree with the noble Lord"—
  that was an extraordinary thing—
  "if the preliminary proceeding concluded the whole matter, and if it were not to be followed by the real trial. It was not the first time the subject had engaged his attention. Immediately there was reason to believe that suspicion existed, Earl Granville took pains to inquire and ascertain the facts. The substantial object to be aimed at was that justice should be done. It was not necessary, and it would be highly inexpedient, to quash all that had been done; but it was necessary that the information that had been accumulated should be liable to be sifted, examined, rebutted, and contradicted. In this instance a pledge had been given that counsel should be employed; he understood that to mean the bringing out of all the facts of the case without fear or favour; and with that assurance he hoped the House would be satisfied.
  MR. GLADSTONE: That was as to the trial of Khandeel.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLcontended that the pledge alluded to the case of Suleiman Sami and other political prisoners charged with him. Why did you appoint Major Macdonald to watch the case if you did not care about Suleiman Sami?
  MR. SPEAKER: I must call on the noble Lord to address himself to the Chair.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLbegged to apologize, but he must repeat the question. Nothing could be more unworthy of the Prime Minister, and it would be the last thing he should attribute to him, that he should wriggle out of the matter by saying the pledge he had given only applied to the case of Khandeel. Now, let them read The Times' Correspondent as to the way in which the Government kept their pledges—
  "The proceedings having commenced, the counsel desired to re-open the entire question, to re-examine all the witnesses, and to summon fresh ones. The Court thereupon called on the Public Prosecutor, who demanded the condemnation of the accused upon the report of the Commission. The prisoners' counsel protested against the Public Prosecutor stopping the defence, and demanded the documents used and recorded in Arabi's trial. The Court refused this request, upon which the counsel threw up his brief. The tribunal was subsequently induced by Major Macdonald to allow the prisoners to call further witnesses. But its members have now suddenly announced their intention of closing the proceedings and pronouncing sentence to-morrow."
  Why to-morrow? It was because the

  245
  Khedive instructed this impartial tribunal that he was anxious to enter Alexandria on Sunday, and it would have been extremely awkward that the Khedive of Egypt should enter Alexandria on Sunday morning, if the man who had reduced Alexandria to ashes in obedience to the orders of the Khedive were to be hung before his eyes. ["Oh, oh!"] He asserted, and he defied contradiction, that the order to open fire on the English Fleet, which produced the bombardment of Alexandria, which let to the destruction of the town, was signed by the Khedive. He defied Her Majesty's Government to contradict that statement. He repeated the statement, and defied contradiction of it. The Times' Correspondent went on to say—
  "Major Macdonald has protested to Sir Edward Malet, and has asked for a suspension of the proeeedings. The entire incident has been caused by the ridiculous mode of procedure which has been adopted, whereby one Court hears the evidence without pronouncing judgment, and another pronounces judgment without sifting the evidence; and also by the sheer inability of the Natives to understand the necessity of satisfying the public by holding an open trial."
  Now, was it true that Major Macdonald had asked for a suspension of the proceedings? [An hon. MEMBER: It was not true.] All he could say then was, that Major Macdonald was a perfectly useless person, and unworthy of the confidence of Her Majesty's Government, if, after inducing the Court to say they would allow witnesses to be called, he did not protest when they said they intended at once to pronounce sentence. Further, what became of the Prime Minister's promise, in reliance upon which the matter was allowed to slide? Suleiman Sami had been sentenced to death and hanged by the Court before he could call a single witness—without being allowed to call a single witness—and yet that was the kind of tribunal before which the political prisoners were being tried in Egypt, that was the Court and that was the sentence which Her Majesty's Ministers now told the House they had no doubt was perfectly fair and just. He looked upon Her Majesty's Government as responsible for the hanging of Suleiman Sami as much as for the hanging of Timothy Kelly in Kilmainham. They could have stopped the execution in a moment if they had
  246
  wished to do so; and he was justified in charging the Government, either from neglect or from some other cause, with the grossest and vilest judicial murder that ever stained the annals of Oriental justice. ["Oh, oh!" and "Hear!"] He charged the Prime Minister and his Colleagues with the murder of Suleiman Sami, and he challenged him to say that his pledges had been fulfilled. Suleiman Sami wanted to call Arabi Pasha as a witness. Arabi gave Suleiman Sami his first appointment in the Army in 1882—he gave him the command of a regiment —and from that time to the suppression of the revolution he was under the orders of Arabi. What was the charge upon which he was hanged? For having been responsible for the destruction of Alexandria. Suleiman Sami was left behind by Arabi to cover the retreat of the Egyptian Army; that Army was in a state of complete panic at the idea that the English forces were about to land and occupy Alexandria, and he had one thought and one thought only, and that was how to get the Egyptian troops out of the town, and, as a military measure, he decided to burn the European portion of the town in the hope that the English forces would be diverted from their pursuit of the Egyptian troops. Did the House admit that as a defence—["No!"]—when that measure was adopted for military purposes? If not, then that man ought not to have been hanged. If the Government did not admit that as a defence, why did not they hang Arabi? On what just grounds could they acquit the Commander-in-Chief and hang one of his inferiors? Why had the Government hesitated to ask for a delay of a few weeks for the purpose of taking Arabi's evidence by commission in Ceylon? There was another reason why Suleiman Sami was entitled to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. Was the House aware that Suleiman Sami was the person who on the 11th of June one year ago had put a stop to the massacres at Alexandria? Was Her Majesty's Government aware that it was not until he arrived with his regiment at 6 o'clock that these massacres were stopped, and that if he had not arrived many Europeans in Alexandria would have perished? He now came to a matter he had touched upon last Friday. It was of vast importance to the Egyp-

  247
  tian Government that Suleiman Sami should be hung. He was in command of the only efficient regiment of troops, and at 5 o'clock Omar Lufti sent a message to Suleiman Sami to bring his regiment into town to put down the riots; but they were to come unarmed. He disobeyed that order and came with his regiment, under arms, and put a stop to the riots and saved the lives of hundreds of Europeans. And it has been proved in evidence that the police, under the direct orders of Omar Lufti, committed massacres of the Christians. The House would find that statement substantiated over and over again by evidence given by Naval officers, who said that about 6.30 the regiment of Infantry appeared and drove the mob off. That proved the cardinal fact that Suleiman Sami, even if he had burned Alexandria, was entitled to every effort that could possibly be made to save his life, because, when our soldiers and sailors did not dare to land, Suleiman Sami came with his troops and saved the lives of hundreds of our fellow-countrymen. Never had Her Majesty's Government shown baser ingratitude, even in the case of the Bechuanas—though that was bad enough—for here they allowed to go to execution the man who had rendered them signal service. It was, however, essential to the Government of Egypt that Suleiman Sami should be hung, because he could prove the conduct of Omar Lufti on the day of the massacres, and that he was the tool of the Khedive of Egypt. There was another man in Alexandria, Ahmed Khandeel, who was Prefect of Police, now lying in a dungeon in Alexandria, who might be tried in exactly the same way, and who, if the House of Commons did not take the matter out of the hands of the Government, would most certainly be hung. The conscience-stricken action of Her Majesty's Government on Friday afternoon showed how surprised they were to find how much was known about this matter. That alone proved that they were not satisfied with the course of action that had been pursued. He left the matter for the public to judge of, and he charged the Government again with having been the responsible authors of a judicial murder; and he called upon them, while exculpating themselves from the charge, to take care that they were not guilty of another.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am so accustomed, upon such a variety of subjects, to the loud assertions and sweeping accusations of the noble Lord, that, perhaps, they make less impression on my mind than they would on the mind of one less accustomed to his mode of action. I generally observe that his accusations become more unmeasured and his assertions more sweeping in proportion to what we ultimately find to be the nullity of the truth of them. The noble Lord finds a leading article in one newspaper this morning, and the communication of a correspondent in another, and the matter supplied from these sources he brings down to the House as establishing an irrefutable case, we having had, of course, no opportunity of testing them, and not being in a condition to deny them—[Cheers]—unless, indeed, we are disposed to adopt the method which the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), by his cheering, seems to suggest— namely, that we should go about like the noble Lord to anonymous and unauthoritative sources, and allege before Parliament, as a matter of fact, everything that we can gather in the way of surmise or suggestion from these unauthorized informers. Sir, I cannot follow the noble Lord; I find him so inaccurate. I find that when he is contradicted on one point, he so rapidly substitutes another that it is hardly possible, without too largely drawing upon the patience of the House, to attempt to follow him. The noble Lord thinks he has established a most astonishing and irrefragable case against me because, although I said that I never had any doubt as to the propriety of the sentence passed on Suleiman Sami, yet I agreed to ask for further information. That the noble Lord treats as establishing a conclusive case against me. I agreed to ask for further information on the subject to satisfy the noble Lord, and not to satisfy myself; and it is because I do not choose to make what satisfies me the measure of what satisfies the noble Lord, he comes down to the House and treats that as an admission on my part that I had been entirely wrong in professing to have no doubt upon the case. Because I declined to make the noble Lord's mind the measure of mine he would now compel me to make my mind conform to the measure of his—a pro-

  249
  cess that I respectfully decline. You have heard the loud assertions of the noble Lord with regard to Ahmed Khandeel, and the manner in which the promises have been broken, the wretched state of this man, and with regard to the administration of the law. It does happen, but by singular good fortune, that I have received a few words which are really authentic with regard to Khandeel, within the last few hours—namely, a telegram from Sir Edward Malet, who says—
  "I have received the following telegram from Macdonald, dated Sunday:—'Khandeel has had every opportunity of calling witnesses for the defence during the "instruction," and he called one, who gave evidence against him. Mr. Beaman is his counsel.'"
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, neither the prisoner nor his counsel could be present at the "instruction;" and, therefore, he could not call witnesses then.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord says he did not call witnesses; but Major Macdonald says he did call witnesses, and I believe Major Macdonald. This House will not suffer itself to be led away from its duty and from the dictates of good sense by the violent assertions of the noble Lord made in defiance of the responsible evidence of the most competent persons. Then the noble Lord has, in his best language, described me as wriggling out of an assertion that I have made.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Pardon me; what I said was, that the Prime Minister would not wriggle out of his assertion.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think that I had better not examine too closely into the literal accuracy of the statement which the noble Lord has now made; but if he says that I would not wriggle out of an assertion I am at one with the noble Lord. Now, the noble Lord said that we had given certain specific promises with regard to the trial of the political prisoners. I may observe that his treatment of the subject is most inconvenient, because it entails the constant necessity of a number of further explanations and protestations. We never made any promise at all at the time to which the noble Lord refers with regard to the political prisoners, nor do we admit for a moment that Suleiman Sami was a political prisoner. We did
  250
  not look upon him and his fellow-prisoners as political prisoners at all. Then, said the noble Lord, apparently with great triumph, "Why did you appoint Major Macdonald to attend the trial?" and loud cheers followed from the Gentlemen behind as if the noble Lord had convicted us of some inconsistency. The explanation of our conduct was this. Although we did not concede that these men were political prisoners, still we knew that the acts in respect of which they were arraigned were acts which were committed within the precincts of time marked out by the rebellion, and we thought it just and wise to have the proceedings carefully watched. There is the whole explanation of the matter in regard to which the noble Lord thought that he had made so damaging a discovery. The noble Lord has said that the Government ought to have made the greatest exertions for the purpose of saving Suleiman Sami's life in consequence of the splendid service which he rendered on June 11th. True, Suleiman Sami was the commander of a regiment of Egyptian troops, which had very late in the day a material share in putting down a movement which ought to have been put down very much earlier in the day. We are not in a position to say whose fault it was that it was not so put down; but with respect to Suleiman Sami, I must say that I have never before even heard such a notion as that he in the part that he took in putting down that movement was doing anything more than acting ministerially in obedience to orders which he received from his superior officers.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: In strict disobedience.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Of course, our knowledge is not unbounded like that of the noble Lord. It is limited, unfortunately, to that which we have received from men like Lord Dufferin, Sir Edward Malet, Major Macdonald, and Sir Charles Wilson, who is now in London, and from whom we may be able to supply a little information to check that of the noble Lord. But from none of those gentlemen have we ever received the slightest intimation that the character of Suleiman's action on June 11th was what the noble Lord boldly proclaims it to be. What does the statement of the noble Lord come to on that point? If his statement with regard to the action

  251
  of Suleiman Sami is right, Sir Edward Malet and Major Macdonald must have been substantially cognizant of the character of that action. [Lord R. CHURCHILL: No, no!] Then what are they good for? The noble Lord is perfectly ready in reliance on his anonymous and irresponsible authority to place no confidence in the experience, responsibility, and honour of the servants of the Crown. He has no choice in the dilemma in which he has placed himself. If Suleiman Sami performed on June 11th an extraordinary service by disobedience to a military order, either Major Macdonald, Sir Charles Wilson, and Sir Edward Malet knew it or did not know it. If they did not know it, they are certainly totally unfit for the position which they hold. If the fact could reach the noble Lord with all the clearness and absolute certainty with which he has laid it before the House, strange, indeed, must have been their blindness to the facts passing around them if they remained in ignorance of the matters assorted by the noble Lord.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: It is in the Blue Book.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I deny that the facts as the noble Lord has stated them are recorded in the Blue Book. According to the noble Lord, these English gentlemen, knowing that this splendid service had been rendered on June the 11th, by Suleiman Sami, nevertheless allowed him to become the victim of the foulest judicial murder ever perpetrated, and yet could send home reports that the trial had been fair. I wish the noble Lord were under some real responsibility. I wish he knew what he is doing in making those charges, and using his privilege of speech in this House for the purpose of casting out the most scandalous and shameful accusations—first upon the Egyptians, and then upon Judges who are members of this Court —men like Morris Bey, the English Judge, and Frederigo Bey, the Italian member of the Court. But the noble Lord casts his net a little wider, and includes in it Sir Charles Wilson and Sir Edward Malet.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I never said a word about Sir Charles Wilson.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have just been stating that these were the gentlemen who must have known these things
  252
  which, according to the noble Lord, occurred. Well, Sir, if these matters are to be handled in this way, it is impossible to make any progress with public affairs. I do not pretend to say that we have the same knowledge of the trial which is now in question as we should have had had it been conducted on this floor, in our own language, and within our own personal observation; but I stand entirely upon the assurances of competent, upright, experienced, and responsible officers, bound by the most stringent instructions and by the clearest rules of duty as to the reports which they might make. Sir Edward Malet and Major Macdonald report to us that the sentence has been just, and that the trial has been conducted, not, indeed, according to our procedure, but in conformity with the rules of substantial justice; and I am bound to say that the assurances of competent persons, over and above the letter of those reports, give reason to believe not only that this man was guilty of the crime for which he was sentenced and has been executed, but that the circumstances of his guilt on the day of the burning of Alexandria, were circumstances of great aggravation, and such as are opposed to the supposition that he was acting under superior orders. The noble Lord seems to think that if he was acting under the orders of a superior, he has an immunity from guilt.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No; from hanging.
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is an argument which cannot be maintained. We did not inquire when we had eight men hung for the Palmer murder, whether those eight men were all originally guilty. It is not possible to lay down such a doctrine as this, that in regard to murder, assassination, and other great crimes, no man shall be punished except the person in whose mind the idea originated, and from whom the command proceeded. In no case do we act upon such a principle. We have had other men hung—[Mr. BIGGAR: Innocent men]—for the massacres in Alexandria, and this man has now been hung for his participation in the burning of Alexandria, for deeds distinctly proved, and not only reported not to have been done under the orders of superiors, if that argument were good for anything, but distinctly reported to have been executed

  253
  in defiance of the orders of Arabi Pasha. The noble Lord says it was a political necessity that this man should be executed.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I did not say it was. I said the man might have proved it if he had had the chance.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I understood the noble Lord to say that the man had proved it. Well, Sir, we stand here perfectly ready to give the House any intelligence a reasonable or an unreasonable curiosity may require as to the details in connection with this matter. I do not pretend to be in possession of all the details of these trials, any more than I am in possession of all the details of the trials in Ireland. We stand upon the reports obtained from our trusted and trustworthy agents, some in Egypt, some in London, and all of them worthy of every possible confidence. The noble Lord seems to think that we are perfectly free in the matter, and that the Government have not been acting with a distinct principle all along. I believe the letter of September, 1882, has long ago been in the hands of hon. Members. In that letter, addressed by Lord Granville to Sir Edward Malet, the Government give the following pledge:—
  "Her Majesty's Government would not, however, take any steps to prevent execution in any cases such as the following:—(1), having been guilty of taking part in the burning of Alexandria;"
  and then follow a number of other categories, in regard to which we solemnly pledge ourselves not to interfere, and the House of Commons knew that we had pledged ourselves not to interfere.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What about Arabi?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord throws upon me a mode of conducting this question which it is impossible for me to follow out. Arabi never was found guilty of the burning of Alexandria, but this man was. Arabi was a man to whom our pledge had no application. Here is a pledge on record unchallenged by the House of Commons. Had it been challenged, we should have been ready to defend it before the House and the country. But it exists, and must be held to bind us. I am, therefore, not content to plead not guilty to the charge of the noble Lord, or to put in a plea
  254
  for consideration or indulgence; but I contend that, in the absence of any clear presumption or proof of the miscarriage of justice in the trial for the burning of Alexandria, we had bound ourselves to the Egyptian Government not to interfere with the sentences or the execution of the sentences; and had we attempted so to interfere, we should have been guilty of gross bad faith.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, it was quite clear that on that occasion the House could not decide the grave questions raised by this discussion. He quite agreed with the Prime Minister that on both sides of the House they had every reason to be perfectly satisfied that the trusted agents of the Government would see justice done. But upon that occasion no question of that sort arose. On the present occasion they found that certain facts were brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government which were considered so grave as to induce them to make certain inquiries. It was perfectly clear that everything the Government had done within the last three or four days had been perfectly useless. Now, Her Majesty's Government said that they never had any doubt on this question. It had been proved that that was not a plea which the Government could urge, for if it were true that Lord Granville came to the conclusion to make inquiries and sent to Cairo before the matter was mentioned in the House, it was clear that there was a primâ facie case for inquiry made out in the minds of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he was in his place in the House for 10 hours on Friday and had no opportunity of consulting with Lord Granville.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, that it was clear that Lord Granville, before the question was mentioned in the House, thought that there were certain features connected with the case which made it expedient that he should send another telegram to Cairo. That was clearly sent for the purpose of stopping the execution of this man, provided Sir Edward Malet thought there was any reason for it. If the telegram was not sent for that purpose, would the noble Lord say what it was decided to do?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that he had already stated that it was decided to send the telegram for the purpose of obtaining fuller information,

  255
  so that they would not only have the negative argument against the necessity for interfering with the execution derived from the silence of Major Macdonald, but the positive testimony of the Representatives of this country. There never was any idea of sending a telegram to stop the execution.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, it was then clear that the Government wanted information at that time on a subject as to which they now said they had no reasonable doubt. It had been abundantly proved that the undertaking given by Her Majesty's Government was an illusory one, as it was perfectly impossible that any good could be done by it. Whether this man was guilty or not, the House had certainly been misled into believing that the action taken on Friday last had induced the Government to adopt a course which, under the circumstances, could not be effective in saving this man's life. With regard to the merits of this case, there would be abundant opportunity of discussing it; but the House should bear in mind that the Court which sentenced the man to death did not hear one word of the evidence. What was the ground for asking for delay? It was not that he could bring forward evidence that he was acting under superior orders; that upon the report of Major Macdonald did not arise. he was accused of burning Alexandria, and upon the facts he admitted he was guilty; but the defence he wished to urge before the second Court could not be raised before the first. It was a case where they were told it was clearly the opinion of this wretched man and his advisers that he would have involved others in the trial. This man was the first accused of burning Alexandria; but that was a different crime from the massacre, and the question would arise whether this country should not interfere with the execution of any man alleged to be guilty of that offence. It would, he thought, require a considerable amount of argument on the part of Her Majesty's Government to show that the execution of a soldier's duty in carrying out an act of war of that kind was to be treated as a crime of the deepest dye, and the offender was to be treated simply as a civil prisoner guilty of the offence. These were questions which, no doubt, would be raised hereafter. He hoped that the Government would
  256
  give the House an opportunity of discussing the question at an early day. They understood that Papers were to be submitted forthwith, and he should take an early opportunity of asking what day Her Majesty's Government would give for the discussion of the whole subject.
  MR. O'DONNELLobserved that the Prime Minister had formerly made the same declaration with respect to Arabi Pasha that he had now made with regard to Suleiman Sami. The Premier asserted that there was no parity between the cases of Arabi and Suleiman Sami, the former being a political prisoner and the latter an ordinary criminal. Now he found, from the report in the Press of the discussion which took place in the House on the 10th of August last, the Premier attacked the reputation of Arabi Pasha precisely as he attacked that of the unfortunate Suleiman Sami to-day. The right hon. Gentleman declared that Arabi had falsified the most sacred obligations in war—those attaching to the use of a flag of truce, and he charged Arabi with having abused a flag of truce "for the base and abominable purposes of conflagration and loot." Having himself made an interjection on hearing that statement, the right hon. Gentleman rebuked him for doing so, asserting that the matter was one admitting of no dispute, but which was absolutely as certain as the bombardment of Alexandria. Notwithstanding that certainty in the Premier's mind, Arabi was not even brought to trial, although unquestionably, if he had been brought by the Khedive before one of his assassination Courts, he would have been found guilty and murdered, as his subordinate, Suleiman Sami, was murdered on Saturday. That case afforded an illustration of the right hon. Gentleman's method of carrying on war in Egypt, "on the principles of peace." Soldiers were hanged for acts of war, as if those acts had been committed by private persons in time of peace. Unless some stronger guarantees were afforded to the House than any yet given to it, it would be difficult for the House to have any confidence that a bonâ fide inquiry would be instituted into the trial of Suleiman Sami, or of any other person whom the Khedive and his supporters were interested in removing. The Khedive and his "ring" were as much engaged by every

  257
  selfish consideration in cloaking the facts as to the case of Suleiman Sami, as the men in whose interest the Egyptian Finance Minister—a person inconvenient to the bondholders—was murdered some years ago, were interested in cloaking the facts of that monstrous crime. The men in Egypt on whom they were relying were just as likely to light upon the truth in this instance as any other band of criminals would be, except under a pressure of terrorism, which the Government certainly would not apply. He hoped that the promised Papers would be soon forthcoming, and that at the eleventh hour some consideration for plain dealing would induce the Government to prevent any more judicial murders. His own belief was that nothing would be allowed to appear in those Papers from Egypt which could possibly be kept out of them by any hair-splitting refinements and wire-drawn distinctions.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he rose for the purpose of obtaining an explanation. He had been accused by the hon. Member of having said, on the 10th of August last, that Arabi Pasha was personally guilty of the burning of Alexandria, and of having used the same terms against him as he had that night used against Suleiman Bey; and that charge the hon. Gentleman said he could support by a reference to Hansard.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had quoted from a leading article in to-day's Echo, which gave, in inverted commas, the words of the report of the Premier's speech on the 10th of August, in which was the statement that Arabi Pasha had employed the flag of truce for the base, abominable purpose of looting and conflagration.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I hope the hon. Member will be a little more careful before he quotes leading articles of newspapers against his fellow-Members in this House. I fortunately caught enough of the quotation to be able to make reference to Hansard myself; and I find, at page 1394, vol. 273, that I distinctly charged upon "the Military Party" in Egypt that that Party did not scruple to falsify the most sacred of all obligations in war—namely, those attaching to the use of a flag of truce—and that, while pretending to have pacification in view, not only had no such purpose, but used the hours gained by the employment of that flag of truce for the
  258
  base and abominable purpose of conflagration and looting. I carefully avoided the name of Arabi Pasha, and it does not appear in Hansard at all. I did not, and could not, know whose the guilt was—I knew the guilt was there. The hon. Member has misquoted me in a manner for which I hope he will proceed to apologize.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I certainly have to bear evidence to the fact, on reference to Hansard—which I had not previously seen—that the quotation referred to is exactly as the Premier has stated, and that the report in the newspaper materially alters the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) had said that the Government on Friday gave an illusory pledge; but that was not the case. On three occasions during the debate on that day, it was stated that the Government would not interfere to prevent the execution taking place. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), in his speech, which had been disposed of by the Prime Minister, spoke of this execution as the foulest judicial murder that had ever been committed, and he cheered the hon. Member for Dungarvan when he referred to it in similar terms. He also spoke of the Court as the Khedive's assassination Court. Was the noble Lord aware of the fact that a distinguished English Naval officer of the highest character and discretion was a Member of that Court?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain. I called it a foul judicial murder, because the prisoner was condemned by a Court which did not allow him to call witnesses, or to cross-examine witnesses called against him; and that, I say, is judicial murder.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the noble Lord went a great deal furthur, for he told the House that the reason why these steps were taken was in order to cover a shameful intrigue, and to spare the Khedive from compromising evidence. Considering that Morice Bey, an Englishman and an officer of the highest reputation, was a Member of that Court, he thought that the conduct of the noble Lord was hardly to be described in Parliamentary

  259
  terms. He had received from Sir Charles Wilson some notes on the trials, which he would like to read to the House.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he objected to documents being read which were not official documents. He wished to ask the Speaker for a ruling on that point.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, if the right hon. Baronet was now quoting from an official document he was bound to present it, unless it would be against the public interest to do so.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was not an official document; but the moment he was able to communicate with Sir Charles Wilson he would ask him to place it in that form, so that it might be presented to the House.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwished to know whether the right hon. Baronet was in Order in quoting from the document? There was no guarantee that it could be examined hereafter.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that, not being an official document, the House could take it for what it was worth.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would promise the noble Lord that when he had had the opportunity of communicating with Sir Charles Wilson it should be laid on the Table. Sir Charles Wilson said that while watching the trial he had on many occasions visited the prisoners in their cells; and every one of them stated that Suleiman Sami had taken a leading part in the firing of Alexandria. He never denied it himself, but pleaded, in justification, that he had Arabi's orders to do so. But there was no direct evidence that Arabi had issued such an order; and he and his officers, who during the trial were in separate and solitary confinement, denied issuing such an order. If the destruction of Alexandria had been ordered as a military measure the destruction would have been systematic, and those buildings which would be useful to our troops when landed would have been destroyed. His impression was that Suleiman carried out a threat which he had often made to burn Alexandria, and also to gratify his wish for revenge upon his personal enemies, and that he took advantage of the disorder which existed to do so. During the destruction Suleiman rushed about on horseback like a madman, and forced the soldiers to set fire to the different buildings in the city.
  260
  He thought those facts would be serviceable to the House.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: But they are not evidence.
  Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: No; but Sir Charles Wilson was present at every trial.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLIt never came out. Is that the evidence that was given at the trial?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was not in possession of the evidence given at the trial, or he would have produced it. Sir Charles Wilson went on to say that the conduct of Suleiman at the Commission of Inquiry produced an unfavourable impression; and, although the other prisoners showed some spirit, this man appeared to be one of those in whom power could only exist together with great ferocity. His conduct on the scaffold also seemed to bear out this view. He would add nothing to that statement of Sir Charles Wilson. He thought it spoke for it itself. As regarded the action of Sir Edward Malet, he had been guided by the instruction laid down in a despatch which would be laid before the House shortly. The noble Lord had argued that it was the duty of the Government to direct the procedure of Courts of Law in Egypt. But he would remind the House that the Government did not attempt to direct the procedure of the Courts of Law in this country. Why, then, should they do so in Egypt? The real point for the consideration of the House was, whether an innocent man had been done to death, or whether a man had been executed who was really guilty?
  MR. WARTONsaid, that was not the point. The point was, whether there had been a fair trial?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that with regard to that Her Majesty's Government did everything they undertook to do in appointing officers of the highest integrity and character to watch the proceedings. Lord Dufferin, in his despatch of the 28th of April, 1883, told them that when Sir Charles Wilson left Egypt he requested Major Macdonald to discharge the same duties in conjunction with other gentlemen. The Members of the tribunal were men of intelligence and honour, some of them having a considerable knowledge of law, and two of them were Europeans. From

  261
  first to last English officers had been present, with instructions from the Government not to interfere in the general conduct of business, except in case of any gross and flagrant infraction of justice; and Major Macdonald had reported that he was generally satisfied with the result arrived at. Lord Dufferin expressed his opinion, in terms which he hoped the House would soon have an opportunity of seeing, to the effect that if there had been any miscarriage of justice, it was in the fact that numbers of persons had escaped who ought to have been convicted. Suleiman Sami was arrested in Crete by the Turkish Government as a man who had been chiefly concerned in the burning of Alexandria, and, after his arrest, was immediately handed over to the Egyptian Government. There was no gross or flagrant violation of justice. The Government had satisfied themselves of that. They did all that the House ever asked them to do, and all that it was wise, prudent, and right that they should do. Lord Dufferin bore testimony to the indefatigable way in which Major Macdonald had discharged his duties; and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) maintained that the Government had adopted the best possible course under all the circumstances of the case.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he had listened with the greatest possible attention to the observations of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board; and, although he had had many opportunities of admiring both his knowledge and ingenuity, he had never before seen him to greater advantage. The right hon. Gentleman had tried, in a few well-chosen sentences, to turn the issue on the point before the House. According to him, the whole question was simply whether an innocent man or a guilty man had been convicted; whereas the real question was whether an innocent or a guilty man had had a fair trial, and there was a very broad difference between those two propositions. If it had been simply a question of consigning Suleiman Sami to the tender mercies of an Egyptian tribunal, the House and Her Majesty's Government would have had no responsibility in the matter; and here arose one point which struck him as showing how strangely illogical was the conduct of the Government in this matter. They argued, on the one hand, that they
  262
  had no right to interfere; and, on the other hand, they said they were sure of the justice of the sentence, because it had been watched by an English official. But the whole question before the House had been so extraordinarily mixed up that it was necessary to remind the House that the real question—a very simple and clear one—was, whether the Government were responsible, directly or indirectly, for the hasty manner in which that capital sentence had been carried out? He maintained they were. He had ventured to say on Friday evening, when the question was before the House, that the cases of Arabi Pasha and Suleiman Sami were on all-fours; and he now maintained that statement. The President of the Local Government Board, a year ago, in answer to a Question of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), told the House that, in his opinion, Arabi Pasha was guilty of complicity in the murders.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was better to be accurate on these occasions; and the words used were, that there were grave reasons to suspect the complicity of Arabi.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, it made no difference whatever that Arabi had been taken by our troops. There were grave reasons why Arabi should have been treated as a criminal, and Suleiman was only his lieutenant. Why was it that some 34 hours were allowed to elapse before the first telegram was sent on Friday by Her Majesty's Government? Could any reasonable man accept the explanation of the President of the Local Government Board that the delay arose in consequence of the time required for reading and sending a cipher telegram? Were they to suppose that the clerks of the Foreign Office were engaged for 30 hours in putting into cipher the words—"Will the sentence be carried out?" How was it that Her Majesty's Government came to inquire whether the sentence would be carried out? They ought to have known that it would. When requested to delay the execution, they sent a telegram of inquiry, and not, as they ought to have done, a telegram demanding that the execution should be stayed. According to their own account, they had the statement of Major Macdonald, who, they said, was watching the trial, and of Sir Edward Malet, that the trial

  263
  was a fair one. Why, then, did they send a telegram at all? The reason was because they wanted to make it appear to their Radical friends that they bad no control over affairs in Egypt. To such an unworthy consideration of Party expediency was this man's life sacrificed with such unseemly haste. If the Conservative Government had been sitting on the Treasury Bench while these things were being done, every platform in England—and in Scotland, too—would have been made to ring with words of disapproval and denunciation of that want of humanity which, in the opinion of certain philosophical Radicals, was a characteristic of the Tory Party. When the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) quoted a statement of The Times Correspondent as to certain witnesses not being examined, was that statement refuted? Not at all. The Prime Minister was extremely indignant; but simple negatives were not arguments, and the mere assumption of indignation did not bring conviction to the minds of those who saw it. In point of fact, a man had been done to death, and Her Majesty's Government had allowed an official of the Crown to be present at the proceedings, thus giving the sanction of England to doings which were ab initio illegal. It was said that we had no right to interfere. But a very few months ago, at the bidding of the United States, we stayed the execution of Dr. Lamson. Surely we had it in our power, at all events, to delay the execution of Suleiman; and it should be remembered that this was the Government which had introduced a Bill for the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal. He would say that the blood of this man was unquestionably on the Government of this country, and a stigma would attach to the Government so long as it existed. He did not say whether the man was innocent or guilty. [A laugh.] Would any hon. Gentleman who laughed allow an Englishman to be hanged upon such evidence? He did not for a moment urge the innocence of Suleiman; but what he maintained was that the man had not had a fair trial, and that the Government were responsible for the trial not being fair.
  MR. LABOUCHEREfelt bound to say that, though there was no absolute proof that the Khedive was the insti-
  264
  gator of the massacre at Alexandria, there was an exceedingly strong primâ facie case made out against him; and he hoped the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) would place the evidence upon which he relied in the hands of the Prime Minister. An old proverb said that if you wanted to discover the author of a crime you must find out who profited by it. In the present case no one but the Khedive could have profited by it. The statement that Arabi was directly interested in bringing about English intervention in Egypt had always appeared to him particularly absurd, for if we had not interfered Arabi would have remained master of the situation, and that was not the object of the Khedive. The fact was, the Khedive, while desiring British interference, was unquestionably willing that the National Party should be prejudiced in our eyes. It was now admitted by the Government that Arabi Pasha had nothing to do with the massacres, yet the President of the Local Government Board declared, on the 25th of June last, that Arabi was guilty of complicity in the attack on the Europeans. That showed how imperfectly the Government were informed at that time on this subject. As regarded Suleiman, he thought there was no doubt he interfered, by means of his troops, to put a stop to them. In that he did a good action, which ought to be remembered to his credit now. The noble Lord said he interfered because he was ordered to do so by order of Omar Lufti; but he declared he acted in pursuance of a despatch from Arabi. Arabi telegraphed to Suleiman because Suleiman was at the head of the troops, and he could trust him. It was likely enough they were now making a similar mistake as to the Khedive. But, after all, what if Suleiman Sami did burn the city? Alexandria had been bombarded, the white flag had been hoisted, Arabi and his troops were retreating; Suleiman was left to cover the retreat, and the English were shortly expected to land. Surely it might be contended that in setting fire to the town he was only exercising his rights as a belligerent? It was a terrible act, no doubt; but war could never be made pleasant or humane, and a military measure, however severe, if it was expressly ordered, would not be punished by any Court Martial in the world. The

  265
  Prime Minister had imported into the discussion what was not before the tribunal. Suleiman was not condemned for obeying orders, but because, as the Court contended, the orders never had been given. He thought it highly improbable that this man had burned down Alexandria. When the noble Lord said he was condemned, not for obeying orders, but for having disobeyed them, he wished to know whether they were to understand that Arabi had ordered him not to burn the town, and that he had replied, "I will burn it," and did so? It was strange a Commission was not sent out to Arabi to ask him what his orders were. A great deal had been said of the French procedure, and of this he knew nothing; but, whatever it was, it was contrary to the most elementary principles of justice. At the preliminary inquiry neither Suleiman nor his counsel were allowed to cross-examine any of the witnesses, and the dossier was forthwith submitted to the Court Martial. That was certainly not in accordance with our own notions of justice. It was true, of course, that an inquiry could not be held into the details of every trial that too place in Egypt; but, in this instance, the Government had put themselves into a thoroughly false position. On the one hand, the details of all the trials could not be watched; on the other, we maintained the Khedive by our soldiers, and were, therefore, responsible for all the acts of his Government. The Egyptians hated the Khedive; and, should they one day refuse to pay the taxes, English troops would be called upon to help to enforce payment. So long as we maintained the Kdedive in his position against his people, so long should we make ourselves directly responsible for the consequences. He hoped the Government would elect to do one thing or another in Egypt—either to take the country or to leave it, but no longer to occupy a position in which we were de facto rulers, while de jure we had nothing to do with the administration of the country.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he desired to bring back the attention of the House to the more precise charge against Her Majesty's Government which he had urged against them on Friday last, and which he was prepared, in a few words, to urge against them again this evening. He did not propose to discuss the question of the guilt or in-
  266
  nocence of Suleiman Sami, though, after the very able speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) which they had just heard, no one could doubt that a very grave question might be raised upon that point. And as regarded the unofficial, but disparaging account of Suleiman Sami read to the House that evening, he must observe that the Government could not have been influenced by that account, which was only received after the man had been hung. Nor did he propose now to discuss the system of procedure which was adopted at this trial, though here, again, it could hardly be doubted that the system was one which must be, in the highest degree, distasteful to Englishmen. Whether the sentence was just or unjust did not affect his (Sir Henry Holland's) charge against the Government. That charge was that doubts having been raised, rightly or wrongly, with or without foundation, against the proceedings, the Government ought, in a case of life and death, at once to have telegraphed off and requested that the execution, which was shamefully hurried on, should be postponed for, at all events, a few days. It had been urged by the Government that this was an ordinary criminal case, and that they had no right or claim to interfere; but the debate had shown that there was a strong political flavour about the case. Granted that the charge was for arson, what was the defence? Suleiman Sami did not deny that he had set fire to the town; but he said that this step was taken for military reasons, and under the orders of his superior officer, Arabi. This defence brought the case within the category of a political trial, and, in truth, made it closely similar to the case of Arabi, in which the Government had practically interfered. This ground, then, failed the Government, as it was impossible fairly to divest the trial of a political character. He must add that our peculiar position in Egypt, and the fact of our engaging Major Macdonald to attend and watch the proceedings, made it further incumbent on the Government to see that those proceedings were regular and in accordance with justice. He had heard with some regret that the Government had only authorized interference or remonstrance in cases of "flagrant infraction;" and he thought that in cases of life and death

  267
  those instructions should be enlarged. He was satisfied that the country would approve of an alteration of those instructions, so as to secure a fair trial in such cases. It must be remembered, however, that in the present case the Government were not blamed for not demanding a new trial, but for not having asked that the execution should be postponed until certain information had been obtained by the Government, and certain doubts removed. But then the Government said that they had no doubts, and the Prime Minister denied more than once that he entertained any doubt; and he distinctly stated that they had only decided to ask for information for the purpose of satisfying the doubts of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. He (Sir Henry Holland) was astonished when he heard this statement, as the Colleagues of the Prime Minister, the President of the Local Government Board and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had stated, with a view to show their readiness in the matter, that there had been a conference at the Foreign Office on Thursday, and that a decision had then been arrived at to telegraph out for information to Egypt. That showed the absolute inconsistency of the statement of the Prime Minister, that the information was only sought for to satisfy the noble Lord. That decision on Thursday showed that the Government themselves entertained some doubts, either as to the proceedings at the trial, or as to the rapidity with which the execution was hurried on, and it could not have been arrived at merely with a view to satisfy the doubts of the noble Lord; doubts which, in truth, the Prime Minister seemed to consider as unfounded and uncalled for. The Prime Minister said the Government entertained no doubts, because Major Macdonald had been present at the trial, and had been silent. But it was a remarkable fact that in The Times of Thursday, in a letter from the correspondent of that paper, it was stated that Major Macdonald, while satisfied with the preliminary inquiry, and with the manner in which it had been conducted, had protested to Sir Edward Malet against the Court Martial proceedings, and had asked for a suspension of the proceedings. That report might have been without foundation; but as the Government stated that they entertained no
  268
  doubts because they had not heard from Major Macdonald, it surely was their duty to have made inquiry at once into the truth of this statement, and to have demanded postponement of the execution of this unfortunate man until they were satisfied upon the point. They ought not to have waited for the meeting of the House on Friday, and they would not have done so had they been in earnest, or recognized the gravity of the case. There was great reason to doubt whether, if the House had not met on Friday morning, and if strong pressure had not been put upon them, any telegram would have been sent. And when they did send a telegram, what was the nature of it? Simply an inquiry whether the sentence would be carried out. Not an inquiry for information, not a demand that the execution should be delayed, but merely whether it would take place. True, a further telegram was sent for information; but Suleiman Sami was hung before an answer could arrive. The charge against the Government was a grave one—indeed, there could hardly be a graver — namely, that they had been reckless about the life of a man, when there was reasonable doubt as to the fairness of his trial. Whether the man was or was not guilty, the Government was bound, when a doubt had been raised, to send a telegram to stop the execution until there had been time to make inquiries as to the manner in which the trial had been conducted.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, the case before the House had been fairly and temperately put by the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). They were not discussing whether Suleiman Sami was or was not guilty of the offence laid to his charge. He might have been the greatest scoundrel in Egypt, or he might have been the opposite. That was not the point. The question was whether he had had a fair trial, and whether the Government had fulfilled the engagement they made with the House on Friday. The facts lay in a small compass. Intelligence of Sami's conviction reached this country on Friday morning. The Government were questioned about it on Friday afternoon. They were told that men of experience—well competent to judge—believed that the trial had been hurried forward, and that the man had not had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself.

  269
  Those charges might or might not be correct; but they were made by men of character and authority, and they were entitled to respect. The Government were asked to telegraph to Egypt and get the execution postponed until such times as the truth or falsehood of these accusations against the tribunal and against the sentence could be investigated. This request was not preferred by an irresponsible person, and it was not made in a frivolous manner. It was made by the recognized Leader of the Opposition in that House—a Gentleman who had held high Office in the State, who, in all probability, would hold high Office again, and who, by disposition and training, was not likely to take an extreme or strongly partizan view of the question. The Government, at the right hon. Gentleman's request, undertook to telegraph to Alexandria—the object of the message being to stay the execution. They did telegraph, it was true; but they telegraphed at a time and in a way that was ineffective. The wording of the telegram in itself was most extraordinary; and it was sent at an hour when, even if the authorities had been disposed, they would have had some difficulty in complying with its request. The House complained that the Government—having agreed to telegraph—did not telegraph sooner; that they did not couch their demand in more decided language; and that they did not prevent the execution. They certainly had power to do so, and could have done so if they had desired. It was useless to say that it was not customary for one foreign nation to interfere with another in such matters. They had an instance in England quite recently, where a foreign country had interfered on behalf of a man who was not a citizen of that country, but from which it was thought evidence in his favour could be supplied. The House would recollect the case of Dr. Lamson. His execution was stayed for three weeks, if not longer, in order to allow time for evidence to come from America, which, it was supposed, would induce our Government to forego the sentence of death. If the United States Government were justified in making that representation to England, and we acted upon it, surely the Egyptian would be much more justified in acting upon the request of the English Government to stay the execution of a man for a few
  270
  days, or a few weeks, if it had been necessary. England stood in a very different relation to Egypt to what America stood in relation to England. Whatever we asked the Khedive to do, he had no alternative but to comply; and, therefore, having neglected to interpose, the hanging of Sami really took place with the approval of this Government. In their own interest, it would have been well if they had interfered; for, whatever might be said, the fact remained that a considerable amount of suspicion surrounded the whole transaction. It might be true that the insinuations against the Khedive were justified. He hoped they were not justified. He knew that Tewfik had been placed in a position of terrible responsibility; that great pressure had been brought to bear upon him; and it was quite conceivable that his course of action might have furnished grounds for some of the reports that were circulated to his detriment. He (Mr. T. Cowen) made no charge against him. But still the impression prevailed in this country, in Egypt, and throughout the East, that, with a view to get quit of a disagreeable witness, the witness's death had been hastened. Now, if the Government had allowed these charges to be investigated, the suspicions might have evaporated. If it had been proved upon investigation that there was no ground for the accusations against the Khedive, and if everything the Ministry had said had been borne out by further inquiry, then their course, the Khedive's course, the character of our interference, and the position of the Government in Egypt would have been largely strengthened. As it was, the suspicion that had been generated would hang round the whole of our action. The Government placed great reliance upon the testimony of their agents. He did not say a word against either the character or credibility of these personages. Lord Dufferin, Sir Edward Malet, and Major Macdonald might be—he believed they all were—honourable and trustworthy men. But they were not infallible. They might be mistaken. Our Agents had been mistaken before. Ministers might excuse or explain it as they liked; but it was an undeniable fact that they succeeded in leading the House to believe — and through the House the country—that Arabi and his Colleagues were a gang of unprincipled adventurers. They were playing for

  271
  their own hand, and that alone. They had no end in view but one, and that was a selfish one. They would sacrifice the lives of their countrymen and the interests of the world to gain their own purpose. Again and again these accusations were made in that House, and by Ministers out of it; and now they had to confess that some of the charges were unfounded, and some of them unjustifiable. They had admitted that Arabi was a patriot, and they treated him as such. Recently they had had panegyrics pronounced in that Chamber upon an Italian patriot who had also been a rebel. There was as good reason for speaking favourably of the character of this Eastern soldier who had fought for his country as of either Italian or Hungarian soldiers who had fought for their countries under like circumstances. As the Government had been wrong in the case of Arabi and his Colleagues, might they not also be wrong in the case of Sami? They had said ninny hard things of Sami, some of which, perhaps, might be true; but it should be remembered, to his honour, that he was instrumental in putting down the riots in Alexandria on June 11. It should also be remembered to his credit that he served with the Egyptian Contingent under Hussein Pasha in Bulgaria; and they had the evidence of independent witnesses that he acquitted himself admirably in that campaign. His reputation was nothing to him now, and it could not be much to his friends; but these facts should be stated when such unqualified condemnation was passed upon him. But the moral of the whole discussion was this—Our Government occupied an anomalous position in Egypt. Sometimes we asserted absolute authority; at other times we pleaded the authority of the Khedive as a reason for our not interfering. We should have to make up our minds whether we intended to remain in Egypt, or whether we intended to leave. We could not hang—as Mahomet's coffin did in mid-air—between responsibility and non-responsibility. He believed we should be compelled to remain, whether we liked it or not. The Government might talk about retiring, and they might wish to retire; but the circumstances would he too strong for them. We were as little likely to retreat from Egypt as from India. If it was criminal for us to go there, it would, under the
  272
  present aspect of affairs, be almost equally criminal to leave. We had overturned the Government that existed; we had rendered the establishment of National Government impossible; and we should be driven to remain to sustain the shadowy authority that we had called into existence. It was well for the country to realize that position. It was highly unsatisfactory, and might be dangerous. The discussion that had taken place that night was one of many discussions they would have of a like character. Every case of the kind that turned up would be debated in that House, and the Government would be held responsible for it. They had better, therefore, either leave altogether or resolve to stay.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that at that time there were on the Treasury Bench three Ministers, of whom one knew very little of this matter, while the other two were absolutely ignorant. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was asked on Friday whether a day had been fixed for the execution; and the noble Lord replied, "No, Sir."
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEwas understood to dissent.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFread the Question and the Answer.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that the Answer was accurately reported, but not the Question.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether the noble Lord knew at the time the date fixed for the execution?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that he did not.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that was all he contended for; and the Government had known nothing about it all through. They did not know the opinion of Major Macdonald, and they did not telegraph to him until it was too late for the execution to be stopped. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, speaking on the 16th of August, 1882, said—
  "Remember the flag of truce ! Who sent that flag of truce? Was it an unauthorized act F Will anyone tell me that it is rational to believe that act was otherwise than the act of persons in power—namely, Arabi and his coadjutors How were the hours employed which were basely gained by the abuse of that flag of truce? They were employed in letting loose anarchy and conflagration upon Alexandria."—(3 Hansard, [273] 1948.)

  273
  When the right hon. Gentleman was taxed with having accused Arabi of being the author of these outrages he denied having done so, and called on the hon. Member for the quotation on which he founded the assertion. That quotation did not refer expressly to Arabi; but the right hon. Gentleman did not tell the House that four days later he referred to Arabi by name. He wanted to know whether the Government received any Report or information as to this trial after the 30th of April? Did they, between the 30th of April and the 8th of June, the day on which the sentence was passed, have any communication with Major Macdonald as to the course of the trial? The hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) had quoted a passage from The Times which had been previously quoted by his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and which stated that Major Macdonald had protested against the trial. Had the noble Lord opposite any information on that subject? If not, the absence of such information showed the levity with which the Government had connived at this atrocious act in Alexandria. They had a right to know not only the truth as to this trial and hurried execution, but also whether any stops were being taken to prevent a similar course of proceeding with regard to Said Khandeel? Did the Government intend to carry out the promises made by the Prime Minister before Whitsuntide in favour of Said Khandeel? The Government felt that they were responsible, to a great extent, for what was really a judicial murder. ["No!"] The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government knew that it was so. In one of the lamest speeches he ever delivered, with no argument, and nothing but a certain amount of arrogant bravado, the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to escape the consequences of this most wicked and mischievous transaction. [Murmurs on the Government side.] He protested in the strongest manner against the levity with which the Government had treated this whole question, and asked the House to consider seriously what would be the result of this sentence and hurried execution upon our reputation in Egypt. If the country had one mission more than another when it went
  274
  into a country of that kind, it was to see that justice was properly administered.
  MR. VILLIERS-STUARTsaid, that, as far as public opinion in this country went, he should not have thought it necessary to say a word in vindication of the Khedive from the mischievous chares so recklessly made by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. He maintained that not a word on the subject would have been necessary in this country, because the sacrifices which His Highness had made in order to carry out loyally his engagements to England were fresh in our recollection. But it was otherwise with regard to the effect of these insinuations in Egypt. There was no story, however wildly improbable and absurd, which might not be received with credence among such an excitable people as the population of Cairo and Alexandria. It was impossible, therefore, to overrate the mischievous consequences of such statements made in the British House of Commons if they remained uncontradicted. He had the honour of an interview with the Khedive last winter, and His Highness gave him a graphic description of the condition of helplessness to which he was reduced during the rebellion. He said—"The Princess and my children were in the power of Arabi, and my own life was at his mercy. I was perfectly helpless, and I was not responsible for anything that was done during the rebellion." That was the statement of the Khedive; and it was borne out by the statements of almost all the Europeans and Natives with whom he had conversed in Egypt. The correspondent of The Times, writing from Egypt on the 6th of June, said—
  "The Khedive sits in his palace powerless, helpless, and almost hopeless. Only ono man rises paramount out of the confusion—Arabi Pasha. This is a sad picture, when one thinks of the steady progress of only one year ago."
  That was written five days before the massacre. On the 14th of Juno, after the massacre, the correspondent of The Times wrote—
  "I have seen the Khedive; he is behaving admirably. He said—'cannot express the disgrace I feel. But for my wife and family I should not care to live.'"
  It seemed that the Khedive at that time, so far from being in a position to take the initiative in a great public crime such as the burning of Alexandria, could not count on the safety of his own life from one

  275
  hour to another. He heard a great deal of gossip in Egypt with reference to the massacre and the burning of Alexandria, and it was pretty consistent. It pointed to a very different quarter than the Khedive. He hoped the generosity of that House would prompt it to remember that the danger in which the Khedive had been placed was owing to his loyalty to England. He trusted they would not desert their ally on the present occasion, and that they would give unmistakable evidence that they regarded this charge as being utterly groundless. A charge had also been brought against Lord Alcester—namely, that he sanctioned the bombardment of Alexandria in order to avenge the massacre. But, when in Alexandria after the bombardment, he had made it his business to visit the Native quarter to see what damage had been done; and he was able to state that there were very few traces of the bombardment in that part of the city. If Lord Alcester's wish had been to avenge the massacre, he would have directed his fire on the Native quarter, and not have limited it to the forts, as he had been careful to do. It was well known by whom the European quarter was destroyed. He believed that our policy in Egypt had the approbation of the great majority of Englishmen; and the unanimous testimony of the Natives with whom he spoke was that our intervention had saved Egypt from ruin.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought a great many things had been said that evening which had better have been left unsaid. In his opinion, the charge against the Khedive of being responsible for the bombardment was almost absurd, and the accusations against the honour and truth of Her Majesty's Government were wholly unjustified. There was no doubt, however, that Suleiman Sami had been executed in a most precipitate manner; and the House was entitled to some assurance from the Government that they would take care that the trials of the prisoners who were still to be tried should be conducted in a fair and just manner. He was one of those who felt that we ought never to have gone to Egypt; but as we were there, we were responsible for the fair administration of justice; we were bound to provide that in regard to this matter of judicial procedure there should be decent and fair procedure. He did
  276
  not mean according to English forms—for he was not a great admirer, in many respects, of our procedure, but admired rather the Scotch, which was more like the French system—but he hoped that a fair and decent trial would in all cases be granted to the remaining prisoners.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that at 2 o'clock on Saturday morning he asked the Government whether they would telegraph to their own authorities at Cairo to ascertain whether this man had had a fair trial, and, if they got no satisfactory answer, whether they would interfere to delay the execution? To that question he received no answer. The House wanted some assurance from the Government that the man had had a fair trial, and that their own accredited Agents were satisfied on the subject. The Government afterwards gave two most extraordinary answers, which were contradictory of each other. The first answer, as far as he understood, was that the Government had no right to inquire. They would have a right, it was said, to interfere in the case of a political crime; but this was not a political, but an ordinary crime, and one which was exclusively within the cognizance of the Khedive. What was the other answer? It was entirely contradictory of the first. [Mr. COURTNEY dissented.] He did not expect the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to agree with him. It was that the Government were quite satisfied that the man was guilty, and that the trial had been a fair one, because they had not heard to the contrary from their accredited Agents. The Prime Minister said that the Government had never doubted this. But Lord Granville evidently had the greatest doubt. [Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE dissented.] The noble Lord shook his head; but why did he telegraph—why did he interfere at all in the matter? For if he was not satisfied, why did he not telegraph earlier—why did he not telegraph till Saturday morning? Then, at 2 o'clock on Saturday morning, the noble Lord promised to telegraph within an hour. But the man was executed at 4 o'clock on Saturday morning; and, bearing in mind the difference in time between Egyptian and English time, anyone could see the uselessness of the whole proceeding. By no human possibility could the telegram be of any use. The conduct of the Government was wholly inexplicable.

  277
  Which defence were the Government going to abide by? If they had no right to interfere, why did they telegraph at all? If they had a right, why did they not interfere when some good might come of their interference? They could not ride both horses at once. The House ought to have some assurance that those criminals who remained to be dealt with should have a fair trial. They were not satisfied that there had been a fair trial in this case; and every means ought to be taken that in future cases there should be no miscarriage of justice.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that it was quite clear that no Members of the Government intended to make any further statement on the subject. He hoped, therefore, the House would pardon him for intruding in the debate. The conclusion to be drawn from the speech of the Prime Minister was, that he was extremely uneasy about the events which had been taking place in Egypt. The Prime Minister said very hard things about the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, because he quoted from anonymous communications in newspapers against the Khedive. He was, perhaps, a little open to a sense of incongruity; and he could not help recollecting the Prime Minister himself, on the strength of writings which were anonymous, made some extremely severe remarks on the Sultan of Turkey.
  MR. GLADSTONE: When was that?
  MR. GORST: At the time of the Bulgarian atrocities.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely wrong.
  MR. GORSTsaid, well, in any case, he was not wrong in what he was then going to say. The right hon. Gentleman took the noble Lord to task for saying that he held Arabi Pasha at any time responsible for the massacres; but the Government had taught them to believe that that was the case. The then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said, on the 25th of July last, that—
  "There is no doubt, I fear, that that leader was guilty of complicity in the preparations for the attack on the Europeans in Alexandria on the 11th of June."—(3 Hansard, [272] 1769.)
  And on the 16th of August the Prime Minister said, with regard to the flag of truce—
  "Will any one tell me that it is rational to believe that act was otherwise than the act of
  278
  persons in power — namely, Arabi and his coadjutors?"—(Ibid., 1948–9.)
  So that, although it now suited the convenience of the Government to say that Arabi had nothing to do with it, it then suited them to say that he had. The case was, however, to his mind, proved by the documents. Anybody who studied them must see that Arabi was not guilty of these crimes. After Arabi was a prisoner Sir Charles Wilson wrote home to say that there was no evidence to connect Arabi with the massacres. Well, if that were so, who was guilty? Had the Government ever instituted an inquiry into that matter? No; they had remained in wilful and persistent ignorance, and that was a circumstance pregnant with suspicion. If, however, they looked into events, it would be seen that it was the civil authority, as distinguished from the military, that caused the massacre. The Civil Governor at that time was Omar Lufti, who hoped to succeed Arabi as Minister of War in case of his dismissal. The Military Commander was Suleiman, who was, no doubt, responsible, to a certain extent, to Arabi. He was in constant communication with the Khedive, and had been quite recently at Cairo. There they had very valuable evidence.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the definite matter of urgent public importance which had been brought forward on the Motion for Adjournment was the action of the Government in the recent trial and execution of Suleiman Sami at Alexandria. He must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to confine himself to that Question.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he begged respectfully to point out to the Speaker that he was now travelling over ground which had been gone over by more than one speaker. It appeared that Suleiman Sami had been executed in great haste by the Egyptian authorities, because they were afraid that he might give evidence which would implicate persons of high position; and he was only following the events of the 11th of June, in order to show that Her Majesty's Government had failed in their duty. Various Naval officers, including Lieutenant Forsyth, Surgeon Joyce, and Lieutenant Bradford, declared in their depositions that they did not notice a single case of a policeman interfering to stop the riot; that, in their opinion, the riot was premeditated, and that the

  279
  police continually fired on the Europeans until about half-past 6 o'clock, when a regiment of Infantry—Suleiman Sami's regiment—arrived and drove them off. A man named Petcovitsch, also said that, although at 6 o'clock there was peace in the city on the arrival of the soldiers, yet that at the Prefecture of Police the massacre continued until 7.30. He did not say that this made out the case; but, at all events, there was a case for careful inquiry by the Government, and there was a case for the Government stepping in to prevent the Khedive's Ministers hanging up right and left everybody who might throw light on these mysterious proceedings. The Primo Minister's statement with reference to the instructions given to the officers of the English Government in Egypt, that they were not to interfere with the administration of justice in certain cases, really amounted to a direct indication to the Egyptian Government to hang up everybody whom they might connect in any way with these events. Did the Government really intend to leave the Egyptian tribunals to judge and sentence anybody they pleased? Was Major Macdonald to watch the proceedings in the case of Said Khandeel in the same way as in the case of Suleiman? The Prime Minister knew very well that, having established the Government of the Khedive, he was morally responsible in the eyes of the country and the world for the use the Egyptian Government made of the power thus bestowed upon them. If the Prime Minister did not take care, he would find himself in the most awkward of all political positions—that of supporting an Oriental despotism, the acts of which he could only imperfectly control. He would find himself mixed up with cases of tyranny, injustice, cruelty, and oppression, against which his own conscience would revolt. [Mr. HOPWOOD: Hear, hear!] It was not to be supposed that the conscience of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport, who interrupted, would revolt. How long did the Prime Minister intend to go on in ignorance of the evidence of the proceedings which had taken place? All that Major Macdonald said about Suleiman Sami's case was that the trial was a just one, and the man deserved to be hanged. But surely more was required than that a man deserved to be
  280
  hanged. Why, how many people deserved to be hanged? He had heard it suggested that he himself, and some of his Friends round about him, richly deserved that punishment; but, if they were tried and condemned in a manner revolting to the instincts of justice, he believed that even the hon. and learned Member for Stockport would hesitate to award the punishment. [Cries of "Divide!"] Suleiman Sami was dead, but there was another Egyptian, Said Khandeel, now awaiting trial; and were the Government going to allow him to be tried and executed in the same unceremonious fashion? Were they going to send out any instructions to our Representatives? Unless the Government treated this question with more seriousness, the conscience of the country would be thoroughly awakened, and they would find they had a very awkward question to meet.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not wish to put the House to the trouble of a Division, and would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Question put, and negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LORD ALCESTER'S GRANT (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 207.]
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gladstone.)
  LORD ALCESTER'S GRANT (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 207.]

    COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [8th June], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" (for Committee on Lord Alcester's Grant (re-committed) Bill."
    And which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson,)—instead thereof.
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he opposed the grant, on the ground that no particular skill was shown in the bombardment of

    281
    Alexandria, and that no great victory was achieved by a Fleet of overwhelming power silencing a few comparatively weak forts. If a real fight had occurred between our Fleet and a Fleet equal to it in power and armament, and the former had been victorious, he thought the grant would be thoroughly justifiable; but he protested against a grant for services which had given no evidence of skill or ability.
    MR. WADDYsaid, he felt it impossible to give a vote on this occasion without explaining the reasons why he gave it; because, while he felt it impossible to vote for this grant to be made to Lord Alcester on the one hand, and Lord Wolseley on the other, he should be sorry if it were imagined that the motives that actuated him were such as had been too obvious a great deal in the remarks of some hon. Members who had taken part in the debate. The proposal had been made an opportunity for attacks on the character of Lord Alcester, which he much deplored, on his skill, on the bravery and conduct of our troops, and on the policy of the Government—points which ought not to have boon introduced into the discussion, and with which the question had really nothing to do. He based his opposition to the grants on broader grounds. In the first place, because the services rendered—however well they might have been performed—were not such as, according to the history of the country and the precedents of former times, warranted the bestowal of such large amounts of money. He contended that, compared with those precedents, the present proposal was an extreme and a very exceptional one; and, in proof of this, he might refer to the case of Lord Rodney. He gave this instance simply as one illustration out of scores, and it was not necessary to multiply cases. Lord Rodney had performed many services far more dangerous and far more important than those rendered by Lord Alcester before any rank whatever was conferred upon him, and before any pecuniary reward was given to him. When those honours were conferred they were given slowly and by degrees; and the Peerage was conferred only as an acknowledgment of most distinguished services. Yet, in the present case, they were to proceed at once per saltum to such a reward as that proposed. In the next
    282
    place, he protested against pecuniary rewards being given for military services at all. If the officers who commanded our Army and Navy were not adequately paid, let them be so; but he objected to their receiving large grants of this kind in addition to their pay for the services they rendered; and he hoped this would be the last time they should hear of such a thing being done. The practice was not observed in the other Departments of the Public Service; and he wished to see the same principles brought to bear on the Army and Navy as were applied to them.
    MR. WARTONsaid, there were pensions and rewards in the Civil Service, and pensions were enjoyed by ex-Ministers of State. Peerages ought to be accompanied by pensions, in order to enable the recipients to maintain the dignity of their position. He was sorry the Government had changed the annuities into lump sums, for they had lost a day, which might have been saved by firmness in adhering to their original proposition. It was a pity that such grants should provoke opposition, for that deprived them of half their grace.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 45: Majority 184.—(Div. List, No. 125.)
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Grant of £25,000 to Baron Alcester).
    MR. MACFARLANEmoved, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "twenty-five thousand," and insert the words "twelve thousand five hundred." he did not think it was necessary that there should be a protracted discussion upon the matter; but his object was to reduce the Vote to the same sum as that which had been granted to General Sir Frederick Roberts and General Sir Donald Stewart. He should carefully avoid saying one word in disparagement of Lord Alcester; but there was no comparison between his achievement and that for which General Roberts and General Stewart received sums of £12,500, or only one-half the

    283
    sum now proposed. There was absolutely no comparison between them. It was said that in the one case the Government only gave a Baronetcy, and that it was usual to grant a smaller sum in the case of a Baronetcy than in that of a Peerage. He failed to see why it was more necessary to confer a Peerage upon Sir Beauchamp Seymour and Sir Garnet Wolseley than it was in the case of General Roberts and General Stewart. He objected altogether to the payment of blood-money of this kind. He thought the proper reward for soldiers was promotion in their profession, and not so many pounds a-head for every Egyptian they had killed. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that, in rising to second the Amendment, he, like his hon. Friend, did so without any intention of disparaging the services Lord Alcester had rendered to the country. He seconded the Amendment for the same reasons as his hon. Friend had moved it. The work General Roberts and General Stewart had done was far superior to anything Lord Alcester had done. The House would recollect that Lord Alcester was fighting against a people who were practically offering no resistance at all, and who could not possibly successfully oppose him; whereas General Roberts and General Stewart encountered a nation of warriors. There was no comparison whatever to be drawn between the achievements of Lord Alcester and those of General Stewart and General Roberts. He had voted in the minority on the last occasion, and he had done so for this reason—because he thought that the rewards given to Lord Wolseley and Lord Alcester were far superior to the achievements they had performed. He knew it was said that when they gave a Peerage to a person, they must accompany it by a money grant sufficient to enable the title to be supported. But he did not see why the performance of very insignificant duties should be rewarded in this very ultra-magnificent way. He failed to see in the past history of the country that such extravagant rewards had been conferred; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to look at the performances of many officers, who had not been rewarded at all, and compare them with the achievements of Lord Wolseley and Lord Alcester. The
    284
    country had granted a Peerage to these officers, who had, no doubt, done their work well; but he thought that a sum of £12,500, in addition to the Peerage, was quite ample compensation.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "twenty-five thousand," and insert the words "twelve thousand five hundred,"—(Mr. Macfarlane,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'twenty-five thousand' stand part of the Clause."
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was opposed to any grant at all; and he strongly objected to the principle of giving annuities for two lives. That part of the proposition which represented the second life he objected to; but he could not go so far as the Amendment. He was quite willing to accept the decision of the House to make a grant to Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley; and he was not disposed to cut the amount below the value of the pension originally proposed for one life.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was not inclined to huxter over the amount of the reward proposed to be given to Lord Alcester; but he thought it grotesque to find the House discussing this enormous grant to a man who was responsible for the destruction of Alexandria, after they had been discussing all the evening and justifying the execution of an Egyptian soldier, who had only had a small share in the burning of that city. Surely an Egyptian soldier had as much right to burn Alexandria as Lord Alcester had to bombard it. Both took the course which they deemed to be most effectual, from a military point of view; and, although he entertained no great hopes of the Liberal Party, he had hoped they would have been consistent enough to advocate the hanging of Lord Alcester, instead of rewarding him for causing much more bloodshed, and with much less justification, in bombarding Alexandria than Suleiman Sami in what he had done. He was quite sure the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and some of his Friends were sincere in opposing the grant, and that he did not object to it in any mere huxtering spirit; but, while he said this, judging from the demeanour of the Radical Party generally during these dis-

    285
    cussions, their extreme timidity in offering any opinion of their own, and their great impatience when Anybody else had anything to say against those Bills, he could only regard their opposition to them as a mere sham. They thought more of saving two hours of the Government time than of all who had been killed and hanged in consequence of Lord Alcester's demonstration. He hoped the hon. Member would press the Amendment. Hon. Members opposite, a few years ago, were loud in their denunciations of Lord Beaconsfield, for fear he might lead the country into taking part in what would have been, at all events, a less inglorious war than that which had occurred in Egypt. He hoped the country would watch the conspiracy of silence on the Radical Benches, having for its object the expediting of Bills which they pretended to oppose.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he trusted the House would not expect him to enter at any length into the question. The hon. Member who had moved the Amendment gave it as his opinion that the services of Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley were inferior to other services which had been rewarded with the sum now proposed. The question was one which connected itself with the grant of a Peerage. He admitted that the House was not responsible for the grant of a Peerage in these two cases; but he thought it had the approval of an overwhelming majority of the House. It would be invidious, and very unprofitable, to follow the comparison into detail; but if any hon. Member would carry his eye along the column of the Return that was printed a short time ago on the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), and which exhibited all those pensions, he would see that it was no great wonder the Government had arrived at the conclusion that the services performed in that case, with the immense responsibility attending them, and the most formidable consequences that would have followed any want of care, courage, or judgment in the execution of the operations, were services of a class which should carry Peerages with them; and, if that were so, then the reward now proposed was not an immoderate one. But the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) had, in the main, founded his objection to the grant
    286
    on principle; and it being, therefore, only the re-trial of the Motion which the House had just decided, he could not doubt that the House would repeat the judgment it had already given.
    MR. BIGGAR(who rose amid calls for a Division) said, it was always objectionable to act in a hurry. He thought that the Prime Minister had adduced an argument against the proposed reduction of the Vote. As for the evil consequences that might have ensued if a blunder had been committed, it would have been an evidence of the grossest mismanagement on Lord Alcester's part if any misfortune had occurred in such operations. Some hon. Members would probably recollect that about 30 years ago the performances at Vauxhall used to wind up with the blowing up of some fortifications; and the achievement of our Admiral at Alexandria was, in his view, very much on a par with that finale of a Vauxhall entertainment. The reward proposed to be given by the Amendment was quite sufficient for such a feat.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 242; Noes 37: Majority 205.—(Div. List, No. 126.)
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he proposed to move an Amendment reducing the amount of the grant to £20,000. Many of his hon. Friends considered that that sum would be ample—and, indeed, more than ample—for the purpose intended.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out to the hon. Member that, as the words "twenty-five thousand pounds" had been agreed to by the Committee, he would not be in Order in moving the proposed Amendment.
    Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 250; Noes 18: Majority 232.—(Div. List, No. 127.)
    Clause 2 (Short title).
    Question put, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
    MR O'DONNELL: I beg to propose an Amendment to this clause.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is too late. I have already put the clause to the Committee.
    MR. O'DONNELL: Then, Sir, it is my distinct impression that I rose at the very first moment compatible with the respect I have for the Chair to move my Amendment. But as you rule that I am too late, I must challenge a Division upon the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, although he did not agree with the views of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) on the subject, yet he was bound to say that the hon. Member rose immediately the clause was called.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, if the hon. Member desired to move an Amendment, he should have risen before the Question was put from the Chair.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, of course he accepted the ruling of the Chair that be had risen too late to propose his Amendment; but, at the same time, it was absolutely impossible for him to have risen any earlier. His intention had been to move to leave out the title of the Bill, so that the Act might be thereafter cited as "The Piracy at Alexandria Grant Act." As it was too late for him to move that Amendment, he could not do otherwise than take a Division upon the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." "Lord Alcester's Grant Act" was neither a proper, nor a sufficient, nor a fitting title for the Act; and, in his opinion, some such Amendment as he had proposed to move was required to characterize it correctly. If the clause were carried in its present form it would probably lead to sonic practical inconvenience in the future conduct of the measure; it was possible, however, that Her Majesty's Government, who had already led the House into the very depths of difficulty with regard to the Bill, would be able to see their way to modify it. This was a Bill for the remuneration of one of the most infamous acts of piracy on record amongst civilized or uncivilized nations, and should be designated as it deserved; and it was in order that hon. Members should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it that he moved the rejection of the clause.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had anticipated no Amendment to the clause, and he might have put the Question somewhat rapidly; but, as a matter of fact, he did so before the hon. Member rose.
    288
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 245; Noes 16: Majority 229.—(Div. List, No. 128.)
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Thursday.

  LORD WOLSELEY'S GRANT (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 208.]
  (Sir Arthur Otway, M. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gladstone.)
  LORD WOLSELEY'S GRANT (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 208.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, to move that you do now leave the Chair on this Bill, and I need not detain the House at any length. There is, however, a short explanation which I wish to offer. In the first place, I am sorry to have found that, without my intention, an expression used by me in a former debate upon this Bill has given offence to Lord Strathnairn. I used the expression, I believe, that the services of Lord Strathnairn were not special. I meant to use that phrase in a particular narrow and technical sense; and to express the fact that Lord Strathnairn's distinctions were not gained in any special expedition, like those of Commanders sent specially on a particular service. Lord Strathnairn, I believe, is not aware of this. Certainly, nothing could be more repugnant to my feelings than to have said anything derogatory to the noble and gallant Lord. I had no intention of comparing one distinguished General with another; and I am bound to say that I think the services of Lord Strathnairn will stand upon their own footing, and are not in the least danger of disparagement, even if I had intended to say anything tending towards their disparagement. There is also another matter I wish to mention. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) is in his place or not; but, on a former occasion, he made what was understood to be an accusation against me for having charged Sir Frederick Roberts with cruelty in Afghanistan, and he read an extract from a letter of mine, which he has been good enough to place into my hands. I could not recollect at the time the accusation was made what I had

    289
    really said in the letter; but, upon referring to the letter, I am not surprised, but I am rather glad, to find I made no reference whatever to Sir Frederick Roberts. I was aware General Roberts' name was connected with the allegations which had been made with regard to the great severity supposed to have been exercised over the people of Afghanistan. I made no reference to him whatever, but I recited a great number of accusations, a great number of imputations connected with the Afghan Expedition, en which I entertained very strong opinions indeed, and I expressed at the time my hope that some of these accusations, at all events, would be denied. The accusations were subsequently denied; and on one occasion, shortly afterwards—on the 25th of March in the same year—when I had the honour of addressing a meeting in Mid Lothian, I adverted to the subject, and noticed the denial, and stated with what great satisfaction I found that General Roberts, who had been accused, had been able to deny the charges made against him. I think it due to General Roberts and to myself to make these few observations, as the statement of the hon. Member for Londonderry was calculated—no doubt unintentionally—to mislead the House. With regard to the Bill now before us, I have already adverted briefly to the manner in which we have arrived at the sum mentioned in it; and, therefore, I do not think I need dwell upon it now. The House, I imagine, has heard as much as it is disposed to hear on this question. There is, however, one word I wish to say. I heard some hon. Gentlemen say—Gentlemen who are entitled to great respect, and who speak with great sincerity and integrity of purpose—I heard them say they did not think that Naval and Military Officers ought to receive special rewards. They ought, these hon. Gentlemen said, to be sufficiently paid, and if they were sufficiently paid, that ought to be enough, and we ought not to have these rewards to give. I differ from that view. I do not think it sound. I am not one of those who think this country treats with illiberality any class of its servants, Naval, Military, or Civil; but I hold this distinctly—that while the public must be content to pay for average and ordinary service, distinguished and illustrious service in the Military Profession particularly ought to be made a subject of
    290
    special reward. What is military service and military life?—but an affair for the most part requiring very ordinary exertion. The common routine of it does not call for great exertion, does not impose great anxieties and great risks, does not make any extraordinary demand upon the human faculties; and when you put a man in charge of the handling of a great body of troops, under the condition of modern warfare, when he has to concentrate them at a given spot, at a given time, and bring them into conflict with the enemy in such a way as to save human life amongst the troops to the greatest extent, then, I say, you do make upon the human faculties, perhaps, the very greatest exertion that they are ever called upon to bear; and I hold that, if anything deserves reward, it is exertion of this kind by Commanders charged with those great responsibilities on behalf of the Crown of this country. That is a ground upon which I wish principally to put the matter; but I must say that if I am only to look at it prudentially, and from a point of view of consequences, I am persuaded that it is wise and prudent to reward great Commanders for great services. I do not mean to say, for one moment, that any of our English Commanders would exert themselves any the more in the hope of reward; but I think that if the hope of reward can supply to them additional stimulus, it is very well that we should offer additional stimulus in times of great national crises. Let those who grudge these rewards consider what is the consequence of discouraging those great operations, and consider how hundreds and thousands of lives, how many millions of treasure, how the hope and reputation of the country are staked upon the just and manly exercise of the highest faculties of the mind on those great occasions, and what consequences would ensue from even the slightest miscalculation and error on the part of our great Commanders. I am satisfied, in point of policy and in point of principle, that I am only giving expression to the general sense of the House when I say that the principle of the proposal of this kind is a sound principle. It has already received the assent of an overwhelming majority of the House, and I am convinced that the subsequent stages of this measure will receive the support of the House generally.

    291
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was sorry to inflict any remarks upon hon. Members at that late hour of the night (12.10); but he did not make time, and it was not his fault that it was now so late. He confessed that the change that had been made in the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was an advantageous one. He thought that if they were to make these grants at all, they ought to be generous, and make the grants out of their own money, and not throw the burden of them upon posterity. Although, however, it was now proposed to pay the sum at once, Lord Wolseley had only to invest the £30,000 in the Funds in order to have a pension in sœcula sœculorum. He had no wish to go into the extraneous matters which had cropped up in this debate. He admitted that Lord Wolseley was not responsible for the war, and he admitted the noble Lord's capacity as a General. He had no doubt that if Lord Wolseley had to contend with an enemy "worthy of his steel" he would give a good account of himself; but where he (Mr. Labouchere) disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was in thinking that Lord Wolseley did "nothing" in Egypt which could be called an illustrious exploit. As a matter of fact, what did Lord Wolseley do? He went to Ismailia, and from there marched his men to Cairo. He took the straight road, and on the road he found a Let of miserable Arabs entrenched; he advanced, and the Arabs ran away. That was the whole history of the exploit in Egypt. Let him ask what they would have thought if Lord Wolseley had been defeated. They could not imagine any such contingency, and, therefore, he could not see why they ought to give him any special reward, because what had occurred was what they only anticipated. He did not see the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place; had he done so, he would have asked the right hon. Gentleman to have supported him in the proposal, that the House do resolve itself into Committee upon that day three months. The other day, when someone was protesting against the large amount spent upon the armaments, the Chancellor of
    292
    the Exchequer said, in effect—"You do not understand that you spend these large amounts as a species of insurance; when you have a full and efficient army you know that this army is able to vanquish an enemy in a very short time." And the right hon. Gentleman cited this very case of Egypt as an instance of what was the necessary consequence of our yearly expenditure of a very large sum in our armaments. Without going to any further length into what Lord Wolseley did out in Egypt, he would point out to the House that a new light had been thrown on the matter since this Bill was brought in. Since the introduction of the Bill they had received the Report of Lord Morley's Commission on the Hospitals. He did not want to go at any length into the medical question; but he would take Lord Wolseley himself as his principal authority why this money ought not to be granted to the noble and gallant Lord. Lord Wolseley had distinctly said that the mode in which the sick were treated in the hospitals in Egypt was most disgraceful. He (Mr. Labouchere) held Lord Wolseley responsible for that. Lord Wolseley admitted the fact, but chose to throw the responsibility on others. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister rather put the matter on the ground that the campaign in Egypt was a political matter. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No; not political, prudential.] The right hon. Gentleman, then, said that they ought to make this grant for prudential reasons; that if they did not make it there might be a miscarriage, and a miscarriage would be something dreadful. He (Mr. Labouchere) could hardly suppose that any English General would say to himself—"I am not going to receive £30,000 if I win this battle, so I won't win it." He thought they might always count upon the amour propre of actuating our Generals; we might always count upon them winning, for the sake of their own honour, any engagement in which they were concerned if it were possible to do so. He had no doubt that Lord Wolseley did estimate far more than any money grant the glory of having gained a victory in Egypt. Therefore, if they were only to vote this money for prudential reasons, he thought they might save themselves £30,000. His objection, however, went to the whole root of these grants. He admitted there might be exceptional

    293
    services, that there might be some great victory like that of Waterleo, or like some of the achievements of General Moltke, in which exception ought to be made. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, as he understood it, laid it down that the rule ought to be, that whenever an Expedition was successful a considerable grant ought to be made. That was the principle upon which he quite admitted Parliament had proceeded for a very considerable time. It proceeded on that principle with regard to Lord Wolseley himself in the case of the Ashantee War. What was the Ashantee War? He had no doubt that Lord Wolseley efficiently performed his duty; but it could not be supposed that because he gained a victory over savages armed with "flint-locks," it was proper that he should receive £25,000; and now, because he had slaughtered a few thousand Arabs, he should receive £30,000 at the present moment. He (Mr. Labouchere) ventured to contend that they had already very largely rewarded Lord Wolseley. He had been made a Peer, he had received a considerable number of decorations, and there had been a Vote of Thanks passed to Lord Wolseley in this House. There was a grant of £40,000 made to the Army, and of that he understood that £1,000 went to Lord Wolseley himself. It could not be said that Lord Wolseley had not been well rewarded for this Campaign; and it could not be said that he came to the House in formâ pauperis. He already occupied a position for which he received £2,700 per annum. In fact, he received the plums of the Profession, which, as a rule, were reserved for successful Generals. Lord Wolseley already held the best paid position in the Army, with the exception of the Commander-in-Chief. Besides that, when he was in command of the Army in Egypt, he received a trifle under £10 per diem and very large rations. Looking upon this as a monetary question, Lord Wolseley had been very well paid. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had told the House that they ought to give Lord Wolseley this money because he had been made a Peer. He (Mr. Labouchere) thought that this was an exceedingly dangerous doctrine. He confessed he himself did not know why Lord Wolseley's children and great grandchildren should legislate for this
    294
    country; but, still, if they did establish the principle that these Peerages were to be granted, surely the country ought not to be called upon to vote at the same time a grant of £30,000, in order that the new Peer might properly sustain the peerage granted to him. He (Mr. Labouchere) was not a great admirer of the hereditary Chamber, and he thought he should find many persons to agree, that the sooner this hereditary Chamber came to an end the better it would be; especially if it was to be recruited at the cost of the country of £30,000 per head. He was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) say that it was mean and shabby to discuss this Bill at all, and that we ought to avoid the great evils of Democracy, corruption, and meanness. The hon. Gentleman cited America as an example; but he (Mr. Labouchere) thought that this was very unfair, because America had been lavishly generous with their soldiers. They dealt with' their soldiers in a very different way from us. It was true that Grant, and Sherman, and Sheridan had received nothing; they would have considered it an insult had anything been offered to them. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen did not seem to understand the feeling which actuated Democracies. He (Mr. Labouchere) re-asserted that those great American Generals would have considered it an insult had they been offered any reward, and that it would have gone against the feeling of the entire community in America if anything had been given to them. Let him remind the House of what America had done for her soldiers. Immediately after the war they voted 13 dollars per month to every man who was wounded, and who could not support himself; about a year ago, however, they increased the grant from 13 dollars per month to 30 dollars, and all the men who fought in the war had all the arrears paid up—that was to say, they had the difference paid to them between 13 and 30 dollars per month from the time they were wounded. It had been estimated that that would amount in the end to £80,000,000 sterling. It might be that our system of giving £30,000 to a General, and 3s. 6d. per week to men who had lost their legs and arms, was a good system. It might be that the American system was a bad one—namely, that of giving nothing to

    295
    Generals, and giving £80,000,000 sterling to soldiers; but he did not think they could fairly say that America had been stingy in the matter. Now, Lord Wolseley made a speech at the Mansion House, and it seemed an unfortunate thing that our Generals and Admirals were exceedingly fond of airing their eloquence before they received their money. Lord Wolseley, speaking of the officers, said they knew very well that honours in war meant promotion, and those things that were dear to mankind; but the hopes of the rank and file of the Army were different. Few honours and rewards wore in store for them, and they were to content themselves with the most ennobling of all convictions—that of having done their duty. He (Mr. Labouchere) hardly thought that the officers of the Army would accept this view of the motive which actuated them. If officers fought for money and reward, the soldiers fought from a conviction that they ought to do their duty. It was not surprising that while they found many gentlemen ready to be officers, it was difficult to keep up the rank and file. He thought no more cogent reason against the system of rewarding Generals had ever been used than that contained in the words of Lord Wolseley himself. If it were stingy not to give to officers, let him ask whether they considered themselves stingy in not giving to statesmen? He believed there were only four pensions given to Ministers; and it must be remembered that two things were necessary in the case of pensions to statesmen. In the first place, an ex-Minister was not to be in receipt, at the time he received the pension, of any salary; whereas Lord Wolseley was now receiving £2,700 a-year. In the second place, it was necessary that an ex-statesman, when receiving a pension, should not have any means of his own adequate for his rank as an ex-Minister. Now, could anyone tell him what the difference was? Why was a soldier to receive this pension, and a statesman not? He did not want to draw invidious comparisons, but let them take the present Prime Minister and the present Leader of the Opposition, for instance. Surely, these right hon. Gentlemen had done as much for the country, they had served the country as well as Lord Wolseley, yet they were not to receive a pension. Literary men,
    296
    for instance, received nothing from the country. If a literary man spent years and years in writing works of benefit for the country, and if his wife and children were without the means of support, what did they receive? From £100 to £150 per annum. The only ground for any difference was that there was precedent for the one, and there was no precedent for the other. He really did think that it was time that they should look at those matters upon their intrinsic merits. Were they who belonged to the Liberal Party, and who inscribed on their banner "Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform"—were they to vote £30,000 because they were told that sums of the like nature were voted under similar circumstances by their Predecessors? Precedent to him had a perfectly homely sound in finance, and when "precedent" was argued he always knew that something was about to be done for which there was no valid reason. Were there not precedents for sinecures; were there not precedents for perpetual pensions? They could find precedents for almost every abuse imaginable, and yet it was argued by the Prime Minister, as a reason for giving this money, that there were precedents for it. If there were a thousand precedents he (Mr. Labouchere) should consider it no argument. What was the idea upon which these military grants were based? Why, the idea was that there was something glorious in military pursuits—that there was more glory in killing than curing, and in curtailing and destroying human life than in lengthening and increasing it. The tendency of all this was to produce a military spirit—he did not mean the spirit which would induce everyone to defend his country if it were attacked, but that which dragged us into these foreign enterprizes, and made us plume ourselves that we were playing a great part before Heaven and earth, whilst what we were really doing was violating a foreign country, and destroying the peace and happiness of, perhaps, millions of people. The hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) had told them the other day that he rejoiced at this war, and that it was a very good thing, because it re-established our prestige. [An hon. MEMBER: It did do so.] So that we were to kill any number of Egyptians and go on with these wars in order to "re-establish our prestige."

    297
    Well, his view of the matter was this—that, in the first place, we did not require to re-establish our prestige; and that, in. the second place, we had not shown ourselves a great military nation by this Expedition to Egypt. He respected the soldier and he respected the officer; but he did not respect the Military Profession as in any way superior or in any way more ennobling than any other. When he saw a general coming back from Egypt, or some other officer riding through the streets surrounded by aides-de-camp and soldiers brandishing knives, he did not throw up his hat in the air and rejoice. We had far greater heroes at home. He believed the artizan and labourer who gallantly fought against want and penury, and vanquished them, did a far nobler thing than these military people. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would be kind enough to bear in mind in regard to these grants that almost all the Radical Clubs in the country had protested against them. Let the Government remember this—if they ignored Radical opinions and Radicals, for his own part he believed that they would have reason to rue it at the next General Election. He begged to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on that day three months.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, that he seconded the opposition to the Bill, for the purpose of vindicating the Medical Department in Egypt against the charges which Lord Wolseley had, he (Dr. Cameron) thought, very ungenerously brought against it, and which had been sent forth to the world in all their nakedness, owing to the action of a Member of the Government in prematurely handing to one single newspaper a copy of the Report of the Morley Committee. So far as results were concerned, the Medical Department in Egypt could beast of results as brilliant in their way as those of Tel-el-Kebir, results secured by scientific knowledge and hard work. There had been bungling in the Medical Department, as in other Departments, but it alone had been harshly criticized. Lord Wolseley had himself severely criticized it. He (Dr. Cameron) did not say that the severity of Lord Wolseley's criticism on the shortcomings he denounced was unjustified; but he proposed to show that, for those shortcomings, Lord Wolseley alone was responsible, and his criticisms,
    298
    therefore, reflected on himself alone. Lord Wolseley denounced the state of the hospitals at Ismailia and Cairo, and there was a chorus of complaint about the absence of medical equipments and requirements along the line of operations. Well, who was responsible for that? The Carthage was the principal hospital ship. She had 326 tons of hospital equipment on beard, including three movable and two stationary hospitals. It would be remembered that the seizure of Ismailia with the change of base from Alexandria to that town was effected with the greatest secrecy. The change of base involved an entire change in the medical arrangements of the campaign; but the Surgeon General was never informed regarding it; he knew nothing about it, in fact, until he found himself in the Canal. He (Dr. Cameron) did not say that Lord Wolseley was not perfectly justified, on military considerations, in keeping his secret to himself; but, if he did so, he ought to bear the responsibility, and not attempt to throw it on other people's shoulders. Had he disclosed his intention to the Medical Department, or had he simply instructed the Carthage to be ordered to accompany the transports, she might have arrived with them at Ismailia on the 21st or 22nd. Instead of that, the Medical Department, being kept in entire ignorance of the change of base, the Carthage did not arrive at Ismailia until August 26th, and could not get her stores landed till the 27th and following days. Meanwhile, the empty palace had been handed over as a hospital to the Surgeon General on the 22nd; engagements had taken place on the 24th, 25th, and 28th; and the changes which the arrival of the Carthage, about that busy time, involved added to the work and confusion. Had she and the Courland arrived, as they might have done, in time; had Lord Wolseley but given a hint, there was evidence to show that there would have been no hitch whatever. But not only was the Surgeon General kept in ignorance of the intended change of base, but when the order for embarkation, issued at Alexandria on August 17, and involving an entire redistribution of the Medical Staff, was drawn up, he was never consulted about it. Had those orders been carried out, they would have upset the whole medical system, and they had to be abandoned. He was

    299
    informed that the Commissary General also had been kept in ignorance of the proposed change of base to Ismailia. He did not know whether that officer had been consulted regarding the provisions concerning the Commissariat embodied in the Embarkation Orders of August 17; but, if not, he thought that the Army might be congratulated on having fared so well as it did, and that many of the faults laid at the door of the Commissariat might, with greater justice, be charged elsewhere. The mention of the Commissariat reminded him that Lord Wolseley repeatedly charged the Medical Staff with incapacity, with "lack of initiative," he called it, in not undertaking the work of the Commissariat Department, and purchasing against them in the local markets. Lord Wolseley had confessed, before Lord Morley's Committee, that he was ignorant of an Order which had been issued on the subject by the Minister for War no later than August 5, and which distinctly and peremptorily laid down the duties of medical officers in the matter. The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) wrote as follows upon the subject:—
    "It is essential that, except in the case of petty office or departmental purchases (which may be made by heads of Departments), there should be but one purchasing Department in the local markets, and all articles required should be supplied by means of requisitions upon the Commissariat."
    Had Lord Wolseley known of the existence of that Order, he would have known that it was his business not to find fault with the Medical Staff for adhering to it, but to insist on the Commissariat, on whom the Circular laid the responsibility, performing its own proper functions. Being ignorant of the Order, Lord Wolseley had omitted to perform what was really his own duty in the matter. Lord Wolseley found great fault with the system of evacuating the sick from Egypt, and cast the blame of it entirely upon the Medical Department. In answer to Question 6,212, he said—
    "I think that the Medical Department at this time were beginning to feel a little frightened at what had taken place. The hospitals were in such bad order that they got rid of the patients by putting them on board ship, and sending them to England. In many cases, men were sent off who would have been well in a few days."
    300
    Now, what were the facts? One of the earliest decisions arrived at, as to the medical plan of the campaign, was that Cyprus should be used for a base hospital. It was only 24 hours' sail from Egypt, and the design was that the less serious cases should be sent there to recover; and, when convalescent, rejoin their regiments. The original intention was that the hospital should be established on the high land at Troodos; but, on August 4, the Director General, the Surgeon General, and the Chief of the Staff, agreed that the hospital at Troodos should be given up, and a hospital established instead at Polymenia, near the port of disembarkation. The Minute on this subject was approved by the Secretary of State for War. In the proceedings of the Committee reference was made to another Order, sent out by the Secretary of State for War on August 9, that Cyprus should be abandoned altogether; that it should not be used or relied on for hospital purposes until October. Now, that Order was never communicated to the Surgeon General. He never heard of it till January last. He (Dr. Cameron) had asked a Question on the subject, but could get no information. The noble Marquess the present Minister for War (the Marquess of Hartington) referred him to the evidence before Lord Morley's Committee. He had looked there, and this was what he found. On August 30, the Carthage was at Ismailia, with 196 sick on board, ready to sail for Cyprus, when she was suddenly stopped by order of Lord Wolseley. Colonel Lord William Seymour, attached to the Naval Commander-in-Chief, had given some clear and impartial evidence, which explained what occurred. In reply to Question 1,638, Lord William Seymour said—
    "There was one thing which very much put out the whole medical arrangements, which was that the Surgeon General had sent away a ship almost empty—I think it was the Orontes— saying he had no further use for her, thinking that he could send the Carthage to Cyprus; but in the afternoon, he got an order that Cyprus was not to be used as a hospital. That threw 400 sick on his hands which he was not prepared for."
    Again (Question 1,706), Lord William Seymour narrated a conversation which he had had with the Surgeon General on the occasion, in which that gentleman said—

    301
    "I have just been disappointed of the whole hospital at Cyprus; I have been told not to send any sick there. I wish now I had been able to send more away in the Orontes. Instead of the Carthage making a 24 hours' trip to Cyprus, she will probably have a much longer one to make to Malta."
    This, be it remembered, was on August 30, at a moment when there had been three engagements within the six preceding days. Surgeon General Sir James Hanbury, in his evidence before the Commission, supplemented this evidence by an account of a conversation which he himself had had with Lord Wolseley on the following day, August 31. He told him that the Director General at home had instructed him to use Cyprus for slight cases—
    "As a sort of stopgap to prevent too rapid evacuation to England"
    —exactly the fault of which Lord Wolseley now complained. What Lord Wolseley then said, according to the Surgeon General, was this—
    "Dr. Crawford does not know Cyprus as well as I do. It is much more unhealthy than this, and I believe the best way is to send the sick to England."
    And yet, in the face of that statement, Lord Wolseley now came forward and accused the Department of having become frightened at what had occurred, and of shipping the sick to England in order to got them off their own hands. To say the least of it, they should have some explanation of this very irreconcilable evidence. But the vacillation regarding Cyprus did not end with the stoppage of the Carthage on August 30. After further communication with Cyprus, the Chief of the Staff, on September 4, gave the Order—"Sick may be sent to Cyprus." On September 6, 72 sick were there, and, on September 13, 300 were shipped and ready to start, when, owing to the decisive result of Tel-el-Kebir, their destination was altered, and they were sent home. As the result of this shilly-shallying, the hospital was locked up at Cyprus when most needed in Egypt, and did not arrive at Alexandria until September 30. There was some further delay in getting it on to Cairo. Hence the unfurnished state of the Cairo hospital, of which Lord Wolseley complained. Now, had the hospital at Cyprus been used, as originally intended, it would have been invaluable. Had the Surgeon General been informed
    302
    that it was not to be used, it would have been his duty to bring its Staff and equipment to Egypt, where extra accommodation was much required. But he was neither allowed to use Cyprus, nor told that he was not to be allowed to rely on it, as arranged, until the first batch of sick were on beard ship on their way thither. Even then, he was not told that the Cyprus hospital had been abandoned, and that he was free to utilize it elsewhere; but he was kept in suspense till the end of the war, and the services of the Cyprus establishment was thus lost during the entire campaign. Three times after Tel-el-Kebir—on September 16, 24, and 30—Lord Wolseley had written or telegraphed home, to the effect that the Medical Department was "everything that could be desired," that "it reflected the greatest credit on the Surgeon General," and that "it was working to his entire satisfaction;" and then he had come before Lord Morley's Committee, and said that he "never saw a properly-equipped field-hospital during the war;" that—
    "Medical officers constantly held others responsible for failing to do what he considers should have been their own principal duties"
    —purchasing against the Commissariat, to wit—and that he
    "Supposes the base-hospital was never brought from Cyprus to provide accommodation at Ismailia, because the principal medical officer never thought of it at the time, or never brought the subject forward."
    The Chief of the Staff, Sir John Adye, in his evidence, had not only given a much more favourable account of the actual state of things in the military hospitals; but he had frankly told the Committee that, from the nature of the campaign, military considerations, supreme above everything else, had compelled troops to be sent forward to Kassassin in advance of supplies, in advance even of ammunition, and, of course, in advance of medical appliances and comforts. Had Lord Wolseley impressed this fact upon the Committee, and accepted the responsibility that properly devolved on him, not a word could have been said. But what he (Dr. Cameron) complained of was that, for a state of things entirely the result of his own arbitrary action, he had chosen to cast the blame upon the Medi-

    303
    cal Department of the Army. Lord Wolseley found fault with the Medical Staff for not "taking the initiative," and undertaking the work of another Department. After the experience they had had of his Lordship's baneful fondness for taking the initiative, and undertaking the management of the Medical Department, of which he know nothing, but whose responsible heads he never appeared to think it worth while to consult, it seemed to him (Dr. Cameron) a matter of congratulation that one class of officers, at least, among those serving under him, had been found who were content to devote themselves strictly to their own duties. To that it was to be attributed that, despite all that Lord Wolseley had done to mar their efficiency, they had been able to bring the European forces through this arduous and trying campaign, in an unhealthy climate, with a total death-rate, per 1,000 per annum, including deaths in battle, from sickness and from wounds, exceeding by a mere fraction that which normally prevailed in the civil population of this Metropolis. To this, it was to be attributed that they had been able entirely to ward off pyæmia, to deprive ophthalmia of its terror, and to deal with the wounded after Tel-el-Kebir, with a promptitude and efficiency characterized by the Committee as unparalleled in military history. Lord Wolseley had talked a great deal about initiative; but he (Dr. Cameron) considered that he would have displayed a much sounder and wiser initiative, as well as much more intelligent solicitude for the well-being of the sick and wounded, if he had instructed the Surgeon General to order the Carthage to accompany the transports to Ismailia, and, acquainting him with his views regarding Cyprus, had left him to utilize its hospital appliances elsewhere, than he displayed in acting as he had done—leaving the Medical Department in ignorance of his intentions and decisions; arbitrarily overturning its most fundamental arrangements; writing home that all was well, "false and malicious reports to the contrary notwithstanding;" and then coming home and coolly casting on the shoulders of the Medical Department the entire responsibility for shortcomings directly the outcome of his own peculiar mode of conducting the medical business of a campaign.
    304
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," —(Mr. Labouchere,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he should like to make one or two very short observations in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). Everyone must be aware of the great interest the hon. Member had taken in the particular subject he had brought under the notice of the House, and the right he had to speak on this subject with authority. He (Mr. Gibson) himself took considerable interest in the matter from the point of view from which the hon. Member bad approached the question, and should himself be prepared to vindicate and assert the position of the Medical Service and those who were responsible for it at a more convenient time, when the discussion which would take place could be reported in a manner that was essential for the proper understanding of the case and the due vindication of this great Service. He had read with all the care he could the charges which had been made against the Medical Service in Egypt. He had read very closely the evidence of Lord Wolseley and of the distinguished Medical Officers who were responsible for the Medical Service, and his opinion was that the charges against the Medical Service could be placed in the point of view indicated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, and that they could be thoroughly investigated and placed before the public opinion of the country in a fair and favourable light. At the proper time he should himself be prepared to call attention to these charges and to refute them to the best of his ability, and, if he might presume to say so without offence, to challenge all those who held a contrary opinion to repeat these charges in the the face of day, and express their belief in them. When his challenge was put forward he would undertake to say that there would be very few who, on their responsibility, would be found to get up and defend the charges which had been made against the Medical Department.

    305
    It was another thing to consider how far these charges should imperil the defeat of the Grant now proposed to be given to the General who had accomplished his military duties so successfully. He was simply asserting his own views. He yielded to none in his desire to defend the position of the Medical Profession; but he believed, also, he spoke with the approval and sanction of the Medical Profession. Only to-day he had spoken with some of the most eminent medical officers who had served in Egypt, and they had expressed a hope that the vindication of their position should not in any degree be used to imperil any grant to the illustrious General who had so successfully carried out the campaign. It would be found, he believed, that Lord Wolseley, in his despatches from the seat of war, which had been referred to by his hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron), had throughout expressed a desire that the Medical Service should have its full share of justice—that it should be denied no reward and no advantage that would be offered by the country, and in no case had he referred in his despatches in ungenerous, unworthy, or disparaging terms to those responsible for the medical conduct of the war. It would be found that these medical officers had received their share of reward for their services in the East. The true reading of Lord Wolseley's evidence, he thought, would be found in those four or five passages where he stated that he was giving his evidence because he was summoned there before the Committee, which had to consider not so much the Egyptian War as the methods which were to be adopted, of an improved and altered character, in future campaigns. Lord Wolseley stated—he (Mr. Gibson) had the documents with him, but would not trouble the House with them now—that he was not making charges against individuals, but simply stating wherein he thought the existing system had failed. That, he thought, was the view Lord Wolseley had intended to present to the Committee, and he could readily make a distinction between the time Lord Wolseley was writing despatches about the conduct of individuals and the way in which the sick were treated, and the time when, before the Committee, he was indicating that it might be desirable to have a new and improved system. He
    306
    would only refer to two questions put to Lord Wolseley—there were four or five on this point, but he would only refer to two—namely, numbers 6,164 and 6,176. In reply to the first, Lord Wolseley said—"It was the system that was bad;" and, in answer to the second, he said—
    "I think I never came across a medical officer during the whole campaign that really did not work, according to his lights, as hard as any man in the whole Army. It is the system I find fault with. I do not for one moment wish to say that the officers were not good."
    Ho did not concur in all the statements that Lord Wolseley had made before Lord Morley's Committee in reference to the Medical Department of the Army; but he trusted that the evidence given before that Committee, and the opposite views held with regard to that evidence, would not in the slightest degree interfere with the reward to be given by this House at the rate measured by the Government to the distinguished Commander to whom the House had recently awarded its Thanks.
    COLONEL O'BEIRNEsaid, he thought that when Lord Wolseley received the Thanks of Parliament the incidents of this campaign were not well known to the House; nor did the House know the character of the enemy he had to encounter, who were simply a rabble, who did not understand the use of their arms. He objected to placing Lord Wolseley, by means of this reward, on a level with Viscount Gough, Lord Hardinge, and other distinguished Generals. Lord Wolseley had a salary of £2,700 as Adjutant General at the Horse Guards, and he thought that ought to be taken into account, and also because that was almost a permanent appointment, as when once an officer got on to the Staff he was very rarely removed. The five years' rule was theoretically supposed to apply, but in reality it did not. The Prime Minister had said, with regard to Tel-el-Kebir, that Lord Wolseley deserved the highest thanks for having captured that without loss of life; but he could not see much strategy in manœuvring an Army against troops who did not know how to fight. He simply executed a movement during the night in imitation of the Russians at Plevna; there was nothing very brilliant in that manœuvre, and he thought it was amply acknowledged by the Thanks of the House.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think the House will not desire that I should follow at any length the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) who has moved this Amendment to the Motion. The hon. Member devoted the greater part of his speech to the views he entertained of the principle of rewarding such services as these by pensions or pecuniary grants. That is a subject which the House has discussed on several occasions, and upon which it was shown by very large majorities unmistakable opinions. On the second reading of this Bill we discussed the principle of the proposed annuity, and I think there can be no doubt that the House, having fully considered all the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend, is of opinion that it is not desirable, and in this instance it would not be generous, to withhold from Lord Wolseley a reward of the same nature as has been conferred upon his distinguished predecessors under similar circumstances. The hon. Member says the operations in Egypt were of a simple character, and are not worthy of such a reward as it is proposed to give to Lord Wolseley. It is very easy now to talk lightly of the difficulties of the campaign. We have never professed that the Egyptian Army was a very formidable foe; but I venture to think that the skill and forethought required in these operations were of no inconsiderable order. These operations were conducted 3,000 miles from home; Lord Wolseley had to organize not only a considerable force of men, but also the transport of supplies, and in a country which presented serious difficulties. He had to march not along a straight road, but along a route which was in great part a desert. There were difficulties of considerable magnitude to be contended with in these operations; but the operations were so well accomplished, and with so small a loss of life, that they redounded greatly to the credit of the Officer who commanded the expedition and conducted the organization of both men and supplies, as well as to the credit of the officers and men. the hon. Member has depreciated the importance of the victory of Tel-el-Kebir; but I cannot help thinking that it would have been considered of greater importance by my hon. Friend, and more worthy of reward, if it had been attended by greater loss of life. I do not think it
    308
    is possible to underrate the importance which the House ought to attach to the skill of the General who accomplished his object with the least possible loss of life. I hope the House will not be inclined to accept the views of the hon. Gentleman. It seems to me equally undesirable that we should on this occasion enter into any minute or elaborate discussion of the details brought before us by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). It is, I think, altogether not only inconvenient, but out of order, to enter into any minute examination of the Report of Lord Morley's Committee, or of the evidence upon which that Report was founded. It is, of course, open to the hon. Member, and to other hon. Members, to discuss that Report as bearing on the conduct of Lord Wolseley in this campaign but I venture to think that that would be not only an irregular, but a very inconvenient course. In the first place, I do not think it would be a very dignified course; and then I do not think this is the most convenient opportunity for discussing the particular orders on particular dispositions made by the Commander-in-Chief of the campaign. What the House has to consider is whether, on the whole, the plan of the campaign was a good one, and whether, on the whole, it was ably and successfully carried out. I do not suppose that either in that campaign or in other campaigns there was a total absence of faults or errors; and I do not say that it is not perfectly competent to the House, on a fitting opportunity, to call attention to those errors; but surely, when the House has decided, as it did, on the second reading of these Bills, and on a previous occasion when it granted its Thanks, this is not the most convenient and the most dignified opportunity to go into a minute examination of the orders given during the campaign. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Gibson) has also pointed out, with great force, and with great truth, that this Report of Lord Morley's Committee does not give to the House anything approaching the full means for a complete and exhaustive criticism of the conduct of the General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has stated, with perfect accuracy, that this was not an inquiry into the conduct of the General commanding, or of any individual concerned.

    309
    It was an inquiry with a much more practical object. It was in continuation of an inquiry already proceeding into the organization and management of the Army Hospital Corps. It took its rise in certain defects which were discovered in the South African Campaign, and in an inquiry into the organization of the Army Hospital Service. Incidentally, the conduct of Lord Wolseley and individual officers may have been considered by the Committee; but the inquiry was not an inquiry into the conduct of any particular individuals, or set of individuals, but into the defects of our existing organization, and the manner in which that organization could be improved. Therefore, this inquiry was not conducted in such a manner as to enable the House to form a complete judgment on the conduct of any particular individual. Lord Wolseley was examined comparatively early. Some of the evidence was taken subsequently, and he has not had any opportunity to reply to it. He is not in this country at present, and neither I nor anyone else has been able to consult him; and surely it would not be fair to condemn him, and would be scarcely desirable to criticize his conduct, when he is absent from the country, and when it is impossible to tell what is the answer he would desire to make to the charges brought against him. The evidence Lord Wolseley has himself given is a point into which I do not intend to go at this moment. I shall be quite ready, when we have an opportunity, to discuss this Report generally; but it seems to me perfectly unnecessary to go into that now. Whether the evidence of Lord Wolseley was well-founded or judicious or not in all respects is not now the question. The House of Commons is not going to refuse Lord Wolseley a grant of money in recognition of his services because it may think his evidence before this Committee was not all it might have been. I am perfectly aware that Lord Wolseley stated that he did not condemn individuals; but, at the same time, I cannot conceal from myself that some of his evidence was of a character that did reflect, and was felt to reflect, on the conduct and ability of some of the Departmental officers; and I cannot help thinking that if Lord Wolseley had reflected more carefully on the
    310
    great and exceptional difficulties under which, to a certain extent, they laboured, he would have given that evidence in a somewhat different manner; but, certainly, that evidence, given in London, is not going to be made, at this time of day, a reason for withholding a recognition of his services in Egypt. There are only two other points as to his conduct upon which it is just necessary to say a word. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) said that Lord Wolseley kept the medical officers in ignorance of his intended movements, and thereby prevented them from making the necessary and proper preparations. In the absence of Lord Wolseley it is impossible for anyone to say how great was the necessity for that absolute secrecy which, no doubt, he preserved, and successfully preserved. It is possible that the arrangements of the medical and other officers might have been, to a certain extent, impeded and embarrassed by the secrecy he observed; but, on the other hand, it is impossible to say how great may have been the advantages which that secrecy secured, and how great might not have been the loss of life if that secrecy had not been maintained. It is scarcely for us to criticize the conduct of the campaign, and to say that Lord Wolseley was not fully justified in any measures he took, although, perhaps, at the expense, to some extent, of the Departmental arrangements. Then Lord Wolseley is attacked for having unnecessarily interfered with the arrangements made by the medical officers. I do not think that the evidence bears out that charge. The evidence which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow shows that, on the 24th August, the principal medical officer inquired as to the transport available for the men who were not likely to be able to return. He was informed what the arrangements were, and acknowledged that they were perfectly satisfactory. He was told by the Chief of the Staff to communicate directly with the Governor of Cyprus, and orders were given that the sick men should be sent to Cyprus, and 72 sick men were sent there. Ten days later 300 more were ordered to be sent to Cyprus. In the meantime, the engagement at Tel-el-Kebir had taken place; the campaign was at an end, and the officer in charge of the sick took upon himself, perfectly

    311
    justifiably, to send the men to Malta, and so home, instead of to Cyprus. [Dr. CAMERON: What about the stoppage of the Carthage?] No doubt Lord Wolseley, who had personal knowledge of Cyprus, was of opinion that it was not desirable to send the men to a hospital on the sea-shore at Cyprus until later; but the stoppage of the Carthage did not prevent the sick men being sent to Cyprus, and arrangements being made for 300 more being sent. The Carthage was available at Ismailia; and I do not understand that these arrangements were seriously interfered with by the orders of Lord Wolseley. I think, therefore, it would be far more convenient that these details of Lord Wolseley's complaints of the Medical Department should be discusssd as a whole, and not on this occasion. I think I have shown that the evidence, so far as I have been able to read it, shows that the medical officers are not open to the blame cast upon them by some hon. Members and by some organs of the Press. I think it will be possible to show that, considering the difficulties of the situation, the arrangements were not only, on the whole, good, but were most certainly successful. I deny entirely that any evidence has been brought forward which should, in the slightest degree, prevent the House from ratifying the Thanks already given to Lord Wolseley, or in the slightest degree cause them to reverse the decision to which they came on the second reading to reward the services of Lord Wolseley by a pecuniary grant.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 28: Majority 138.—(Div. List, No. 129.)
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Grant of £30,000 to Baron Wolseley).
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, notwithstanding the decision which the House had arrived at, there were many Gentlemen present who were anxious to divide on the Amendment he proposed to move—namely, to leave out the words "thirty thousand pounds," in order to insert "twelve thousand five hundred pounds." Upon that Amendment he
    312
    was afraid he must put the Committee to the trouble of dividing. They had listened, in the course of the evening, to a great many reasons against these grants; but he would trouble the Committee with one only. He wished to make no comparison between Sir Frederick Roberts and Lord Wolseley; but would remark that the sum of £12,500—the amount to which he proposed to reduce the present Grant—was awarded to Sir Frederick Roberts. He presumed that the explanation of the increase asked for in the case of Lord Wolseley was that each Ministry preferred its own campaigns to those of other Ministries, and accordingly they showed their preference by giving larger sums to their own Generals. Unless this practice were put a stop to, they would probably have the Conservative Party, when they came into Office, proposing grants of £50,000 to their Generals. For that reason, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "thirty thousand pounds," and insert the words "twelve thousand five hundred pounds,"—(Mr. Labouchere,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words thirty thousand pounds' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he should be very much disposed to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, if he could possibly find it in his heart to oppose any grant in connection with the Army at the present time. The real danger now was that the Army would be underpaid rather than overpaid. But while he felt strongly that justice should be done to Lord Wolseley, he felt, also, that it should be done in the case of Sir Frederick Roberts, whose brilliant services had certainly met with insufficient reward, if these grants to Lord Wolseley and Lord Alcester were not excessive. He rose in order to call attention to some observations made on a former stage of this Bill by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War. At that time he had ventured to point out that the difficulties encountered by Sir Frederick Roberts's Afghan Campaign, and especially in the really great march to Candahar, were greater than those experienced in the

    313
    Egyptian Campaign. To this the noble Marquess replied that the Government could not have proposed a larger Vote to Sir Frederick Roberts, because in that case they would have been obliged to propose a larger Vote to Sir Donald Stewart. The Committee would see that that was no reason at all, for it would have been just as easy to propose Votes to both Sir Frederick Roberts and Sir Donald Stewart as it was now to propose them for Lord Wolseley and Lord Alcester. The noble Marquess stated, also, that Sir Donald Stewart deserved as much credit for his march from Cabul to Candahar as Sir Frederick Roberts; that it was carried out under Sir Donald Stewart's directions, and that he had given the flower of his army for that purpose. The noble Marquess was painfully inaccurate. The fact was that the march was first proposed by Sir Frederick Haines, Commander-in-Chief in India, who received no reward whatever. It was telegraphed to Sir Donald Stewart that the march would be undertaken; but Sir Donald Stewart vigorously opposed it, and declined to carry it out himself. It was only after peremptory orders from the Viceroy that Sir Donald Stewart consented to let Sir Frederick Roberts undertake that most brilliant and well-conducted march of 350 miles through a most difficult and hostile country.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he was not confining his observations to the Question before the Committee.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he would not dispute the ruling of the Chairman, but would remark that on a precisely similar occasion the noble Marquess had been allowed to go into the whole case. He challenged the noble Marquess to deny the facts he had just stated as to Sir Donald Stewart and the march to Candahar. The connection he wished to establish was that the grant to Sir Frederick Roberts was disproportionate to the amount of the grant now proposed for Lord Wolseley, and that the arguments of the noble Marquess were inadequate to prove that it was otherwise. As he had already said, he was unable to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton; but he felt that if simple justice was to be done in the present case, the Government ought to move
    314
    a larger Vote to the heroes of the Afghan Campaign—that was to say, to Sir Frederick Roberts, Sir Donald Stewart, and Sir Frederick Haines, who had overcome far greater difficulties than those of the Egyptian Campaign. If there had been any delay in the settlement of this question it was entirely due to the mismanagement of the Government, who, by changing the forms of these rewards from a pension to a lump sum, had caused two debates instead of one. The Prime Minister had practically admitted that when the Government first considered the question of these grants, they had not given to the subject the full amount of consideration which it required.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member for Eye had not been able to continue his speech on the subject of the Afghan Campaign, because that portion of it which he heard contained some very extraordinary statements, and he was extremely anxious to hear all that the hon. Member had to say. He was also very anxious that it should be understood that he had never desired, in the slightest degree, to depreciate the immense services of Sir Frederick Roberts, or the immense difficulties with which both he and Sir Donald Stewart had to contend. He had simply pointed out, on the occasion referred to by the hon. Member, that the Government were unable to confer upon an officer who was not in chief command of the Army a greater reward than was conferred upon one who was actually in chief command.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 25: Majority 118.—(Div. List, No. 130.)
    Clause 2 (Short title) agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be road the third time upon Thursday.

  SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 130.]
  (Mr. Trevelyan.)
  SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 130.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
    MR. CALLANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ire-

    315
    land informed the Irish Members at the commencement of the Sitting that the Bill would not be taken to-night. He (Mr. Callan) was sure the Government would not allow the Bill to proceed at the suggestion of the eccentric Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson).
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was not aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland made any public statement in the House to the effect stated.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he might remind the House that the Bill substantially was blocked.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, the Bill was not blocked on the Paper.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Order of the Day is open.
    MR. CALLANasked, as a matter of Order, if the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle was in Order in moving the second reading of this Bill, it being a Government Bill in the charge of a Member of the Government?
    MR. SPEAKER: Any Member of the House may move an Order of the Day, and to this Order of the Day no block attaches.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that this was a Bill which confiscated a large amount of property; and, therefore, it seemed to him a most unreasonable thing that it should be brought in for discussion after 2 o'clock in the morning. He hoped the House would not be so unreasonable as to make such sweeping changes which the Bill proposed under such disadvantageous circumstances. The Bill did not affect his constituents at all; but he thought that the Bill was so large a one, and that the interests involved were so great, that it would be a hard thing, and a wrong thing, to pass, at that time of the morning, and especially when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was supposed to have charge of the Bill, on behalf of the Government, was not hero to conduct the Bill. Nothing had boon said in favour of passing the Bill in such a hurry.
    MR. KENNYsaid, that as a matter of Order, he should like to ask if it was not a fact that the Chief Secretary for Ireland gave hon. Members an assurance that the Bill would not be proceeded with to-night?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appeals to me on a point of Order. It is not a point of Order at all.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he was sure that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) did not wish this Bill to come on at that time of the morning. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been waited upon by deputation after deputation on this matter, and lie was not here at the present time. Surely, they were not expected to pass a Bill of this importance when the Chief Secretary for Ireland was absent. He (Mr. Onslow) believed it was quite an accident that the Bill was not blocked on this occasion. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, he was fully persuaded, would agree with him that this was not the proper time at which to take a Bill of this character. He therefore begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
    MR. WARTONseconded the Motion. The information was distinctly conveyed to him by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had said that the Bill would not be brought in to-night. He (Mr. Warton) was relying upon that promise, and when he saw the finger of the clock standing after 2 o'clock, he never thought that the promoters of the Bill would have the audacity to press the Bill. If Bills were to be pressed forward at such unreasonable hours, it would be necessary to block every Bill that was proposed. It was perfectly intolerable that hon. Gentlemen, many of whom had spent the afternoon on a Grand Committee, should be expected to be in attendance upon the House at that time of the morning. Of course he knew perfectly well the Government wished to kill hon. Members; the Prime Minister had made himself quite unwell, and so had two or three other Members of the Cabinet with the hard labour they were undergoing. Hon. Gentleman must bear the strain as long as they could. But to call upon them to do so was not a thing which would make the Government respected. He had sent away the friends who usually assisted him in such matters. What was now being done only showed what tactics the Government and the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), in his intemperate

    317
    advocacy of temperance, would resort to in order to carry their point.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Onslow.)
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was sure the Government were indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) for the great anxiety he had displayed in regard to the state of their health. They, however, would be quite willing to sit up a little longer, if the House were disposed to do so. But, considering the statement that was said to be made by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland that evening, and the assurance which he was said to have given, he (the Marquess of Hartington) could not oppose the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate. There were sometimes misunderstandings of this kind, and it was extremely inconvenient that if an undertaking was given, it was not given to the House itself. He believed, however, the question was not put to his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in consequence of the debate raised by the Leader of the Opposition upon the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. He should not oppose the Motion, but he trusted hon. Members would not immediately place a block against the Bill. He thought his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland would give an undertaking not to bring the Bill on at any unreasonable hour of the night; and, therefore, he trusted that hon. Gentlemen would not take the opportunity which an adjournment would now afford of blocking the Bill.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that he was not prepared to make any conditions whatever. He should most certainly block the Bill, and oppose it in every possible way. He should oppose the Bill, and he should oppose every liquor Bill introduced into the House, unless ample opportunities were given for its full discussion.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he intended to proceed with the Bill. The right hon. Gentlemen said "No." He then asked the right hon. Gentleman if he (Mr. Callan) was at liberty to so inform his
    318
    Friends, and the reply was, "Certainly; I have said I do not intend to proceed with the Bill." He might remind the House that the debate on the Motion for the adjournment came suddenly to an end, otherwise he had intended to be in his place at the conclusion of the discussion, and to have asked the question of the right hon. Gentleman publicly.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that, after the very liberal offer the noble Marquess had made to hon. Gentlemen opposite had been repudiated by them, they could not do anything else but divide upon that Motion.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would not put the House to the trouble of a Division. The Government would be willing to go on with the debate if it were not for the pledge which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, had given. After the statement which had been made, it would be impossible for the Government to proceed with the Bill.
    MR. J. N. RICHARDSONasked if the right hon. Gentleman made a public pledge?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the right hon. Gentleman did not, but the Government understood that he had given it privately.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament— The Lord Castletown, after the death of his father; the Lord Haldon, after the death of his father; the Lord Chesham, after the death of his father; the Earl of Guilford, after the death of his grandfather.
PUBLIC BILLS — Second Reading — Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister (56); Lands Clauses (Umpire)* (71).
Committee—Report—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders * (68)
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders * (64); Constabulary and Police (Ireland) (Pay and Pensions)* (75), and passed.

EGYPT — LAW AND JUSTICE — TRIAL OF SULEIMAN SAMI — THE TELEGRAM.— QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARRasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could state the terms of the telegram sent to Sir Edward Malet relative to the trial of Suleiman Sami, and also the reply of Sir Edward Malet?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would present the telegrams to their Lordships with some other Correspondence on the subject.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.—(No. 56.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL of DALHOUSIE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: My Lords, I need detain your Lordships but a very few moments. This Bill has already been brought forward three times during the last four years; and it is barely a year since it was last before the House. I then had the honour of stating at some length its object and the grounds on which it is based; and I really think it is quite unnecessary that I should now take up your Lordships' time in going over arguments with which you are already familiar. These arguments, in my opinion at least, have never yet been answered, and certainly were not answered last year in this House. There was one very remarkable feature in last year's debate. Only two Members of your Lordships'
144
House spoke against the Bill, the noble Lord who led the Opposition (Lord Balfour) and the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough). The noble Lord based his objection mainly, or to a large extent, upon the Book of Leviticus, and he explained to the House how that Book ought to be interpreted. But the right rev. Prelate frankly and boldly declared that, for his part, he was unable to take what he called the high theological or Scriptural view of this question. He disclaimed not merely the Levitical argument, but the entire Scriptural and theological argument, and, as your Lordships will remember, confined himself to an eloquent protest against what he termed the eviction of sisters-in-law and their re-admission as caretakers. Now, the right rev. Prelate is by no means singular in his belief that marriage with a deceased wife's sister is not forbidden in Scripture. No less than 1,300 of the English clergy, including nearly 30 Bishops and Archbishops, and 300 of the Scotch clergy, have, at one time or another, made a similar declaration. But I think that this striking difference of opinion in regard to a most important point on the part of two such eminent opponents of this measure ought not to be forgotten by your Lordships. I may also remind the House that last year the Bill was only rejected by a very narrow majority in a very large division. The numbers were 131 to 128. There was, in fact, an actual majority of 12 lay Peers in its favour. But, unfortunately, the great majority of the right rev. Bench is on this question in opposition to the majority of lay Peers, and the Bill was rejected because 16 right rev. Prelates voted against it. It is, and always has been, an uphill struggle for the supporters of this Bill, owing to the fact that there is invariably cast into the scale against them the votes and influence of the Spiritual Peerage. Although the right rev. Bench is not unanimous, there are at this moment only two right rev. Prelates in favour of the Bill. They are very strongly in its favour; but every one of their right rev. Brethren votes against it in this House, and nearly every one works against it in his diocese. They have been unusually active during the past year. Convocation has adopted what is called an articulus cleri condemning the Bill. At 12 Diocesan Conferences

145
at which the Bishop of the diocese presided, the question of marriage with a deceased wife's sister was placed in the forefront of the programme, and strongly-worded resolutions were passed upon it. So also, at ruridecanal meetings all over the country. Several right rev. Prelates have issued pastoral letters to their clergy requesting them to preach against the Bill; to promote Petitions against it, and do whatever they could to rouse their congregations and people to opposition. In obedience to these instructions many sermons have been preached against the Bill, some of them containing very strong language, and many individual clergymen have acted as agents throughout the country to obtain signatures to Petitions. I am very far from saying that right rev. Prelates ought not to make these efforts if they think these marriages are wrong. I do not, however, understand why they should be so anxious to prevent them in this country, when they made no protest against the ratification by the Crown of the Canadian Act of last year, which made them legal in Canada; but I do not complain of their using their great influence in whatever manner they think right. My object in alluding to the action of the right rev. Bench is to point out that in two respects it is very misleading—first, because people, seeing how large a majority of right rev. Prelates oppose this Bill, are apt to conclude that therefore the Bill must contain something very shocking to religion and morality; and, secondly, because they naturally suppose that all good Churchmen, as a matter of course, have always been, and ought of necessity to be, hostile to this measure. Nothing could be more untrue than that. The names of Archbishop Whately, Dean Hook, Dr. Coplestone, the Bishop of Llandaff, Bishop Lonsdale, Dr. Vaughan, and the present Bishops of Ripon and Worcester, and of many other distinguished men, are sufficient proof to the contrary, and ought besides to be some guarantee that neither religion nor morality is in danger. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that a vague feeling exists that the object of this Bill must be wrong, and many people decline even to examine the question; simply because so many right rev. Prelates are opposed to it. I said I would not trouble the House with any repetition of the well-known argu-
146
ments in favour of this Bill, and I have no intention of doing so. I believe your Lordships already know them so well that you will prefer to hear from the noble and learned Earl what can be said against them. I may, perhaps, have something to add before the debate closes; and if any noble Lord should require further information on any matter connected with the Bill, I shall only be too happy to give it. But, in the meantime, there are just two points which I will briefly mention. The ratification by the Crown of the Canadian Act of last year, by which marriage with a deceased wife's sister became duly legal in Canada, leaves the British Empire, with its 9,000,000 square miles of territory, in this position. Over an area of 6,600,000 square miles these marriages are absolutely legal; over an area of 2,000,000 square miles they are conditionally legal; but over an area of 121,000 square miles—that is to say, in the United Kingdom, and there only —they are positively illegal. As regards the United Kingdom, this is, perhaps, not quite accurate, for the law in Scotland is doubtful. The Act of 1835 did not apply to Scotland; and the highest living authority, Lord Fraser, is of opinion that if a case were now tried in Scotland, it would probably be found that marriage with a deceased wife's sister is at this moment legal there. But of this point there is no doubt—namely, that if a man marries his deceased wife's sister in Canada, Australia, or any part of our Colonial Empire where these marriages are expressly permitted by the Statute Law, and the parties should afterwards return home to the Mother Country, they would, on landing in England, cease to be man and wife; and, so far as the law is concerned, the man would be at perfect liberty to desert his wife and children and marry another woman. The other point was one which was raised last year by the same right rev. Prelate who so fearlessly and emphatically proclaimed his inability to oppose this Bill from the high theological or Scriptural standpoint. The right rev. Prelate said that even if the Bill did bring those advantages which its supporters claimed, those advantages would be terribly dearly purchased by the social evil, the immoral laxity, and the wild disturbance of the social relationships which the Bill would

147
provoke. Now, my Lords, I should have thought that the experience of England and Ireland prior to 1835 ought to be sufficient to re-assure those who might otherwise be inclined to anticipate, as a result of this measure, a falling-off in the purity of our domestic life. The experience of our Colonies during the last 10 years is an additional guarantee. But, if that be not sufficient, let us look at the United States of America, in nearly all of which marriage with a deceased wife's sister has been lawful from the beginning. I believe it is generally admitted that in no part of the civilized world does there exist a higher standard of domestic purity and morality than the New England States. Yet the marriage which this Bill proposes to legalize has long been legal there and frequently takes place. I know it is sometimes said that divorce is frequent in America, and it is argued that the frequency of divorce is due to a relaxed Marriage Law; and that if we relax our Marriage Law, divorce will soon become frequent here. I hardly know whether to admire more the ingenuity or the want of logic in that argument. It is quite true that divorce cases are numerous in America, but that has nothing whatever to do with the Law of Marriage. It is the effect of the Law of Divorce. In some of the States a divorce can be obtained with great facility. It is often granted merely on the ground of incompatibility of temper. Therefore, it is not wonderful if divorce cases are of frequent occurrence. But their frequency has nothing to do with the Law of Marriage; and it is perfectly ridiculous to say that if we relax our Marriage Law—that is, if we do not by Statute Law prevent a man, after the death of his wife, from marrying her sister — we shall multiply the number of our divorce cases. I have endeavoured to obtain from the most eminent men of all classes in America some evidence as to the practical effect upon society there of the legality of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. I have received upwards of 120 replies from Governors of States, from eminent Judges and lawyers, from the most distinguished statesmen and men of letters, including, perhaps, the most distinguished of them all, the present American Minister in London, and also from the Bishops and clergy of all denominations in all parts of the country. These replies are absolutely
148
unanimous. Not one of my correspondents ever heard of any mischief to society or family life arising from the fact that marriage with a deceased wife's sister is legal. And most of them seem to have been greatly surprised to learn that any such notion should prevail here. The propriety of these marriages has never been questioned in America. Some of my correspondents speak of them not only as highly commendable in them-selves, but as rather to be encouraged, and that in the interests of morality and social order. Now, my Lords, these are the views of men speaking from facts in the world around them, not, like many of the opponents of this Bill, from vague and fanciful imaginings of their own. They are independent witnesses; and I think their evidence may well be regarded by your Lordships as conclusive proof that if this Bill passes, as I hope it will, we need be under no apprehension that the purity of our family life will suffer in the smallest degree. For my part, I believe the Bill, if it passes, will have very little effect on the class of society to which your Lordships belong. We may not ourselves particularly wish for it. But, my Lords, is that a sufficient reason for rejecting it, when we remember that it has already passed seven times through all its stages in the House of Commons, 400 of whose present Members have either voted for it, or refrained from voting against it? It is quite evident that the Bill must soon become law, and I trust that your Lordships will not mar the grace of your concession by delaying any longer your assent to it. I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
EARL CAIRNS: My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships to reject this Bill. I might, perhaps, take some exception to the course pursued by the noble Earl opposite as being hardly consistent with Parliamentary usage and precedent. We had last year a debate on the subject of the measure. The noble Lord at that time made an elaborate argument in support of the Bill. There was an answer by my noble Friend behind me (Lord Balfour of Burleigh), who moved the rejection. Then the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Waterford) advanced some arguments in support of

149
the measure. In reply, the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) delivered a speech which many of your Lordships will recollect as an extremely impressive one, full of strong arguments in opposition to the measure. We, who were opponents of the measure, certainly were under the impression that the noble Lord, or some of his Friends, would have risen to answer the speech of the right rev. Prelate. But, very much to our surprise, no one rose to reply to it. The noble Lord now says that no answer was given to the arguments from his side; but he must allow me to say that there was no attempt to answer the speech of the right rev. Prelate. I could not help expecting that the noble Lord would even now have thought it desirable to make some answer to that speech; but we find that, whereas the debate of last year had no ending, the debate of the present year has had no beginning. He has been good enough to say that if any noble Lord wishes to ask a question, he shall be happy to answer it; but beyond that he has not condescended to advance any argument in support of the measure, although he has made one or two statements of facts with regard to information obtained since last year. I am anxious that an effort should be made to show your Lordships what is incumbent on those who desire that the Bill should be passed into law. This is a measure which, for the first time, seeks to overthrow a state of things in this country with regard to marriage which has prevailed from the earliest ages ever since the introduction of Christianity into the country. It is a state of things which has had, I will not say the consent, but the uniform support, both of the State and of the Church. It is a state of law which goes down, deep down, into the strongest feelings of the people of the country; and, therefore, those who seek now to alter this state of law are bound—at all events to this extent—to show the strongest reasons in support of the change they propose, and to show that they have, I will not say a bare majority of the country in their favour, but the preponderating weight or feeling of the country in their favour. Let us see how the case stands. The noble Lord says that 400 Members of the present House of Commons are in favour of the Bill. I do not know how
150
he has obtained the information; but if you take the present Parliament and the last—two Parliaments together—covering, I suppose, nearly 10 years, what has happened? There has been one Division, and only one, in the House of Commons on the subject of the Bill in these two Parliaments, and in this Division the Bill was thrown out. So much, therefore, for the feeling of the House of Commons on the subject. With regard to your Lordships' House, I do not forget the slender majority against the Bill last year; I go beyond it, and I say that if it had passed, yet if your Lordships were nearly equally divided, a change of this magnitude, a subversion of our Marriage Laws, ought not to be made by your Lordships without a much more preponderating majority in its favour. What is the state of feeling in the country? The Bill affects Scotland and Ireland, as well as England. I know there are some Petitions from Scotland in favour of the Bill; but everyone who knows Scotland will know that the heart and bone of Scotland are against this measure. I had the honour of presenting to-day a Petition from the Free Church of Scotland against the Bill; if I am not mistaken, the feeling of the Established Church of Scotland is also against it; it is the same with the Episcopal Church, and I think it may be taken that the preponderating vote of Scotland would be entirely against the Bill. So far as I know the temper of Ireland, the same thing would be true. If you take the people of England as a whole, take the men and women together, you would find a preponderating majority, not for, but against this measure. I want to lay before your Lordships what it is that this Bill proposes to do—what it would and what it must do. It is quite true that it deals with the case of the deceased wife's sister, and with that alone; but is that the end, or could it be the end? What did the noble Earl tell us last year? Nothing could be more candid than his confession. He said—
"If I am asked, why is the Bill not of a wider and more comprehensive character, embracing also marriage with a deceased husband's brother or deceased wife's niece, my reply is that …. in theory, no doubt, the case for their legalization is as strong that which is dealt with in the Bill."—(3 Hansard, [270] 775.)
And my noble Friend (the Marquess of Waterford), who also advocated the Bill,

151
still more clearly, if possible, stated his view on this matter. The noble Marquess said he thought it was quite clear that in legislation we should stop at blood relations. That is to say, the whole prohibition against marriages by affinity should be swept away. The noble Lords are perfectly consistent and logical in their views, for it is utterly impossible to stop short where this Bill proposes at this moment to stop. The noble Earl said his view was this—that there were a great many more persons who were anxious to be freed from the prohibition against marrying a wife's sister than those who were anxious to be freed from other prohibitions. But, supposing this to be so, is it any answer to the others? If there are 500 men who wish to be at liberty to marry a wife's sister, and if there are only 50 men who want to marry a niece or any other relation by marriage, is it an answer to the latter to say— "We admit that your case is perfectly logical, but still, because your number is so small, we will not repeal the prohibition?" I will ask this also—Is there any country in the world that has stopped where this Bill stops now? I put aside our Colonies, for that is only a thing of yesterday. That is a matter of which there is as yet no experience; but take the countries which permit at this moment marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Will any noble Lord who supports the Bill point out any ono of those countries which stops at that point, and which does not go very much further? Will any noble Lord point out to us where is the ground at which we can stop, and where is the security that the change will not be greater than is proposed by this Bill? I maintain that it is impossible, on any principle of logic, to answer the demand which may be made at any time after this Bill passes to go further, and, as the noble Marquess said in effect last year, to sweep away all prohibitions on the ground of affinity. Again, this Bill has a peculiarity which, as far as I know, is unexampled in our Law of Marriage. I know that some persons support this Bill by saying that it does not interfere with the religious question at all, but only deals with the question of civil marriage. That is exactly one of the objections which I make to this Bill. Here, for the first time in our history, we have a proposal to establish a new kind of marriage in
152
this country — a sort of morganatic marriage. It provides that if a man marries his deceased wife's sister in church the marriage is to be void; but if he marries the same person before a registrar it is to be a valid marriage. That is establishing in this country a new kind of marriage of which we have never heard before. Here you have a marriage which can only be valid before a registrar, and not in any other place. With regard to the religious argument on the subject of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, the noble Earl treats it as if that argument were entirely given up; and he has circulated widely some information he has obtained in answer to questions put by him upon the religious view of the question as he understood it. I agree that this is not a convenient place for arguing a question on any religious view of the matter; but the noble Earl compels me to do this, and to point out that he appears to be entirely mistaken as to what is the religious ground of the objection to the present Bill. The noble Earl, in the questions which he put to various learned persons, showed that he had not apprehended what was the religious ground of objection. He put questions on a particular clause in the Code of the Old Testament, and asked for their idea on that clause. But those who objected on a religious ground to a Bill of this kind would be prepared to put that clause entirely out of sight. The objection is simply is—There is undoubtedly a Code of Law with regard to marriages contained in the Old Testament. Is that Code a Code which applied only to the Jews, and which did not apply further? The answer to that can be given in a word. It did not apply merely to Jews, because the Code states, on the face of it, that it was binding on the nations who were round the Jews, and who were Gentiles. And violations of the code among those nations were punished severely. The Code begins by saying you are not to marry anyone near of kin. If it stopped there you might raise an argument that it meant near of kin by way of consanguinity. But the Code, in order to point out who are near of kin, gives, as an illustration, the wife of the brother of your father—that is to say, one who is related by marriage, and by marriage alone—and the reason it gives is that she is your aunt. This shows

153
that the words "near of kin" do not relate solely to blood relations. The Code does not profess to exhaust all the degrees of relationship; but it gives examples on one side, and leaves you to infer an obligation correlative on the other side. One of the examples it gives is the wife of a brother, and it has been held by divines and by the Church from the earliest ages that just as there is a prohibition against marriage with the wife of a deceased brother, so, correlatively, there must be a prohibition of marriage with the sister of a deceased wife. I will not say more than that, because I see the authority of Bishop Jewell invoked for a different purpose. I will remind your Lordships of the words he used. Bishop Jewell said—
"Albeit I be not forbidden by plain words to marry my wife's sister, yet I am forbidden to do so by other words, which by exposition are plain enough, for when God commands me that I shall not marry my brother's wife, it follows directly by the same that He forbids me to marry my wife's sister; for between one man and two sisters, and one woman and two brothers, is like analogy or proportion."
The noble Earl appears to be entirely ignorant of this argument in the questions which he put to the learned persons whom he consulted. They are consulted simply on the translation of a few words in a different clause, which can be translated one way or the other, without affecting this argument in the slightest degree. My Lords, the noble Earl to-night has not advanced the arguments in favour of the Bill; but we have been favoured to-day with what is somewhat unusual—the publication in the public prints of the argument in favour of the Bill by a society of which the noble Earl is the spokesman, and which promotes the measure. Some persons may, perhaps, be misled by a remarkable statement in that manifesto, and therefore I must take notice of it. It is stated that—
"The Bill would give to the people of this country the same liberty with regard to marriage with the sister of a deceased wife which they enjoyed up to the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act in 1835."
My Lords, is that a true description of this measure, that it puts things exactly in the position they were in before Lord Lyndhurst's Act passed? I speak with some knowledge of the law, I hope, and I assert that nothing more inaccurate could
154
be said. I say it is perfectly inaccurate so to represent this matter. I say that before Lord Lyndhurst's Act passed these marriages were illegal and void. This has been so decided by your Lordships' House as the highest tribunal in the Realm. The history of the law on this subject is very simple and very plain. The law on the subject of these marriages by affinity had its origin before Christianity. It was the law which was held by the Romans themselves before Christianity was adopted as the religion of the Roman State. Gibbon says—
"The profane lawgivers of Rome were never tempted by interest or superstition to multiply the forbidding degrees; but they inflexibly condemned the marriage of sisters and brothers, hesitated whether first cousins should be touched by the same interdict, revered the parental character of aunts and uncles, and treated affinity and adoption as a just imitation of the ties of blood."
As Christianity was introduced the same law was adopted. I have seen it stated, in the same document to which I have referred, that it was only in the 4th century that there was any prohibition of these marriages. My Lords, that is an entire mistake. The law of the Church—which was in those times the only law of Christianity — condemned these marriages for centuries after the introduction of Christianity. If you read the statement of Basil at the end of the 4th century it is perfectly unequivocal. "We know of no such marriages," he says, "they are incestuous; they do not exist." Again and again has the challenge been given—let anyone produce an instance before the well-known dispensation given by Pope Alexander Borgia. What about the law of England? The law of England was the law introduced along with Christianity. It prevailed up to the Reign of Henry VIII. But did the Statute of Henry VIII. introduce a new law? No. The Statute was passed for this reason. The Church had gone too far. The Church had introduced a law of this nature with regard to pre-contracts. The Statute of Henry VIII. was passed for the purpose of making it clear that these prohibitions were not to be hold valid. At the same time the Statute to which I have referred, and which is still in force, pointed out what were the degrees within which the prohibition was in force, and this is one of those de-

155
grees. That was the state of things when Lord Lyndhurst's Act was passed. Now, the noble Earl is of opinion that these marriages were legal at the time of that Act. One would suppose that at that time marriages between brothers and sisters was legal. The Act does not speak of a deceased wife's sister. It deals with all marriages within the prohibited degrees, whether of consanguinity or of affinity. They are all classed together, and there is no distinction whatever between them. What the Act does is this. It does not make valid marriages within the prohibited degrees of affinity, but provides, with respect to those which had taken place, that proceedings should not be allowed to be taken in the Ecclesiastical Courts for the purpose of making them void. It was held in your Lordships' House, after the most solemn argument, and in a case to which Lord Lyndhurst's Act might have applied, that these marriages were void, and that the children of such a marriage could not inherit as legitimate. Therefore, my Lords, the statement that this present Bill will give the freedom which existed at the time of Lord Lyndhurst's Act is entirely unwarrantable. I know it is said that a collusive action might have been brought before 1835, which would have the effect of protecting such marriages. But if any person really had an interest in the matter, it is an illusion to suppose that the action can have protected any marriage against an attack of that kind. Now, my Lords, we are told by the noble Earl that other countries have allowed these marriages, and that in those other countries they work well, and we are told that there is no country in Christendom in which the marriage is not allowed. Now, in answer to that, I would say, in the first place, that there is no country which allows the marriage which this Bill makes legal without going much further. Let us see what those countries are, and whether we are prepared to follow their example. Take the case of France. Does France really allow marriage with a deceased wife's sister? France does not allow the marriage without a Dispensation. But if a Dispensation be granted, it allows marriage between uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, and with a deceased brother's wife. In effect, it sweeps away by a Dispensation all the prohibitions with regard to affinity. In like manner
156
Holland does the same thing, and Prussia does the same thing, or goes further. Then the question arises, is domestic life in these countries holier or happier than it is in this country? Does the noble Earl bring proof of that? I have not heard any from him, and I anxiously waited to hear. Here is what a German doctor of philosophy said, who was asked his opinion about marriage in this country—"It makes a German cover his face with his hands for shame." The noble Earl said that in other countries there might be more facilities for divorce, but that he had nothing to say to that. I always thought that divorce had a good deal to say to marriage; and that facilities for divorce had a good deal to do with married life. Then the noble Earl takes us to America. But he overlooks the Eastern Church, which did not admit those marriages, either by Dispensation or otherwise. But let us go to America, as the noble Earl has referred to it. What is the case in America? I take the State of New York, of which we know more than of the other States. What I find is this. The only prohibitions are the marriage between parents and children and their offspring, and between half-brothers and half-sisters. You may marry the sister of your father or mother, and a man may marry a mother and her daughter one after the other. The noble Earl has consulted a number of persons in the United States, where, it is said, this institution works well. I own I was rather surprised at his doing so, for I thought all Americans thought all their institutions worked well. I never met any American who did not think so; and I am quite ready to assume that the opinion of all Americans is that their institutions work well, and this excellent institution among the rest, that a man should be able to marry a woman and her daughter one after the other. But would it work well here? I doubt it very much. The noble Earl says you must not say anything about divorce. But if you take in America you must go a little further. The Americans will proceed to tell you that conjugal infidelity is perfectly unknown there. He will say—"That is on account of our Law of Divorce." How does that produce conjugal fidelity "The way is this," he will answer, "the conjugal vow never fails, because if it becomes irksome we have no difficulty in

157
getting rid of it, and our institution of divorce works well." The noble Earl can get plenty of authorities to the same effect. Let me ask the noble Earl to go further. I will take the case of an Englishman's testimony as to life in Utah. This gentleman was not prejudiced in favour of the state of things prevailing there. He stayed there some months, and he says that the demeanour of the women in the Salt Lake country was modesty itself, and they professed the highest morality and virtue. He says, if you wish to see healthy and well-regulated nurseries, you ought to go to Utah, and that the institutions of the country work admirably. No doubt, a law was passed by Congress and the Senate to put a stop to this state of things. But the people of Utah say that this law was passed by a tyrannical body, just as an eminent public man of our own day (Mr. John Bright), who says—"We believe these marriages are right, and we do not care who says they are wrong; they work admirably, and we believe they are proper marriages." The noble Earl may say—"Here are institutions which work well in America, and why should not we adopt them?" The next argument of the noble Earl is that he claims some support from the Bishops. Then it is said that these marriages have been made legal in the Colonies, and that very serious results may follow if we do not assimilate our laws to the Colonies. The statement was made very broadly, and I was somewhat surprised to hearit—but I followed the words correctly—that a man and a woman may be married in the Colonies, and be lawful husband and wife, and in this country be no longer so; and that thus a man may have two wives, one in the Colonies and one in England. Now, my Lords, I am very sorry there should be any difference of law between this country and the Colonies, because, in the abstract, it would be better that the law should be assimilated between them. But I repudiate altogether the idea that in case of such difference we should in all cases follow suit to the Colonies. What would be said if we said to the Colonies that they ought to adopt our legislation? But, my Lords, as regards this broad suggestion about the result of the law, let there be no misunderstanding. I speak in the presence of persons who are much more acquainted with this matter than I am
158
myself. I say that that is an entirely inaccurate view of the law. My view of the law upon the point is this—that if a man, being domiciled in a Colony in which it is lawful to marry a deceased wife's sister, does marry his deceased wife's sister, his marriage with her is good all the world over; whereas, if the man is a domiciled Englishman, not domiciled in the Colony, but merely resident there, his marriage with his deceased wife's sister in such circumstances is bad everywhere, because he carries the impediment of his domicile to such a marriage with him. Therefore, the idea that there is any peculiarity as regards the Colonies—anything different from what would happen between this country and Denmark, France, and Holland in that respect—is a perfectly idle one. There is no foundation for it; and if that is the language of the Petition—I have not the words before me—I venture to say that it is an entire mistake. Coming to the next point, I see that it is stated that a great number of these marriages have already taken place in this country, that public opinion goes with such marriages and not against them, and that no repugnance to such marriages is felt among the people. With regard to the number of these marriages that have taken place I shall have something to say by and by; but, in the first place, I demur altogether to the doctrine that it is sound ground for legislation that a number of persons who, with their eyes open, have knowingly broken the law should come to Parliament and say—"The fact that we have broken the law is sufficient ground for unmaking the law." If so, we ought to apply it to other things. There is not an Assize where men are not tried for bigamy. What would be thought of the persons who have committed that offence coming to this House, and saying—"We have broken the law by marrying two wives. A great many of us have done so, and the law is very hard upon us; and, therefore, we ask you to change the law in order that there may be no breach of it." Take the case, also, of those who are engaged in smuggling. They may say that a great number of them have committed that offence against our fiscal law, but that the law is a bad one, that public opinion goes with them in their violation of

159
it, and that, therefore, they ask you to do away with it. Then as to the numbers of these marriages which have taken place in this country. I wish that we had some reliable statistics on the subject before us. I have heard a great many broad statements made with reference to the number of these marriages; but no clear proof has been given us on the point. I recollect hearing, in 1855, in the other House of Parliament the present Prime Minister quote some statistics on which he said he placed perfect reliance, and which were certainly very remarkable. Mr. Gladstone said on that occasion that inquiries had been made over an area comprising 100,000 persons, and that in that area 326 irregular marriages had been contracted, 144 of them being marriages with a deceased wife's sister. But a further examination of the figures shows that out of those irregular marriages 75 were cases of bigamy and polygamy, 46 were marriages with a brother's wife, 24 were with a niece in blood, and 17 were with a wife's niece. I want to know what reply you would make to the demand of those who had married their wife's niece for a change in the law, if the principle is to prevail that because the law has been broken it ought to be changed? Why are you to apply that principle to only one section of these irregular marriages, and not to the others? A noble Friend of mine on inquiry found that in one parish there were 28 cases of incestuous unions, three being with a deceased wife's sister, two with a wife's sister, the wife being alive, seven being cases of men living with their own daughters, 10 with their own sisters, and six with their nieces. This is an answer to the assertion which has been made as to the immense extent to which these marriages prevail. Then I would ask whether there is any satisfactory proof that public opinion goes in favour of these marriages? I think that the case in this respect will be found to stand thus—that as your Lordships are divided in opinion with reference to this subject, the opinion of the public is also divided, there being those who are in favour of relaxing the law, and there being those who desire to see it strictly maintained. The noble Earl says that there is no repugnance felt in the country to these marriages. I should like to put that assertion to the test in some
160
way. But the noble Earl's own Bill proposed to prohibit these marriages from being celebrated in church. What is the reason of that? The noble Earl will, perhaps, tell me that he has placed that Proviso in the Bill so as not to offend the religious feeling of this country. But is the religious feeling of this country so slight and trivial a thing that while you are afraid to offend it by permitting these marriages to be celebrated in a church, you say, at the same time, that it is no evidence of the existence of repugnance to these marriages in the country? I will take another case — that of the Divorce Act. Section 27 of that Act says that—
"A wife may present a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground that her husband has been guilty of … incestuous adultery; provided that incestuous adultery shall be taken to mean adultery committed with a woman, with whom, if his wife were dead, he could not lawfully contract marriage by reason of her being within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity."
The question I have to ask the noble Earl is—Is he going to retain that provision, or to do away with it? Does he intend to say that when a man violates the bond contracted with his wife it shall be just the same whether the offence is committed with his wife's sister or with any other person? Will the noble Earl carry public opinion with him on that point? But if he is going to retain this provision, what becomes of his statement that there is no repugnance to these unions? It stands upon the face of it that the words "incestuous connection" cannot be got over. The noble Earl said that he could see no difference between the marriage with the widow of the brother and that with the sister of the deceased wife. Neither can I. Was our great dramatic poet so ignorant of the feelings of his countrymen, so ignorant of the effect of marriages of this kind, that he spoke that which was at variance with public feeling in his greatest work, when in almost every page of it he describes these marriages with a deceased brother's wife as incestuous marriages? Then it is said that this is a poor man's question, and that is an argument which has been very much pressed upon us. But even if these marriages were greatly resorted to by the poor, I should not regard that fact as an argument in favour of a change in the law, because we ought not to have one class of legislation for

161
the rich and another for the poor. If such a change of the law is required at all, it must be required by all classes, and not by one class only. If the change in the law is a good one in itself, it ought to be made for both poor and rich together; if it is a bad one, we ought not to make a bad change, because poor men break the law more than the rich. We ought to try to elevate the poor, and to show them that if this thing is wrong it ought not to be done. But is this a poor man's question? What is the evidence upon the point? There was no person who took more trouble in reference to this subject than my noble Friend the late Lord Hatherley. He told us that a clergyman once wrote to him, and informed him that in his parish alone there were known to be 20 or 30 widowers who were ready to marry their deceased wife's sisters if the law were altered. My noble Friend, in reply, informed the clergyman that if he would send the names and addresses of these persons he would make inquiries on the point, and the result was that he never heard anything more about the matter. Lord Hatherley, however, made some inquiries into the subject himself. He found that in two parishes in Westminster there were 60,000, 40,000 of them being poor. He employed an active person to make inquiries, and he could hear of only one such marriage, and a newspaper challenged the accuracy of this report on the authority of a City missionary, who said that he had found two such marriages in these parishes. The Royal Commission which sat to consider this question in 1847 and 1848 had better means of getting at the truth upon this point than we had, and they were assisted by two most eminent solicitors; and they found that between the time of the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act and of the inquiry, 1,608 such marriages had taken place between the rich, and only 40 between the poor. Are we, then, to accept these wild and broad statements that this is a poor, and not a rich man's question? If this had been a poor man's question we never would have heard of the present agitation. It is the money of the rich that has got up this agitation and paid for it from beginning to end; and these advertisements, of which you see column after column in the newspapers, are not paid for by the poor, but by the rich, and it
162
is a rich man's, and not a poor man's question. But then it is said that the children of these marriages are the victims, and that their injury should be redressed. I am sorry for that. It is quite true. It is the case always that the children suffer for the wrong done by their parents. So it would be in the case of bigamy, so in the case of polygamy. We have children born out of wedlock altogether. Are they guilty or innocent? And are you going to undo the law in regard to bigamy or polygamy, or children born out of marriage altogether, because the children suffer and are innocent? How do the children of these marriages suffer more than the children of any other marriage which is illegal? I remember the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville), speaking a year or two ago about this Bill, said—"Well, after all, what harm can the Bill do? It is only a permissive Bill." If you make any change with regard to the degrees of marriage it can only be a permissive Bill; you cannot make people marry under them. The noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie) referred to the opinion of the right rev. Bench on this subject; and he said they were deeply interested in the question, and he regretted their attitude generally towards it. I observed that almost in the same breath the noble Earl paraded before us the names of some Bishops who agreed with the Bill. He was very proud of them; they were persons of great weight; but the opinions of the right rev. Prelates who disagreed with it were not entitled to any notice at all except censure. Because the noble Earl did censure them, referring to them in a way which could not but be invidious. I would blush for the right rev. Prelates if, on a question which, more than any other, concerns the morals, the religious feeling, and the social and domestic happiness of the country, they did not take their deepest, their strongest, and their most clearly expressed part in it. And that brings me to what is the last view which I desire to present to your Lordships. It is the effect of this measure in a domestic and social point of view. We have heard again and again that the sister of a deceased wife is the best guardian and the tenderest caretaker of her sister's children. That is perfectly true, and I desire to perpetuate that

163
well-known feature in family life. It is for that reason, perhaps, more than any other that I demur to this Bill, and desire your Lordships to reject it. I believe this Bill would break up, if it were passed, our social and domestic circles. What is it which is achieved by the prohibition against marriage within the prohibited degrees? It is not merely some physical ends which are gained, but much higher and much holier ends. How is it that circles are created within which pure and dispassionate love can dwell securely? They are not created by Nature, because Nature would lead us to disregard all prohibitions. They are created by usage, by custom, by teaching, by the prohibition of the law. These things create a habit, and secure for us those circles of domestic purity through which the greatest blessings and happiness have flowed to us. And what takes place when that moment of supreme sorrow comes upon a family, when the mother is taken away, and when the children are left without her care? At that instant, without waiting for the lapse of time, who is it that most naturally enters the darkened house to soothe and care for the children? It is the sister of their mother. That can be done now fearlessly. Could it be done if this Bill were passed? I know there are men who say it could; is there any woman who says it could? Do you suppose it would be possible for any woman of marriageable age to expose herself to the scandal and the insinuation that would arise if the law were changed? I have had—as I daresay many of your Lordships have had — communications upon this subject, expressed as women only can express them. I cannot venture to trouble your Lordships with them; but there is one of which I can make use. It is written to me by a person with whom I am not acquainted; but I have made inquiries, and ascertained that it is written by one who is what she professes to be—a lady having care of the children of a deceased sister in the house of her brother-in-law. And this is what she says, speaking of this Bill—
"From all we can learn of the present movement it is far more a retrospective one than anything else. I mean that it is urged on by a few influential people who married their deceased wife's sisters, and who now desire to repair the wrong they have done to the children
164
born of such marriages by trying to get the law to declare them legitimate, and not because such a law is desired by the people of England. Unfortunately, it is one of those social questions which does not press itself on people's attention as an important one, except to those whose personal or family relations will be influenced by it; but to them it is, indeed, one of most serious moment. Its effect on the lives of such bereaved families will be a cruel one, for in making the relation of marriage possible between a widower and his sister-in-law, it must, of necessity, also place them in the relation of perfect strangers to each other, and set apart those who have naturally come to feel a strong, helpful affection, for each other; but, worst of all, it will make it impossible for a woman to give the love and care to her dead sister's children which every feeling of her heart and mind would prompt, unless, indeed, she do it under the scathing ordeal of the world's scandal. It would not only set this seal to sorrow after a wife's death, but would impair the happiness of married life from its commencement, for we women are not all supernaturally wise, and many of us, we must admit, are jealous, and to those who were foolish the expression of a husband's affection for his sister-in-law would be a vexation, while to those who were good and strong the thought of the possible future would be a constant anxiety. When each child was born she would remember that if her life was taken her people could no longer be her husband's people, her children would be estranged by the effects of the law from their care, and her husband would be left to the alternative of probably making too hasty a marriage to make a wise one, or of giving his children to the thin protection of hired care."
These are views which I believe are the views entertained by the intelligent women of this country; and what I regret, above all, is that this is an attempt by the minority to tyrannize over the majority. Those who desire marriages of this kind are the minority, which I will not call miserable by way of disrespect, but only miserable as regards the number who compose it; and in order to gratify this minority you destroy the whole domestic and social comfort and happiness of the vast majority of the families of the country. I trust your Lordships will not be led to give, your assent to this Bill. To this House, of all others, the country is wont to look for protection against violent disintegration and change. This Bill would cause a disintegration in our Marriage Law such as never has taken place before—a change which could not rest here, but which must subvert the whole of our law in regard to the position of a man in relation to his wife. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.

165
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Earl Cairns.)
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he hoped their Lordships would reject the Amendment of the noble and learned Earl, read the Bill a second time now, and end a law cruel, mischievous, and needless. He desired to say, at the outset, that he was utterly uninfluenced by any personal consideration, for he had never been acquainted with anyone who had the least personal interest in the alteration of the law. The present state of the law had been about half-a-century in existence, for the law, as it stood now, was wholly and entirely different from what it was before Lord Lyndhurst's Act. It was true that marriages such as were within the prohibited degrees were voidable before Lord Lyndhurst's Act; but it was not true that they were void, as he understood the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) to say. On the death of either parent the child of such a marriage would have been, before that Act, the heir to the estate, without the possibility of his right being set aside; and if, after a man had married his deceased wife's sister, he had married another woman, without having his marriage with the deceased wife's sister declared void, he would have been guilty of bigamy. The difference between the law before that Act and since was this—that people did enter into these marriages, and they were not voided, because no one was so cruel or so wicked as to attempt to make void a happy marriage. He admitted that the condition of the law was objectionable before the Act of Lord Lyndhurst was passed; but that Act made it worse, for it made void those marriages, which people had entered into and would enter into. The present law was bad when it was observed, and worse when it was not observed. He used the word "observed" advisedly, because there was really no command. The law allowed a man and woman to go through the ceremony of marriage; it allowed them to live together; but upon the terms that the woman was the man's concubine, and that the children were illegitimate. It was true that proceedings might be taken against them even now in the Ecclesiastical Courts; but no one would venture to do
166
so. If such proceedings were taken the jurisdiction would not last long. Let them take a case in which the law was observed, and what was it? Here were a man and a woman, in every way fitted for each other in respect to age, station, and disposition, with that reasonable affection for each other without which matrimony should not be contracted, and with the additional circumstances making marriage between them desirable—namely, that the man had a tender helpmate for his children, and that the woman loved them for their own sakes, and for the sake of her sister. Yet the law interfered and said they should not marry, or, if they did, it should be only on the dreadful terms he had mentioned. That, he contended, was a cruel case, and no law ought to compel it without the most cogent reasons. The noble and learned Earl had said that cogent reasons should be given for the proposed alteration of the law; and such a case as that which he had just placed before their Lordships was one very cogent reason. This, then, was what happened when the law was regarded; but to a very great extent it was not regarded. It was disregarded, as every law was disregarded which did not agree with men's consciences; and it was a most mischievous thing that there should be a law in existence which people were tempted to disobey. It was a bad example to set, and it tended to make them disregard other laws which were of more importance. Public opinion did not go against those who contracted such marriages, which were not regarded as offences against the law were. No man who married the sister of a deceased wife would be looked down upon, or shunned, or avoided in the present day, in the same way as he would be if he married his own sister, or if he committed some real and not theological offence in which his conscience went with the law and disapproved his conduct. The result was that such marriages were contracted, and would continue to be contracted, because men's feelings and consciences did not oppose them. But there were those who were driven to this who had no choice. He would ask their Lordships to disregard their high position for a moment, and to give a thought to that of the poor man in reference to this question. It had been said that this was not a poor man's

167
Bill. No doubt, the Bill was not one that had been promoted by poor men—poor men did not promote Bills there or "elsewhere." Yet it was especially a Bill in which the poor man was interested. It was well known that hundreds of thousands of poor men were compelled to reside in one room with their families; and a man of that class, having been left a widower, and having secured the kind services of his deceased wife's sister to look after his children—and who could do so better than she could? —would almost be driven, under such circumstances, to commit sin, unless he could protect himself and the woman by marriage. Persons placed in this position often went through the form of marriage. In one case, which gave him the greatest pain, he tried a man for having committed perjury by making some declaration which was necessary in order to enable him to make his union with a deceased wife's sister as decent as he could by marriage. In respect to what had been called the social argument against the Bill, he regretted that he had again heard it stated as an objection to an alteration of the law that if a man could not marry his deceased wife's sister, then the latter could live in the house of the married couple during the life of her sister with a feeling of perfect safety. The alternative to that argument was simply shocking to his mind, and it was scarcely to be mentioned in an Assembly of English Gentlemen. Consider what the argument involved. This—that if, after the wife's death, her sister and her husband could marry, they would, or might, in her life, lust for each other. It was not true. If they would—if they wore so lost to all decency and feeling of right—would they be restrained by such a consideration as that they could not marry on her death? Another argument had been brought forward which, in his opinion, was as unfounded. It had been said that if, after the death of a wife, the wife's sister could not marry the widower, she would be able to live in his house with safety, and without fear of scandal. But he would ask their Lordships whether it was wise or prudent, especially if the Man and woman were young and attractive, that they should live together in the way suggested? It certainly was not, and it seemed to him to be the most enormous paradox in the world to say that
168
the right way for a man and woman to live together without scandal was that they should not be able to marry. One would have thought that the safest course would be that they should be permitted to marry. That was not his argument, but it was the argument of a distinguished Prelate, and a man of the greatest ability—Archbishop Whately. There was absolutely nothing in this so-called social argument against the Bill. There were 100,000,000 English-speaking people in the world. With two-thirds of them those marriages were lawful and valid; with the one-third in this country they were not. Why? Perhaps their Lordships might judge the reason without his going further. Another remark he desired to make was that he thought it extremely hard that persons who contracted those marriages should be charged, as he had seen them charged, with lust. He did not see why it was lust, unless they assumed that the woman was the wrong woman. They had no right to apply that opprobrious term until they established, first of all, that it was an improper marriage. They had no right to use such a word for the purpose of insinuating that it was an improper marriage. The argument was, it was lust because the woman was wrong, and the woman was wrong because it was lust — a vicious circle. He came now to an argument which he approached with reluctance, as he wished to show indulgence to the feelings of others, knowing how much he needed indulgence for his own. He would not call it the religious argument —the word was too good for it—but he would call it the theological argument. Their Lordships need not fear that he would go deeply into the theological argument. He knew as little of theology as he did of astrology. Their Lordships would admit that religion was for the guidance of man in his daily conduct, with a view to his happiness here and hereafter. It was to guide and govern not only those who had plenty of mind and intellect to enable them to master the subtlest problem, but those who were without this qualification, or had no more than a small part of it. Now, he would ask, in all seriousness, was it possible to make such a man understand why he was not to marry his deceased wife's sister? Suppose he went to a theologian and said—" I desire to marry my de-

169
ceased wife's sister. Will you tell me why it is wrong? Is it put down in plain language anywhere?" He thought there were texts from which it would rather be inferred that it was a right thing to do. In one of the Books of the Pentateuch, he thought the prohibition was limited to the lifetime of the sister —the first wife. The theologian might say—"You see you do not understand the matter. If you were a consummate Hebrew scholar, and, in addition, knew Greek; if you had read all the Rabbis have written for the last 1,500 years in favour of it, and the answers given to them; if you could understand the most subtle of subtle reasonings, then you would see that it is not right for you to marry your deceased wife's sister." The man might answer that it was impossible for him to understand it then, because he was no Hebrew scholar, he did not know Greek, and he could not read all the Rabbis had written on the subject, nor the answers; but he might say—" May I take your word for it?" The theologian, if he were an honest man, would answer—"Well, I cannot say that, because I have the majority of theologians against me. They think otherwise." Would a merciful lawgiver lay down a law in such a way? "Thou shalt not steal" required no exposition. They did not want anyone to explain it, and their consciences told them it was right. He had heard a noble Earl lament the way in which the Pentateuch had been spoken of by a distinguished philosopher. Let him impress upon the noble Earl that if he desired that those who believed in the Pentateuch should continue to believe in it, and that those who did not believe it should respect it, let him not press the law in it too strongly on those who felt that it was not given for their government. There was one verse, the 19th of the particular chapter which was supposed to bear on this question, that he must refer to. Let that be read in connection with chapter 20. The noble and learned Earl relied very much for support on the right rev. Bench. He hoped they would believe him when he said that he was speaking most respectfully and reverently. A condemnation of these marriages was found in the words—"And they twain shall be one flesh." That was a very strong and emphatic way of describing the union between man and wife. But it was a
170
metaphorical expression, and was never intended to be taken literally. For what consequences would follow from taking it as a statement of actual facts? A man married a woman who had a sister. That sister, it was said, became his sister. All her sisters must, in the same way, have become his sisters. But his wife was one of the sisters; and, therefore, his wife was his own sister. [Laughter.] He had said nothing which deserved a laugh; he had only pointed out the consequences of treating what was a metaphorical statement as a statement of an actual fact. He would give another instance less absurd. John married Mary, who had a sister Martha. Martha became his sister. But his sisters were his brother's sisters. He had a brother William, and William, therefore, could not marry Martha, because she was his sister. Was it to be supposed that the law was laid down in such a way? No merciful lawgiver would do so. "Do unto others as you would be done unto" required no exposition—men's consciences went with it, and obeyed it. But it was a different thing with the case in question. An argument had been used, though not that day, by one for whom he had such a sincere respect, that if he could possibly alter his judgment he should be glad to do so. It was, that the Bill would be an unfair and improper one to those whose consciences told them they had done wrong, "because they might have repented them of their sin." He thought it would give a good man pain to call that a sin which was not a sin to the consciences of those who had done it; but, still, that was the expression used by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack (the Lord Chancellor). It might be that there were some repentant sinners; but their Lordships had never heard of any of them. He (Lord Bramwell) dared say there were persons who had married their deceased wives' sisters who had repented, and there were others who had not married deceased wives' sisters who had also repented; but he had never heard of any who had applied to the Divorce Court on the ground that he had married his deceased wife's sister. It would be a wonderful testimony to those marriages if there were none who repented of having made them. That argument was quite foreign to the principle of the Bill, which it left untouched. Provi-

171
sion might be made for such cases, if any. The noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) said that if the Bill passed, these marriages in Church would still not be valid. That was probably the case. But the only remark he could make as to this point was that the Bill was so drawn to avoid offence to the clergy. Again, it had been said by the noble and learned Earl that incest was a creature of the law; that there was no such thing as a natural repugnance to any sort of marriage; and that unless the law pronounced it invalid a man might marry his mother or sister. That was an argument suggested; and he would only deal with it by asking whether that was the feeling actually entertained by anyone, and whether the horror of incest, and the natural repulsion from it, was not as strong in the promoters of the Bill as in its opponents? It had been asked—
"Need we wonder at the miseries of the Royal Houses of Arragon, Castile, Braganza, and Bourbon, when we read of their incestuous marriages?
Now, of those Houses, two had passed, away, and it was suggested, not because of any incestuous marriages in those houses, but on account of one by a German uncle. The House of Braganza had not by any means been overwhelmed by misery. The Bourbons had been unlucky, no doubt, as one King of this line had been beheaded, two had been driven from France and one from Naples, but none of them, as far as he was aware, had married their deceased wife's sister. Surely no one could hope to influence a Legislature by such arguments. He would say no more, but could only repeat that as things were this was a cruel and mischievous law, for which he could see no justification.
THE ARCHISHOP of CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am afraid that I am at a great disadvantage in following, and not being able to meet in the same spirit, the eloquent and able speech to which we have just listened. It is wholly impossible for me to argue this question with jokes, or to descend to the level of a bull, in order to excuse to your Lordships the grotesqueness that follows from the received law of the Christian Church—a law which we have always looked upon as dating from the very beginning of religion. Nor need I, after the speech of the noble and learned Earl opposite
172
(Earl Cairns) attempt to go through all the arguments we have heard with anything like continuity; but I may protest against the assertion with which the noble Earl who opened the debate (the Earl of Dalhousie) characterized the objections that are felt to this Bill. I must assure him that these objections are not vague and fanciful, and that, if they appear so to him, it can only be because he has not taken enough trouble to be thoroughly acquainted with them. We who oppose the Bill perfectly understand what we mean when we say that religion and morality are deeply involved in this question. I thank God that the word "Scriptural" still bears in England, to some extent, the meaning of "moral," and that what is laid down in Scripture does come to us with the force of a moral commandment. It is well known that the chapter in Leviticus, so often referred to, which tells us what marriages are forbidden and what permitted does not go through the whole list of prohibitions, but needs to be looked at in the light of reason and common sense. In saying this I cast no slur on the word "theology." You will soon banish religion if you banish theology, for theology is a science, just as jurisprudence is a science; and as that practice of the law which the noble and learned Lord adorns rests upon its science, so it is on theology as a science that religion as a rule of life ultimately rests. Look at that chapter in the light of common sense, and the question before the House is obscure only in the sense in which a sum is obscure which a boy has to do by a rule which he has already learnt. Affinity is not, so far as I know, a physical fact; no one said it was; but what runs clearly through the whole chapter is that affinity and the oneness of the flesh of man and wife are to be regarded as regulating the relations of the two families thus united. The case has not always been properly stated. In the long sermon which came out in the newspapers this morning, as an advertisement for a Marriage Law Reform Association, it is said that this affinity is a fiction, because other affinities are allowed to be contracted, and are not forbidden by the Table. If that is alleged as an argument, surely the most elementary examination of the question shows that it is no argument at all. Neither in consanguinity nor in affinity is marriage

173
permissible when you can count only three persons. For instance, a man cannot marry his step-daughter; you can count only three persons—the man himself, his wife, and her daughter; in all the unlawful degrees of affinity you can count but three persons; in all the lawful degrees of affinity you can count four persons or more. But, after all, we rely on a higher authority than the words of Leviticus—namely, the statement of our Lord, when He said that a man and his wife are one flesh, and applied this to remove the relaxations and corrupt practices of the Jewish people. I hold the doctrine that Scripture was made for man, and not man for the Scripture; and I believe that these prohibitions laid down in Scripture are those which visibly affect the well-being and happiness of the family. The Church has always understood this; and the Dispensations granted by Rome, so far from showing that the Roman Church considers the law breakable, are rather arguments that enhance its importance. We all know what powers are supposed to be inherent in the Bishop of Rome; but his Dispensations are exceptional, and, being exceptional, show, as I said, the importance attached to the law. To pass to another point—Is there no consideration whatever to be extended to the clergy themselves in their intercourse with the people? The clergy, the teachers of the people, have been taught to believe in order to teach that by the law of England, by the Prayer Book, by the Canons of the Church, these marriages are forbidden in Scripture. Suppose this Bill passes, what is their position at once as representing Scripture—I do not say merely as expositors, but as men who have always been taught that the ground of the law of the Realm is that these marriages were not according to Scripture? It is absolutely certain that amid such pressure as is now brought to bear, the clergy, as citizens, and conscientious ones, are to be entirely unconsidered. It would be impossible for any reflecting man to really think that the English clergy, as representing the whole body of Church laity, could possibly abandon their primitive standing - point. We have been told that the social question has nothing in it. Well, if this Bill were to pass a second reading, throughout England to-morrow morning, for every pair made merry by the announcement
174
there would be hundreds—nay, thousands—whoso homes would be rendered miserable. It would be received at once as a signal for her who feels herself the sister of the bereaved husband, and the true mother of his children, to pack up and begone. The only cases that can be contemplated with satisfaction will be those in which marriage would never have taken place but for the passing of this Bill; and in these the protection which the wife's sister can give to the man's family will be deferred for a decent period, and it must be wanting during the time of the greatest affliction and need. I believe that the law does represent the instinct of the people; it may be an instinct that is not universally felt; but law registers instinct in general, and makes the instinct of the best and the most the law for all Is it not the case that a man does always treat his wife's sister differently from the way in which he treats any other woman? Is it at all true that a man looks upon his wife's sister in the way he looks upon any other lady? As to the poor, your Lordships will give great weight to Lord Hatherley's careful examination and experience; this has been laid before your Lordships; and last October there appeared in The Guardian a letter relating to the two parishes of which Lord Hatherley spoke from a person intimately acquainted with them for 40 years, and the writer confirmed, up to the date at which he wrote, what Lord Hatherley had said. The appeal made to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury), on behalf of the poor, is one worthy of the tenderest consideration; but the noble Earl would tell you, I am sure, that it is improved dwellings which must enable them to live more decent lives, and do a great deal more for them than the proposed change of the law, which, after all, would affect but a small number. I would say a few words as to the argument based on authority. Discredit has been thrown upon the Bench of Bishops because, last year, 16 of their number opposed this measure. They have been spoken of as if they were leagued together for some evil cause, and to promote something which would injure the poor; whereas they believe, and with good grounds, that they are maintaining the interests of Christianity, and the Church, and the whole people; and, therefore, that it was their duty

175
to be in their places, and to acquaint the country with their views. The Diocesan Conferences have been spoken of as if they were more instruments of the Bishops. On the contrary, it is well known that they are largely composed of independent laymen; and, therefore, great weight ought to be attached to their opinions. There has recently appeared a very touching letter from an American, in which he says that large sections of society on the other side of the Atlantic are watching with anxiety the fate of this Bill, because if it be carried their depressed tone of morality on the subject of marriage must be still further depressed; but if it be rejected it will be a signal warning to them that their common tone does require to be elevated. Among those who are to-day named in the widely-circulated document of the Marriage Law Reform Association as supporters of the Bill have been Dr. Hook, Dr. Prince Lee, the first Bishop of Manchester, Dr. Thirlwall, Bishop of St. David's, and my own revered Predecessor. Now, the biographer of Dr. Hook has told us that he objected to the proposed change of the law on Scriptural grounds and grounds of expediency; and that, although, for a time, he was led away by fallacious arguments about the help it would give to the poor, he "ultimately returned to his first opinion." As to Dr. Lee—and those who knew what he was as a scholar, a thinker, and a lover of truth, would be much moved by this statement—I wrote to his son-in-law and most intimate friend, who replied that he remembered the Bishop's opposition to the Bill in 1850, and had not the slightest reason to believe that he had changed his opinion. I communicated this to the Secretary of the Marriage Law Amendment Society, who replied that the opposite statement had long remained unchallenged; he added in support of it that Dr. Lee's distinguished pupils followed his authority; on my asking after them, he informed me that two of them were well-known clergymen who were expecting promotion from their Bishops, and whose names he was, therefore, unable to give, and the third distinguished pupil of Dr. Lee was an ex-Colonial Minister. I am assured that Dr. Lee never had such a pupil, and the reference to the well-known clergymen is no less hazy. As to the liberal and philo-
176
sophical Connop Thirlwall, his speech is happily extant, in which he declares that—
"He must express his decided protest against a Bill fraught with infinite danger to the country and to society."
With regard to my Predecessor, when a young man at Rugby, he signed a Petition in favour of the Bill, and in the later years of his life he regarded this as a youthful indiscretion. I am able to state, on the best authority, that if he had ever had to give a vote on this question it would have been given with heart and soul against the Bill. So far, therefore, as authorities are concerned, I think that the testimony so boldly put forward will not be much respected. I shall vote against the Bill.
LORD CARRINGTONsaid, that, in asking the indulgence of the House for a very few moments, he should not venture to offer any opinion of his own on the subject; but he begged leave to call their Lordships' attention to the remarkable speech which closed the debate last year, and which, delivered by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough), ought not to go unchallenged. He ought to remind their Lordships that the right rev. Prelate came into the House when the debate was all but over; and, apparently, he was induced to speak by what fell from his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Waterford), as his first words were—
"Strange as it might appear to their Lordships he had really no intention of addressing them when he came down to the House."
And then he went on to say that—
"He had never been able, in the course of his opposition to this measure, to take what was commonly called the high Scriptural or theological ground, at least as regarded the Old Testament, which was taken by many of his right rev. Brethren on the Bench in opposition to allowing a man to marry the sister of his deceased wife. It had always seemed to him that the interpretation of the verse which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) quoted, as forming the basis of his opposition, was rather questionable, and had been questioned; and he was further of opinion that if we adopted one portion of the Levitical law, as regarded marriage, it was difficult to see why we should not adopt the whole of it."—(3 Hansard, [270] 795–6.)
This statement appeared to produce something very like consternation among those who conscientiously, on religious grounds, opposed the Bill; and then, passing away from the Scriptural ground of objection, the right rev. Prelate said

177
he would wish to deal with it as a "question of sentiment." It was not as a clergyman that he opposed the Bill, but as a clergyman he claimed a right to speak on the requirements of the poor; and he then went on to state "that it was not in the interest of the poor man that the Bill was really moved for." The expression, "the poor man," he (Lord Carrington) took it, signified those who lived by their own labour and industry, and who were usually styled the working classes. Now, did the views of the right rev. Prelate represent in any way, shape, or form those of the artizans, mechanics, and labourers for whom he had taken upon himself to raise his voice? The working classes gave their answer—every one of their Representatives in the Commons House of Parliament was in favour of the Bill. In the lobby of the Trades Union Congress, held at Manchester in the autumn of last year, a Petition was signed by the delegates of Trades Unions throughout the United Kingdom, representing 500,000 members of associations—which meant, at least, 2,000,000 of the working classes—from which the following was a brief extract:—
"We are convinced that the working classes of this country have a large interest in the removal of the existing restrictions in England, and that the statements to the contrary lately made in Parliament misrepresent the actual facts. Your Petitioners are men whose whole lives have been spent in circumstances peculiarly fitted to inform them of the sentiments entertained by the great mass of the people on social as well as industrial questions; and as regards those sentiments and exigencies of the poor in respect of the question of marriage, they cannot admit the claim of the Bishops to speak with the authority so often assumed by them in their places in Parliament."
The right rev. Prelate then said the Bill was brought in for the interests of the rich. He would ask their Lordships how many persons there were among their relatives or acquaintances now living who had either expressed a wish to marry, or who had married, the sister of their deceased wife? Three noble Lords had told him they knew one, and they all three mentioned the name of the same person, a well-known master of foxhounds in the Midlands. And then the right rev. Prelate clearly showed that he was speaking on the spur of the moment, without preparation, when, in this House, and in the hearing of the
178
Peeresses of England, he implied that the Bill was sought for by the rich for an evil purpose; and he conveyed this terrible accusation in words that were not reported in the public prints, which, spoken by another, he would have been among the foremost to condemn, and which, used by himself, he would, on reflection, be the first to regret. The right rev. Prelate, towards the end of his speech, struck a right chord, when he said he held that the deep convictions and rooted sentiments of the great majority of Churchmen were entitled to some consideration; with this everyone would entirely agree; and he (Lord Carrington) went much further, and fearlessly stated that it would be a lasting regret to the advocates of this Bill if any language was used calculated to shock the religious or the sentimental opinions of those who opposed it. But the consideration which they meted should be measured out to them again; and he thought he was justified in saying that public opinion in the House and elsewhere would sternly condemn speeches made on the spur of the moment, especially coming from the Bench of Bishops, which contained ridicule and jokes, or thoughtless allusions, calculated to raise a passing laugh, but which deeply wounded the feelings of all those to whom the passing of this Bill was a matter of social existence and recognition, whose fate was trembling in the balance, and who were awaiting at that moment with such anxiety the verdict at their Lordships' hands.
LORD COLERIDGEsaid, that as he had, on a former occasion, stated his objections to the measure, he did not now propose to trouble their Lordships at any length on the general considerations which at that time and still appeared to him to be of weight. It seemed to him that, at least in matters of marriage, men and women were entitled to be treated as absolutely equal; but this Bill treated them as unequal. This was a matter in which women must be presumed to be equally interested with men; and yet their Lordships were asked to legislate—he would not say in known opposition, for that was not proved, to the opinions of the great majority of English women; but, at least, not in proved agreement with them, and without much consideration for them. He contented himself with reminding their

179
Lordships of the great advantage it was to the whole community that in this matter the general balance of advantage, convenience, and expediency should be weighed. The prohibitions of affinity and consanguinity in matters of marriage greatly enlarged the number of those with whom we might have the most intimate and affectionate relations, into which, nevertheless, passion did not enter. He preferred to call it passion, though his noble and learned Friend had thought fit to use a coarser expression. That passion we shared with the brutes; but passionless affection had been the great humanizer of society, and the great civilizes of mankind. As long as he had been able to think upon this subject, these considerations had appeared to him to be entitled to weight. He would not trouble their Lordships with details of the arguments upon thorn; but there were two or three isolated or separate points on which considerable stress had been laid. It had been put to them often enough—and to-night by his noble and learned Friend in his amusing speech—that they were supporting in this case, not a legal, not a natural, but an ecclesiastical and a theological prohibition. In a certain sense, no doubt, that was perfectly true; but it was not true in any such sense as should make them hesitate for a moment to maintain it. From the very earliest times, in this country at least, all matters of marriage had been considered matters of ecclesiastical cognizance; and in this country and in Ireland—differing in this respect from all other Christian and European countries—their Lordships held, in a solemn case brought over from Ireland about 50 years ago, that the marriage contract was not in these Islands as it was in all other European countries—a purely civil contract, but an ecclesiastical contract. It was also true that the prohibition they were now defending rested upon ecclesiastical authority; but it rested neither more nor less on ecclesiastical authority than the prohibition of every other degree, even the closest blood relationship. It rested upon ecclesiastical authority, supported and enforced by Acts of Parliament and Common Law; but even if it were otherwise, he failed to recognize the fairness of endeavouring to determine a grave argument of this sort by the introduction of an unpopular expression.
180
The question for their Lordships was, whether it were fit that this prohibition should be maintained, or that it should be abrogated? Was the law in itself good or bad? If it was bad, it ought to be abolished; if it was good, it ought to be maintained; and whether the authority were ecclesiastical or temporal, and whether it stood in the first instance on Canon Law or on Common Law, appeared to be wholly beside the question. He passed now to another point on which he would admit there was a good deal to be said for the Bill. He referred to the cases of individual hardship, which the present state of the law undoubtedly created in many instances. The persons who desired to contract this marriage must needs belong to one of two classes. They must either be persons whose desire to contract the marriage arose before the death of the first wife, or else persons whose desire to contract the marriage arose after the death of the first wife. He need not take up much time in arguing the case of the first class of persons. There might be men who watched over a wife's death bed, anxious only because the footsteps of death seemed to be so slow, and who wore sometimes guilty of thinking of furnishing afresh the marriage table before the funeral meats had been baked and had had time to grow cold. There might be women who in the same way watched for a sister's death, and who were not ashamed to walk over a sister's tomb into a sister's place. Such things were related in works of fiction, and he would not deny that sometimes they might occur in real life. But these persons certainly needed no sympathy, and they were not entitled to the protection of an exceptional Act of Parliament. There remained, however, the other class of persons in whom the desire to contract this marriage arose after the death of the first wife. It would be unjust to deny that with such persons from time to time cases of great hardship did arise, although the extent to which the hardship went was extravagantly overstated; while, on the other hand, the reasonable grounds which ought to prevent the arising of cases of hardship were very much understated, and were sometimes wilfully forgotten. To begin with, every man knew that the marriage could not be legally contracted. Was it true that the widowers of England had

181
no sisters of their own? In the supreme sorrow of a man's life, would not the sisters of England come and aid and comfort their brothers? Was it true that the great majority of widowers desired to marry at all—or, if so, that they desired to contract that particular marriage with the particular person against whom the prohibition was registered? Any candid man must answer those questions in the negative; and, if so, what was the result? The practical result was that for the sake of a minority —or rather of a minority of a minority, who alone were entitled to compassion—it was proposed to destroy for the great majority of mankind that relation which they found infinitely profitable and delightful. The noble Earl, to whom he always listened with interest, and generally with amusement, had said that he did not think much of that kind of argument, because, he said, he was an example to the contrary. He had, he said, charming sisters-in-law, of whom he was very fond; but he did not wish to marry them. He could not help suggesting to his noble Friend that at present the advocates of that Bill did not propose that a man might marry two sisters at the same time. It was only suggested that he might do so in succession. The question only arose at a subsequent stage. Their Lordships had listened to a speech from his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell), who always brought force, and freshness, and vigour of mind into any question which he approached. He approached everything that his noble and learned Friend said with some degree of diffidence—first, because he had been brought up to have a great regard and sincere respect for him; and next, because he had, at different times, suffered heavily at the hands of his noble and learned Friend. But he could not help thinking that the argument of his noble and learned Friend, apart from the manner in which it was delivered, and the jokes which it contained, resolved itself at last into nothing more than a powerful and pungent assertion of his own views, and vigorous and unmitigated, although good-natured, scorn of those who disagreed with him. His noble and learned Friend could not understand how any intelligent person could entertain a different opinion. His argument really came to this—Was it a prohibited marriage? A great number of people wanted
182
to contract it, and did contract it. If so, they contracted it in very painful circumstances. Therefore, the abominable law which forbade them ought to be abolished. Then his noble and learned Friend, with needless candour, said that he did not go into the question as a theologian. Well, he had been furnished upon the highest authority with the true definition of affinity—
"Affinity is terminated in the husband himself from the wife's kindred, and in the wife herself from the husband's kindred."
His noble and learned Friend might say it was a thing which nobody could understand, but it was one which the Christian world for 2,000 years had had no difficulty in understanding; and he thought that if his noble and learned Friend had brought the great powers of his mind to bear upon it he would have found no difficulty in understanding it. But strong assertion, ridicule, and jokes were not the means by which that question could be decided. The relations between men and women, the deepest feelings of the heart, the most sacred obligations of religion, did not admit of being impaled upon the horns of a dilemma, or put aside by jokes, however good, or assertions, however strong. With respect to the law of our Colonies, all he had to say had been already stated by the noble and learned Earl opposite, with whom he entirely. concurred. If the advocates of that Bill were sincere, if they desired to commend it to impartial minds, if they wished to remove from it the stigma of its being a partial and interested measure, let them apply it to both sexes equally, let them frame it on some broad and intelligible principle, Let them make their proposals in such a way that affinity and consanguinity should no longer be considered for any purpose the same. He did not say that such a proceeding would induce him to vote for such a measure. As at present advised, he should strongly oppose it. But, at all events, it would then be a measure founded upon arguments far more worthy of consideration, and arguments requiring grave thought, and entailing much difficulty to answer. But the Bill, in its present shape, was the fruit only of an interested clamour, and was unworthy of Parliament, and most especially unworthy of their Lordships' House.
THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTERsaid, he was sorry to stand between the House

183
and a Division; but he conceived it to be the duty of those Members of that House who had special information on a subject to communicate that information to the House. That must be his excuse for addressing their Lordships for the first time. Some years ago, he was incumbent of the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, of which the population was 37,000, 25,000 of whom were under his own care. The parish included all grades of the working classes, from the costermonger to the journeyman baker. When he first went to the parish that question was rapidly coming to the front, and he wished to ascertain what the opinion of his parishioners was upon the subject, and how far they regarded the prohibition as a class grievance. For that purpose he availed himself of the services of eight men of intelligence and high character, who were well acquainted with all classes in the parish. Without giving those men any bias one way or the other—because at that time he had formed no definite opinion on the subject—he sent them among the poor of his parish and requested them to ascertain within the next few months, by means of conversation, what their feelings were with regard to this measure, and to reply to three questions which were put to them. The three questions were—First—"Did you ever know the subject introduced by the poor themselves?" Second—"Is there any bias among the women of the poorer classes in favour of this change in law? "And, thirdly—"Is there reason to believe that the existing state of the law is regarded by the working classes as a class grievance?" In answer to the first question, seven out of eight of his informants replied "Never," while one said that the subject had been introduced by the poor themselves on six occasions. To the second question, seven out of the eight gave a decided negative, and one said that it was looked upon as a matter of prudence; and where the marriage had already been contracted, especially if there were many in the family, both parties, but especially the woman, was decidedly in favour of the Bill. But, perhaps, their Lordships might be of opinion that the answer given to the third question was the most important of all. All the eight answered it decidedly in the negative. He had also an opportunity of discussing this question with a number of working
184
men, in a friendly manner; and with candour he was perfectly willing to admit that out of these eight men four, as a matter of personal preference, were in favour of it, and four were against it. They scouted the idea, when he put it to them, of its being treated by the working men as a class grievance; and one of them, who advocated a change of the law, said with emphasis that working men had no intention to break the law; they were perfectly prepared to obey it as it stood. Of course, he was not going to be so preposterous as to ask their Lordships to take this evidence as conclusively in favour of the assertion that the working classes were opposed to the proposed change in the law; but they had a right to claim from those who stated that they had the opinion of the working classes on their side an exhaustive, honest inquiry of the kind he had made, and they would see the result.
On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion (leave being given to the Lord Middleton to vote in the House)?
Their Lordships divided: —Contents 165; Not-Contents 158: Majority 7.

CONTENTS

Wales, H.R.H. the Prince of

Granville, E.

Guilford, E.

Connaught, H.R.H. D.

Harrington, E.

Albany, H.R.H. D.

Huntingdon, E.

Ilchester. E.

Beaufort, D.

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

Bedford, D.

Brandon, D. (D. Hamilton.)

Kilmorey, E.

Kimberley, E.

Portland, D.

Leicester, E.

Saint Albans, D.

Leven and Melville, E.

Westminster, D.

Lonsdale, E.

Lytton, E.

Abergavenny, M.

Minto, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Morley, E.

Northampton, M.

Northbrook, E.

Onslow, E.

Ashburnham, E.

Orford, E.

Aylesford, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Bandon, E.

Saint Germans, E.

Bathurst, E.

Sandwich, E.

Camperdown, E.

Strafford, E.

Cathcart, E.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Cawdor, E.

Chichester, E.

Sydney, E.

Clarendon, E.

Verulam, E.

Clonmell, E.

Westmorland, E.

Cowper, E.

Wharncliffe, E.

Derby, E.

Yarborough, E.

Ducie, E.

Zetland, E.

Durham, E.

Ellesmere, E.

Bolingbroke and St,

Fortescue, E.

John, V.

Falmouth, V.

Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

Gough, V.

Inchiquin, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Lifford, V.

Lawrence, L.

Powerscourt, V.

Leigh, L.

Sherbrooke, V.

Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)

Torrington, V.

Londesborough, L.

Lurgan, L.

Aberdare, L.

Lyttelton, L.

Abinger, L.

Methuen, L.

Alcester, L.

Monson, L.

Alington, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ardilaun, L.

Mostyn, L.

Ashburton, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Auckland, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

Penzance, L.

Barrogill, L. (E. Caithness.)

Poltimore, L.

Belper, L.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.) [Teller.]

Blantyre, L.

Reay, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Ribblesdale, L.

Rodney, L.

Brabourne, L.

Romilly, L.

Bramwell, L.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Braye, L.

Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

Rossmore, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Calthorpe L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Camoys, L.

Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

Carlingford, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Carrington, L.

Castletown, L.

Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

Chesham, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Churchill, L.

Clermont, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Stanley of Alderley,L.

Clifton,L. (E. Darnley.)

Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

Clonbrock, L.

Cloncurry, L.

Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

Convers, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Sudeley, L.

Dacre, L.

Suffield, L.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Teynham, L.

Thurlow, L.

Derwent, L.

Tollemache, L.

Dorchester, L.

Tredegar, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Truro, L.

Erskine, L.

Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

Fitzhardinge, L.

Gormanston,L.(V.Gormanston.)

Tweedmouth, L.

Greville, L.

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.) [Teller.]

Gwydir, L.

Walsingham, L.

Haldon, L.

Waveney, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Wentworth, L.

Harris, L.

Westbury, L.

Hastings, L.

Wimborne, L.

Hopetoun, L. (E Hopetoun.)

Wolverton, L.

Hothfield, L.

Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

Houghton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Canterbury, L. Archp.

Buckingham and Chandos, D.

Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Grafton, D.

York, L. Archp.

Leeds, D.

Marlborough, D.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Northumberland, D.

Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

Richmond, D.

Rutland, D.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Somerset, D.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

London, L. Bp.

Bath, M.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Bristol, M.

Oxford, L. Bp.

Exeter, M.

Peterborough, L. Bp.

Hertford, M.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Salisbury, M.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Winchester, M.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Amherst, E

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]

St. David's, L. Bp.

Brooke and Warwick, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Cairns, E.

Amherst,L.(V. Holmesdale.)

Carnarvon, E.

Dartmouth, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

De La Warr, E.

Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

Denbigh, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]

Devon, E.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buecleuch and Queensberry.)

Blachford, L.

Borthwick, L.

Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

Dundonald, E.

Effingham, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Ferrers, E.

Feversham, E.

Braybrooke, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Haddington, E.

Hardwick, E

Brougham andVaux, L.

Harewood. E.

Castlemaine, L.

Jersey, E.

Chelmsford, L.

Lanesborough, E.

Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

Lindsey, E.

Lucan, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Manvers, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clinton, L.

Milltown, E.

Colchester, L.

Morton, E.

Coleridge, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Congleton, L.

Nelson, E.

Crewe, L.

Powis, E.

Delamere, L.

Ravensworth, E.

Denman, L.

Redesdale, E.

De Saumarez, L.

Rosse, E.

Digby, L.

Selkirk, E.

Dinevor, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Donington, L.

Sondes, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Stanhope, E.

Egerton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Emly, L.

Forbes, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Waldegrave, E.

Gerard, L.

Wilton, E.

Hammond, L.

Bridport, V.

Harlech, L.

Cranbrook, V.

Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

Hardinge, V.

Hawarden, V.

Hawke, L.

Melville, V.

Heytesbury, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Hylton, L.

Strathallan, V.

Keane, L.

Templetown, V.

Kenlis, L.(M.Headfort.)

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Bangor, L. Bp.

Lamington, L.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

Carlisle, L. Bp.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Lyveden, L.

Durham, L. Bp.

Massy, L.

Ely, L. Bp.

Middleton, L.

Minster, L. (M. Conyngham)

Saltoun, L.

Scarsdale, L.

Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

Silchester, L.(E. Longford.)

Mowbray, L.

Strathnairn, L.

O'Neill, L.

Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Templemore, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Trevor, L.

Polwarth, L.

Watson, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

Raglan, L.

Windsor, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Wimmarleigh, L.

Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Wynford, L.

Sackville, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKEsaid, he claimed to have his vote recorded for the Bill, on the ground that he had been accidentally shut out from the House when the Division was about to be taken.
Moved, "That the vote of the Earl of Stradbroke be recorded."
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he regretted that, by any mistake, the noble Earl should have been excluded; but he was afraid there was no precedent for the privilege which he claimed.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, the noble Earl was in the House, and the door was shut in his face.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, if the noble Earl was actually in the House, there was no reason why his vote should not be recorded.
THE EARL of STRADBROKEexplained to the House that he was in the Writing Room at the time.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was afraid, if that was so, they had lost the vote of the noble Earl.
On Question? Resolved in the negative.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.